President of State Senate sides with clerk.
Excellent. Let’s pass a law that says she can ignore the Constitution. What could possibly go wrong?
How does it affect everyone?
Are you really this stupid or pretending?
Explain it. Use small words, if you have to. How does this affect you, let alone everyone?
Sunset towns didn’t affect me. Would I be wrong in being against them?
Don’t bother to explain. D’Anconia is too stupid to comprehend even the most basic of explanations.
D’Anconia, could you answer my questions, please? They were not rhetorical.
Will you admit that you were wrong about the residency of the couples who were trying to get marriage licenses?
No, because your questions are poisoning the well.
The “rest of humanity” does not agree on what you consider to be a “grave defect.”
I was listening to a right-wing hate-radio Bible-station broadcast, and even they were distancing themselves from Kim Davis!
They began by saying, “You have to obey the law. You took an oath to uphold the law. You have to do that.” They said that they’d like there to be an exception for personal conscience, but there isn’t one.
They also said that people ought to take a look at themselves before making themselves into a big public spectacle. Kim Davis is a bad “poster child” for Religious Conscience, because of her serial adultery (as Jesus defined the term.)
(The hate-radio host also noted she’s physically unattractive and speaks poorly. But that brand of Christian is, apparently, a respecter of persons.)
The first question, whether you care about anything not directly affecting you personally and why, is not poisoning the well. It is directly relevant to your questioning of whether anyone in the thread is affected by the case in Kentucky. If you do care, it directly undermines your argument. It’s true that if you admit that you don’t care about anyone but yourself, people will think less of you (to the extent that’s possible) and dismiss your opinions, but since it was already implied by your own statements, it’s hardly well-poisoning to ask if you really mean it.
Which brings us to the second question. Your response, if sincere, indicates that you do not, in fact, realize that you possess a moral sense radically at odds with that possessed by the overwhelming majority of human beings. You can dismiss it as weakness or irrationality out sentimentality, or whatever, but the fact is that nearly every human being regards concern for others as the bedrock foundation of morality. If you honestly dissent from that view, there likely can be no productive discussion of morality between us. Your view is indicative of (though not diagnostic of) sociopathy, which all non-sociopathic people regard as monstrous.
You were wrong about this. Correct?
He’s a selfish, bigoted asshole so you are wasting your time engaging him on any topic. He either can’t or won’t read the thread and ignores any fact cited that shows how full of shit he actually is. Like all liars he has no cites to back up the BS he spews. He has nothing to offer of substance or import just like any troll.
What’s weird is how many threads he’s in asking why it matters that we’re discussing something. It’s like he cares about us. He doesn’t want to see us wasting our time.
Now if that’s not insulting, I don’t know what is.
I don’t give it a lot of weight. I agree with you that the best thing she can do is to resign. But letting people not enforce or implement laws or conditions that come up after they started their job opens a big can of worms. Kind of like a soldier who signed up in peace time objecting to being sent to a war, saying I thought you were just doing a hypothetical with that killing stuff.
Well, see, that’s what I thought at first, but it appears we have been wrong, and that we have stumbled onto something far more interesting and disturbing: essentially, a self-proclaimed sociopath. (It won’t surprise me if he rejects my use of that term, but that’s the upshot of what he seems to be claiming, that no one should be concerned with the welfare of strangers.)
I’ve met a few sociopaths before, and I’ve met a few people who try to present themselves that way to intimidate people, but I don’t think I’ve met anyone who genuinely recognized their own sociopathy. He’s not quite there, but he seems to be close. I’ve long wondered whether sociopaths can recognize their own pathology, and how they perceive it.
Yes, your mention of Ayn Rand above was one of my first clues that I might be dealing with a sociopath rather than a mere troll. (Though of course many objectivists, like Rand herself, are both.) But don’t most Randians at least pretend to justify their selfishness by claiming that it’s what is best for society? The message I hear from them isn’t just “Fuck you, I’ve got mine!” but “Fuck you, I’ve got mine, and why aren’t you thanking me for making the world a better place, you parasitic scum?”
But I don’t see D’Anconia sneering that the queers are morally better off for being made to suffer, but rather questioning (apparently with claimed sincerity) why on earth anyone would care if other people are better off. Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought most Randians at least understood that they are assholes and tried to pretend not to be.
ETA: technically, I suppose Rand was probably suffering (or rather making others suffer) from Narcissistic Personality Disorder rather than sociopathy per se, but why quibble?
In the interest in slaying ignorance (as well as the dishonesty of Rational Wiki), Rand’s philosophy champions enlightened self interest.
It also champions reason, hard work, and the value of the individual.
Don’t mention it. Happy to help.
I get your point, but the comparison you offer is woefully lopsided. SSM is not part and parcel to her job duties the way killing is part and parcel to the military. Hell, she’d been involved with the office for 26 years and there was zero necessity for the clerk to issue any SS marriage licenses. Sure, there was a possibility that it would be coming when she was sworn in, but if SCOTUS had ruled otherwise this summer she wouldn’t have had a problem.