Vilification is over the top

[Q Classic]

Compromise is not always a good solution. You could compromise by only putting one wing on an airplane, but then it won't work. There are good compromises, and there are bad ones.

the problem with this analogy is that unlike aeronautics, which follows some pretty defined laws of physics, the fields of morality and politics have far fewer rigidly defined laws. you can't argue with the laws of physics; therefore, you can't compromise with them. you can argue over common morality. therefore you can compromise with them.

[Q Classic]

I was gonna write "dead armadillos."

far more descriptive. you think i'm a conservative nut, mrfun thinks i'm liberal, ned thinks i'm a left-wing nutjob...

[chequita guevara]

It was a cheap shot, okay. See my SNARL thread.

My real objection to compromise isn't so much actual compromises, but surrenders which are called compromises. When one side wages a take-no-prisoners approach, compromise is not possible. No matter how much the other side gives, it's not enough of a compromise.

The level of vitriol the right has poured into politics in this country has made compromise impossible. Only two options exist for those not on the right, fight or surrender. Some of us say fight. Some say "compromise," but when they say compromise, they are effectively saying, surrender, because the other side refuses to compromise.

In real terms, compromise by moderates and liberals has led to a steady rightward drift in the U.S. real moderate compromise should have kepts us in the middle.

By today's standards, Nixon's presidency is quite liberal (leaving aside the attempt to subvert justice and his crimes against humanity in South East Asia). Think about that.

If you were real moderates, you'd try and get the pendulum to swing more than one way.

[Q Classic]

My real objection to compromise isn't so much actual compromises, but surrenders which are called compromises. When one side wages a take-no-prisoners approach, compromise is not possible. No matter how much the other side gives, it's not enough of a compromise.

agreed.

The level of vitriol the right has poured into politics in this country has made compromise impossible.

also agreed.

Some of us say fight. Some say "compromise," but when they say compromise, they are effectively saying, surrender, because the other side refuses to compromise.

In real terms, compromise by moderates and liberals has led to a steady rightward drift in the U.S. real moderate compromise should have kepts us in the middle.

and i say to you, if you're expecting democrats to be moderate, you're looking in the wrong place. they're politicians; they have no spines.
obviously, i wouldn't be arguing with you like this if i were one of those moderates who just roll over. nor would i be arguing with ned more often than not. so i don't like race-based affirmative action. does that make me conservative? yes, if you ignore the fact that i support economic-based affirmative action. do i support abortion? no. does that make me conservative, or a pushover moderate? yes, if you ignore the fact that i do not believe that you can legislate against it, thus allowing for abortions to occur.

being a moderate does not necessarily mean you're a pushover. being a moderate means you have to stand your ground, and tell loony liberals like you that you're wrong on a lot of things, and then turning around and telling crackpot conservatives that they're wrong on a lot of things.

you liberals and conservatives have it easy. you know one supportive side is always at your back. we moderates are beset on both sides.

By today's standards, Nixon's presidency is quite liberal (leaving aside the attempt to subvert justice and his crimes against humanity in South East Asia). Think about that.

of course it was. the war was started under a liberal administration. unfortunately, it also appears that it was the conservatives who kept it going while the liberals were against it. liberalism and conservatism in foreign politics therefore appears to be largely disconnected with liberalism and conservatism in domestic politics.
liberating iraq isn't a traditional conservative view.

If you were real moderates, you'd try and get the pendulum to swing more than one way.

go back and read plenty of my posts. i have nothing to hide in my political views. you'll see that i am swinging both ways.

[MrFun]

First off, don't show your ignorance by comparing alcoholics with homosexuals.




Secondly, as Boris pointed out, homosexuals among themselves disagree to what extent this thread's topic is an important issue.

I myself argue that the different religions can be left to their own sentimentalities in regards to marriage -- straight people have long since made marriage a joke, rather than something sacred, but I am still willing to let religious leaders delude themselves into thinking marriage is still something sacred today.

So, since we need to leave marriage as it is with the different religions, I argue that secular civil unions among non-heterosexuals are entitled to legal recognition by their respective government.

[Monk]

Fun,

First off, don't show your ignorance by comparing alcoholics with homosexuals.

You've got to make an effort to adress his point instead of just reading what you want to read. Now, I don't agree that homosexuality is a sin and I don't believe genes have much to do with homosexuality or sexuality in general, but he's right on the account that even if we assume that you're born with some particular wants and needs, that doesn't necessarily mean it's moral to carry them out in practice (or, for that matter, that it's immoral).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Monk
Fun,

First off, don't show your ignorance by comparing alcoholics with homosexuals.

You've got to make an effort to adress his point instead of just reading what you want to read. Now, I don't agree that homosexuality is a sin and I don't believe genes have much to do with homosexuality or sexuality in general, but he's right on the account that even if we assume that you're born with some particular wants and needs, that doesn't necessarily mean it's moral to carry them out in practice (or, for that matter, that it's immoral).

It's incumbent on him to prove there is a correlation. Alcoholism has an inherent negative effect. Sans religious boogedy-boo, there hasn't been any convincing argument the same is true for homosexuality. I certainly am not "addicted" to homosexuality as an alcoholic is to alcohol. I'm simply a homosexual. Considering every medical and psychiatric association says his line of reasoning is utter crap (not withstanding conspiracy theories among righties about the APA and AMA being manipulated by a then non-existant gay rights lobby), I'd say the argument lies on shaky ground.

Gays don't have to prove their worthiness to be equal--others have to show a compelling secular interest to do the opposite.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I guess we should have just held back on Civil Rights then, because the South didn't agree with it. Evil people will always stand against progress. Conservative Christians are evil people.

Anyways, as for villification, after twenty years of viperous, poisonous, slanderous, lyaing attacks by the right, when the left has finally said, "**** it all, you lying evil bastards, we aren't gonna turn the cheek anymore," NOW you want to engage in more civil discourse? **** you! You sowed the whirlwind, now reap your reward. You declared war. Now, at last, that liberals are fighting back, you've decided you don't like it. Tough ****! You started the fight, you've earned a beating.

Well, that does about some it up.

I still don't see why religious folks think they're entitled to villify gays (and yes, calling them sinners is villification), but gays can't fire back with the competing notion that these folks are bigots.

[MrFun]

Yeah -- Che and I both basically said the same thing.

[Monk]

Alcoholism has an inherent negative effect. Sans religious boogedy-boo, there hasn't been any convincing argument the same is true for homosexuality.

Yeah, I agree that if you remove Ben K's premise that God prefers we don't have sex with anybody we want to, he doesn't have much of a point. My post wasn't supposed to be a back-up of the reactionaries whose ideas I can't relate to at all. I'm all for making a society where your choice of partner is irrelevant for legal purposes. It was a matter of letting out some steam because, I was a bit annoyed that Fun seems to be seeing ghosts where they don't really exist.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Monk
Fun,

First off, don't show your ignorance by comparing alcoholics with homosexuals.

You've got to make an effort to adress his point instead of just reading what you want to read. Now, I don't agree that homosexuality is a sin and I don't believe genes have much to do with homosexuality or sexuality in general, but he's right on the account that even if we assume that you're born with some particular wants and needs, that doesn't necessarily mean it's moral to carry them out in practice (or, for that matter, that it's immoral).

And guess what? I disagree with that point!

[Monk]

So I see.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Homosexuality is a sin. Nothing you say will change this, and nothing of what our government does to endorse this will change it either.

Ben, How can it be a sin if the person is born that way? If God made the person homosexual, God cannot be wrong.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi



First off, there is no proof that homosexuals are born that way.

I assume from this that you would change your views if there was proof.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
in any case, fundies are bad, mmkay? they neither contribute meaningfully to political discourse, nor do they have a shred of intellectual integrity.

Q Cubed, who are these Christian fundies? Are you including the Catholic Church?