In all of my time here, I cannot think of a post so filled with enlightening specifics. Truly, I am blessed to be a member of a board with such master debaters. :rolleyes:
My post was directed at Poly, who should know better, given the history of our discussions. Furthermore, I would have assumed that my meaning was clear to anyone with a working layman’s knowledge of American constitutional jurisprudence.
But since you want specifics: I am a lawyer as well, and like Bricker, I’ve used the “judicial activism” label, and have described certain judicial opinions as judicial legislation. And like Bricker, when I use it I’m not spouting a platitude, nor am I, as another poster puts it, using the term to mean “a decision I just don’t like.” I’ve cited to opinions I’ve agreed with on policy grounds, but with which I disagree as a matter of constitutional interpretation (see, e.g., Lochner).
For that reason, it is not “singularly disingenuous” for someone with a law degree to use those phrases. Indeed, it is quite credulous – we’ve studied the matter in a rigorous way. We don’t use those phrases casually. We use them because they’re accurate.
And Poly knows this, and he should know better.
That’s the only part he half-assedly pointed out to me, after several posts doing no more than insisting to me that he’d made his position clear.
You really are as childish as he is, aren’t you? :wally
How about this one?
Thanks! It took me five years of involvement in radical politics (including getting arrested with Earth First! and getting a trip to the emergency room from another direct action) before I formulated the analogy, and another couple of years of radical politics (including organizing a conference of west-coast anarchists) before I fully absorbed it. I really do believe that if more activists took up chess, we’d have a better country.
Daniel
Oh, you’re right, of course - my apologies.
No, nor have I stated that every singler poster in this debate is being irrational. But many of them are, and for rather silly reasons.
Oh, I understand it, or much of it, just fine. Which is why Otto thinks as he does about my posts.
But irrationality, on either side, cannot be debated, since it does not proceed from debatable motives.
And isn’t it interesting that many are prepared to judge me as insane or a bigot, without knowing what my stand on the issue might be?
Almost as interesting as the automatic condemnation of a thoughtful and reasonable poster over a disagreement whether it can be called “marriage” or “civil union”. Maybe that doesn’t strike you as irrational. It does me.
Regards,
Shodan
Isn’t it interesting that you didn’t answer the question that Binarydrone asked?
Yes, it is.
So let me ask - do you know what my position is? Or is that not necessary in your world?
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t know about your world, but when people in this world as a question, it’s usually to find out an answer, not be deflected completely. I do not know what your position is. I can guess what your position is, but I prefer not to do that because, hey, you’re right here and you can tell me. I have to admit that through previous interactions with you, I have a prejudiced view of what your answer probably is, but since the question was asked, howzabout you tell us? Or just, you know, shut up since further deflection will just show us that you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion and prefer to obfuscate and smoke-screen.
Priceless.
First this:
Then this:
And you claim to be one of the reasonable people.
Regards,
Shodan
No. I admit that when I wrote that I wasn’t being rational. That was par for the course the last couple of days in these threads. I’ve been seriously considering staying away from SSM threads for a while because I have a lot of trouble staying civil in them.
IF you aren’t what I described, then I apologize.
So, Scylla, where are the reasonable arguments that we’re supposed to be responding reasonably to? It is possible for someone to say something that is unreasonable, but word it politely. Are we only allowed to respond negatively to the ones who are pointing at us and yelling “burn in hell, faggot!” and laughing at us when they see two guys kissing? Are we not allowed to respond to those who say the same things – homosexuality is wrong, homosexuals are promiscuous, the idea that your relationship is as valid as a heterosexual one is simply absurd – as long as they word it politely?
What about this post from Shodan?
Am I being unreasonable" and "hurting my cause for pointing out that Shodan’s true colors come through vividly in posts like this? That, as with every other attempt to “nice up” the argument with discussions about basic moral philosophy and states rights and constitutional law and the institution of marriage and civil rights, people’s true objections to same sex marriage come through loud and clear? That a lot of people think that homosexuals are all flighty, capricious, horny, and promiscuous, who make up some fanciful idea about what it is they think they want in a desperate ploy to validate themselves and “force” people to accept their “lifestyle choice?”
Because I would hate to offend.
Hey, Shodan: I’m pretty sure I’ve never called you a bigot or a homophobe. So if I ask you what your stance on SSM is, will you give me an answer?
Well well well. How would you, in your great wisdom classify me? I’ve been with the same person for over 20 years. We just don’t have the little things like ummm, an ironclad way to make sure he gets my money, house, insurance, survivor benefits or any other damn thing when I kick off. How many straight guys find Mrs Right every time they get plastered at the bar? How many straight guys will fuck anything in a skirt (or even a boy) while the wife and kids sit at home (Sorry honey, had to work late again)? How many rack up the divorces like baseball trading cards? How many marry for money? How many marry a trophy wife? How many beat their wife and kids? Face it. Marriage as we know it, is already a travesty. We don’t have to fuck up marriage, it’s alrady been done. To cut to the chase, I just wanted to say, you are wrong on all levels.
The problem with your analogy is that public debate is not a chess game. A chess game has a clealry defined set of rules and a definite goal, neither of which can be altered. But in public debate the rules and goals are much vaguer and subject to change. And emotion and passion can be effective methods for advancing a position.
Wow! And in the Pit - impressive and very classy.
If you are seriously interested in my position on SSM, I am a little busy at work right now, but I can try to steal some time later to explain to you (and Miller) if this thread isn’t too long already.
Anyway, well done.
Regards,
Shodan
The flaw in the analogy is that you’re looking at it wrong. 
Emotion and passion are analogous to chess pieces. You can use 'em well, or you can use 'em poorly.
As an activist, you have got to think strategically and tactically. You have got to think long-term and short-term. You have got to remember that your opponents are very intelligent people who will be trying to make you lose. They will be trying to make you look bad; they will be trying to sway the court of public opinion against you; they will be trying to defeat you in court.
You do not want to play their game for them. Being right isn’t enough to gain you victory; you also gotta be savvy.
Daniel
Shodan, I am still waiting for a direct answer to my reasonable question. Where do you stand on this issue?
You people? Who is “you people”? Is that the same or different than “the usual suspects”? How does the “SDMB liberal hive mind” fit in?
Seriously, do you actually have opinions on things? Or do you just like cruising around, looking for threads in which some percentage of the left-leaning posters have (whatever the justification) been in any way unreasonable or insulting, and then pop in with your paternalistic little platitudes and your paranoid rantings about the groupthink of the SDMB left, all the while carefully avoiding actually responding to any reasonable challenge to your claims or methods?
Oh, and Bricker: I’m still eagerly awaiting a response to my post #87 in this thread, way the hell back on page 2.
And I’d still like a reply to my query about “marriage” as casual terminology. I’ve only seen Left’s reply.
To reiterate: For those opposed to “marriage” for same-sex couples but in favor of civil unions, will you object if those civil unions are referred to, in common parlance, as marriages? If the couples are said to be married?
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point. In your first post (on this subject) you seem to be saying that a debate is like chess - it should be fought rationally. In your most recent, you’re saying that passion and emotions can be useful tools in a debate. If your point is that you should learn to control your emotions and use them only when they are useful, I’d concede your point.
But to use your own analogy, it’s not true that shouting, “THOSE ORPHAN KIDS DESERVE TEDDY BEARS!” is necessarily a bad tactic. In chess the goal is to checkmate the king; no shouting will achieve that goal. But in a debate, the goal is to influence the listeners; and declaring your motives may influence them. Even if they have no opinion about your motives, they may be influenced by the passion with which you hold them. It’s very common in a debate for the decision to be made based on motives or emotions rather than the objective facts being presented.