Nope, doesn’t work that way. Lots of things get claimed. Cites are unneeded unless the claim is disputed. I find it odd you keep clammering for a cite, but can’t bring yourself to say you think the conclusion is wrong. Why is that?
I said no such thing.
You’re not real clear on how it works in GD, are you?
You claimed it was “pretty well documentable”.
:shrugs:
As a rule of thumb, when people go from refusing to back up what they claim to denying they said it, it is clear enough to need no further attention.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m pretty clear on it. I ask you again, why is that that you’ll keep asking for a cite for something not even you will go on record disputing?
First of all, that’s very different from saying provable. Secondly, the only reference I see to my using the word documentable was to a sub-piece of the argument:
[QUOTE=me]
I think it’s pretty well documentable that up to that point, Dred Scott was frequently mentioned in pro-life circles and used as a parallel to Roe v. Wade, and it was not used in pro-choice or generally wider circles.
[/QUOTE]
Is that what you want cited? Or is this an elaborate exercise in moving goal posts all over the field?
(It’s ironic, of course, that that’s one thing that madmonk’s cite actually covered - a quote from someone active in pro-life circles saying, ‘yeah, we used Dred Scott as a parallel for Roe all the time.’)
None of that happened, of course, but it’s a shame. I was really looking forward to finally getting to the part where we could discuss the difference between claimed facts and inferred conclusions, and where requests for cites even make a modicum of sense. I’m sure it would have been educational for you.
:dubious: You do understand how dog-whistle politics works, don’t you?
Cite?:mad:
Look, you ask for a cite when the poster has said something that is doubtful- i.e. you doubt it, you disagree with it. Not just to *be *disagreeable.
I was making the point that Dred Scott was an important decision in the anti abortion movement; something that Shodan seems to be contesting.
Again, “so-and-so used a dog-whistle” is, by its nature, unciteable unless they acknowledge it afterward, like Atwater did.
How do you know that this is true? What evidence do you have to offer?
Cite, please. When I read articles by Republicans about religious freedom, they vigorously defend the religious freedom of many different groups against many types of government interference.
Indiana’s religious freedom law was designed specifically to allow businesses to deny services to gays.
They used “religious freedom” in the title. Nowhere in the law did it specifically say it was written to allow discrimination of gays. But that’s what the law was designed to do.
Why wouldn’t he be? As I recall, Bush mentioned the Dred Scott decision when asked a question about what sort of judges he would appoint to the Supreme Court.
Now if my memory of 10th grade American history is correct, the Dred Scott case was the first case where the Supreme Court had overturned a state law based on the justices’ reading of the Constitution. (And it was only the second case in which the Supreme Court had overturned any law.) Slavery was illegal in Wisconsin, until the court decided that it must be legal in certain cases. Moreover, the reasoning used to overturn state law was extremely tenuous; some might say preposterous.
By the year 2000 there had been a vast number of cases in which the court had overturned state laws based on reasoning that many people find tenuous or even preposterous. Roe vs. Wade is a well-known example, but there are plenty of other well-known examples, such as Baker vs. Carr, Flast vs. Cohen, Mapp vs. Ohio, and Missouri vs. Jenkins, just to name a few. So it is entirely possible, and indeed quite reasonable, that Bush mentioned the Dred Scott case to say that he supported judges who would not overturn state laws or institute new laws based on tenuous reasoning.
I don’t know. I’d say that those who claim that Republicans use “dog-whistle politics” in reality and that it’s not just another false Democratic attack have the burden of proof here. It’s up to them to provide convincing evidence.
If I want to know what Republicans believe, I’ll generally read stuff written by Republicans rather than their Democratic opponents, and vice versa.
So then if the law was not “specifically written” to allow discrimination against gays, then it what way was it “specifically designed” to do the same thing? A law generally consists of written text.
Indiana’s RFRA was very similar to the federal RFRA and numerous other state RFRAs, all of which received broad support from Democrats. (Indiana’s RFRA included the freedom of business owners explicitly as did several prior RFRAs; the federal law includes the same thing implicitly by not excluding business owners.) Were the Democrats trying to allow businesses to deny service to gays?
That bastard Schwarzenegger, always with the false Democratic attacks.
Do things automatically become true just because Arnold Schwarzenegger says them?
Does your brand of casuistry become convincing at some point ?
Similar laws had been passed before, yes, with various intents, but this law was specifically intended to allow discrimination of gays.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/03/31/3640801/conservatives-indiana-discrimination/
You tell me. How often did the found fathers use government to force a bakery or floral shop to bake a cake or deliver flowers when the baker or florist had an objection to doing so?
Although there was that slavery business.
Can we take this post as a formal shift in position from you, from the obviously doomed to fail “dog whistles don’t exist !”, to the more nuance albeit still utterly disingenuous “well, ok, but Religious Freedoms is totally not a dog whistle”, and from there to “the dog whistlers are right anyway !” ?
Let’s be clear here. Kobal2 and others say that:
“the freedom to discriminate against and/or bash gays” ? Because that’s pretty much what the word means now.
Now over 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and others made religious freedom a founding principle of the USA. It’s the very first freedom listed in the Bill of Rights. If a business owner is forced by the government to serve or attend an event that he or she has a religious objection to, that would obviously be a violation of the right of religious freedom clearly stated in the First Amendment. However, that is far from the only instance in which the government has attacked religious freedom, or is doing so at present. I’ve already linked to a list of recent cases in which the government was attacking the religious freedom of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Native Americans, and others. In all those cases, Religious Freedom Restoration Acts were used to defend against government.
And yet Kobal claims that “religious freedom” refers to a specific subset of a specific religion, and only deals with discrimination against gays. He’s wrong, since Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are presently being used to defend many members of many religions against many types of government intrusion, but none have ever been used in any case that involves discrimination against gays (or discrimination against anyone, as far as I know).
Under Indiana state law, it was legal for business owners to decide whether they would or wouldn’t serve at gay weddings (or straight weddings) prior to the passage of the RFRA, outside of a couple cities. It still is now. So obviously the law changed nothing, and therefore cannot have been intended solely to deal with discrimination against gays, despite what ThinkProgress says. (And I note in passing that while it has always been legal for businesses to refuse to serve at a gay wedding (or at a straight wedding) I’m unaware of any that has actually done so.)
Obviously not if you’ve read my post and intended to deal with it honestly.
Here’s my thesis: I’ve never seen any reality-based claim that any statement by any politician, left or right, was a “dog whistle”. I’ve seen many people make such a claim, but none offer evidence to back it up. For example, you made this false claim:
Did they mean “the freedom to discriminate against and/or bash gays” ? Because that’s pretty much what the word means now. “Religious freedom” in 2015 refers to a very specific subset of a very specific religion.
Now here’s the actual truth: Religious Freedom Laws have been used and are currently being used to defend many members of many religious groups against many government intrusions. Since you’ve made no attempt to logically defend your statement, and have only insulted me, your statement seems like a perfect confirmation of my thesis.
We’re talking about now. When the right is busy passing “Religious Freedom” laws in the 21st century, they are doing it to discriminate. And to send a dogwhistle about their perceived “Christian oppression.”
When Thomas Jefferson and James Madison made religious freedom a founding principle, it was to keep religion the hell out of government.