If everyone is in agreement that this thread has run its course and has degenerated into a silly “yes, it is/no, it isn’t” argument, and wants to agree to terminate this thread without trying to get in a final dig by accusing me of running and hiding, it would be fine with me. If, on the other hand, you want it to continue I’ll be happy to continue defending my position until the last cow has come home.
Yes, please!
Nope, there is no such consensus. You are a fucking liar.
Prove me wrong, asscrack. Cough up some fucking cites.
What fucking “community” are you talking about and what the fuck does party affiliation have to do with the argument? Is it a part of your fantasy that all Democrats are in on this conspiracy to label innocent people as “homophobes?”
You heard wrong. It’s bullshit.
Cite? (and how is it relevant?)
Can you name a politician who has unfairly labelled anyone as a “homophobe?”
There is no concerted effort to unfairly label innocent people as “homophobes.”
I don’t know what this paragraph is supposed to mean. I suppose you’re trying to gibber that the news media is on the conspiracy too. I suppose your “97%” figure which you previously attributed to the “media” as a whole is now being applied to only nw journalists. It’s still bullshit and it still has nothing to do with your argument.
Why don’t you name a journalist who has partcipated in this effort.
Cite for any of this dogshit?
Get used to it, fucktard. When you post offensive garbage in the pit you’re going to get called on it. Don’t put too much stock in your email, by the way. I get them too. I’ve already been thanked more than once for smacking you down in this thread.
Oh, you’re “warning” me, are you? Look at me shake. 
You get the responses you deserve, dipshit. you’ve behaved like a child for this whole thread. Refraining from profanity is not a sign of maturity. Responding to the substance of the argment is.
Don’t worry I will.
[Whiny little bitch voice] Whaaaaaa…the smart people are calling me names in the pit. I want my mommy
[/quote]
You can run away from me if you want. It’s not going to save you any face, though.
Your OP has been debunked. You have been exposed as a moron.
You lose, fratboy. Go fuck yourself.
I’m all the way over in California, so I might miss out on the rhubarb pie. But if I bring a few pounds of celery and some red food coloring, will you make some more?
Starving Artistas the thread starter, it is traditionally your privilege to request the closing of the thread. There’s no need to take a poll. That said, I would cast my vote in favor of closing.
After all there’s pie to be eaten (Go roll our pie)
If you haven’t put that dictionary away yet, you might want to look up “continue.” See, you can’t continue to do something that you have never begun.
And while I personally have lost the heart to “debate” you, since you have no idea what a debate is, plus the whole issue of you being a complete moron, and a delusional one at that—this sentence is getting too long, but as I say, in spite of all that, if you’re asking to call it a draw and go home, then my vote is “no.”
You have provided absolutely no support for this elaborate fantasy you have constructed, and you don’t deserve to be let off the hook so easily. Although it will take more stamina and patience than I have to continue to try to bludgeon a clue into your head, if someone is still willing to try, I’m still here watching. And alternately laughing uproariously and shaking my head in bafflement.
And speaking of such a guy: As to your assesment that Mr. the Cynic is a jerk and not worth responding to…we’ll I admit that you’d undoubtedly get more support for that position than for your bizarre conspiracy theory, but I would not be one of those supporters. As I said before, just because he’s abrasive, doesn’t mean he’s wrong. And while he certainly has a bit of a hair trigger on the profanity, I agree with his analyses more often than not. And he’s definitely got your number in this one.
You are full of shit. No such “concerted effort” exists, period. Not only have you presented zero evidence for your fantasies, I don’t even believe that you know what “evidence” is.
Go ahead and request this thing be closed, if you want. It’s your right as the OP, but make no mistake: You lost.
As someone has already pointed out in this thread, social acceptance and civil rights are two different things. Ideally, social acceptance and equal civil rights go together, but they don’t always. While “The Cosby Show” might have indeed made some bigots say “You know, they’re just like us,” it wasn’t instrumental in winning civil rights protection for anyone. If “Will and Grace” makes someone somewhere think “Maybe gay people aren’t bad,” that’s great. However, I have serious doubts that person would then go on to go out of their way to support equal rights for GLBT people.
What you don’t understand (excuse me, one of the things you don’t understand) is that I have lost nothing! I haven’t been defeated, I haven’t had my ass kicked, and there is no hook for me to be let off of. I started this thread in the hope of engendering a discussion on the relative merits of the use of “homophobe” as it is commonly used. You and your cronies almost immediately began to attack me, with some calling me a homophobe themselves. My offense? Apparently just asking the question in the first place. This is the reason why my OP appears misleading. At the time I posted it I was expecting…no, hoping for…an honest debate on the merits of the term. As your attacks proceeded, with demands for “cites,” and proof of this and evidence of that, my responses became stronger as a result, and so here we are. It was never my intent to get into a fight over whether or not I could convince you of my beliefs on the subject, but rather to steer the discussion back into the merits of whether or not the word should be used in the way it is. Each time I tried I was met with more vitriol. I even went out of my way to try to explain myself in a polite and reasonable manner whenever I was attacked or insulted. Then I was critisized for being polite! As I was advised by a poster in the anal sex thread, it appears that in trying to discuss any aspect of homosexuality these days with homosexuals, one must just take three deep breaths and repeat the mantra: “You’re right.” You’re right." “You’re right.” He certainly was right!
Now that things are winding down, I’ll get down in the muck with you. Personally, I don’t give a flying fuck what you think! I couldn’t care less whether any of you agree with my points or not. The majority of my posts were intended for the lurkers who come to look but not post, once again the hope that an honest appraisal of homophobe would result. Occaisionally, someone would post who actually had the capacity to grasp my meaning. These people were either lambasted as well, or simply ignored.
So you see, shithead, I can’t lose a battle I was never in. My posts consisted of argueing my point of view vs. yours. We were both right because we both said what we think is true. You didn’t convince me; I didn’t convince you. Neither of us lost. Big deal!
It seems to have been an error on my part to bring this to the pit, but I understood this to be the place to come if rough language is to enter into the discussion and I felt the chances were good that the discussion I had in mind would prompt some vulgar language. I’ve been advised since then that if I had gone to Great Debates I would have been more likely to have the type of discussion I originally had in mind, and that the distraction of vulgar name-calling wouldn’t have been tolerated. My bad.
To those of you who think I’m defeated, crushed, conquered and left without a leg to stand on, you’ll be disappointed to learn that it’s been quite a while since I’ve had so much fun. I’ve been buzzing around the last few days like I was on a major caffeine high and usually with a big smile on my face. Everyone around here wants to know why I’m in such a great mood all of a sudden. It’s because I love a stimulating battle, and once people show themselves to be assholes, such as you did after your original couple of posts when you were only *pretending * to be civil, I love it even more.
Your condemnation, insults, and denials seem to carry a hell of a lot of weight with you. I, on the other hand, could give a shit!
So yes, I’ll request this thread be closed, and I’ll thank the merry band of shitheads and assholes listed a couple of posts ago for a rollicking good time.
Hey, Starvy, before you go scuttling off into the abyss from whence you emerged, you might want to consider one thing…
You’re a moron.
Delusional to the last. No surprise there.
Well, for what it’s worth, it’s been fun for me too. I haven’t participated in a good train wreck like this in quite a while.
Later, freakazoid.
Yeah, don’t worry about it, no one ever asks for cites in GD.
Actually, if this thread had been started there, I think it would have been either moved to the pit in like 5 minutes or simply ignored since hardly anyone understands what’s being addressed in the OP.
OK, I’m going to be charitable and assume Starving Artist has a certain amount of naivete about this board. After all, he or she only registered a month ago.
The way this board works is, if you make an assertion, it is incumbent upon you to prove it true, rather than being incumbent upon others to prove it false. I’m sure it works differently in other environments, but we’re not in one of them. To give you an analogy, slurping my tea might have been perfectly polite and acceptable while studying in Japan, but it will still get me in trouble and be rude if I do it while visiting my grandmother in England.
I’m afraid that you have lost something here. It may be something which matters as little to you as the fabulous opportunity for a low-interest loan I missed when I hung up on a phone solicitor, but nonetheless, you have lost something, namely a certain amount of credibility and repute. How much, and how much that loss matters to you, is up to you. If I lost a thousand dollars, I’d be very worried; if Bill Gates lost a thousand dollars, I’m not entirely sure he’d notice.
Oh, and if there’s any Boston creme pie left, I’ll have a slice!
Respectfully,
CJ
Least of all the guy who posted it.
Stay down, Rocky.
:: Shakes head in resignation ::
See? I told you guys this one shouldn’t be fed. Now go wash your hands while I set the table.
Hey, no problem – I’ve got a batch of last year’s crop in the freezer, all cut up and ready to thaw and use. It’ll be a little mushier than fresh-made, but still taste just as good. I could use some more apples and walnuts, though – maybe when you come over you could bring some from the “Land of the Fruits and Nuts”? I’m reliably informed by certain folks that they’re particularly abundant in Hollywood. 
It isn’t stupid, it’s a valid point. Assume a benevolent dictator, one who would instantly bring about the full set of gay rights; indeed, one who would enact every liberal’s wet dream on social policy and who would govern as a moderate on pretty much everything else. Is that OK? Is there no downside to that?
I think most would say of course not, on grounds that they want to take an active role in shaping their society, even if that means society isn’t as “good” as it could be. There is value in self-determination.
The only difference between the dictator and the court is one of degree and time: the dictator usurps the right to self-govern both swiftly and absolutely, while the courts chip away at it in different places over a longer time horizon.
Well, I see your ego hasn’t dimmed since yesterday.
You should know better than to use this kind of tactic here. Both Bricker and I are lawyers, true, but in discussions about the law neither I nor, to the best of my knowledge, Bricker, have never suggested anything along the lines of “our position is superior, but then, we happen to hold J.D.s and the rest of you peons thus simply haven’t evolved enough to understand it” (tempting though it is sometimes). Indeed, you’ll note that Bricker and I proceed with our arguments solely on their own merits. We don’t pretend to be better simply by virtue of the law degree hanging on our walls. And neither should you.
Oh, granted. But I think the history of the United States, particularly its founding, shows that as a society we’ve put self-rule at the forefront of our what our government is about. To take away that is to undo much of the foundation of the American experiment.
“I” refers to one individual. Part of the advantage of majority rule is that it muffles the ability of any one person to impose a particular value system on an unwilling populace. If I want to impose a certain ethical norm on others, I can’t do it by fiat – I have to persuade most of my fellow humans that it’s a good idea.
So, no, it’s not a “horrible way to phrase” my view. It’s perfectly understandable to anyone who pays attention to the actual words I wrote.
So you think they are wrong, agree there is insufficient evidence for the accusation, yet still think the accusation is hunky-dory? Do you always favor a presumption of guilt?
One would think a PhD in philosophy would understand the difficulty of proving a negative, and could grasp why it is the responsibility of a person making an assertion to back up that assertion with evidence. That’s really Debate 101. Neither Bricker nor I should be obligated to defend ourselves from such accusations unless there is reasonable evidence of their validity.
Let me put this in language even someone who has written a dissertation on noncognitivist metaethics can understand: Suppose I was to say Gorsnak is a closet pedophile who harbors secret desires to fuck young children.[sup]1[/sup] See, now I’ve leveled a serious and utterly unfounded accusation at you. Reasonable people would expect me to pony up solid evidence of my assertion or condemn me for slurring your character. Only truly unreasonable people would demand that you “demonstrate me wrong yourself.”
It is to your great discredit that you refuse to do so in the instant case.
- Obviously, this is just an illustration and not an actual accusation.
My dear Dewey. You do, with some frequency, deign to instruct me on matters of law. So taking offense that I would tell you tell you flat out with an air of authority that the basis on which you make your arguments isn’t nearly as solid as you think it is, based on my own area of expertise, is a little silly. You are, of course, free to disagree with me on the matter, just as I am free to disagree with you on points of law. But whinging on about my attitude makes you something of a hypocrite.
And I am not expecting you to prove a negative. Consider it a burden of proof argument. You think that the burden is on Otto and Homebrew to provide evidence that you are a bigot, and deny that the views you hold constitute such evidence. They think that given the fact that you hold views the application of which result in their being denied equal treatment, the burden is on you to demonstrate that you are not a bigot. And since you don’t seem to spend much time venting about SCOTUS decisions perverting the intentions of the framers of the consititution vis a vis the interstate commerce clause, but rather spend most of your energy arguing that it would be horrible for gays to win a few court decisions, I can see how they might come to a different judgement than I regarding whether you’ve met that burden.
And I see you continue with your ludicrous equating of courts operating with non-strict constructionist interpretation principles and tyranny. This is just fucking bullshit, and I’m quite tired of your intellectual dishonesty in this regard. Tyranny is unprincipled. Anything the tyrant wants, goes. It’s utterly arbitrary. Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that just because someone believes that the constitution should be interpreted differently from the way in which you believe, that they therefore think it should be interpreted in a completely arbitrary fashion?
I give up. I have presented a myriad of arguments suggesting various alternate principles of interpretation, and you persist in asserting that I think the courts should just decide in the way I like, and then go hunting for rationale. This is extremely offensive, and you shall receive no replies from me until you abandon this unreasonable and insulting position.
And you wonder why I don’t leap to your defense over unwarranted accusations.
I have never said “this is the law, and you should believe me because I am a lawyer.” I have cited to legal authority and explained how the law works, but it’s never been a credential-based explanation – it has always been backed by actual legal authority. While my training may have given me the tools to effectively explain certain legal concepts to nonlawyers, I have never inisisted that my explanations be accepted because of my training.
No, it isn’t. Again, I have never suggested that others should take my posts on the law at face value solely by dint of my law degree.
It is one thing to say “I have some training in this area; consider concepts X, Y, and Z; here is how and why XYZ applies to the current situation” and quite another to say “I have training in this area, and therefore I know more about it than you, and I say you are wrong, dipshit.” The former is a valuable and productive contribution to the debate by an expert. The latter is just a raging ego looking to get off.
Enjoy stroking yourself, but don’t try to compare that with my posts about the law.
Dare I ask for a cite? Please do point out a post where I’ve suggested my credentials make my views on essentially philosophic matters more credible. Your calling me a hypocrite on this issue carries about as little credibility as Homebrew’s accusations of homophobia.
It’s funny that in your first sentence you say “I don’t expect you to prove a negative,” but by the end of this passage, you’ve essentially said that is what Homebrew expects and tacitly said that is acceptable.
Yes, it is a burden of proof argument. The burden rests on the party making the assertion. That party is Homebrew – he is asserting that Bricker and I are bigots. Ergo, the burden rests on him to back up his assertion. This is not a complicated point. That you are unwilling to acknowledge this is to your great discredit.
This is, in essence, a lie. I have in fact spent quite a bit of time in other threads discussing the commerce clause, and in discussing other aspects of constitutional jurisprudence as well. Indeed, in a recent GD thread (which I would happily link to if the hamsters would quite crapping out on me) I’ve laid out in some detail my theories on the commerce clause.
So it isn’t true that I don’t expend a lot of energy on other constitutional law questions. If Homebrew and others only participate in constitutional law threads when they deal with gay rights, that is not my problem. And it amazingly stupid of them (and you) to claim, based on their own self-selection of threads, that I am unduly occupied with one constitutional issue. Pay some fucking attention before you post this kind of gibberish.
No, and of course that wasn’t the point of my analogy. Indeed, I did not mention “tyranny” anywhere, and I specifically stipulated that the dictator would be completely benevolent. Funny that a philosophy PhD would have missed that little detail.
The point of the analogy was that self-rule is a good in and of itself, even if there is an alternative that produces better results. I’d rather live in an imperfect republic where I have some say-so in how things go than live in a perfect Garden of Eden where I am totally isolated from the decisionmaking process. And I am just as unwilling to accept the slow erosion of self-rule as I am to accept its sudden and complete eradication.
It isn’t so much that I need others to defend me as I expect others to hold the debate to the highest possible standards. You agree that the accusation is unwarranted, yet refuse to condemn the poster making that accusation. One would hope that you would condemn that kind of conduct regardless of who the target of the accusation happened to be.
I’ve given the reasons I think you are biggoted. You may not agree with my conclusion; but it’s a lie to say I haven’t told you how I reached that opinion.
And for you to claim that you are not condescending towards non-lawyers is laughable. More to the point you’re condescending towards anyone who is not a believer in original intent, including towards Justice Kennedy. You arrogance knows no bounds.
And again, the “evidence” you have proffered simply does not support your assertion. It’s like claiming someone is pro-pedophile and pointing to his belief that an accused pedophile should have counsel available for his defense as evidence of that claim.
The burden of proving your assertion rests with you. You have not come remotely close to meeting that burden. This is not a mere opinion. Nothing you have proffered could possibly be intepreted as homophobic by anyone with a scintilla of intelligence. You deserve every bit of scorn I can heap on you for casting out the “bigot” label when it is not warranted in any way, shape or form.
If it’s so laughable, then you should have no trouble citing to an instance where I condencended to someone simply because they did not have a law degree. I utterly defy you to find an instance of that kind of behavior on my part.
I may be short with people when they raise a clearly fallacious argument, but I do not bludgeon people with my J.D.
This is decidedly false. I have had several debates on these boards with non-strict constructionists, like minty green and Polycarp (the latter, BTW, is not a lawyer), and those discussions are marked with solid argumentation and respectful dissent. Your assertion is simply false.
I may be condecending to you, but only because you offer shallow arguments and, when called on them, start tossing out the “bigot” label. You are a demagogue, and you deserve all the condecension thrown your way.
Okay, I take it back. I will respond once more, if only because the whole “proving a negative” thing is one of my pet peeves.
Well, considering how nothing I said approaches your charicature of it…
Basically, I just said that my education on the subject made me less certain about my conclusions. I didn’t even say that your conclusions were wrong, much less call you a dipshit. Not that you aren’t one, frequently enough, but that’s another matter. I suppose I did imply by my tone that anyone well versed in metaethics would be less certain, which is admittedly not the case, but I don’t think it’s any more out of line for me to indicate that you don’t fully understand the shakiness of the ultimate justification for your moral views than it is for you to indicate that I don’t fully appreciate the consequences of endorsing substantive due process precedents, which you have certainly done.
What’s funny is that a trained lawyer doesn’t understand what “proving a negative” means. Helpful link The difficulty you have in demonstrating that you are not a bigot derives from the “problem of other minds,” and not from the fact that you are being asked to demonstrate something’s non-existence. The problem of other minds is simply the result of the fact that we each have privileged epistemic access to our own minds (Note: some hardcore logical positivists dispute that we do), but not to anyone else’s. In classic form, it’s usually stated by asking how we can know that other people have minds like our own. In this particular case, however, the question is not whether you have a mind, but what is in it. And from a strictly theoretical point of view, there is no greater barrier to proving you are not a bigot than there is to proving, say, that you hate swimming, or that you prefer omelettes to scrambled eggs. That any evidence on these points will not be completely conclusive is irrelevant. The evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow isn’t completely conclusive either.
:sigh:
From Merriam Webster:
Tyranny
2 a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state b : the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant.
Yes, the first definition explicitly makes the tyranny non-benevolent. But I should have thought that the context in which I used the word made clear I was using the classical definition I cite here.
Well, that’s nice. I rather agree. However, you and I mean different things by self-rule, as we’ve discussed before. In essence, you apparently see minorities imposing on majorities as a greater threat to self-rule, whereas I see majorities imposing on minorities as the greater threat. And you seem to equate self-rule with majority rule, whereas I equate it with individual autonomy. All well and good. In any event, you have yet to show that my views on jurisprudence are unprincipled, or that they are in any way conducive to the growth of tyranny. Adopting my view of the constitution doesn’t make the courts more powerful, it just makes the legislatures less powerful. Any increase in power goes to individuals. Which I would have thought would be amenable to you, given that you profess to be wary of centralized power, but apparently not.
Yes, well, you continue to inaccurately accuse me of holding insulting positions. Note, just for example, your distortion of my initial comment referring to my education. Or that I want the courts to rule according to my individual moral compass, and go fishing for justification afterwards. Are you planning on stopping that practice? And anyways, just because I reach one conclusion based on the evidence I do see (Which does, by the way, include your comments in other threads on non-gay issues - I just don’t see anything like the same level of emotional attachment to those. Perhaps I am wrong in that regard.) doesn’t mean I have to rail against other people who reach an alternate conclusion. I have publicly disagreed with them. What more do you want?
I admit much of my conclusion was drawn from your tone, which certainly appeared to me to be an attempt to claim greater credibility by dint of your degree. And not without some justification; if I had said something like this:
…then I think it would be reasonable of you to think I’m ascribing my view greater credibility solely based on the piece of paper hanging on my wall. To the extent I was wrong in that assessment, I apologize.
Yes, yes, yes, and “begging the question” is not synonymous with “raises the question.” Sometimes I’m a little loose with the jargon. I think context makes clear what I’m talking about.
Yeah, sure. Here in the real world, outside of ivory-tower intellectual peregrinations, we (at least, our decent, intellectually-honest members) don’t affix labels like “bigot” or “racist” or “homophobe” without some kind of legitimate evidence to support that assertion. And those who do so deserve to have our scorn heaped upon them.
I cannot, as you note, prove the contents of my own mind to others. But I shouldn’t have to. Others shouldn’t make negative assertions about the contents of my mind without having some evidence to back those assertions up.
If I were to call you a closet pedophile, you would be perfectly justified in heaping scorn on me. Hopefully, given that these boards exist to foster intellectually honest debate, others would also heap that kind of scorn on me as well. And if I cited as evidence of your closet pedophila your support of the right of accused pedophiles to be provided defense counsel at trial, I would not be bettering my position.
It’s a loaded word. Even if technically appropriate, it is misleading to the casual reader to describe my hypothetical as “tyranny” given my stipulation of benevolence on the part of the dictator (now that I think about it, even “dictator” is kind of loaded; how about “philosopher-king”?). This is doubly so given your assumption of arbitrariness: I asserted a benevolent dictator, one who does not act capriciously and who acts in the best interests of the governed.
All majority rule involves the imposition of majority will on the minority, unless you require unanimity. Given that we’re all going to disagree on various aspects of how society should be run, majoritarianism makes the fewest people unhappy. And while “individual autonomy” is a nice phrase, there’s no getting around the fact that the alternative to majority rule is rule by a minority. I am unwilling to ceded decisionmaking power to the courts (outside of specific constitutional grants of authority) on the “good” things because that implicitly gives them the power to contravene the majority on “bad” things down the road.
N.B.: I am not claiming your view is morally unprincipled; only that it is not consonant with the constitution itself nor with our particular form of government. Even if I cede that your distinctions are morally valid, the question must be asked: upon what authority is that a distinction the courts are allowed to make?
Au contraire, it does make the courts more powerful. It cedes to them power they did not previously possess. And it’s happened before. Consider what happened to the Kansas City School District as part of an ongoing desegregation case: the federal district court took control of the district, ordering property tax increases and directing spending on the schools themselves. The position that these sorts of decisions don’t increase the power of the courts is both remarkably shortsighted and ill-informed on the history of similar cases.
Are you then saying that Homebrew’s accusation of bigotry is based on reasonable evidence? Do you really consider Homebrew’s position to be defensible? While you’re at it, do you think the position “OJ did not kill his wife” a reasonable position to hold?