Do you support Rush Limbaugh's proposal?

[Jon Miller]

By the way, the above seems to show that if Pat could be convinced that homosexual marriage/etc would stop a lot of harm, that he would quit being against homosexual marriage.

It is generally best to consider people positively instead of negatively.

JM

[kentonio]

By the way, the above seems to show that if Pat could be convinced that homosexual marriage/etc would stop a lot of harm, that he would quit being against homosexual marriage.

It is generally best to consider people positively instead of negatively.

JM

I generally do initially, but when people consistently cause harm and spread hate then there comes a point where giving them the benefit of the doubt just becomes naive. How much good would a Robertson or Limbaugh have to do to counteract the amount of negativity they have brought into the world? I'm not a Christian remember, I don't believe in last second redemption.

[Jon Miller]

If you'll excuse the Godwin, Hitler was very anti-smoking and loved dogs. Neither of those things mitigated the evil stuff.

I was giving what was 'surprising' evidence that Pat is just wrong, not evil/etc.

He was very pro-drug war and is still very anti-drugs. But this wasn't due to him being an 'evil, stupid, poop head' but due to him being wrong.

Same with his views towards homosexuals, if we think positively. Yes, he is anti-gay and anti-gay marriage, but similar to the above, it could very well be due to him being wrong and not due to him being an 'evil, stupid, poop head'.

Note that Pat Robertson is one of the people who I was (and maybe still am, I am feeling pretty positive right now) inclined to think of as a real 'evil, stupid, poop head'. But even if he really is an 'evil, stupid, poop head', it doesn't mean that there are not many (millions?) of people who share similar views which are wrong (for example, about gay marriage), while still not being 'evil, stupid, poop heads'.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I generally do initially, but when people consistently cause harm and spread hate then there comes a point where giving them the benefit of the doubt just becomes naive. How much good would a Robertson or Limbaugh have to do to counteract the amount of negativity they have brought into the world? I'm not a Christian remember, I don't believe in last second redemption.

As I said, I was (and maybe am, if I am in a less positive mood) thinking that he was a real 'evil, stupid, poop head'.

I don't believe in balancing good with evil or what have you. This probably does relate to me being a Christian. I don't think you can go on a murder spree when you are 58, and still be a good person because on balance you were a doctor (volunteer!) for 30 years. Or that you can go on a murder spree at 18, and then work in a hospital for 30 years and say 'because of this I am a good person'.

I guess I view everyone as evil, and good. I look at intentions, and while 'caring for puppies' does mean that perhaps not all good was gone from Hitler, his intentions for his evil actions were brought about by evil. There does come a time when I say 'evil', although I know I am no great judge. I try not to say 'evil' unless I see evil actions brought about by evil intentions (and sorry, loving puppies is not enough for me to say that the intentions were not evil).

JM

[kentonio]

I was giving what was 'surprising' evidence that Pat is just wrong, not evil/etc.

He was very pro-drug war and is still very anti-drugs. But this wasn't due to him being an 'evil, stupid, poop head' but due to him being wrong.

Same with his views towards homosexuals, if we think positively. Yes, he is anti-gay and anti-gay marriage, but similar to the above, it could very well be due to him being wrong and not due to him being an 'evil, stupid, poop head'.

Note that Pat Robertson is one of the people who I was (and maybe still am, I am feeling pretty positive right now) inclined to think of as a real 'evil, stupid, poop head'. But even if he really is an 'evil, stupid, poop head', it doesn't mean that there are not many (millions?) of people who share similar views which are wrong (for example, about gay marriage), while still not being 'evil, stupid, poop heads'.

JM

I don't believe that anyone has ideas simply because they are 'evil'. 'Evil' ideas are usually just stupid, badly thought out ideas that don't stand up to scrutiny. If someone spends years spreading those stupid ideas to millions of people, and causing hurt and pain to millions of other people in the process, where is the mitigation just because that person later goes 'oh I was probably wrong'?

There is always a route to repentance (in the non-religious sense) for anyone, but for me at least it involves the person putting in some vaguely comparable effort to counteract the initial harm. If you've spent decades spreading hate, then you better do something seriously impressive to try and undo that.

[kentonio]

I don't believe in balancing good with evil or what have you. This probably does relate to me being a Christian. I don't think you can go on a murder spree when you are 58, and still be a good person because on balance you were a doctor (volunteer!) for 30 years. Or that you can go on a murder spree at 18, and then work in a hospital for 30 years and say 'because of this I am a good person'.

I think I disagree in the last example, I think that if someone spent 30 years doing good to counteract a huge mistake as a teenager that they would in my eyes at least be redeemed.

[Aeson]

I have just as much sympathy for extreme right women, as I do for Ku Klux Klan members who complain about attacks made against them.

The target of the attack is the problem. A stupid person who supports obviously incorrect ideas deserves to have their intelligence/support/ideas attacked. (It's not constructive to do so, but at least it's deserved.) Attacking their gender or ethnicity (as is the case in some of the examples in the article) just makes you a stupid person who supports obviously incorrect ideas as well.

[DinoDoc]

No that isn't the problem.

According to you then it's alright to call a minority woman: "race traitor," "coconut" and send hate mail rife with degrading, unprintable sexual epithets and mockery of [her] Filipino heritage.

[kentonio]

According to you then it's alright to call a minority woman: "race traitor," "coconut" and send hate mail rife with degrading, unprintable sexual epithets and mockery of [her] Filipino heritage.

No I don't think it's alright, but I also don't spare much sympathy for a woman who has made a career out of hate filled attacks of her own. If you choose to start trench fighting, then you don't get to turn around and cry about how mean people are to you. Fluke on the other hand was a private citizen who tried to testify to congress. Can you really claim those two people are even vaguely comparable?

[DinoDoc]

Can you claim to be fighting against a War on Women if you only speak out against misogynist attacks against targets you like? Either it's a-ok to be a troglodyte or not.

[DaShi]

Your arguments are too subtle for DD. For example, he once argued that a consensual sexual act was no more harmful than rape. He simply isn't capable of discerning the difference.

EDIT: Good timing.

[Dinner]

I remember his rape should be fun argument.

[Aeson]

DD is correct here though. Disagreeing with someone, or having them make stupid statements and attack others, doesn't mean their ethnicity and gender are "in play" to attack.

The people who do make such attacks are either idiots who can't figure out what they're really trying to attack, or bigots who are spurred on by the leniency hypocrites will give them for "being on the same side".

[Aeson]

Can you really claim those two people are even vaguely comparable?

In both cases they are not "wrong" for their gender or ethnicity. It is wrong to attack either of those issues in both cases.

[kentonio]

In both cases they are not "wrong" for their gender or ethnicity. It is wrong to attack either of those issues in both cases.

Except it's now being used to excuse Limbaugh and his GOP puppets behaviour. Since when was 'well someone else did it first' a justifiable excuse for any grown up, let alone prominent national media figures?