Blacks overwhelmingly against gay marriage - Why such hypocrisy?

[not_alice]

@Banquet_Bear

…good lord!
I’ve been on these boards for nearly six years now and this is the first time anyone has ever questioned my credibility: so thanks for the laugh!

I am not questioning it, I said that quoting whole posts, esp. long ones, is not the general habit here. Either pick out the point you mean, or link to the whole thing and say "the whole thing is relevant, or stick out like a sore thumb and leave people wondering why, especially when, as you say, your join date was long ago.

I already explained the relationship of my post to Miller’s hijack. If you or anyone else is inclined to not get it, I personally don’t care. He was hijacking anyway, and now this otherwise important and interesting thread is being hijacked in another direction. Let it go, or start your own thread about my reading skills and Miller’s exceptional on topic oratory skills as exhibited here.

But can we please get back to the topic? No one, including me, cares about the pointless hijack of the hijack.

[Banquet_Bear]

@not_alice

I am not questioning it, I said that quoting whole posts, esp. long ones, is not the general habit here. Either pick out the point you mean, or link to the whole thing and say "the whole thing is relevant, or stick out like a sore thumb and leave people wondering why, especially when, as you say, your join date was long ago.

I already explained the relationship of my post to Miller’s hijack. If you or anyone else is inclined to not get it, I personally don’t care. He was hijacking anyway, and now this otherwise important and interesting thread is being hijacked in another direction. Let it go, or start your own thread about my reading skills and Miller’s exceptional on topic oratory skills as exhibited here.

But can we please get back to the topic? No one, including me, cares about the pointless hijack of the hijack.

…Millers post was not a hijack: your post in response to it and the mischaracterization of his argument was a hijack.

But back on topic: I disagree the op has demonstrated any hypocrisy from the black community. Do you agree or disagree?

[not_alice]

@Banquet_Bear

…Millers post was not a hijack: your post in response to it and the mischaracterization of his argument was a hijack.

Let it go. there was an ongoing discussion, I don’t know how long and by whom, quibbling about the meaning of hypocrisy and if it applied.

Let it go or leave me out of it. I was not in that part of the discussion.

But back on topic: I disagree the op has demonstrated any hypocrisy from the black community. Do you agree or disagree?

Do I agree or disagree with what? If you say you disagree, then I agree that you disagree. I have no reason to doubt you on that. Take my word for that

I am here more to examine the cultural underpinnings of reasons given for whatever they are meant to justify. I don’t care whether you or anyone else thinks they are hypocritical or not.

My role is to swing votes. I need to understand people’s reasoning, not attribute characterizations to them. Why? Because I need to reframe their point of view somehow, and to do that, I need to understand the current point of view. Not so I can debate them or judge them, but because I and others need to get them to change their mind willingly and get them to pull a lever of their own volition in a way they would not if they had the chance today or tomorrow. And we have a relatively short time to get that done.

That is what I am interested in participating in in this thread, and in the similar thread I started before this one went off the rails.

I really hope this one gets back to a place where people provide information and discussions I can get some useful insight from, if not I guess I will live with what I already got, which is significant, hijack(s) notwithstanding.

But I most certainly will not be discussing whether this or that is hypocritical, cognitive dissonance, or anything else like that. I will be interested in the reasons people assert for the voting behavior of blacks and others, and I will be less interested in judgments and categorizations that are made.

So no, I won’t answer the second question, no matter how many ways you ask, because I am not interested in discussing it. Since your reading comprehension is beyond perfection, I trust this is the last I will hear about it.

[cosmosdan]

@Banquet_Bear

…

In summary:

• Miller agrees with Rubystreaks interpretation of the DOI
• “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are broad goals
• Not applying this to Gay Rights does not automatically make you a hypocrite
• Convicts have had their liberty curtailed: supporting locking them up does not make you a hypocrite
• People who don’t support SSM are idiots, but not hypocrites
• Being black and opposed to SSM does not make you a hypocrite.

Soooo,…you’re saying Miller thinks most blacks are idiots? Dam!!

[cosmosdan]

@not_alice

But I most certainly will not be discussing whether this or that is hypocritical, cognitive dissonance, or anything else like that. I will be interested in the reasons people assert for the voting behavior of blacks and others, and I will be less interested in judgments and categorizations that are made.

The point being made is that, what you describe as a hijack, {is it or is it not hypocrisy}, the one you’re not at all interested in, is the very argument you inserted yourself into. You took a quote out of context and responded as if it was a different argument. If you’d like to get back to the reasons a higher percentage of blacks oppose SSM that’s not very efficient or even correct.

There have been several good posts and theories as to why people and in this case black culture seem to oppose SSM. The much higher percentage of evangelical Christians is one and another about the perception of black manhood.

[not_alice]

@cosmosdan

The point being made is that, what you describe as a hijack, {is it or is it not hypocrisy}, the one you’re not at all interested in, is the very argument you inserted yourself into.

I have not inserted myself into any discussion about hypocrisy, as I simply don’t care. You won’t find any post where I took a position other that that.

You took a quote out of context

No, I didn’t. I took the other half of what was reduced to a bullet point obove - that we have the right to curtail some liberties, as evinced by our incarcerating criminals and restricting SSM, as though the reasons for them are the same. The reasons for the first are well known, I alluded to them, and I asked for the reasons for the second. Because the conclusion s wrong.

That may or may not change whether something is hypocritical or not, I don’t care. But I do care about leaving that part of the argument unchallenged, because it is BS quite frankly, and it weakens the larger argument to make it in the first place.

But I could be wrong, I asked before, and I ask again, on what basis is the claim that restricting the right to SSM by society is parallel or even related somehow to the reason no one objects to imprisoning convicted criminals?

I didn’t make the argument, Miller did. So don’t attack me for asking for clarification. I find it outrageous that he can draw such a conclusion, and I simply ask him what logic or research went on before he made it?

It is not really critical to his hypocrisy argument anyway, one way or the other, he could simply withdraw this point as not fully considered and replace it with something entirely different and I wouldn’t care.

I have no hidden agenda here, I am not going to then say his claim of hypocrisy is or isn’t true. I really don’t care about that. But I can’t let this outrageous claim in support of his argument go by unchallenged. It is a serious charge and unique claim he makes, and it deserves an explanation.

and responded as if it was a different argument.

It is a different argument, one made in support of another argument. If he picked it up from somewhere else, where there is a more detailed explanation, then he could simply provide a link. Takes a lot less time then everyone arguing that it wasn’t something he said at all, when it clearly was.

If you’d like to get back to the reasons a higher percentage of blacks oppose SSM that’s not very efficient or even correct.

Yes, apparently it is not efficient, because people are upset I asked for an explanation or clarification of part of the argument that I didn’t understand or follow. That they attack me rather than simply explain is hindering the measure of efficiency, I agree, but I can’t control it, nor should I be expected to even have anticipated it here.

But yes, it is always correct in this forum to ask for an explanation or clarification if there is a part of an argument you don’t follow. Come on, you know better than that. This is GD fer cryin’ out loud. It is entirely interactive

So instead of everyone else attacking me, how about we simply let Miller explain or clarify what he meant, or reconsider if it was really what he wanted to say at all?

[Miller]

@not_alice

Yeah, because that is so on topic to the thread, that’s why I am not participating in that discussion over the meaning of hypocrisy.

Well, since that’s the conversation I’m participating in, why the fuck are you talking to me?

Perhaps unlike you, my interest in this thread is because I am active in the campaign to fix the injustice of Prop 8.

Yeah, 'cuz I’ve got absolutely no stake in the outcome of Prop. 8. :rolleyes:

If you want to use a thread ostensibly on that topic to discuss the meaning of hypocrisy, be my guest. I am sure I have hijacked threads similarly in the past and probably will in the future too. So I will just ignore that part of your comments for now, and focus on your actual reasoning.

The topic of this thread is, “Why such hypocrisy?” It is not, oddly enough, “What is the common law basis for restricting the rights of homosexuals?” So, as has been pointed out so eloquently by Banquet Bear, it is not I who is off topic - it is you.

And in that reasoning, you said something that echoes a lot of what I hear in on-topic discussions: that there is a “traditional marriage” that is at risk somehow. People say it, they mean it, but they can never explain it despite claiming they are talking about civil not religious marriage. Where is this tradtion in law I ask, show me, our legal system dates back almost 1000 years, certainly long enough to evolve and maintain tradition.

When asked directly, there is never an answer forthcoming. This is telling to me.

If you want an answer to that, you’re asking the wrong guy. That’s not a position I hold, or am willing to defend.

Sometimes they come at it by analogy as you did. They say the laws surroudning “traditional marriage rights” are like the laws surrounding something else. IN your case you said something like the rights surrounding incarceration of convicted criminals. In those cases, it is easy to see the basis in English common law for the comparative claim, as it is in your case. So it ought to be easy to compare that to the marriage case. But that doesn’t make the marriage tradition appear out of thin air either.

I said nothing of the sort. That’s a blatant misrepresentation of my position in this thread. I’ve never said that the reasoning behind the two situations was remotely comparable. In fact, I’ve explicitly disavowed any connection between the motives for the two restrictions. I was making the comparison on a single, very narrow basis, and I do not appreciate you attempting to distort that into something that it manifestly was not.

But maybe I was wrong about that. Maybe you hadn’t given it any thought at all, and despite the collegial nature of the board where it is well known that any comment is likely to be challenged and support expected to be delivered or else judgment risked, you just attacked me for not paying attention, as though that somehow made your point more salient or your ability to describe what it was you were trying to say less necessary.

Yeah, I get kind of tetchy when I go out of my way to make it clear that I’m not opposed to gay marriage, and that I’m merely repeating arguments I’ve heard elsewhere, and someone still comes around and accuses me of opposing gay marriage. Your snide and arch tone in doing so didn’t help. Nor does your habit of coming into thread after thread, dramatically misinterpreting someone’s argument, and then holding to your interpretation despite repeated, specific, and emphatic disavowals of that interpretation.

You’ve got a bit of a reputation around here, bucko. Don’t be surprised when the way you’ve acted in other threads starts coloring people’s reactions to you in new ones.

I read what you said, I got what you said, and I asked you a fair on topic question.

There are at least three things wrong with this sentence.

And BTW, before you repeat foolishly again that you didn’t compare the reasons we incarcerate criminals and can limit their liberties with the reasons we can consider limiting the liberties of gays and conclude that they are not internally inconsistent (your term), I suggest you re-read your own post at 141, esp. the first paragraph.

Banquet Bear has demolished this nonsense about as well as anyone could. I suggest you take another look at his post, because it pretty well demonstrates everything that’s wrong with your posts in this thread.

That you say you don’t agree with it makes it even more curious to me that you would describe the logic as internally consistent, yet claim you don’t agree and fail to offer a reason why when asked about it.

Logic can be internally consistent, and still arrive at an incorrect answer. The logic of religious opposition to SSM is consistent, so long as you don’t question the premise that there is a God, and he is opposed to homosexuality. As it happens, I agree with neither of those premises, and as such, reject the conclusion that we should not have SSM. However, for those who do accept those premises, there is no logical contradiction in opposing gay rights. Doing so is not hypocritical, although it can be described by any number of other negative adjectives.

But it doesn’t mean you didn’t say it, and it does mean I did read it and understand it, perhaps you didn’t write it as well as you wished you did, but it is right there for you to read, same as I did. I politely suggest you read it as a reader instead of as the author, and then decide how to proceed, if shouting me down some more is still such a good plan of persuasion.

Allow me to point out, politely, that no one else in this thread has had any problem understanding what I wrote. I’ve been defended in this thread by posters on both sides of the SSM debate, and by posters on both sides of the hypocrisy debate. Everyone seems to have perfectly understood the point I was making… except for you. This should, perhaps, be taken as an indication of where the fault actually lies in this particular “miscommunication.”

[Miller]

@not_alice

I have not inserted myself into any discussion about hypocrisy, as I simply don’t care.

I’m having a discussion about hypocrisy. You start talking to me. Guess what that means you’ve done? That’s right - you’ve inserted yourself into a discussion about hypocrisy.

No, I didn’t.

Yes, you did. And you’re about to do it again here:

I took the other half of what was reduced to a bullet point obove - that we have the right to curtail some liberties, as evinced by our incarcerating criminals and restricting SSM, as though the reasons for them are the same.

And here:

But I do care about leaving that part of the argument unchallenged, because it is BS quite frankly, and it weakens the larger argument to make it in the first place.

And here:

But I could be wrong, I asked before, and I ask again, on what basis is the claim that restricting the right to SSM by society is parallel or even related somehow to the reason no one objects to imprisoning convicted criminals?

And here:

I didn’t make the argument, Miller did. So don’t attack me for asking for clarification. I find it outrageous that he can draw such a conclusion, and I simply ask him what logic or research went on before he made it?

And one last time here:

It is not really critical to his hypocrisy argument anyway, one way or the other, he could simply withdraw this point as not fully considered and replace it with something entirely different and I wouldn’t care.

Boy, that is just a mountain of taking things out of context, ain’t it?

I have no hidden agenda here, I am not going to then say his claim of hypocrisy is or isn’t true. I really don’t care about that. But I can’t let this outrageous claim in support of his argument go by unchallenged. It is a serious charge and unique claim he makes, and it deserves an explanation.

Whoops! Guess you weren’t done yet.

So instead of everyone else attacking me, how about we simply let Miller explain or clarify what he meant, or reconsider if it was really what he wanted to say at all?

Already been don. Several times. You still haven’t figured it out yet, though, so I’m not sure what good doing it again is going to to do.

My role is to swing votes. I need to understand people’s reasoning, not attribute characterizations to them.

If the repeal of Prop. 8 hinges on your ability to understand other people’s arguments, we are all well and truly screwed.

[magellan01]

@Miller

If the repeal of Prop. 8 hinges on your ability to understand other people’s arguments, we are all well and truly screwed.

Well, not all…

[not_alice]

@Miller

Well, since that’s the conversation I’m participating in, why the fuck are you talking to me?

Because, as I have said multiple times now, I was interested in the justification of part of your argument, regardless of how it affects your broader conclusion.

I am wondering why you keep responding with increasing hostility instead of simply explaining what you meant.

I said before and will repeat, you don’t have to answer. I will be satisfied with a non-answer, and I will draw my own conclusions from that. Its fine, really. Move one or answer, either is fine. Just drop the hostility because someone dared ask you to explain what you meant in “Great Debates”. Sheesh.

Yeah, 'cuz I’ve got absolutely no stake in the outcome of Prop. 8. :rolleyes:

We all do. that is why I don’t get your unwillingness to even attempt to explain what led to the creation of your odd (as in unusual, never before seen by me) comparison regarding societal rights.

It is important to build strong arguments pro or con because we do all have a stake in it. I take no position on your claim of hypocrisy, I am however curious about your underlying reasoning.

Why in your mind is it not fair for me to ask about your reasoning? Maybe I am a stupid fuck, but I don’t see anyone else jumping up to explain what you were soooo obviously thinking either…

The topic of this thread is, “Why such hypocrisy?” It is not, oddly enough, “What is the common law basis for restricting the rights of homosexuals?”

Yet, that appears to be precisely the argument that you were making, that the restriction of SSM is allowed for similar if not substantially the same reasons as we incarcerate criminals. And the reason for the latter is clearly found in the history of English Common law dating to the Magna Carta and maybe even before that.

Maybe that wasn’t what you meant to say or imply. It seems like a stretch to me, but maybe you really have researched it, or even thought it through for 30 seconds. I just wonder what the connection is, that you seemed to think everyone would either get right away or take for granted.

Maybe you don’t even know yourself, or maybe you realize now it isn’t the most apt way to state what you were getting at? I am not trying to beat you up, I just want to know what you meant. If having it pointed out as weird makes you doublethink the connection, fine, retract it and move on. I think you can complete the hypocrisy argument without that step, or replace it with something better. You can still make your overall point, yet better! So why the hostility?

So, as has been pointed out so eloquently by Banquet Bear, it is not I who is off topic - it is you.

I am off topic by discussing your on topic post and asking for clarification? Hmm, I guess that tells me what I need to know about your ability to construct even simple arguments, let alone the complex one you dropped on us earlier. Ooookay.

If you want an answer to that, you’re asking the wrong guy. That’s not a position I hold, or am willing to defend.

Well you are not willing to explain or defend direct questions about positions you posited yourself either. That you don’t see the parallel between the two positions doesn’t surprise me anymore I guess. From now on, I will change my mental model of Great Debates to “Miller is allowed to say whatever he wants and will not answer any questions about any reasoning he presents whatsoever. Everyone else, glad to discuss stuff with each other”. Fine, thanks for sharing.

I said nothing of the sort. That’s a blatant misrepresentation of my position in this thread. I’ve never said that the reasoning behind the two situations was remotely comparable. In fact, I’ve explicitly disavowed any connection between the motives for the two restrictions. I was making the comparison on a single, very narrow basis, and I do not appreciate you attempting to distort that into something that it manifestly was not.

See, the funny thing about this paragraph, quoted in full, is you start by saying you said nothing of the sort, and close by saying you said it in a narrow sense.

If it makes you feel better, can you explain please, in the narrow sense what the connection was and why they are comparable?

Yeah, I get kind of tetchy when I go out of my way to make it clear that I’m not opposed to gay marriage, and that I’m merely repeating arguments I’ve heard elsewhere,

Dude, I asked you, if you weren’t so “tetchy”, if you got this from somewhere else, let me know and point me there. I know you are not against SSM. Good on you for that. Now can you help me to find the source of the comparison, since you say you saw it somewhere, and I never have? I’d do the same for you if I found a new or uniquely presented anti-SSM argument, I wouldn’t simply drop it out there without attribution. So can you see if you can remember where you might have gotten it from? All things considered, I’d rather ask the questions I asked you of the source, and if you are not the source, that is perfectly fine for me. I am not gunning for you, I am trying to understand the argument.

and someone still comes around and accuses me of opposing gay marriage.

I did nothing of the sort.

But, if you are presenting an anti-SSM argument, not waiting until the next day or tow to cite the attribution would help people not pin it on you, even though I know you said soon after you don’t agree, yet you used it as a foundation in your argument re: hypocrisy. If it was helpful for you, fine, but if it is not a reference to your won work, and if it becomes controversial unexpectedly, then simply cite it please. How hard can that be?

Your snide and arch tone in doing so didn’t help. Nor does your habit of coming into thread after thread, dramatically misinterpreting someone’s argument, and then holding to your interpretation despite repeated, specific, and emphatic disavowals of that interpretation.

I am sorry, I missed the part where you cited someone else’s argument or explained the comparison you keep saying you didn’t make but did make. Color me confused. Feel free to link back to the explanation I may have missed if you don’t want to type it again.

What specifically is the basis for the narrow comparison you made, even if yo upulled it from somewhere else? I think this is a fair question because you used it as a part of a larger construction of your own making. What did it mean to you, and waht effect did you hope it would have on a reader?

You’ve got a bit of a reputation around here, bucko. Don’t be surprised when the way you’ve acted in other threads starts coloring people’s reactions to you in new ones.

Bucko?Wasn’t there an episode of Happy Days where Ron Howard’s character was trying to act all tough and said the same thing? :rolleyes:

I am sure I am the most interesting topic people discuss when they get together and talk about SDMB :rolleyes: Especially when they grip about how people come in and ask them to explain what they meant by something. Oh the horror. We can’t have that. Oh the humanity!:rolleyes:

There are at least three things wrong with this sentence.

[bucko mode on]
OK, I have to ask you to state and prove whatever you think those 3 things are
[/bucko]

Banquet Bear has demolished this nonsense about as well as anyone could. I suggest you take another look at his post, because it pretty well demonstrates everything that’s wrong with your posts in this thread.

Oookay. so you won’t answer any questions put forth to you about your reasoning because you can’t explain it yourself no matter how many times you are asked. I get it. Thanks for playing.

Logic can be internally consistent, and still arrive at an incorrect answer. The logic of religious opposition to SSM is consistent, so long as you don’t question the premise that there is a God, and he is opposed to homosexuality.

So, except for the fallacies, the argument is entirely fallacy free.

Yeah that makes a lot of sense.

As it happens, I agree with neither of those premises, and as such, reject the conclusion that we should not have SSM.

good on you - again!

However, for those who do accept those premises, there is no logical contradiction in opposing gay rights.

Of course there is. Don’t let them tell you otherwise.

I am going to ask you another question now, a new one: Are you open to learning what the contradictions are? Want to learn something today?

Doing so is not hypocritical, although it can be described by any number of other negative adjectives.

I don’t take a position on the hypocrisy of it, but I also do not accept that such a position is not full of fallacies, because it is. I think you can learn that, that is why I offered, but if you really don’t understand it already, then I think I get why my original question stumped you, as it was more complex in some analytical sense I think then the reasons this bit or anti-SSM is fallacious.

Allow me to point out, politely, that no one else in this thread has had any problem understanding what I wrote.

Your evidence of that is what? Their silence and indifference, or their explanations of your “narrow comparison” on your behalf? The former I hear loud and clear, the latter I must have missed. Can yo uplease point me to it, because I’d rather read it, be satisfied, and move on. Loads of people said “I recgonize that as an outside argument from such and such a place, and here is how it is germane to his larger argument about hypocrisy”. Those are the sorts of posts you have in evidence when you say everyone else understood it right? Because hey, maybe I missed those posts and I am sure, as another rational, pro-SSM man, I am sure you want to set the record straight (no pun intended) and point me back to what I missed.

I’ve been defended in this thread by posters on both sides of the SSM debate, and by posters on both sides of the hypocrisy debate.

But none of them explained the answer to the original question I posed, about a point you only sometimes admit to making in the first place, you know, the “narrow comparison”. It would be nice if they did, but they didn’t. and neitehr did you. So their support, while it must make you feel all warm and squoogy inside, is not really helping to move the matter along, and moving it along is easy to do - simply answer the question.

Everyone seems to have perfectly understood the point I was making… except for you. This should, perhaps, be taken as an indication of where the fault actually lies in this particular “miscommunication.”

I don’t see any evidence that anyone understood it, only that they are indifferent to it. But I am not.

But if you say so, I ask you Miller, or anyone else here, to treat me like I am 7 years old and patiently explain, what is the basis for the “narrow comparison” that you (Miller)used (or understood better than I) that linked society’s right to incarcerate criminals to society’s right to deny SSM?

I won’t hold you to having to hold the position, I just want to know what the basis of the comparison is. I don’t get it, and I have said why. so enlighten me instead of attacking me. I am sure it will take less time and effort on everyone’s part and go a long way towards fighting ignorance.

Anyone?

Anyone at all?

Regards,

“SDMB Bucko”

[not_alice]

@Miller

If the repeal of Prop. 8 hinges on your ability to understand other people’s arguments, we are all well and truly screwed.

Well, ain’t that clever.

I am sure you are doing so well by giving people a pass by saying that if they believe in god as a premise, then anything else they conclude that is somehow consistent with that is fallacy free and therefore there is nothing to say to them.

Such actionable insight!

[you_with_the_face]

@not_alice

Yet, that appears to be precisely the argument that you were making, that the restriction of SSM is allowed for similar if not substantially the same reasons as we incarcerate criminals. And the reason for the latter is clearly found in the history of English Common law dating to the Magna Carta and maybe even before that.

His point had nothing to do with why SSM resistrictions are allowed by law. 95% of this thread has been devoted to talking about the hypothetical thought processes of individuals, their views towards SSM, and why or why not it’s fair to call these people hypocrites.

Children and criminals were simply used as examples of minorities who have curtailed rights, for reasons that most people considered justifiable. That’s it. Doesn’t go any deeper than that. The Magna Carta has nothing to do with it.

[magellan01]

@not_alice

I don’t see any evidence that anyone understood it,…

I understood it.

Cosmosdan understood it.

Banquet Bear understood it. He even broke it down so that a 7-year-old could understand it. And that’s on top of **Miller’**s step-by-step explanationS! But you just will have none of it.:rolleyes:

Now how about you take a break form the quadruple giant espressos flavored with Red Bull and relax. Seriously. I think you’d help yourself immeasurably if you read more and typed less.

But I can seriously say that I’m glad you’ll be directing your efforts to the fight to repeal Prop 8.
On preview, you with the face understood it.

[ITR_champion]

@not_alice

But also all of which might drive the willingness to make political bedfellows if you will, with groups who you perceive to be members of the power elite, yet who see themselves as having more in common with you.

Really.

Think about it

That was already tried and did not succeed. Anyone who’s watched politics over the past forty-odd years has clearly seen that the interests of poor and inner-city blacks has drifted farther and farther away from the attention of the liberal mainstream (as expressed by the Democratic Party). During the 60’s and 70’s, addressing the problems of black poverty and discrimination was a top political priority. Hence there was a great deal of legislation designed to help black people specifically, as well as designed to help the poor in general. Over the years, however, the Democratic Party has turned away from that and now instead focuses on issues relevant to the rich and upper class, who are primarily white.

To tell poor blacks to make common cause with gays and other groups now in the liberal mainstream is pointless. Blacks are quite smart enough to realize that no one cares about them. Nobody has any serious interest in fixing inner-city schools. No one serious proposes ending the war on drugs or reducing draconian prison terms for minor offenses.

[Miller]

@not_alice

Because, as I have said multiple times now, I was interested in the justification of part of your argument, regardless of how it affects your broader conclusion.

And as has been explained to you, multiple times, the argument you are asking me to justify is not one I have ever made. I cannot justify a position I do not hold.

I am wondering why you keep responding with increasing hostility instead of simply explaining what you meant.

I have explained what I meant to you. So have three other people. You’ve consistently ignored these explanations in favor of your original, obtuse misinterpretation, despite being repeatedly shown that it does not match what’s been said. Hence, hostility.

It is important to build strong arguments pro or con because we do all have a stake in it. I take no position on your claim of hypocrisy, I am however curious about your underlying reasoning.

Well, let me go over this one more time. Because god knows, there’s nothing my forehead loves more than being slammed into a brick wall over and over.

The theme of this thread is that blacks, being on the whole in favor of racial equality, are being hypocritical for opposing gay rights.

I have argued that supporting equal rights for one group does not automatically require you to support equal rights for all groups.

As an example of a group that people generally think should not have equal rights, I pointed towards convicts.

At no point did I suggest that the reasoning behind denying convicts equal rights are the same as the reasoning behind denying gays equal rights. The purpose of the comparison was solely to show that one can come up with a good reason to deny a specific segment of the population equal rights. This is a separate issue from whether the reasons for denying gays equal rights are any good. They are not - they are, in fact, very, very bad reasons. But that’s different from being hypocritical, which was the sole point I was making by the comparison.

I fully expect that this explanation, like all the other explanations given to you in this thread, will sail over your head by a comfortable margin, and we will be right back to you insisting that I’ve never explained why I think gays should be treated like criminals. But hope springs eternal that you might finally read, consider, and understand something somebody says to you on these boards. Stranger things have happened. Hell, they’ve already happened right in this thread, when magellan01 and I agreed on something. So i figure, why not see if there’s a two-for-one offer going on miraculous events?

Why in your mind is it not fair for me to ask about your reasoning? Maybe I am a stupid fuck, but I don’t see anyone else jumping up to explain what you were soooo obviously thinking either…

Are you fucking kidding me? Banquet Bear[/], cosmosdan, and magellan01 have all undertaken trying to explain my position to you! You responded to Banquet Bear twice!

Yet, that appears to be precisely the argument that you were making, that the restriction of SSM is allowed for similar if not substantially the same reasons as we incarcerate criminals. And the reason for the latter is clearly found in the history of English Common law dating to the Magna Carta and maybe even before that.

That is not the argument I have made. That is nothing like the argument I have made. That bears as much resemblance to the argument I have made as this bears to this.

Dude, I asked you, if you weren’t so “tetchy”, if you got this from somewhere else, let me know and point me there. I know you are not against SSM. Good on you for that. Now can you help me to find the source of the comparison, since you say you saw it somewhere, and I never have? I’d do the same for you if I found a new or uniquely presented anti-SSM argument, I wouldn’t simply drop it out there without attribution. So can you see if you can remember where you might have gotten it from? All things considered, I’d rather ask the questions I asked you of the source, and if you are not the source, that is perfectly fine for me. I am not gunning for you, I am trying to understand the argument.

It. Is. Not. An. Anti. SSM. Argument. Good Christ, what is it going to take to get that through your head? It is an argument about hypocrisy, and nothing more!

And since the rest of this post is nothing but continually misstating what my argument is, ignoring the multiple explanations offered by multiple people, and demanding that I defend a position I’ve never taken, I’m going to cut the rest of it off, as I’ve already handled those particular specimens of speciousness repeatedly in this post. I am sure you will be back shortly to repeat them, and I may or may not be moved to attempt, yet again, to explain the most simple of facts to you at extended and laborious length. I will leave you with this, though: You are demonstrably incapable of understanding arguments that are being made by people who are on your side of this debate. How on Earth do you ever expect to be able to understand the arguments of people with whom you have a genuine disagreement?

[not_alice]

@you_with_the_face

Children and criminals were simply used as examples of minorities who have curtailed rights, for reasons that most people considered justifiable. That’s it. Doesn’t go any deeper than that. The Magna Carta has nothing to do with it.

I am among those people, and yes, the legal reasons do go aback to the magna carta (more or less).

We ought to be able to agree on that much, right?

so, then in the “narrow comparison” that Miller finally admitted to making (after denying it endlessly), let’s focus on that.

what exactly is the nature of the comparison of the ability to deny ssm marriage rights (which I don’t agree with) is comparable in some legal basis (as it seems to me Miller was claiming) with the restriction on imprisonment (which I do agree with).

A simple answer might be: It is also in English Common Law, and has been passed through to US and then CA law. You can read the details in the briefs presented in such and such a legal case (with enough of a citation for me to find it).

That would be a good answer in my mind - the comparison is clear, and a cite towards a more detailed explanation.

That is not the only good answer or even form of an answer, jut an example.

But when Miller compares an ancient legal principal long predating our country with some neo-argument that dates to maybe the last 10-20 years or so, I need a good explanation as to what the basis of the comparison is if you want me to accept it or to follow any argument it is a part of.

There may well be a good comparison. I don’t get why no one can point to any outside sources though, especially since Miller said it did not originate with him. Where did he get it? I could look there or review that person or institution’s track record if only it was shared.

Or, if something like that was already done, a link to the actual post would be nice, as everybody, myself not excepted, has posted a lot of psruious stuff through several pages now. If you know of it, can you bring it front and center again?

Does no one here really understand what I am asking for?

[not_alice]

@ITR_champion

That was already tried and did not succeed. Anyone who’s watched politics over the past forty-odd years has clearly seen that the interests of poor and inner-city blacks has drifted farther and farther away from the attention of the liberal mainstream (as expressed by the Democratic Party). During the 60’s and 70’s, addressing the problems of black poverty and discrimination was a top political priority. Hence there was a great deal of legislation designed to help black people specifically, as well as designed to help the poor in general. Over the years, however, the Democratic Party has turned away from that and now instead focuses on issues relevant to the rich and upper class, who are primarily white.

To tell poor blacks to make common cause with gays and other groups now in the liberal mainstream is pointless. Blacks are quite smart enough to realize that no one cares about them. Nobody has any serious interest in fixing inner-city schools. No one serious proposes ending the war on drugs or reducing draconian prison terms for minor offenses.

Care to state what political affilliation or your position on SSM while you poison that well?

[you_with_the_face]

@not_alice

I am among those people, and yes, the legal reasons do go aback to the magna carta (more or less).

No. One. Is. Talking. About. Legal. Reasons.

what exactly is the nature of the comparison of the ability to deny ssm marriage rights (which I don’t agree with) is comparable in some legal basis (as it seems to me Miller was claiming) with the restriction on imprisonment (which I do agree with).

No. One. Is. Talking. About. Legal. Basis.

We aren’t talking about law, policy, regulations, or ordinances, or any other concepts that could be construed to be related to legal justifications.

No one is talking about imprisonment, either.

I don’t know what’s going on with your synaptic membranes, but seriously, get those things checked out. You’re flapping around like that decapitated android in Alien and it is worrying me.

[not_alice]

@Miller

And as has been explained to you, multiple times, the argument you are asking me to justify is not one I have ever made. I cannot justify a position I do not hold.

Are you even paying attention? I knwo in the last message you said you didn;'t make the claim, then you said yo made it narrowly in the sam paragraph. Now you didn’t make it again?

Sheesh.

I know you said it did not originate with you, you are pro-SSM and so on. Let’s try this: What resonated with you about the comparison that made you use it as part of your broader argument re: hypocrisy?

I have explained what I meant to you. So have three other people. You’ve consistently ignored these explanations in favor of your original, obtuse misinterpretation, despite being repeatedly shown that it does not match what’s been said. Hence, hostility.

so when someone clearly does not understand what you are saying, you turn hostile instead of helping address the questions that remain unanswered?

Maybe you are answering the wrong question, instead of the ones I am asking. I am not sure you answered anything yet really, but whatever, you think you did so now you are hostile.

Please point me to the number of the post that you think BEST explains it. I will accept that as the best everyone here can do and move on, OK?

As an example of a group that people generally think should not have equal rights, I pointed towards convicts.

At no point did I suggest that the reasoning behind denying convicts equal rights are the same as the reasoning behind denying gays equal rights. The purpose of the comparison was solely to show that one can come up with a good reason to deny a specific segment of the population equal rights.

Believe it or not, that is how I read it originally. And now that you are restating it, (finally! thank you!) you can see that you are leaving wide open the matter of why we should accept that SSM should be limited. Eitehr you are saying the reason is the same as the other case (my original reading in case that was not clear from my having said it about 500 times now) or, now, maybe you are saying it is not related at all.

OK, but in that case, you have not answered at all why we should accept your claim that that SSM should be limited, or at least is in fact limitable because of some pre-existing reason. I just wanna know what that pre-existing reason is, in your mind, if it is not the same as for imprisonment.

Now I know you are jumping up and down right now, but I do realize you don’t support limiting SSM, I really do. I knwo you said you are representing the other side’s argument here. So can you remain in their shoes for jsut a minute longer, since when you came across that argument, it stuck with you for some reason, what was it do you THINK they were getting at with the comparison? I won’t hold the belief to you, but what do you THINK it was?

This is a separate issue from whether the reasons for denying gays equal rights are any good. They are not - they are, in fact, very, very bad reasons. But that’s different from being hypocritical, which was the sole point I was making by the comparison.

OK then, let’s reverse the previous question - instead of why they think it is a good comparison, why do YOU think it is bad?

I fully expect that this explanation, like all the other explanations given to you in this thread, will sail over your head by a comfortable margin,

Under my feet is more like it, you are leaving out the juicy details that make your point, and which are what I am repeatedly asking for.

Try giving the actual details I ask for, instead of what you want to dish out, and see how fast this stops.

and we will be right back to you insisting that I’ve never explained why I think gays should be treated like criminals.

Nobody accused you of that. Feeling persecuted much?

But hope springs eternal that you might finally read, consider, and understand something somebody says to you on these boards. Stranger things have happened. Hell, they’ve already happened right in this thread, when magellan01 and I agreed on something. So i figure, why not see if there’s a two-for-one offer going on miraculous events?

There are no miracles here. I am just trying to understand what is in your precious little head. We probably DO agree, if only you could say it.

Let me ask you a simple yes or no question? do you have a cite for where you first saw or heard that comparison in the first place?

If so, can you simply provide it, so I can go get the details there? It is clear you either can’t or won’t explain your own reasoning in detail. I don’t know why and I don’t care really. I’d really rather have the information on the comparison, if you can;t explain it, then can yo at least tell us where you got that tidbit and why you thought it worth mentioning?

Pretty please with a cherry on top?

Are you fucking kidding me? Banquet Bear[/], cosmosdan, and magellan01 have all undertaken trying to explain my position to you! You responded to Banquet Bear twice!

yes, they endeavored, and claerly they didn’t succeed. Maybe you guys can work as a team to read my questions, the ones with the question marks on them - cut them into a document, and then treat those as very specific requests for information. To each one, fill in the information, or type “I don’t know”. Then paste it back here. That will probably do the trick.

That is not the argument I have made. That is nothing like the argument I have made.

Then please, say why they two matters are juxtaposed at all if we are not to draw some sort of comparison of them, in support of your larger argument regarding hypocrisy? Why? WHY?

It. Is. Not. An. Anti. SSM. Argument. Good Christ, what is it going to take to get that through your head? It is an argument about hypocrisy, and nothing more!

It doesn’t matter what argument you juxtaposed them in support of, but rather what is the point of juxtaposing them at all? I have said many times I understand you did it in support of trying to make this point or that regarding hypocrisy. Now who is not reading?

And since the rest of this post is nothing but continually misstating what my argument is, ignoring the multiple explanations offered by multiple people, and demanding that I defend a position I’ve never taken

You deny that you juxtaposed the two matters? I am interested in the juxtaposition independent of anything else around them. If you told me it was part of an argument why water has 2 hydrogens and one oxygen, I don’t care really. I just wonder why you presented what appears to me to be a logical non-sequitor in any context you choose. The context itself doesn’t concern me, I don’t think it is related to the nature of the juxtaposition itself. But if you want to make a case it is, that is fine, I won’t object. Bring it that way if you want.

I am sure you will be back shortly to repeat them,

because you refuse to answer the questions.

Instead of quoting statements, why not quote the questions, and go from there?
Sheesh.

I will leave you with this, though: You are demonstrably incapable of understanding arguments that are being made by people who are on your side of this debate.

I understand better than you think. Consider this though: You may not be as good at explaining your case to someone on your side, how are you going to make the case to anyone else?

How on Earth do you ever expect to be able to understand the arguments of people with whom you have a genuine disagreement?

Surprisingly, they are rarely so reluctant to share as you are. rarely as in never. Where I live, I can’t shake a stick without hitting people who voted for prop 8: 75% plus in my county.

My task is not to understand them, I already get what they say. It is to have as many people as possible vote for SSM in the next election, to vocalize their support to their representative, to their newspapers, on their blogs, for the hard core to plant just a seed of doubt…it is not a debate that is going to change votes or hearts, make no mistake about it. It is a matter of marketing.

What happens here is simply brainstorming, seeking and testing ideas, that is all - I and we are plenty charming in action. Media from far and wide is noticing our local plight already, and that is only going to get more intense. Consider your assistance here as practice and prep work for when real ideas need to be presented in a confrontational manner with the cameras rolling.

This is just a tiny part of a much larger strategy, and it is working fine so far, thank you very much, even if you don’t like this thread because I ask you hard questions. Sorry about that, I said before, and it bears repeating, my concern is not about you at all despite your clear hostility toward me. You’ll figure out what I mean someday though, if not today.

[not_alice]

@you_with_the_face

No. One. Is. Talking. About. Legal. Reasons.

No. One. Is. Talking. About. Legal. Basis.

We aren’t talking about law, policy, regulations, or ordinances, or any other concepts that could be construed to be related to legal justifications.

No one is talking about imprisonment, either.

I don’t know what’s going on with your synaptic membranes, but seriously, get those things checked out. You’re flapping around like that decapitated android in Alien and it is worrying me.

Don’t worry so much, it is not good for you

In fact, in Miller’s initial post that drew my attention, he specfically did speak of the reasons (unstated, hence I asked and have yet to hear other than my own speculations) about society’s right to remove teh liberty of convicted prisoners by imprisoning them. He really did say that. You can look for it yourself if you don’t believe me.

I know, it seems crazy to expect a claim like that to pop up in a thread liek this, but there is it.

If you find that post, you will see he then juxtaposed that point (whihc no one seriously dispute btw) with the claim that society similarly (according to some, maybe not him, but some) can limit the rights of a subgroup such as gays by restricting SSM.

What was the reasoning for this juxtaposition?

I dunno. I wanna know. I think he said you get it (or others at least), yet you are saying he never said it as he has said and then unsaid several times already.

Curiouser and curiouser indeed

If you find the post, can you let me know what the connection is between the two juxtaposed elements please?