North Carolina passes hateful Amendment 1

[Hamlet]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

I think Rand Rover's argument--that because sexual orientation might possibly not be immutable, it cannot be a suspect class--fails to a monosyllabic counterargument:

cite?

There are Supreme Court cases that, while discussing suspect class identification, don't even mention immutability. There are, however, Supreme Court cases that do mention it, but never really define what is "immutable" or what isn't.

As Justice Norris in Watkins v. US Army said:

"The Supreme Court has never held that only classes with immutable traits can be deemed suspect. Cf., e.g., Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 442 n. 10, 105 S.Ct. at 3255-56 n. 10 (casting doubt on immutability theory); id. at 440-441 (stating the defining characteristics of suspect classes without mentioning immutability); Murgia, 427 U.S. at 313, 96 S.Ct. at 256667 (same); Rodriguez, 411 U.S. at 28, 93 S.Ct. at 1293-94 (same). I nonetheless consider immutability because the Supreme Court has often focused on immutability, see, e.g., Plyler, 457 U.S. at 220, 102 S.Ct. at 2396; Frontiero, 411 U.S. at 686, 93 S.Ct. at 1770 (plurality), and has sometimes described the recognized suspect classes as having immutable traits, see, e.g., Parham v. Hughes, 441 U.S. 347, 351, 99 S.Ct. 1742, 1745, 60 L.Ed.2d 269 (1979) (plurality opinion) (describing race, national origin, alienage, illegitimacy, and gender as immutable).

It is clear that by "immutability" the Court has never meant strict immutability in the sense that members of the class must be physically unable to change or mask the trait defining their class. People can have operations to change their sex. Aliens can ordinarily become naturalized citizens. The status of illegitimate children can be changed. People can frequently hide their national origin by changing their customs, their names, or their associations. Lighter skinned blacks can sometimes "pass" for white, as can Latinos for Anglos, and some people can even change their racial appearance with pigment injections. See J. Griffin, Black Like Me (1977). At a minimum, then, the Supreme Court is willing to treat a trait as effectively immutable if changing it would involve great difficulty, such as requiring a major physical change or a traumatic change of identity. Reading the case law in a more capacious manner, "immutability" may describe those traits that are so central to a person's identity that it would be abhorrent for government to penalize a person for refusing to change them, regardless of how easy that change might be physically. Racial discrimination, for example, would not suddenly become constitutional if medical science developed an easy, cheap, and painless method of changing one's skin pigment." (emphasis added).

You can read more of what he says about "immutability" as a small part of the determination of suspect classes here: Watkins v. US Army (you'll have to scroll down to his concurrence).

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

But that's not what his argument is:

That's his claim, but he's not cited an iota of case law to support it.

Oh, I didn't see that post. Yes, that's stupid.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

Agreed, in part, but you'd have to ignore cases in California, as well as Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusettes, and some courts in Ohio and other states, have found that sexual orientation can be a suspect, or a quasi suspect, class. Certainly the US Supreme Court hasn't found it to be so, but I don't think you can just ignore that some courts have indeed found it to be.

Personally, I don't think sexual orientation needs to be a suspect, or quasi-suspect class, to find that laws against same sex marriage are unconstitutional even using a rational basis test. (Personally, I find that whole area of equal protection analysis to be a bit overcomplicated and prefer either rights-based approach or a sliding scale approach).

There we disagree. I believe that under rational basis, it survives, and if California, Iowa, et al are persuasive, why aren't the greater number of states that have found the contrary MORE persuasive?

No, the strongest argument is federal jurisprudence and the fact that it's immutable, thus meeting he Footnote Four prongs.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Look, I'm not going to keep repeating myself, and I realize that I cant argue you guys onto being smarter. The simple fact of the matter is that sexual orientation is not currently a suspect classification. Of you think it should be, then fine, you are free to have your opinion. If you think that the current suspect classifications support treating sexual orientation as a suspect classification, you are wrong because of the immutability issue. Religious affiliation as a suspect classification is not a counterpoint to the immutability issue because it rests on different underpinnings (ie, the fundamental nature of the right to free exercise of religion) .

Thats not what you seemed to be saying. You didn't seem to be saying that sexual orientation is not currently a suspect class, you seemed to be saying that sexual orientation could not be a suspect class because it was either mutable or not objectively provable.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Bricker

There we disagree. I believe that under rational basis, it survives, and if California, Iowa, et al are persuasive, why aren't the greater number of states that have found the contrary MORE persuasive?

No, the strongest argument is federal jurisprudence and the fact that it's immutable, thus meeting he Footnote Four prongs.

Footnote Four didn't actually mention immutability, and mentioned religion as an example of a class entitled to heightened scrutiny, as KG noted a page or two back.

It defined the classes entitled to higher protection only as "discrete and insular minorities". In any case, the Court has long since moved on from that definition, since it has made it clear that one need not be a minority under a particular classification to be entitled to heightened scrutiny.

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by Bricker

OK, I'll take that challenge. Because if I read Whack-a-Mole's attempts, I'll get so irritated that I'll start correcting him, and it will look like I'm against the underlying concept, which I'm not.

So here's the argument:

1) Laws that burden suspect classes are analyzed under EP with a higher level of scruntiny than rational basis review.

2) Sexual orientation, although not yet recognized as a suspect class, should be, because it fits the characteristics first articulated in Carolene Prodcuts' "Footnote Four."

3) By analogy, gender classifications are analyzed under intermediate scrutiny, and thus so should sexual orientation.

4) Analyzing a statute that limits marriage only to a man and a woman under intermediate scrutiny means that the statute must fail.

If you need me to expand upon the reasoning in any of those steps, let me know.

I don't always agree with you on every thing, but I have to say, I admire the simple, direct, and elegant logic you show here. Well done.

[cmkeller]

gamerunknown:

what's a direct translation of Leviticus 20:13?

And if a man lies with a male in the manner of lying with a woman (i.e., penetrative sex), they have both done an abomination, they must die, their blood is on them.

Polycarp:

a celibate-but-horny gay Jew is not.

Chaim, do I have this correct?

You do have this correct, although I should mention that (according to Jewish tradition) the Ezekiel reference to Sodom is perversion of justice and oppression of the poor, not homosexual sex. The people of Sodom did engage in homosexual sex, but that's not what they were condemned for.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by cmkeller

And if a man lies with a male in the manner of lying with a woman

I was basing my query on this.

[cmkeller]

That's an...interesting web site, and does some pretty wild etymological gymnastics. They're not entirely wrong, in that the Hebrew word "mishkav" CAN simply mean "bed," but it's entirely dependent on the context. The root "Sh-K-V" means "to lay," i.e., simply being physically horizontal, and is also used as a euphemism for sex. When the context is sexual, which is true of the sections of Leviticus in which the prohibition against homosexual sex is mentioned, the usage of "mishkav" (or in this case, its plural form, "mishkivey") is sexual as well.

The web site in question is very obviously trying to revisit the old texts with a specific agenda, and is, almost comically, trying to out-analyze the Biblical analysts of old (e.g., the Rabbis of the Talmud). Much similar "biblical scholarship" has arisen in this age of homosexual-rights advocacy, but none of it is done with the intellectual rigor that characterizes the intense Bible study - in ALL areas of the Bible, not just one specific area that's a modern popular cause - of those who maintain the tradition. The traditional interpretation is consistent with the context that surrounds it, and a reading of a "type of bed", not at all.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by cmkeller

It doesn't have to be reasonable in your eyes.

It isn't reasonable, period.

Claiming there's something immoral with wool-linen blends, gays, or eating shellfish is just stupid. Observe these prohibitions in your life if you feel they have value, but if you can't articulate even shred of a compelling secular reason, then you have no case.

You have 0 (zero) right to proselytize the bigotry of your god on the rest of us.

The point is that people who purport to follow the Bible but wear polyester-cotton clothing aren't being hypocrites.

You have not demonstrated that. At best, you nit picked that it in fact prohibits wool-linen. Oooooo big difference.

Where's the campaign to ban wool-linen blends? Clearly they're wrong. The bible says so.

The larger point is that the link to an "oh-so-clever" retort against Doctor Laura Schlessinger is written by someone whose actual level of Biblical knowledge is rather low, and people who have genuinely learned the Bible and have a place for it in their lives beyond snarkiness to religious folks, could easily rebut it.

It's not snarkiness to religious folks. It's snarkiness to bigots who try to rationalize their hate with religion.

Go at the bible all you want, don't care, but why are you trying to force it on the rest of us? Do we not have human rights to be free of religious persecution?

[Jeep's Phoenix]

Originally Posted by cmkeller

their blood is on them

Whoa, they definitely need to use more lube.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

You have 0 (zero) right to proselytize the bigotry of your god on the rest of us.
.
.
.
Go at the bible all you want, don't care, but why are you trying to force it on the rest of us? Do we not have human rights to be free of religious persecution?

the First Amendment actually protects the right to proselytize. Not to persecute, of course.

And of course that charge is especially weak leveled against observant Jews, who are not noted for proselytizing anyway.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

It isn't reasonable, period.

Claiming there's something immoral with wool-linen blends, gays, or eating shellfish is just stupid. Observe these prohibitions in your life if you feel they have value, but if you can't articulate even shred of a compelling secular reason, then you have no case.

You have 0 (zero) right to proselytize the bigotry of your god on the rest of us.

You have not demonstrated that. At best, you nit picked that it in fact prohibits wool-linen. Oooooo big difference.

Where's the campaign to ban wool-linen blends? Clearly they're wrong. The bible says so.



It's not snarkiness to religious folks. It's snarkiness to bigots who try to rationalize their hate with religion.

Go at the bible all you want, don't care, but why are you trying to force it on the rest of us? Do we not have human rights to be free of religious persecution?

Tao, if Chaim were an evangelical Christian bigot, you would have a strong point here. But are you aware what Orthodox Jews believe are binding on us Gentiles? Five, six, or seven (depending on which source you consult) "Noachic commandments" handed down to Adam, Seth, or Noah. The 631 mitzvoth such as no pork. no shellfish,. no linseywoolsey, forcing a rapist to marryt his victimn, etc.? They're all binding onoly on Jews. And the Noachic commandments? Horribly oppressive thiungs like prohibiting murder.

It's the morons bigoted assholes evangelicl Christians who believe the whole (Protestant) Bible is "the Word of God" (despite its saying the contrary) eho want to force you to abide by their beliefs.

Sometimes, "the Tao which is posted before you is not the Tao which you should read." (Lao-Tse, slightly modified)

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Bricker

the First Amendment actually protects the right to proselytize. Not to persecute, of course.

And of course that charge is especially weak leveled against observant Jews, who are not noted for proselytizing anyway.

You are correct that proselytizing was a poor choice of word.

Although, as I'm sure you're aware, Jews aren't the only ones who keep certain prohibitions. Adventists tend to observe Saturday, and to a lesser extent some Old Testament dietary restrictions, for example.

What really frustrates me about Christianity (and other religions I'm sure, but I lack everyday experience with) is the amount of hate I here coming out of it's adherents. Why? I heard the literature growing up. We're supposed to love each other. Why can't we love each other? Why do we have to hate people for being gay? Why can't they have a normal life too? Why do we have to enforce gender roles? Why can't we just let good people follow the gender in their heart?

The current prohibitions cause unnecessary suffering. I don't care where whether the human soul is an accident of nature or a divine spark. As long as they don't hurt others people need to be free to follow their nature.

I believe this freedom is the core of human rights. It's freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and speech. A person's mind is their own, no one elses. As is their body. Who they love, that is up to them, and should be respected. Not discriminated against. Not hated for it.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

Tao, if Chaim were an evangelical Christian bigot, you would have a strong point here. But are you aware what Orthodox Jews believe are binding on us Gentiles? Five, six, or seven (depending on which source you consult) "Noachic commandments" handed down to Adam, Seth, or Noah. The 631 mitzvoth such as no pork. no shellfish,. no linseywoolsey, forcing a rapist to marryt his victimn, etc.? They're all binding onoly on Jews. And the Noachic commandments? Horribly oppressive thiungs like prohibiting murder.

It's the morons bigoted assholes evangelicl Christians who believe the whole (Protestant) Bible is "the Word of God" (despite its saying the contrary) eho want to force you to abide by their beliefs.

Sometimes, "the Tao which is posted before you is not the Tao which you should read." (Lao-Tse, slightly modified)

I think there's been a big misunderstanding then. I was mocking Fundies. cmkeller it appears thought I was mocking Judaism, quite reasonably since the link mocked a religious document sourced in both religions, and generally more observed by his. I thought he was standing up for the fundies, and let him get taste of what I have for the fundies, and here we are.

cmkeller, I am sorry for mocking your religion. I was aiming at proselytizers, but that wasn't fair to more tolerant adherents.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

Tao, if Chaim were an evangelical Christian bigot, you would have a strong point here. But are you aware what Orthodox Jews believe are binding on us Gentiles? Five, six, or seven (depending on which source you consult) "Noachic commandments" handed down to Adam, Seth, or Noah. The 631 mitzvoth such as no pork. no shellfish,. no linseywoolsey, forcing a rapist to marryt his victimn, etc.? They're all binding onoly on Jews. And the Noachic commandments? Horribly oppressive thiungs like prohibiting murder.

It's the morons bigoted assholes evangelicl Christians who believe the whole (Protestant) Bible is "the Word of God" (despite its saying the contrary) eho want to force you to abide by their beliefs.

I'm not accusing cmkeller personally of bigotry, but it's ridiculous to argue that Orthodox Jews in general who disapprove of homosexuality aren't trying to force their views on others. Of course they are, every time they vote for a candidate or ballot measure that opposes marriage equality for gays.

Anti-gay-marriage Orthodox Jews were crucial swing voters in an upset victory for an anti-gay-marriage Republican in a traditionally Democratic New York district last fall, for example:

Tzirel Zlotnick, a teacher and self-described Orthodox Jew and Republican voter in Kew Gardens, Queens, [...] would have voted for Weprin, who also identifies as an Orthodox Jew, if not for same-sex marriage.

“How can he call himself an Orthodox Jew and vote for gay marriage?” Zlotnick said. “If not for that, I probably would have voted for him.”

I doubt there are many Orthodox Jews in North Carolina, and certainly not enough to make a difference in the fate of Amendment 1 at the polls. But those who did vote probably had no more compunction than their Christian counterparts about trying to force their anti-gay beliefs on people who don't share their faith.

[BrainGlutton]

Here's what it's all about! Awesome toon!

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Bricker

.... observant Jews, who are not noted for proselytizing anyway.

"Excuse me, sir, have you heard the good news about Moses!"

[Hamlet]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Here's what it's all about! Awesome toon!

I'd like it a ton more if, instead of a grateful smile, the Equality Runner flipped Obama the bird while the people who supported Equality all along helped the runner up.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

I'm not accusing cmkeller personally of bigotry, but it's ridiculous to argue that Orthodox Jews in general who disapprove of homosexuality aren't trying to force their views on others. Of course they are, every time they vote for a candidate or ballot measure that opposes marriage equality for gays.

I'm not sure I agree.

Is a voter that selects a candidate because of that candidate's race a bigot?

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I'm not sure I agree.

Is a voter that selects a candidate because of that candidate's race a bigot?

Is that candidate going to preferentially treat that race in policy?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I'm not sure I agree.

Is a voter that selects a candidate because of that candidate's race a bigot?

Possibly, yes. But not necessarily.

If someone is electing a white man because white men historically haven't had any power in a given society (let's say we're on Mars), and they don't expect this particular white man necessarily to govern better, but they do believe that people tend to listen more to people who look like their own family, and that by electing a white man the poor white people will finally have someone in office who listens to them in the way that green people always have had, they're not necessarily a bigot. There can be reasons for voting for someone based on race without having any preconceived notions about race.

If someone selects a candidate because they believe that members of that candidate's race are inherently more qualified than members of another race, then unless we're in Greyhawk where Sun Elves get a +2 to Intelligence, they're a bigot.

In any case, I'm not seeing how this question addresses the issue of voting for an anti-gay candidate. If you vote for an anti-black candidate or an anti-male candidate or an anti-disabled candidate or an anti-gay candidate, you're supporting bigotry; and if you cast that vote in order to support bigotry, you're a bigot. That's different from voting for someone based on their own race.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Is a voter that selects a candidate because of that candidate's race a bigot?

Not necessarily but probably.

Race is an irrelevant qualification.

I suppose someone voting for Obama because they wanted to see a black person finally become president does not make that person a bigot but I am hard pressed to come up with examples where voting based on race has anything other than a bigoted component to it.

[magellan01]

I'm entertained by these attempts to paint bigotry as something other than bigotry. Whack-a-Mole's statement:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Race is an irrelevant qualification.

is correct. End of story.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by magellan01

I'm entertained by these attempts to paint bigotry as something other than bigotry.

No you're not. You're entertained by your imagination of liberals, as usual, but your imagination is so divorced from reality that it owes alimony.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

No you're not. You're entertained by your imagination of liberals, as usual, but your imagination is so divorced from reality that it owes alimony.

Oh, another Karnac!

As far as the little dig, not bad. I'd give it a 4.13. It would be higher except for the logic problem present by implying that there are degrees of divorce and that alimony being granted is a function of those degrees. Fix that and I think I move it up to a 6.5 or 7.0. A level that garners and appreciative chuckle. But please don't be discouraged by that. It's way higher than Luci's average of 1.78. And just look at all the effort he puts into it.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Oh, another Karnac!

You may be unaware of the magic of the written word. It's able to convey thoughts from one brain to another. When you type idiotic things about how amused you are at things that never happened, those thoughts of yours show up in other heads; fortunately, they're clearly identifiable as the imaginations of a stunted, deluded intellect.

But please don't be discouraged by that.

You needn't worry.

[RickJay]

I was in Ohio on business this week. In the lobby of the hotel, four people sitting having coffee were talking about gay marriage - I'd presume this was a response to the President's comments on the matter - and stating, with complete sincerity, that gay marriage would inevitably lead to the legalization of pedophilia and beastiality.

So I can't say the NC vote surprises me.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

You may be unaware of the magic of the written word.

Yet, I read it, respond to it, and write it. Pretty cool trick, huh?

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

It's able to convey thoughts from one brain to another. When you type idiotic things about how amused you are at things that never happened, those thoughts of yours show up in other heads; fortunately, they're clearly identifiable as the imaginations of a stunted, deluded intellect.You needn't worry.

You're trying to deflect here. My comment in this thread was in direct response to the two posts directly preceding mine. One of which was yours. So, I guess you choose to not attempt to argue for your own position.

Which, I guess, proves you're not an idiot. But, and of this I can assure you, you're not 50% as smart as you think you are. And that dig is not aimed at your intellect, which I'd place as above average, as much as it is as haughty, pedantic tone in just about every thread you participate in.

Wait—you're not John Kerry, are you?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by magellan01

You're trying to deflect here. My comment in this thread was in direct response to the two posts directly preceding mine. One of which was yours. So, I guess you choose to not attempt to argue for your own position.

Okay, again: insane. I argued for my position when I, y'know, argued for my position, in the post you responded to. You responded to it by characterizing it as "paint[ing] bigotry as something other than bigotry." In other words, you made a claim, but you didn't argue for your OWN position, you just made a snotty little claim about how entertaining it was.

And now, after I put forth a position and defended it, and you made a snotty little content-free response, you turn around and suggest that you were making a direct (and presumably substantive) response to my post and that I'm not arguing for my own post.

Thus: insane.

If you'd like me not to treat you like an intellectually stunted lunatic, try addressing my argument directly instead of making giggling like a moron at it. Explain what you see as the flaws in my reasoning. Explain why you think that, despite the reasoning I suggested, such a position must necessarily be bigoted.

Or you can keep up the imbecilic giggling, because that's a lot easier. I'll understand, and I'll continue to treat you in a way that you see as haughty.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

I'm not accusing cmkeller personally of bigotry, but it's ridiculous to argue that Orthodox Jews in general who disapprove of homosexuality aren't trying to force their views on others. Of course they are, every time they vote for a candidate or ballot measure that opposes marriage equality for gays.

Not to mention the fact that gay people are born into Orthodox Jewish families at precisely the same rate they're born into everyone else's families. Even if the persecution is only aimed at members of their in-group, it's still worthy of condemnation.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I'm not sure I agree.

Is a voter that selects a candidate because of that candidate's race a bigot?

I don't understand your disagreement with what I said. Are you assuming that I was intending to imply that "trying to force one's views on others" = "being a bigot"? Because I wasn't.

My point was simply that, pace Polycarp, it makes no sense to argue that anti-gay-marriage evangelical Christians are the ones trying to force others "to abide by their beliefs" but anti-gay-marriage Orthodox Jews are not. AFAICT, anti-gay-marriage Orthodox Jews as a group are just as much in favor of legally prohibiting same-sex marriage for anybody, because they personally disapprove of it, as anti-gay-marriage evangelical Christians are.

I would be happy to be proved wrong about that, mind you, but so far it doesn't look likely.

[elucidator]

Straight people makin' bacon, number one cause of gay people. Only cause, so far as we know. So maybe they should knock it off, take up knitting. Yeah, that'll work.

[cmkeller]

The Tao's Revenge:

cmkeller, I am sorry for mocking your religion. I was aiming at proselytizers, but that wasn't fair to more tolerant adherents.

Thanks for the apology. I want to be clear that at no time in this thread was I addressing the issue of gay rights in modern American society, but was merely correcting errors in Biblical interpretation.

Kimstu:

I'm not accusing cmkeller personally of bigotry, but it's ridiculous to argue that Orthodox Jews in general who disapprove of homosexuality aren't trying to force their views on others. Of course they are, every time they vote for a candidate or ballot measure that opposes marriage equality for gays.

No question, there are many in the Orthodox Jewish camp - as in the evangelical Christian or Catholic camp or even the secular humanist camp - who are happy to legislate morality as long as it's the right morality, of course. As a group, we're no less guilty of this short-sighted view than others. I shudder to see how well they like it when "infant mutilation" or "inhumane animal slaughter" becomes a political issue.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Ok. Just don't think you scored some points or whatever based on my lack of response.

But he did. That's the beauty of it. You deliberately set up where you wouldn't respond to certain tactics. By doing so, you let anything by that uses those tactics. And people tend to believe what they read unless they have a reason not to do so. Saying you won't argue with something because it's too stupid doesn't somehow make people not believe it.

Oh, and I can prove you're not gay. First off, we have your protestations of a crush MeanOldLady, who you have previously identified as female. We have the fact that the only time you've ever proclaimed yourself to be gay is in a hypothetical. We have the fact that, to be relevant to this thread, you would have to be trying to marry a man, which is typically something only gay or bisexual people do.

But, most damningly, there have been scientific studies of what goes on in the brain when you are attracted to someone (Google it). It would be simple to set up a test that checked to see if you were more attracted to women or men.

Not that this is really important, as the law also prohibits straight men from marrying other straight men. Plus there is no scientific test that can identify what race someone is, so race couldn't fit your criteria either. So your sexuality is irrelevant, and scientific testing is irrelevant.

And, finally, insisting that everyone who argues with you has to be a lawyer is just stupid. Don't think we haven't noticed that you define argument as apparently meaning only what lawyers do. Non-lawyers don't know the law well enough to argue with you by your standards. You aren't winning people over with this tactic either.

You claim to be wanting to fight ignorance, so you might want to try tactics that work.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Okay, again: insane. I argued for my position when I, y'know, argued for my position, in the post you responded to. You responded to it by characterizing it as "paint[ing] bigotry as something other than bigotry." In other words, you made a claim, but you didn't argue for your OWN position, you just made a snotty little claim about how entertaining it was.

Ah, so you do get what went down. Excellent. Though I'd replace "snotty" with "insightful". You do realize this is The Pit, right?

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

If you'd like me not to treat you like an intellectually stunted lunatic, try addressing my argument directly instead of making giggling like a moron at it.

Here in the Pit I'm free to do either one. And to be honest, I thought I provided the perfect rebuttal to your pretzel twisting by citing this excellent summation:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Race is an irrelevant qualification.

But since you asked for me to break it down for you, here you go. The feel-good Gordion Pretzel you tried to construct has at its heart plain old run-o-the-mill bigotry. It's believing that your White Martian will think and act a certain way because of his outward appearance. That his color better qualifies him to get done a job that you view as beneficial. Surely you can see how that would be fallacious reasoning.

Now, that is not to say that there might be real benefits of electing the White Martians. White Martians everywhere might then feel like they have more of a voice and more of a chance in life. And that is a good thing. But it still boils down to you choosing the White Martian for the color of his skin, shell, or fur, or whatever the case may be. In other words, you wouldn't vote for that person if he were of the color of the majority. This is textbook bigotry. The question you're really trying to answer is can racism be justified. And that's the crux of the issue. The problem is that non-whacky conservatives think that it cannot, while not-whacky liberals keep trying to make it happen.

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Or you can keep up the imbecilic giggling, because that's a lot easier. I'll understand, and I'll continue to treat you in a way that you see as haughty.

Oh, heavens, there seems to be some misunderstanding. I didn't mean to imply that I thought you treated me that way. Just that it's your general demeanor.

And you know, if you're gonna write stuff that makes me giggle, I'm gonna giggle. Odd that you find that insane.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by cmkeller

I shudder to see how well they like it when "infant mutilation" or "inhumane animal slaughter" becomes a political issue.

The former Cecil seems to feel there isn't really much of an argument for or against male circumcision. Hard to make a case, but both sides have plenty of ammo to fight for quite awhile. However female clitoral mutilations are beyond cruel, backward and inhuman and should be outlawed by any decent sort of people.

The latter, well a society that was turning against using animals for food would have either developed a super human sense of empathy, or more probably, a better source of meat. Either one would be an amazing thing to see.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Ah, so you do get what went down. Excellent. Though I'd replace "snotty" with "insightful".

I'm sure you would, in the same way that the tone deaf person hears no problem with her singing.

But since you asked for me to break it down for you, here you go. The feel-good Gordion Pretzel you tried to construct has at its heart plain old run-o-the-mill bigotry. It's believing that your White Martian will think and act a certain way because of his outward appearance. That his color better qualifies him to get done a job that you view as beneficial. Surely you can see how that would be fallacious reasoning.

Now, that is not to say that there might be real benefits of electing the White Martians.

What possible definition of bigotry are you using that makes this make sense? Treating people differently based on the color of their skin is not bigotry, unless you think the doctor who advises me (as a pale redhead) to use more sunscreen is a bigot. Bigotry involves obstinate and incorrect beliefs about groups of people. If your beliefs are accurate, and if you're playing a strategic game based on accurate beliefs, you may be many things, but "bigot" is not necessarily one of them.

And you know, if you're gonna write stuff that makes me giggle, I'm gonna giggle.

Nobody doubts that.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

What possible definition of bigotry are you using that makes this make sense? Treating people differently based on the color of their skin is not bigotry, unless you think the doctor who advises me (as a pale redhead) to use more sunscreen is a bigot. Bigotry involves obstinate and incorrect beliefs about groups of people. If your beliefs are accurate, and if you're playing a strategic game based on accurate beliefs, you may be many things, but "bigot" is not necessarily one of them.

I'm saying that assuming what a man will think or do based on his skin color—or how well he will do it—is bigotry, plain and simple. I believe in free will and therefore do not believe that men of any color are bound to act or think one way or another based on their skin color.

Your doctor example above doesn't work because the doctor is treating your skin coloration (lack of melanin) itself. He's making no judgement beyond the skin.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by magellan01

I'm saying that assuming what a man will think or do based on his skin color—or how well he will do it—is bigotry, plain and simple.

If you assume, that's foolish. But if you play the odds, and you know that in general people respond more to people who look like their family? That's not foolish, that's just how humans tend to work. Calling it "bigotry" is silliness.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by cmkeller

No question, there are many in the Orthodox Jewish camp - as in the evangelical Christian or Catholic camp or even the secular humanist camp - who are happy to legislate morality as long as it's the right morality, of course.

What do you think legislation should be based on? I've seen arguments that legislation should seek merely to address stable strategies (only permit something that would be stable in society, a sort of Kantian view). Thus, murder is not a stable strategy because past a certain point, society would implode. However, such a position is unsustainable. Homosexuality and celibacy are also not stable strategies.

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

Hard to make a case, but both sides have plenty of ammo to fight for quite awhile.

My favoured position is to refer to Maimonides (as Hitchens did).

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

If you assume, that's foolish. But if you play the odds, and you know that in general people respond more to people who look like their family? That's not foolish, that's just how humans tend to work. Calling it "bigotry" is silliness.

But you are assuming. That's the point. You're assuming that person A will be better for X, why? Because of the color of his skin.

Also, from your comment here it seems like you'd be okay with racial profiling, then? As long as the odd can be argued to justify it. Is that right? If not why?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by magellan01

But you are assuming. That's the point. You're assuming that person A will be better for X, why? Because of the color of his skin.

I've explicitly explained why I'm not assuming, any more than if, drawing a 13 in a game of blackjack, I might say "hit me" but not assume that I'll get a card less than 9. If you don't know what "play the odds" means, just ask.

Also, from your comment here it seems like you'd be okay with racial profiling, then? As long as the odd can be argued to justify it. Is that right? If not why?

No, it's wrong. Being falsely stopped or questioned by the police is an unpleasant byproduct of police protection; it needs to happen, but we as a society have a vested interest in minimizing its happening to any individual. Profiling unjustly and disproportionately piles this burden on a handful of innocent people.

Voting for minority candidates has no such effect.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

I've explicitly explained why I'm not assuming, any more than if, drawing a 13 in a game of blackjack, I might say "hit me" but not assume that I'll get a card less than 9. If you don't know what "play the odds" means, just ask.

Look, if you'd like to get back to a more, "invigorating tone", no problem. But I thought you preferred one that was more analytical. Your choice.

Now "playing the odds" is "assuming". It's just not a blind assumption. It may even prove to be correct if you have the odds in your favor. But your argument works both ways. It's a reason to vote for a minority candidate—or—if you're in the majority, a majority candidate. To pull out the MLK card, it seems you either embrace the idea of judging a man not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character (and his brain and accomplishments), or you don't.

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

No, it's wrong. Being falsely stopped or questioned by the police is an unpleasant byproduct of police protection; it needs to happen, but we as a society have a vested interest in minimizing its happening to any individual. Profiling unjustly and disproportionately piles this burden on a handful of innocent people.

Voting for minority candidates has no such effect.

Sure it does. The victim pool is simply smaller, maybe as small as the one other candidate. But you deprive him of your vote by an accident of skin color. You also deprive society of whatever talents he may have by assuming that his skin color means he would do an inferior job than the candidate you prefer because of the melanin level in his skin. This is rank racism. Plain old bigotry that you think you can justify because the victim is not downtrodden.

How about the "candidate" is not a politician, but a candidate for a job, or a promotion, or a scholarship? Is it equally fine that the people doing the deciding choose a person that has a skin color similar to theirs?

And I think racial profiling much more acceptable form of using "race", not less. Let's say you're in a state bordering on Mexico. You know that there are X number of illegal aliens in your state. The odds, as you say, of an illegal alien being Hispanic is vastly greater than he being Scandinavian. Hypothetically (with inflated numbers), if, say, the probability of a Hispanic in your state being an illegal immigrant is 1 in 5, and the probability of a Scandinavian in your state being an illegal immigrant is 1 in 2,000,000, virtually 0, don't the odds justify asking Hispanics for proof of residency, but not Scandinavians? If not, why not.

I looked back at our exchange and would like to revisit this, which I might not have fully appreciated what you were saying:

But if you play the odds, and you know that in general people respond more to people who look like their family? That's not foolish, that's just how humans tend to work. Calling it "bigotry" is silliness.

I think what you're missing is that a thought process can be understandable, even rational, but still be bigoted. Yes, people tend to be more comfortable with those of the same race. But that says nothing about a man's qualifications or abilities. Now if you think it's okay for someone to say, "I don't care about qualifications or abilities, I just want a guy with ________ skin color in office." Fine. But that's bigoted on its face. And if you think that people are more rational and want the best person for the job in that office—however he or she chooses to define that—and then they use skin color as the qualifying factor, that too is racist.

It's the same for job applicants. The illegality of it aside, if you use skin color as the indicator of whom to hire, aren't you guilty of racism? Based on that thinking, IBM would never have hired a black man at all.

Your defending a racist decision making process by accident of the size of the victim pool or the flavor of victim. Neither of those things matter. One is either applying a racist, bigoted thought process or one is not.

Again, and in addition to allusion to the MLK quote, as Whack-a-Mole so succinctly put it:

Race is an irrelevant qualification.

That should be the mantra for those opposed to racism and bigotry.

[Condescending Robot]

Once again, a command performance by the white trash sisterfucking douchebags in deflecting attention from the moral horror that is their monomaniacal obsession with denying human rights to sexual minorities, this time with a wholly irrelevant angels-dancing-on-pins argument about race-based voting. And, of course, another shake of the head to liberals who can't stop engaging in unwinnable nonsense debates on conservatives' pre-fixed terms.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Look, if you'd like to get back to a more, "invigorating tone", no problem. But I thought you preferred one that was more analytical. Your choice.

I've explained myself to the best of my ability, but the rest of your post still operates according to a misunderstanding of what I said, equating "assuming" with "playing the odds" and other such misunderstandings. I can't explain myself any better than I already have.

[DrumBum]

In yet another episode of Preachers Behaving Badly, I give you Pastor Charles Worley who has figure out a way to deal with North Carolina's problem with gay people.

"Build a great big, large fence -- 50 or 100 miles long -- and put all the lesbians in there," Worley said. "Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals, and have that fence electrified so they can't get out. Feed them. And you know in a few years, they'll die out. You know why? They can't reproduce."

I really like that last line. I would not be at all surprised to find out that this is part of the High Biology curriculum in North Carolina

[Jack Batty]

The queers AND the homosexuals? Man, this guy is thorough.

[gamerunknown]

Ingenious! It'll also solve the problems of infertility, paedophilia, asexuality and Catholic priesthood (no tautology intended). We just need a few more camps.

[Really Not All That Bright]

It will be the most tastefully decorated concentration camp in history.