Okay, he said it. (I just went back and re-read.) And you know what? You’re still hung up on something that you shouldn’t be hung up on. The reason Miller brought up criminals was the same reason I brought up children. In no way are we arguing that these groups are comparable to gays. The only relevant commonality between these groups is that they are minorities.
Two out of three of these minorites have curtailed rights that are almost universally perceived by society as justified restrictions.
One minority (gays) has curtailed rights that are not universally perceived by society as justified restrictions. Some people think their rights should be restricted and others do not.
Miller’s argument has been really simple: you can’t call people hypocrites simply for thinking there are justifiable reasons for restricting the rights of gays, without also calling those who favor restricting other minority rights hypocrities as well.
The issue is hypocrisy not law.
This is my last response to you, because I seriously don’t think you’re going to get it. And I’m not completely joking when I say I’m worried about you’re mental health. We aren’t talking about really complicated stuff here, and if you’re honestly not able to see why the Magna Carter matters not one whit in a thread about hypocrisy, then you may consider seeing doctor.
I didn’t make the comparison you’re claiming I made. I made an entirely different comparison.
No, mostly just when you do it.
The question you are asking is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with anything I’ve said. I don’t have an answer for that question, because it is in pursuit of a position I have never taken.
Pick virtually any post I’ve made in this thread. I’ve explained it in almost all of them.
No, I’m not, because the reasoning doesn’t fucking matter. My point is not about the validity of any argument for or against SSM, my point is about the validity of saying that an anti-SSM position is hypocritical.
The argument you are asking me to support does not exist. Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever made that argument, including myself, in this thread. The argument is not that, because convicts have limited rights, then homosexuals should also have limited rights. Got it? That’s not what I said. That’s not what anybody has said. The argument is that one can support the concept of equal rights, and still feel that particular minorities should not have equal rights, and that this is not necessarily a hypocritical position. There has been no comparison between homosexuals and criminals, except insofar as they are both minorities that some people, for VASTLY DIFFERENT REASONS, feel should have their rights restricted.
No fucking kidding.
I have. Over. And over. And over. And over.
No shit they didn’t succeed, but at least you’ve remembered that they exist, so that’s a kind of progress, I suppose.
You’re not asking me hard questions. Hard questions, I don’t mind. It’s the stupid questions that make me pull my hair out.
And for the love of god, please, don’t ever, ever get in front of a camera and try to advocate for gay rights. We have a hard enough struggle in this country as it is, without you messing it up for us.
TBH with you, I hadn’t notice your claim about children before.
Are you suggesting that the reason children have different rights and responsibilities than adults is because they are a minority of some sort?
Are you sure you don’t mean because they are minors, which is entirely different?
And are you also suggesting (or suggesting that Miller is suggesting) that criminals are afforded different rights and responsibilities because they are a minority of some sort or another? If so, that is counter to my entire understanding of the history of our jurisprudence system, and I would love to be re-educated on the matter.
So far, I don’t see that either of those two froups has the quality that you assign to it as being the commonality among the 3 groups, and we haven’t got to gays yet.
With all due respect, any argument that relies on juxtaposing these two groups for that reason (shared minority status) is on very shaky ground indeed right out of the gate.
Now, as for SSM in that context. Note that SS means “same sex”, not “gay”. Any two people of the same sex would be able to get married, their orientation will not be a litmus test of any sort.
Sort of by definition one sex or the other will be more numerous of the two, and will be a majority and the other a minority (although very close in numbers). So it is really hard for me to picture how the issue of “minority” is goiing to apply effectively to SSM either.
So all three groups don’t seem to have the quality that you sat Miller is treating as essential in his (2 part) juxtapostion. Unless you or someone else can resurrect that claim somehow, I am open to hearing it.
Since the connection between his two groups (as described by you, thank you really!) seems to me to be so tenuous as to be non-existent, I repeat my question of earlier as to why that point is even in there in the larger argument? I think he can make his point about hypocrisy without that stopover at all, so why cling so tight to it? That is the big question!
And since Miller asked how any of this is useful in persuading people, here is a bit to consider now that we have reached this point:
The reason the opposition juxtaposes criminals and gays and others in the context of SSM with any connection no matter how tenuous is becase they seek to brand gays and others with the taint of criminals. It is propaganda, pure and simple, and it is evil. It is the same rhetorical device that equates gays with child molestation, indoctrination, and so much more. It is FUD to the worst degree.
Miller, you might not like to hear this coming from me, but you know I am right: You must never ever let it go unchallenged. Why? Because it creeps into other places. You said youpicked it up somewhere else, and I believe you. You missed (understandably, it was meant to fool you) the reason it was presented to you, and then you used it against your own best interests (in the sense that you FAVOR SSM) and fought so hard to justify including it.
It is not your fault, but it is insidious like the worst weed. You simply MUST learn to sniff this out wherever it is, and if you are working for SSM rights, even if only participating in discussions such as this, you MUST call it out for what it is - evil, perfidious, false, hateful propaganda. Do NOT let it slip into your own positions!
That is actually not really that strong an argument either, but I am not taking a position on the hypocrisy yes or no part of this thread, so I will leave it at that - I want to emphasize what I just said above rather than get drawn in here.
dude, don’t worry about my mental health, I sleep next to a psychologist every night. what are your qualifications for your concern again?
Of course MC does not relate to hypocrisy. It does relate when you talk about the reason criminals and other unfavored groups have any rights at all. That is not complicated, and if you don’t get that on the face of it, why don’t you go to wikipedia, start at Magna Carta, and read for a while following links, and come back and say if you still think I am wrong about that I will hold your mental health diagnosis in abeyance until then
You know, not a single one of those question is an even slightly reasonable extrapolation of what ywtf said. You’ll get a lot farther in debates if you address what people actually say, and not what you want them to have said.
I don’t believe that I have ever asked that question.
Okay. A) Don’t lecture me on how to advocate for gay rights. You lecturing me on gay rights is like Forrest Gump lecturing Stephen Hawking on five space math. B) If some ever actually makes the comparison you’ve been rabbitting on about for the last three pages, I’ll be sure to speak right up about it. Fortunately, no one, here or anywhere else, has made that comparison, so this is rather a moot point.
No, I didn’t say that.
Once again, it’s not an argument against SSM. It’s an argument about the nature of hypocrisy.
Considering that you still, after all this time, don’t even understand what the argument was, you’ll excuse me if I ignore your advice on how to handle it, should the argument appear again.
Your posts are her cite.
Nobody has said that you’re wrong about why criminals have fewer rights than non-criminals. What’s been pointed out to you, again and again, is that it’s irrelevant to the comparison being made.
Take it up with you with the face he or she says you did.
You should look into that then. I have a similar thread going on right now ans we are not having any problems like this. People there are asking and answering questions collegially. Are you sure it is me that is the issue?
I am gonna guess yo usimulposted with my post just above so I will let this go since you probably didn’t see that yet where I address that.
Anyway from now on to be collegial, anytime a question pops into my head, I will run it by you to see if it is relevant of not. I really didn’t realize that you are the judge of whether my questions are relevant or not. So bad of me, I am sure life will go much easier with you deciding for me now.
Hmm, if you get to decide if my questions are relevant, then I get to decide if your explanations are sufficient, OK?
See, I think I asked above somewhere if one possibility was that you were making shit up just to fill space or time or something. Maybe I should consider that more likely than I had - you make an argument, you spend pages defending it, and now you say the reasoning you were using doesn’t fucking matter? What, you are so well known your reasoning and word are beyond reproach?
Was it not clear the first dozen or so times I mentioned I am not interested in your argument for or against the conclusion of hypocrisy? Only in the unexpected juxtaposition and appearance of one step of that path?
The argument you are asking me to support does not exist. Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever made that argument, including myself, in this thread. The argument is not that, because convicts have limited rights, then homosexuals should also have limited rights. Got it? That’s not what I said. That’s not what anybody has said. The argument is that one can support the concept of equal rights, and still feel that particular minorities should not have equal rights, and that this is not necessarily a hypocritical position. There has been no comparison between homosexuals and criminals, except insofar as they are both minorities that some people, for VASTLY DIFFERENT REASONS, feel should have their rights restricted.
See post above for the flaws in that ointment It is a really weak argument, and causes you to go around using criminals and gays in the same sentence when you argue for SSM. That sounds smart, did anyone tell you that would be a good idea? Your local fundie preacher perhaps?
And as I said to YWTF, I suggest you read up in wikipedia or elsewhere on Magna Carta and beyond looking for the real reason why unfavored minorities have rights at all in our legal system. It might not be what you think it is. Just sayin…
YWTF did a good job, without all the commentary a few posts above. You seem to be saying the same thing here between the commentary, so the reply to him (or her, I don’t know) applies to you too, OK?
I know full welll there are others on this thread. Finally, after your denying your own writings for pages (and probably chasing everyone with interesting insight to add away), YWTF simply summed it up for me after going back to see if what I was saying you said was true, and concluding it was.
Well, maybe starting today, instead of of deciding if questions are stupid or hard or irrelevant, you can simply answer them and engage in a discussion, you might just learn something.
Too late dude, the press is all over me - online, print, video too. Not the brightest star in the universe, just one of many. but they are seeing me and my group solve very real political problems in advance of bigger battles to come.
Since you can’t tell the difference between good, stupid, hard or irrelevant questions, it surprises me not that you would think that what you see here is anything other than an online persona, and frankly, as I said, it is just this thread on this topic right now where I have to adopt it to find out what you were thinking.
You can thank me and the rest of the activists anonymously at your wedding someday, I would be honored.
OK, you make the claim, you support it then. go ahead, put up or shut up, and do it in one post please, not over several pages and days.
Now that you simulposted that it doesn’t fucking matter, I withdraw the claim that I thought you were persuading people by making an argument, no matter how swiss cheese like it was, instead of making shit up. My bad.
B)
If you feel that way, then let me provide special advice for you - always make sure you use gays and criminals as examples anytime you discuss gay rights with anyone, as no one will ever make the connection. :rolleyes:
So, you are saying you made it up out of whole cloth? didn’t I raise that a sa possibility pages ago?
Look, it is clear to me you are so vested in something, you can’t even admit what you wrote once and over several times now, that as part of your agument demonstrating hypocrisy, you justaposed criminals and gay people (as though only gays can take advantage of SSM btw) as minorities to be considered carefully together, because they have something in common. In this case (wrong, but so you claim) the basis for limited rights by broader society. You think if you said that about Jews for instance, it would be OK too? Just wondering?
And now you have the temerity ot suggest that your opponents don’t regularly make insidious claims of associating criminals with gays and vice versa? Don’t they say gays are child molestors and worse all the time?
Figurative speaking, from their marketing point of view, you are their wet dream if you start advocating for SSMby comparing gays and criminals on any basis. Teh search engine won’t care why you did it, and then you (or whoever does it)will become example number one: “Even the gays compare themselves to criminals, that is the best they can do.”
Just don’t give anyone ever the opportunity to say that, OK? Please? I know it is not what you meant, but that is not my point. Your words will be used against you. Next election will be close enough, we don’t need that out there, nor does anyone in any state. Just don’t do it, no matter how much you hate the messenger, ok?
YOu changed your mind regularly about a lot of key things you said, maybe you did, maybe you didn’t/ But you will just change your mind again anyway.
How many times do you want me to say I understand the broader point you were gettuing at? I really do, and I am not trying to counter your conclusion one iota.
But each step you make along the way in an argument is subject to checking to see if it holds totegether or not on its own, as well as part of the broader argument. It is the former I am concerned with here.
Either that or you are telling me I must take anything you say on faith, and that is not going to happen so find another way to persuade me that your point is valid, or just go on to something else (but not posts using gays and criminals together anymore please regardless of the point you are making).
You keep asserting I don;t understand, but yet you never give specifics. Quote my understanding of it, place it in the context of what you said, and illuminate the misunderstandings. I am a big boy - go put it side by side, with commentary on where I am wrong instead of just asserting it over and over.
Because so far you jut keep denying what you said until you say you said it in advacnce of denying it again, telling us you made shit up for no reason at all (the very material we are discussing) and keep telling me I am wrong in how I interpret it even though it is not there for any particular reason at all.
OK. good. Glad to get your approach down.
And if you think i tis a good idea to insist that conflating gays and criminals is not a horrific idea, then I am starting to wonder if you are really working on the other side. Hmmm.
OK, give her something to go on. Share with us your qualifications to make mental health judgments. Go on. Tell us what you predict she will find in my posts and how you came to know this I will be most certain to pass on the entire thread to her if you can do that and not sound like you are in high school or undergrad school. So tell us, what is your training, your degree, your license?
You have been telling me I have been nothing but wrong, quetioning whether I even read what you wrote, for pages now. WTF are you gioing on about now? That what I said in my very first post on the topic and every time since, that I am right?
Dayum!
What’s been pointed out to you, again and again, is that it’s irrelevant to the comparison being made.
[/QUOTE]
It has been asserted by you many times, but it has not been pointed out once.
Look, I think your hypocrisy argument hangs together without this whole point, or by refining it? Why not say something to me like “How would you make my argument better”? You think it is so perfect?
In the sense that the claim is probably not needed to advance your argument at all, then yes, it is irrelevant. But if it is irrelevant, why not simply restate your hypcrisy argument without it? Why leave it in?
Either you need it and it is relevant, or you don’t and it is irrelevant. So far it is still in there, so I have to believe it is relevant to you. Only you can take it out, it is your argument, not anyone else’s. Looks like you consider it relevant by your refusal sp far to remove or update that point to me.
No, she didn’t. Good lord, is there any part of this thread you are unwilling to blatantly misrepresent?
You know, when you’re asking questions about things I’ve said, I kinda do think I know whether or not they’re relevant.
See, you’re still trying to get me to defend an argument I’ve never made. The reasoning behind denying rights to criminals doesn’t matter, because the issue is not whether or not criminals should be denied rights. Similarly, for the purposes of the argument I was making, the reasoning behind denying gays rights doesn’t matter, because I wasn’t making an argument about whether or not gays should be denied rights. The reasoning behind my argument over whether denying rights to gays while advocating for right for blacks does, of course, matter. Because that’s the argument I was actually making.
Hey, genius, guess what? I’M NOT ARGUING FOR SSM IN THIS THREAD! If I were arguing for SSM, I wouldn’t bring up criminals at all, because it’s not relevant to that debate.
You know, if I actually cared about that, I might. But since it is (one more time!) entirely irrelevant to the point I was making, I don’t think I’m going to do that right now.
Really? Because a few posts ago, you were explicitly denying that anyone else in this thread has said that they understood what I was trying to say. This was, humorously enough, directly after you’d engaged in one of them in a conversation about whether you had or had not understood what I’d been saying.
I have engaged every question you’ve asked. You’ve been pretty steadfast in ignoring the answers, and then repeating the questions, and insisting that no one’s answered them. And they you act all bewildered when I get hostile with you…
So, you’re saying that you’ve simply adopted the persona of someone who can’t understand plain English? That seems like a really odd debate tactic. But hey, what do I know? You’ve been on TV! If that’s not a powerful indicator of your intellectual worth, I don’t know what is!
You know, you’ve got me on this one. I honestly can’t imagine how you think those are rational interpretations of what she said, so I’m genuinely at a loss on how to explain to you that you’re wrong. Your thought process is so fundamentally flawed that I can’t even begin to diagnose where you’ve gone off the rails.
Yeah, I am trying to persuade people. But I’m trying to persuade them about an argument that you keep saying you’re not interested in, so I’m trying to avoid going over that ground again. You keep trying to get me to defend some other fucking position that you’ve pulled out of your ass, and I keep telling you that I’m not taking that position, and that position has nothing to do with what I was trying to argue, but that just rolls right off your back. You set your mind on having this argument with me, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, and you’re just not going to let it go, are you?
Allow me to redirect your attention to the portion in my above post where I point out that I was not arguing gay rights.
No, you made it up out of whole cloth. I made a very simple analogy on a topic that you’ve continually insisted you have no interest in, and you came along and invented an argument that I had not made, and have persisted in trying to argue it with me for pages now, despite the fact that I have told you at every opportunity that I am not making the argument in which you are attempting to engage. Get it? You made that argument up, and that’s why no one is taking your bait on fighting over it: because no one else has ever said anything remotely like the strawman you’ve been beating the shit out for going on three pages now.
You are delusional.
Fuck, man, you’re the one who said it was unprecedented! If you’ve heard this comparison so many times before, why are you so desperate to have me defend a position which you’ve acknowledged I don’t even hold?
Seriously delusional.
I have, in fact, been entirely consistent throughout this thread. I initially took a very simple position on a very simple argument, and you have created an enormous chimera out of it that bears absolutely no resemblence to anything I’ve actually said. And you are determined to slay that chimera, presumable because it’s easier to defeat arguments that you invent, rather than ones other people have actually presented.
You can say it as much as you want. When you finally start demonstrating it, I’ll let it go.
What else have I been doing for this entire thread?
Good Christ. Look. The reasons why criminals have fewer rights is irrelevant to the argument I was making. Only the fact that they do is important.
This is what I meant when I said you haven’t demonstrated that you understand my argument. If you understood my argument, you wouldn’t post nonsense like this.
S;low down and take a deep breath and read the top pf post 261:
Relevant to you perhaps, but to everyone else who might ever encounter your wrtiings?
Think of it like a mashup - you created it, I see something a little different in it. Who are you to tell me what I see as relevant or not?
maybe you can’t tell the differnece between your argument as a whole and the individial steps in it? Maybe is that it? Really, maybe it is indivisible to you? That might account fr the confusion, because it is not indivisible to me.
If you see it as divisible, then please consider this plain English: I only wonder wht you juxtaposed two items in makin a broader point.
That is all. I don’t care about the broader point at all. Just why those two items together, what is the link?
If you see it as inidivisible, then you are just acting foolish defending an argument if you don’t understand the parts of it.
So you tell me, which is it, indivisible or not?
People discuss what rights criminals should or should not halve all the time, in the streets, and at every level of our government? What planet are you on?
OK, this strikes me hopefully as something to build on.
If you really wanted to juxtapose gays and blacks, then why bring criminals into it at all?
and heads up, at some point (maybe not yet) you are likely to hear that black and gays and everyone else has rights because of traditions dating back to, what class? that’s right, the Magna Carta!
Oh I see, when you said you were in favor of SSM in this thread about SSM I thought maybe, well, you know…
But now I see you didn’t mean to tar gays with the criminal slur at all. My bad. I realize now you meant to conflate blacks who are more closely the topic of the thread and criminals. It all makes sense now. :rolleyes:
Oh I see - ignorance is relevant to you, esp when you are asserting that “society” can “deny” rights to “minorities”. But you don’t need to tell us where you got that idea, everyone jsut knows it and agrees, right? Wrong! It is irrelevant what the history of our rights for minorities is, because YOU say so!
Glad to clear that up.
And then I asked one more time, as specifically as I could, what I was asking about despite your denial, and she went back and found out I was right about what you said, and she took that, to her credit, as a chance to review what I had jsut written that was enough to help her find what you wrote but denied existed, and intpret your word in terms of what I had said.
Which helped.
Until you said she still got it wrong now and that I still don’t understand. Yet at least she made an effort to pur your words and my question together and find wehre there might be some common ground, whcih is more than you are succeeding at (I think you are trying now though at least).
So if I have it wrong, why don’t you work with her for a while to present a common picture for me? Maybe she can interpret in both directions. Or if she was totally wrong about what she said you said, then bitch at her, not me. I didn’t make her say it.
It is humorous enough to you that you can’t communicate such a simple matter and strangers have to try repeatedly to make sense of your words to convey them on your behalf? to me it is the saddest thing I have heard all day.
Oh you have engaged alright, you just haven’ answered sufficiently the questions put before you. You have amential block about doing so , because you keep forgetting what you said in the first place, than deny, then remember and back and forth. And you decide that my questions are irrelevant or worse, so how can you say you made your best effort at communicating instead of just typing words at me?
I haven’t ignored the answers you give, I just am reduced to pleading for ones to the questions I actually asked, that are on point and communicative anyway. I get totally that you THINK you are answering them, but do you really think you are COMMUNICATING what is in your head when you compose them?
That is big talk from a man on the INTERNET
Are you telling me that your personality really is someone who can’t or won’t answer simple questions, can’t tell the parts of an argument from a whole, can’t avoid labeling fair questions as irrelevant, and yet still insists that the questions have been answered to the best of your ability?
Maybe it is the best of your ability. What do I know? Not having these issues in another thread on SSM opposition explanations simultaneous to this one, so it seems unlikely it is me that is the problem…
I brought up criminals because I wanted an example of a group that most people agree should have fewer rights than the majority. I figured it was a good bet that cosmosdan agreed that criminals should have fewer rights than the majority, so I used that example. I was attempting to demonstrate that, despite the fact that he supports equal rights, there were also groups that he felt should have restricted rights. I did, as you with the face said, mention some reasons why that group should have restricted rights, because I also wanted to demonstrate that there could be good reasons for restricting those rights. In hindsight, that wasn’t necessary, because if cosmosdan agreed that convicts should have fewer rights, he would not need me to provide any sort of a rationale behind it. Also, I didn’t anticipate that you would freak out because I didn’t give a fully footnoted dissertation on the history of jurisprudence from the reign of John I onward.
I can’t imagine how I didn’t see that coming.
I am in favor of SSM. Oddly enough, not every single thing I say has to be directly tied into that issue. There was no real debate in this thread over whether or not gays should be allowed to marry. No one was taking the position that blacks were correct to oppose SSM. The only area of debate was which particular terms of opprobrium were appropriate to use in this situation, and whether it was proper to single out blacks as a group for their opposition, when most other demographics are also generally opposed to SSM. If there had been anyone in here arguing against gay marriage, I would have engaged them on that topic. But no one was, so instead I addressed the topic of whether a black person opposing gay rights could be considered a hypocrite.
And once again, you’re entirely off the rails. Some day, I’d like to see the posts you’re reading, because they seem so wonderfully different from the posts I’m writing.
No, I said you got it wrong. I haven’t materially disagreed with anything ywtf has posted in this thread.
Because you’ve demonstrated no more facility at understanding her, than you have at understanding me, or Banquet Bear, or cosmosdan, or magellan01. And this is not the only thread I’ve seen where you’ve failed at comprehending rather elementary arguments. It seems to be a whole “thing” with you.
How you haven’t put a spike in your head by now I don’t know. I’m beginning to think that this is some sort of performance art. Or some cruel online version of Candid Camera. Yeesh. I implore the OP to request this thread be closed.
Miller’s arguement: it is not hypocritical to be black and against SSM.
Your interpertation of Miller’s arguement: there is a basis for anti-SSM in the same roots of our legal system that allow imprisonment of convicted criminals.
If you have conflated his analogy with an arguement for or against SSM: that is your fault, not his.
This has become all about you.
You don’t want to debate hypocrisy in a thread about hypocrisy.
You do not want to debate hypocrisy, but responded to an arguement directly arguing hypocrisy
You have admitted you don’t want to debate the point that Miller has been arguing throughout the thread.
You have admitted you hadn’t even read the OP properly.
You have admitted that you don’t want to debate the premise of this thread or get involved in what you call “hijacks”
You admit the following:
…if your agenda is to swing votes, then I suggest you open a new thread and witness in that. You won’t swing many votes in this thread though, because with the exception of a couple of people most of the participants in this thread agree with SSM.
You consider it your job to “reframe” Miller’s point of view? Miller strongly supports SSM and has argued strongly for it in many threads across the SDMB. For example:
Miller is absolutely in support of SSM: so attempting to reframe or change **Miller’s **point of view will not work.
The other thread that you started? Of course it will go the way you wanted it to, because you set the agenda because you were the OP. You weren’t the OP in this thread, yet you changed the agenda and you are the one accusing everyone else of hijacking the thread.
If you don’t want to debate then Great Debates in the wrong forum for you. You won’t change any minds bacause the majority of people in this thread agree with you. You have some of the smartest brains on this board representing all sides of the debate telling you that you have not read **Miller’s **post correctly and that you do not understand his point. At some stage you need to think to yourself: are all these other people “just not getting it”, or is it you?
You know, you’ve got me on this one. I honestly can’t imagine how you think those are rational interpretations of what she said, so I’m genuinely at a loss on how to explain to you that you’re wrong. Your thought process is so fundamentally flawed that I can’t even begin to diagnose where you’ve gone off the rails.
[quote]
How anbout you stop worrying about what I think and simpy share what you think.
Once again, you assert I am wrong, and when I ask fo a simple clear concise alternative explanation, you insult me and turn tail and run.
Great, good job dude.
Are you even out of High School yet?
don’t get me wrong, we need HS kids in the campaign, and god knows jalf of them at least will be old enough to vote next time, so you are welcome but please, at least be honest - wouldn’t you rather be on 4Chan or something like that instead of here?
I didn;t pull it out my ass - YWTF found it by herself, why can’t you?
Look, my broader point to you is that your bigger argument is weakened by the “rights/minorities” bit, it doesn’t make sense and is not necessary. I wonder why you cling to it - you say it is persuasive, but I don’t even see it as coherent. I have explained repeated as to why, and you dismiss that learing about the reasons in history I cite even matters. Tjat jsut makes you foolish. Go look it up and stop dismissing me out of hand and I bet you will end up with a BETTER more persuasive argument if that is what you really mean to have.
But you are too big for learning - that would admit you would have to read something that was not on an internet thread and figure out what it was trying to say independent of being able to have a back and forth debate. And that is not your style, I can see that, it is sooo irrelevant :)…
and i keep telling you I am not saying you are. We AGREE ion that , can;t you think of something else to say
Allow me to pint you back up to the post somewhere where you said you support SSM.
Yeah I amde up my description so much of what you said. Let me quote YWTF: “He said it”. Take it up with her if you want to stop arguing with me. You brought up 3rd parties, if you want to persuade her you didn’t say it, you are on your own. Until then, you said it dude, I made up nothing.
It is not simple, only simpleminded.
I am very interested in the underlying topic of the cultural reasons blacks are (statistically at elast) voting against SSM. That the thread title ascribes a judgmental word like hypocrisy to it is unfortunate IMHO, but it doesn’t change my interest in the uncerlying topic of black culture and SSM.
Or did you think this was a thread about hypocrisy?
OK, read carefully AGAIN please:
I am not ascribing an argument to you you didn’t make, I have hardly mentioned the entirety of the one you did make.
I am asking you about one step of the argument you made, jsut one step. Like in high school, the teacher in math class said “show your work please” to see if you understood what you were claiming, or jsut making a lucky guess at a number? Think of it like that kinda - looking for a little more detail on one aspect of the argument, an aspect you most certainly did write totally unprompted by me - I don’t recall, but I think I was just lurking at that point.
if you call “asking what was in your head whenyou chose to make what appear to me to bean unnecessary claim in support of you argument” “arguing”, well yes then. But it only goes on because you have not been able to admit I have asked questions you deem worth answering - they are all “irrelevant” or stupid or whatever toyou, so you rant each time instead of simply saying “hey, let me help you understand”. It is not as though when you do deign try to answer, you actually restate my question to the best of your ability, that would demonstrate at least an attempt at basic listening skills as a answerer, but you don’t. You just insult me for having asked you.
And you wonder why that behavior doesn’t seem helpful?
What strawman woudl that be? You keep making accusations, but you never have details. I tis that wrtiing habit that got this started inthe firwst place. I know your brain works fine, I know there is a reason you chose the example you did, maybe you really do believe what you said that minority rights are subject to majority approval such as for criminals and balck or gays or whatever. But when I asked you a while back if that would apply to Jews too, you never really answered did you?
I want to understand and clarify what you said. Where it leads, I guess I don’t at know at this point. Are you really taking the stance that A - the Magna Carta is irrelevant to the reason minorities have rights at all, B- that “criminals” are a minoritie in some legal sense when it comes to their rights? and C- that the source of the rights of minorities can and does ultimately come from different places, but what is important is not that we understand those places, but that tehy come at all?
Is that a fair restatement of your position?
Because if it is, it is in fact hard for me to reconcile how, under that regime, the majority would grant rights to any minorities only as it suited them, and they would be subject to continuous change with the political winds.
Which is then not that far from what was argued byt pro-porp 8 campaign, successfully I might add, before the California Supreme Court, who ruled to allow the amendment to stand.
So I know you said you are not, in this thread, arguing for SSM, but I wonder if you realize, if my restatement is close to what you are thinking, how close you are to stating teh opposition’s case in CA in that regard too?
I think they might have another wet dream thinking about you
It is not delusional - it is a fair conclusion from what I understand of your argument. I try to restate it in my own words, and seek out if I understand it or not, and you insult me instead of answering if I get you or not.
Here is a simple question for you - what is your favorite non-fiction book and why?
I am curious what reading level you have when you read for your own interests is why I ask. Because while I think you are sincere, I think maybe complex reasoning is not your forte’. I wonder what the right level is.
But you will just insult me for trying to find a way to explain concepts at the best level for you even after I recognize I am failing by treating you with the same level as I do others in many other threads.
Are you even trying to comprehend?
I said the juxtaposition of the source of rights, that is what I have never seen before. Can any gay person over the age of 14 not have heard associations with criminals, child molestors, and other slurs and so on? Be real. What was unique to me was the aspect (ASPECT, calm down!) of your argument at the beginnig of theis, the part that YWTF found I remembered accurately, where you talked about the STATUS of the rights of minorities (be they blacks or criminals, whatever, doesn’t really matter for this point) and gays. That was news to me.
It read to me like you were asserting (calm down as part of a larger argument, I know) “since criminals have restricted rights, although the reasons why don’t matter, SSM can be restricted too”.
While I find that absurd to state at all as I think you get by now, I do wonder wht you said it and what cites you have.
I think I have learned from you that you may have heard it from someone else once, but I also am not sure you didn’t make it up (perhaps secretly hoping to be unchallenged, which is never a wise bet on sdmb). Or maybe some of both combined.
That seems to be your position about right
Seriously delusional.
What were your qualifications again fro diagnosing mental health? Remember, that was something I asked, since you seem to be so quick to judge…
Oh yeah, your silence is your answer. But congratulations on spitting out a 4 syllable word!
No, I asked a very simple “question” and you ahve not been able to answer it.
I agree it has gone on too long though. If you couldn’t answer all day, you won’t be able to tonight either. I will have to live with what I got.
And btw, you keep saying I invented an argument, but yet you never quote it or even summarize it so anyone else can concur and I can see what you are referring to. Who is making shit up?
nah, I;ll hang back for a while and see if you pop up in other threads and how you do. I will see if you handle when people use sentences with many commas and complex arguments. I won;t get a deep answer from you here, that is my fault - I entirely misjudged you from the earlier posts I saw while lurking. I will try to refine my “lurk-o-meter” to prevent this from happeing again.
Can I give you an honest tip though, and others might agree if they know the poster I am about to mention.
If you don’t like me, be sure not to run afoul of FinnAgain, particularly on matters relating to Israel.
Just a tip in friendship since we haven’t met here before.
Pretty much everything but all that when you respond to me. But it is the way you are I guess, you did your best and I gotta respect that. Me, liek I said, I could have done better, I will be humble and re-tune, but you, I am sure in your mind you exceeded all expectations you have for yourself, so good on you for that!
Again, you assert without explaining.
So now you seem to be saying that “If I understood the whole argument that is built on the understanding of the parts, then the parts will be understood”.
OK, I guess wrapping it up with you presenting me a Zen Koan (look it up) is as good as any way to leave it.
Thanks for playing. Go back to your discussion of hypocrisy, I got the best out of you I am going to get and I will just live with incomplete info for now.
