So… you don’t want help from the government, except in the form of them imposing a pretty significant inconvenience on “greasy city dwellers” for your benefit. Okey dokey.
Sorry for everyone affected by the flood. Except Debaser, who should go take a drink of his backyard.
I don’t expect you to agree with him or I. Sadly, I have come to expect you to hurl insults at me no matter what I say.
Like I said, I don’t expect everybody to agree about everything here on the SDMB. It is frustrationg though, the way that some posters seem to be completely insulated from opposing viewpoints.
Most people in this country are opposed to gay marriage. Do you consider them all to be morons?
I have yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that was not moronic. They may be bright, intelligent and articulate on every other subject, but on gay marriage they are all morons.
I’m sorry, but this is a vile misrepresentation. People had been flooded out of their homes, with virtually no resources. when many tried to leave for higher, dryer ground they were forced back. Many were told to gather at the Convention Center and the Dome, and with old or ailing family members, were unable to travel.
Comparing these people to, say, the wel-outfitted bioat owners who evacuated Dunkirk is absurd. Especially when the ones who most resembled those Dunkirk evacuators – private individuals and groups like Wal-Mart, who tried to bring in water and supplies, were turned back by the government.
What do you mean “insulated”? I’m perfectly well aware of these “opposing viewpoints.” I simply disagree with and reject them.
One gets the feeling that, despite your protestations, you really do expect everyone to agree with you. This is the only inference i can draw from the fact that, when someone disagrees with you like i have done, i am accused of being insulated from opposing viewpoints, as if i would somehow see the light if only i would recognize the arguments of those who disagree with me.
Actually, morons is probably the wrong word. There are plenty of people who oppose gay marriage for very intelligent and cunning reasons related to their own petty hatred and vindictiveness, or their desire to appeal to the hatred and vindictiveness of their constituents.
I understand that some people don’t want this issue settled at the federal level, or in the courts, and argue that it should be decided at state level by elected representative and the citizens. Those sorts of legalistic arguments, even if i don’t agree with them, at least have the virtue of some coherence and foundation.
But any individual who, when given the chance in an election or a ballot measure, votes specifically to deny gays the same rights that straight people have, simply exists in a different moral universe than me. I really, truly can see no reason other than hateful and petty vindictiveness behind such a decision. They can trot out all the “sanctity of marriage” bullshit that they want, but it’s just a cover for bigotry. And i’m not going to change my opinion on that just because those bigots happen to be in the majority.
So the people who disagree with you guys are all either morons or simply evil. Yet, you want me to explain to you how you insulate yourself from opposing viewpoints? 
But i don’t. I’ve listened to those viewpoints, and tried to engage honestly with them, and every single time the debate comes up i can see no sustainable logical or intellectual position behind the opposition to gay marraige. Every single time, the arguments offered in defence of that position seem to boil down to little more than, “I don’t like what you do, so i’m going to do everything in my power to stop you doing it.”
You might disagree with my assessment, but your constant portrayal of me as someone who doesn’t know about, listen to, or engage with opposing points of view is simply wrong.
It’s good to see you back, Debaser. As you can see, nothing has changed.
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, the OP lost me too, with the comment about New Orleans. A flood is serious business, true. Now add in 100 plus MPH winds (category 5 storm), storm surge, rotting bodies, no real evacuation plan, poor FEMA response, and a few loose cannons turning people back into the mess, or turning away trucks carryign fresh water and food. Then add various radio hacks calling all of them criminals and scum. Top it off with a generous helping of “god’s vengeance” as that one famous asshole said (implying that they all should die).
Yeah, too bad about the flood, but N.O was hit by a giant sledge hammer. It’s a lot worse than JUST too much water.
Hey! Careful how you fling that strawman, it’s been soaking in shit-saturated water for 4 days!
(And yeah, I got a chuckle out of the Pat Robertson quote, too.)
:sigh:
You don’t have any idea what a strawman is, do you?
First of all, it’s impossible for a simple question to ever be a strawman. A strawman is when you make up a weak interpretation of someone elses argument and then you argue against it.
Simply asking someone a question can never be a “stawman argument” no matter how absurd the question is because there is no argument being made!
Besides all of which, my question was not out of line one bit. mhendo said “Lots of people also think the institution of marriage will come crumbling down if two guys are allowed to get married. And i can think they’re morons.”
I responded with a simply question for mhendo to clarify his/her opinion. “Most people in this country are opposed to gay marriage. Do you consider them all to be morons?”
Predictably, then mhendo backed away from his/her position. That’s what made it a good and appropriate question for me to ask.
Oh, and what Pat Robertson quote?
But that was a strawman argument, albeit a subtle one. You quietly substituted the more moderate “being opposed to gay marriage” for mhendo’s “thinking the institution of marriage will come crumbling down if two guys are allowed to get married”.
People oppose gay marriage for a variety of reasons. I personally don’t happen to agree with any of those reasons, but I don’t consider all of them to be quite as moronic as the belief that homosexual marriage will outright destroy heterosexual marriage.
It isn’t “backing away” if one has two slightly different opinions about those two somewhat different beliefs…
(And btw, I think KGS’s reference to Robertson was just in error for his fellow Pat, Buchanan.)
It was not. It was a simple question, asked in good faith. There was no “argument” at all, so it cannot have been a strawman argument. If you broaden the definition of stawman arguments to be this wide than no discussion of an opponents viewpoint at all is possible without being guilty of this logical fallacy.
Paraphrasing the viewpoint of someone else is a good way to better achieve understanding of what they are saying. At least, it is when you are doing it in good faith, which I was in this case.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.
Having been in more than my fair share of flooded homes in the past few months, I feel compelled to say that I’m sorry for your loss. Floods will fuck over a house rather quickly but leave months of work behind. Here’s to a speedy recovery.
As a New Orleanian, I also feel compelled to issue a hearty fuck you for the portion of your comments I’ve quoted above. In the aftermath of hurricane Betsy in 1965, the federal government determined that it should be in charge of flood control for the New Orleans metropolitan area. It turns out that the feds didn’t do a particularly sterling job of it:
"NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (AP) – New Orleans’ levee system was routinely underfunded and therefore inadequate to protect against hurricanes, according to an independent report released Monday.
The report also called for an overhaul of the agencies that oversee flood protection. It took aim at Congress for its piecemeal funding during the past 50 years, and at state and local levee authorities for failing to properly oversee maintenance of the levees."
Now, by all means New Orleans should shoulder its fair share of the responsibility for not doing our share of maintenance and oversight. However, given that the federal levee system was underfunded and underengineered, factors that caused systematic failure, it’s not unreasonable for people who lost their homes and livelihoods to the levee breaches to ask the federal government to give them a hand.
[curmudgeon mode]
The levees were a handout to begin with, I tells ya!
[/curmudgeon mode]
Erm, touche’, I guess.
I don’t agree with any of it, and Robertson can roast in hell for all I care.
As to the shooting, looting, crime, and overall evilness there, that you seem to be referring to, that is debunked.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050919/blumenthal
So, they turned away people who wanted to help, and funneled big money to a man I personally hate. I wish I could get a Robertson sticker for my hunting license.
Here is some vile filth that they were subjected to afterwards…
Fuck New Orleans, up with Roberts. Uh huh. Fuck Roertson.
http://datelinehollywood.com/archives/2005/09/18/pat-roberston-corrects-dateline-hollywood-article/
I “seem to remember” that these same bastards were calling the 9/11 attacks “divine justice” also.
Fuck Pat Robertson, and all the other damn vultures. A Doper should know better than to use a foul vomitous mass like Robertson as a cite for anything. You should feel embarrassed.
Uh, people on the Gulf Coast (ummmm like New Orleans ya know) are also American people.
So fuck Buchanan too.
Rush Limbaugh blamed “unchecked liberalism” for the inability to “save” New Orleans residents during Hurricane Katrina
The assole turns it into some sort of joke, and then blames it on the victims for being liberals. So fuck him.
Don’t forget too, the video that was making the rounds shortly after. Heckuva Job Brownie was directly telling the President that it was going to be bad - very bad. The President just sat there like a lump, didn’t ask any questions, didn’t say anything.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4765058.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11627394/
After, he goes to parties and strums his geetar, and tries to act like it was a total surprise. So fuck him too.
Missed this the first time through. Glad to know you’re only poking fun. Usually when I poke fun I don’t call folks “helpless buffoons” but maybe that’s because we do things differently down here.
I’m farily politically conservative, but honestly, do you really think Pat B. has any special insight about this or other issues? The man makes his livelihood linking everything bad to liberalism and everything good to conservatism. The world ain’t that black and white. Part of fighting ignorance is pushing the analysis, something that Pat doesn’t do because he doesn’t have time and because it doesn’t sell magazines or pay the bills. And because it shows that neither the left nor the right has a lock on providing peace and prosperity.
He made some valid points about some of the most henious results of the welfare situation in New Orleans, but other factors seem to have eluded him. The able bodied - - those who helped hold the social fabric of this town together - - were ordered out as part of the mandatory evacuation. Many of the most industrious weren’t there to help out. There were approximately 30 breaches to the levees that contributed to the flooding in the metropolitan area. Municipal, Parish, and and state governments were overwhelmed. Who but the federal government was left to coordinate relief?
True, civilians crossed the Channel and evacuated stranded troops from French soil in 1940 - - the stranded soldiers didn’t have to swim themselves to safety. In our case National Guard troops were manning checkpoints along the dry approaches to New Orleans and turning away volunteer civilian help whenever it arrived.
It was a sad and shameful episode in this country’s history. Perhaps on that we can agree. Best of luck with the basement.