uziq wrote:
and, yet again, to make the point a third time: the beauty of so called 'liberal orthodoxy' is that it lets everyone with their little kooky dislikes and disgusts get along with minimal friction, let alone outbreaks of tribal/factional tension – if not outright force. you complain about how people unthinkingly follow liberal ideals, but what you don't realise is that the orthodoxy they subscribe to is partly there to PROTECT our civil society from the unthinking biases that drive you (and everyone else). it's ironic and sort of cute. you think you're being so smart and magnanimous in identifying liberalism's ills, but its main goal is to promote a tolerance and a pluralism that your own petty biases push up against. to the extent that you do accept gay people and their nominal equality, that's all to liberalism's credit, not your own warped little mind, which falls frankly way short of the liberal ideal. you should be thankful. you don't deserve the society you enjoy.
Poll
Do you agree with the gay marriage approval in California?
| Yes | 67% | 67% - 112 | ||||
| No | 27% | 27% - 45 | ||||
| I don't know | 0% | 0% - 0 | ||||
| Plead the fifth | 3% | 3% - 5 | ||||
| Other? (Please State) | 1% | 1% - 3 | ||||
| Total: 165 | ||||||
if i may barge in, gentlemen, i kinda agree more with unzique on this, at least on normality being a social construct, but jay does have a point as well. there is undoubtedly a trend, a "party line" even, out there among the more liberally inclined people atm about gay rights issue, and it's been pushed waaaaay past the borders of reasonable imo. it's a context one can hardly ignore in discussions of this topic right now, i think.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Whatever. Real liberalism is expressed in our Bill of Rights defining protected freedoms as enumerated by the likes of Payne, Jefferson, Descartes etc. yet it's always the adherents of Modern Liberal Orthodoxy who wish to change it to suit their whims. So, sorry if I fail to take you seriously. The winds will change tomorrow and you'll blow off in a different direction and demand new changes. Maybe gays will become the majority and you'll be defending the oppressed straight white male.
Last edited by Jay (2015-09-04 10:21:55)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
as I've said I'm not going to down any rabbit holes of hypothetical situations. it's a poor way to argue. I've framed my own premise very clearly. gays are right to argue for equality, as promised to all people under a putative 'liberal democracy'. they are entitled to it and I am not going to mind them struggling or making noise to get it. I'm not talking about any other situation than that: equal rights struggle. any examples of any group or interest within a democracy 'taking it too far' doesn't invalidate my argument, because I'm not arguing for a collective of petty tyrannies. I'm arguing for universalism.Shahter wrote:
if i may barge in, gentlemen, i kinda agree more with unzique on this, at least on normality being a social construct, but jay does have a point as well. there is undoubtedly a trend, a "party line" even, out there among the more liberally inclined people atm about gay rights issue, and it's been pushed waaaaay past the borders of reasonable imo. it's a context one can hardly ignore in discussions of this topic right now, i think.
i feel like people who are bothered by groups agitating for their rights are often hiding a prejudice of their own. I'm not saying that you can't be concerned about certain groups taking things too far. but first I would examine very closely my own response: why am I bothered? what irks me? jay says he is disgusted by the gay lifestyle, in so many words, which to me kinda taints any complaints he has to make about 'bullying' or 'uppity' gays.
don't think Descartes is in your bill of rights. also I've read more classical liberal texts than you and again you're going to try and paint me as this whimsical, social media hipster. you consistently fail to address my concrete and particular points and prefer to call me a "kid", or rail against my "generation". have you read your Smith, your Burke, your Locke?Jay wrote:
Whatever. Real liberalism is expressed in our Bill of Rights defining protected freedoms as enumerated by the likes of Payne, Jefferson, Descartes etc. yet it's always the adherents of Modern Liberal Orthodoxy who wish to change it to suit their whims. So, sorry if I fail to take you seriously. The winds will change tomorrow and you'll blow off in a different direction and demand new changes. Maybe gays will become the majority and you'll be defending the oppressed straight white male. :rolleyes:
also who is trying to change the tenets of liberalism? gays and other minority groups are asking to be admitted to the club and to be granted the rights that ALL humans are supposedly promised in liberal societies. they're not changing anything. if anything, they're doing us a service by ironing out the thorny contradictions and hypocrisies of the originals. you know, slave owners promising freedom, that sort of thing.
Last edited by uziq (2015-09-04 10:26:01)
Not the lifestyle, the act.uziq wrote:
as I've said I'm not going to down any rabbit holes of hypothetical situations. it's a poor way to argue. I've framed my own premise very clearly. gays are right to argue for equality, as promised to all people under a putative 'liberal democracy'. they are entitled to it and I am not going to mind them struggling or making noise to get it. I'm not talking about any other situation than that: equal rights struggle. any examples of any group or interest within a democracy 'taking it too far' doesn't invalidate my argument, because I'm not arguing for a collective of petty tyrannies. I'm arguing for universalism.Shahter wrote:
if i may barge in, gentlemen, i kinda agree more with unzique on this, at least on normality being a social construct, but jay does have a point as well. there is undoubtedly a trend, a "party line" even, out there among the more liberally inclined people atm about gay rights issue, and it's been pushed waaaaay past the borders of reasonable imo. it's a context one can hardly ignore in discussions of this topic right now, i think.
i feel like people who are bothered by groups agitating for their rights are often hiding a prejudice of their own. I'm not saying that you can't be concerned about certain groups taking things too far. but first I would examine very closely my own response: why am I bothered? what irks me? jay says he is disgusted by the gay lifestyle, in so many words, which to me kinda taints any complaints he has to make about 'bullying' or 'uppity' gays.
Anyway, I'm annoyed by the trend more than anything. I was very happy about marriage equality. I've been very unhappy about the court cases about wedding photography, wedding cakes, etc. I think in many cases there are activists looking for a problem that isn't really extensive and making a big stink about it. My outrage meter was saturated long before this county clerk bullshit.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I don't know why that stuff annoys you. people bring frivolous lawsuits all the time. it's their democratic freedom to do so. if it goes thrown out of court and junked, that's the process rendering justice. it really doesn't bother me any more than rich white people having endless divorce settlements bother me. does it really discredit the idea of gay equality to you? do you really spite gay people because of a few over-zealous examples? there's a principle of which the name I forget, that essentially states: any cause or group of people with a valid reason to organise will quickly attract characters to discredit it.
The same people pushing for gay rights are the same people pushing for gun control, limits to free speech, punitive taxation on the wealthy and mass incarceration of the mentally ill. They're only coming around now on police reform, drug reform, prison reform, immigration reform etc.uziq wrote:
don't think Descartes is in your bill of rights. also I've read more classical liberal texts than you and again you're going to try and paint me as this whimsical, social media hipster. you consistently fail to address my concrete and particular points and prefer to call me a "kid", or rail against my "generation". have you read your Smith, your Burke, your Locke?Jay wrote:
Whatever. Real liberalism is expressed in our Bill of Rights defining protected freedoms as enumerated by the likes of Payne, Jefferson, Descartes etc. yet it's always the adherents of Modern Liberal Orthodoxy who wish to change it to suit their whims. So, sorry if I fail to take you seriously. The winds will change tomorrow and you'll blow off in a different direction and demand new changes. Maybe gays will become the majority and you'll be defending the oppressed straight white male.
also who is trying to change the tenets of liberalism? gays and other minority groups are asking to be admitted to the club and to be granted the rights that ALL humans are supposedly promised in liberal societies. they're not changing anything. if anything, they're doing us a service by ironing out the thorny contradictions and hypocrisies of the originals. you know, slave owners promising freedom, that sort of thing.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Because I very much disagree with using the state to solve petty issues. Someone doesn't want to bake a cake for you? Go elsewhere. The court cases didn't change anything anyway. They can still deny you, they just can't tell you it's because you're gay. We've gone from solving major issues to enforcing politeness at a micro level. It's disgusting.uziq wrote:
I don't know why that stuff annoys you. people bring frivolous lawsuits all the time. it's their democratic freedom to do so. if it goes thrown out of court and junked, that's the process rendering justice. it really doesn't bother me any more than rich white people having endless divorce settlements bother me. does it really discredit the idea of gay equality to you? do you really spite gay people because of a few over-zealous examples? there's a principle of which the name I forget, that essentially states: any cause or group of people with a valid reason to organise will quickly attract characters to discredit it.
I don't spite gay people over this at all. I'm blaming childish activists who behave like they're ending world poverty for this nonsense.
Last edited by Jay (2015-09-04 10:35:00)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
right. gay rights campaigners also moonlight as campaigners to mass imprison the mentally ill. and they're taking our guns!!!!
Big "L" American-style Liberals, uzi. Keep up.uziq wrote:
right. gay rights campaigners also moonlight as campaigners to mass imprison the mentally ill. and they're taking our guns!!!!
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
please tell me how a disenfranchised group can attain equal parity and power without relying upon state apparatuses. I mean it worked so well for the black panthers.Jay wrote:
Because I very much disagree with using the state to solve petty issues. Someone doesn't want to bake a cake for you? Go elsewhere. The court cases didn't change anything anyway. They can still deny you, they just can't tell you it's because you're gay. We've gone from solving major issues to enforcing politeness at a micro level. It's disgusting.uziq wrote:
I don't know why that stuff annoys you. people bring frivolous lawsuits all the time. it's their democratic freedom to do so. if it goes thrown out of court and junked, that's the process rendering justice. it really doesn't bother me any more than rich white people having endless divorce settlements bother me. does it really discredit the idea of gay equality to you? do you really spite gay people because of a few over-zealous examples? there's a principle of which the name I forget, that essentially states: any cause or group of people with a valid reason to organise will quickly attract characters to discredit it.
I don't spite gay people over this at all. I'm blaming childish activists who behave like they're ending world poverty for this nonsense.
Education, which has gotten us where we are today. Remember how I identified pre-and-post-Pedro views of homosexuality? That one season of a stupid MTV show genuinely changed the world.uziq wrote:
please tell me how a disenfranchised group can attain equal parity and power without relying upon state apparatuses. I mean it worked so well for the black panthers.Jay wrote:
Because I very much disagree with using the state to solve petty issues. Someone doesn't want to bake a cake for you? Go elsewhere. The court cases didn't change anything anyway. They can still deny you, they just can't tell you it's because you're gay. We've gone from solving major issues to enforcing politeness at a micro level. It's disgusting.uziq wrote:
I don't know why that stuff annoys you. people bring frivolous lawsuits all the time. it's their democratic freedom to do so. if it goes thrown out of court and junked, that's the process rendering justice. it really doesn't bother me any more than rich white people having endless divorce settlements bother me. does it really discredit the idea of gay equality to you? do you really spite gay people because of a few over-zealous examples? there's a principle of which the name I forget, that essentially states: any cause or group of people with a valid reason to organise will quickly attract characters to discredit it.
I don't spite gay people over this at all. I'm blaming childish activists who behave like they're ending world poverty for this nonsense.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
but you're against liberal orthodoxy and what worse orthodoxy is there then shoving an accepted view of the world down the throat of children?
Accepted by whom?uziq wrote:
but you're against liberal orthodoxy and what worse orthodoxy is there then shoving an accepted view of the world down the throat of children?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
my point is I'd rather enshrine everyone's equal rights in law as a background minimum than to ignore people's claims to social legitimacy and spoon feed everyone a very particular 'be nice' educational programme. let people have their own views. if you want to hate gays, that is actually your right, within reason. I don't want schools to tell anyone what to think in any specific way.
Do you think gay people are just shotgunning bakers, florists, and photographers hoping to find one who opposes them so they can get into a long legal battle? In the Kentucky case, a few couples who meet all the legal obligations to marry were refused something they are legally allowed by an elected official citing her deity's authority. I read an article the other day about previous refusals of elected government officials to follow laws granting rights to blacks or women citing the same poor argument that these people getting their fair share of freedoms somehow infringes on everyone elses ability to perform the work they had before. Yes, it is the last fallback of resistance to groups obtaining civil rights. No, the argument has never worked.Jay wrote:
Not the lifestyle, the act.uziq wrote:
as I've said I'm not going to down any rabbit holes of hypothetical situations. it's a poor way to argue. I've framed my own premise very clearly. gays are right to argue for equality, as promised to all people under a putative 'liberal democracy'. they are entitled to it and I am not going to mind them struggling or making noise to get it. I'm not talking about any other situation than that: equal rights struggle. any examples of any group or interest within a democracy 'taking it too far' doesn't invalidate my argument, because I'm not arguing for a collective of petty tyrannies. I'm arguing for universalism.Shahter wrote:
if i may barge in, gentlemen, i kinda agree more with unzique on this, at least on normality being a social construct, but jay does have a point as well. there is undoubtedly a trend, a "party line" even, out there among the more liberally inclined people atm about gay rights issue, and it's been pushed waaaaay past the borders of reasonable imo. it's a context one can hardly ignore in discussions of this topic right now, i think.
i feel like people who are bothered by groups agitating for their rights are often hiding a prejudice of their own. I'm not saying that you can't be concerned about certain groups taking things too far. but first I would examine very closely my own response: why am I bothered? what irks me? jay says he is disgusted by the gay lifestyle, in so many words, which to me kinda taints any complaints he has to make about 'bullying' or 'uppity' gays.
Anyway, I'm annoyed by the trend more than anything. I was very happy about marriage equality. I've been very unhappy about the court cases about wedding photography, wedding cakes, etc. I think in many cases there are activists looking for a problem that isn't really extensive and making a big stink about it. My outrage meter was saturated long before this county clerk bullshit.
Most of the flak Kim Davis is taking is because she is not fulfilling the role she was elected to perform. While her supporters continue to refer to gay people as sinful Sodomites, the slogen being touted at Davis is "Do your job". As the judge who held her in contempt said, "you don't get to pick and choose" when it comes to laws. She is not personally marrying these people, she has to affirm they meet the minimum requirements for what the government considers a marriage (spoilers: they do), but has refused to do so. The same argument holds for the bakers and photographers. They are an ancillary part to the very secular reception/decorative facets.
And I'm not denying any of that (except the shotgunning, that has actually happened). She absolutely should do her job. She's an idiot. It just shouldn't be international news.DesertFox- wrote:
Do you think gay people are just shotgunning bakers, florists, and photographers hoping to find one who opposes them so they can get into a long legal battle? In the Kentucky case, a few couples who meet all the legal obligations to marry were refused something they are legally allowed by an elected official citing her deity's authority. I read an article the other day about previous refusals of elected government officials to follow laws granting rights to blacks or women citing the same poor argument that these people getting their fair share of freedoms somehow infringes on everyone elses ability to perform the work they had before. Yes, it is the last fallback of resistance to groups obtaining civil rights. No, the argument has never worked.Jay wrote:
Not the lifestyle, the act.uziq wrote:
as I've said I'm not going to down any rabbit holes of hypothetical situations. it's a poor way to argue. I've framed my own premise very clearly. gays are right to argue for equality, as promised to all people under a putative 'liberal democracy'. they are entitled to it and I am not going to mind them struggling or making noise to get it. I'm not talking about any other situation than that: equal rights struggle. any examples of any group or interest within a democracy 'taking it too far' doesn't invalidate my argument, because I'm not arguing for a collective of petty tyrannies. I'm arguing for universalism.
i feel like people who are bothered by groups agitating for their rights are often hiding a prejudice of their own. I'm not saying that you can't be concerned about certain groups taking things too far. but first I would examine very closely my own response: why am I bothered? what irks me? jay says he is disgusted by the gay lifestyle, in so many words, which to me kinda taints any complaints he has to make about 'bullying' or 'uppity' gays.
Anyway, I'm annoyed by the trend more than anything. I was very happy about marriage equality. I've been very unhappy about the court cases about wedding photography, wedding cakes, etc. I think in many cases there are activists looking for a problem that isn't really extensive and making a big stink about it. My outrage meter was saturated long before this county clerk bullshit.
Most of the flak Kim Davis is taking is because she is not fulfilling the role she was elected to perform. While her supporters continue to refer to gay people as sinful Sodomites, the slogen being touted at Davis is "Do your job". As the judge who held her in contempt said, "you don't get to pick and choose" when it comes to laws. She is not personally marrying these people, she has to affirm they meet the minimum requirements for what the government considers a marriage (spoilers: they do), but has refused to do so. The same argument holds for the bakers and photographers. They are an ancillary part to the very secular reception/decorative facets.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Source on the shotgun approach?
While I suspect she may have considered acquiescing to the orders of the Governor to issue licenses, I imagine her lawyers have advised her to stand firm so she could remain the obstinate apparent-martyr of the poor Christian being condemned by THE GAYS. It is very much an unnecessarily large amount of attention, but because both sides want it that way, albeit for different reasons.
While I suspect she may have considered acquiescing to the orders of the Governor to issue licenses, I imagine her lawyers have advised her to stand firm so she could remain the obstinate apparent-martyr of the poor Christian being condemned by THE GAYS. It is very much an unnecessarily large amount of attention, but because both sides want it that way, albeit for different reasons.
different reasons? i think both sides are trying to play victims here, no?DesertFox- wrote:
It is very much an unnecessarily large amount of attention, but because both sides want it that way, albeit for different reasons.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
That's not how I would phrase it, but only because in my view one is playing victim and the other actually is a victim.
couldn't the "actual" victim simply report the issue to whatever government institution is supposed to oversee this and just go to another official to get their marriage registered? what's with all the fuss?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
except gay people have suffered unequal status and discrimination for all of America's history and the Christian Right are some of the most well-funded and powerful demographics in the nation. but yeah, they're both victims.Shahter wrote:
different reasons? i think both sides are trying to play victims here, no?DesertFox- wrote:
It is very much an unnecessarily large amount of attention, but because both sides want it that way, albeit for different reasons.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3935
She is an elected official. There is no one to report her to.
ah, so it is about making a public spectacle after all, not about simply getting what's now granted to them by law, huh? i thought so too.uziq wrote:
except gay people have suffered unequal status and discrimination for all of America's history and the Christian Right are some of the most well-funded and powerful demographics in the nation. but yeah, they're both victims.Shahter wrote:
different reasons? i think both sides are trying to play victims here, no?DesertFox- wrote:
It is very much an unnecessarily large amount of attention, but because both sides want it that way, albeit for different reasons.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.