fail, democracy, free speech, same sex, marriage, gay, traditional, mccain,Good Sense Politics is deeply concerned about the state of democracy. Yes, democracy itself. Apparently, if Cindy McCain supports same sex marriage, democracy just disappears. Possibly leaving a hole in the very fabric of space time itself, though (s)he didn't specify.
Apparently, rich people supporting same sex marriage will . . . um, yeah, I dunno. I mean, if challenging established laws is an affront to democracy, well, then . . . it's not actually democracy. That's how democracy works. The people have the right to change existing laws. That is, in fact, the very basis of democracy.
As for free speech, I'm not sure how the McCains' use of their right to free speech is an affront to free speech. I keep rereading the First Amendment, and there's nothing in there about it being limited to speech that agrees with anyone in particular. So, fail and fail.
Does anyone get the impression that most of the people bleating about protecting democracy and free speech don't actually like democracy and free speech?
Cindy and Meghan McCain have been published in ads supporting the overthrow of California's democratically approved proposition 8. Not only is this an affront on traditional marriage, but on the very foundations of democracy and free speech.
Apparently, rich people supporting same sex marriage will . . . um, yeah, I dunno. I mean, if challenging established laws is an affront to democracy, well, then . . . it's not actually democracy. That's how democracy works. The people have the right to change existing laws. That is, in fact, the very basis of democracy.
As for free speech, I'm not sure how the McCains' use of their right to free speech is an affront to free speech. I keep rereading the First Amendment, and there's nothing in there about it being limited to speech that agrees with anyone in particular. So, fail and fail.
Does anyone get the impression that most of the people bleating about protecting democracy and free speech don't actually like democracy and free speech?
the united states was set up to be a republic, not a democracy.
ReplyDelete...And that's relevant how, precisely?
ReplyDeleteBecause anonymous morans on teh internetz think that making random, useless statements wherein they compare and contrast two things they don't actually understand count as game winning arguments.
ReplyDeleteAnon probably heard someone say once that America isn't actually a democracy, but instead a republic and thought, "Hey, that means that all I have to do is tell people that America's actually a republic and they'll be, 'Ooooh, damn. Why dinnit I think a that?'" Because of course if America's not actually a democracy that means it's impossible for it to have the qualities of a democracy. It's really too bad that republics are actually set up as autocratic dictatorships...
i don't think dr. b. meant that the mccains being in the ad was an affront to free speech, because obvioulsy it's not. i'm guessing here, but i think he meant that individuals trying to overturn the people's vote of yes on 8 is undermining democracy and free speech b/c they're basically throwing what the people wanted out the window. i think he was trying to say that their goal is to bury democracy by disregarding the majority, not how they went about pursuing that goal.
ReplyDeletethe whole prop 8 issue--the voting on it, protecting a minority's rights (in this case LGBTs), whether it was constitutional, the trials, etc are all about democracy versus republic. the whole question is whether it's okay to follow the will of the masses who want to limit rights versus giving liberties to a smaller number of individuals. my comment actually agreed with the LGBT agenda in case ya'll didn't notice. are the followers of this blog always in attack mode or something?
ReplyDelete« Does anyone get the impression that most of the people bleating about protecting democracy and free speech don't actually like democracy and free speech? »
ReplyDeleteOh, no, they love democracy and free speech. Absolutely love it.
… For themselves, that is.
And @Anonymous, leaving short comments that are ambiguous in their nature tends to result in people being unable to decide whether you were making a relevant point or just being pissy. Which is why it’s a good idea to elaborate on your points.
the whole question is whether it's okay to follow the will of the masses who want to limit rights versus giving liberties to a smaller number of individuals.
ReplyDeleteOddly enough, tyranny of the majority is entirely possible in a pure democracy. The entire point of choosing a republican form of government over a democracy is to make sure that safeguards are put in place to protect minorities.
Thereby, the fact that we live in a republic means that it should be more, not less, likely for minorities to get the same right everyone else enjoys. We shouldn't be able to decide who gets what based on a 50% vote in a referendum, but instead based on the rights the Constitution and its amendments enumerate for the people. We don't put slavery, women's suffrage, or, for that matter, straight marriage up for the vote every year, after all.
Joe: And @Anonymous, leaving short comments that are ambiguous in their nature tends to result in people being unable to decide whether you were making a relevant point or just being pissy. Which is why it’s a good idea to elaborate on your points.
Quoted for truth.
Well, that's two posts more response - and a great deal more comprehensibility - than I expected, frankly. Usually when someone posts an anonymous, one-line response like that, it's either a drive-by, in which case no further explanation will be forthcoming, or else there will be responses, but they'll be equally disconnected and/or incomprehensible. Thanks for coming back and expanding the original sentence into an coherent response.
ReplyDelete...I wouldn't say we're always in attack mode, but we are prone to snark, and your first comment A) sounded like someone trying to be clever, and B) didn't show any obvious connection to the entry it was responding to. That particular pattern *usually* indicates someone who isn't going to add anything useful to the conversation, hence the tone of the responses.
You do realize that rudeness doesn't win arguments, that taking things our of context doesn't help your credibility, and that being Liberal doesn't make you smarter than the average moron, right? Your name says it all.
ReplyDeleteExactly who were you talking to, Anony #2? You know, so we could up the ante a little.
ReplyDeleteIt was to PF for her attack on another blogger. This post is hateful and takes the message out of context, and yes, I have a problem with that.
ReplyDeleteAnony #2
Pray tell, what exactly is supposed to be wrong, or especially, “hateful”, about PF’s post? And especially, give us the reason behind your accusation that she took the excerpt out of context somehow? ’Cuz, I read the blog post she linked to. There was no other proper context; Who is John Galt? (blogger at “Good Sense”) essentially claims that the McCains writing in defense of gay marriage, and the trial against Prop 8, constitute a direct affront to not only free speech, but to democracy itself. To call these claims “dumbass” is to be putting it mildly.
ReplyDeleteI’ve read the post twice now, and it’s nothing but nonsensical idiocy and typical conservative demagoguery. Writing in defense of same-sex marriage is not a violation of free speech. Calling one’s opponents (such as gay marriage opponents) names such as “hate-filled bigots” is NOT a violation of free speech (however unfairly overgeneralizing it may be). And, what’s more, setting forth a lawsuit to try and take down a ban, even a voter-enacted one = NOT a violation of free speech, or your rights, or anything else. No-one is being silenced, and none of your rights or freedoms are being infringed. (In fact, taking down the ban only adds the right for LGBT people to marry.) So, claiming that such a lawsuit either curbs your Freedom of Speech or somehow infringes on your rights is, quite frankly, absurd.
For the record, I fully condone the lawsuit’s purpose of striking down the ban. Yes, Prop 8 was voter-enacted and all that. Thing is, though, it’s also both unconstitutional and impermissible. A democracy is all about people’s rights, and even citizens do NOT – NOT – have the right to deny others their own fundamental and socio-legal rights. Would you agree with voter-enacted bans on, say, traditional marriage? Oh, you wouldn’t? Why not?
Here’s why: because it’s no-one else’s damned business who marries whom. It’s for this reason that Prop 8 is fundamentally shite and should be struck down, if not by popular referendum, then by the courts. Bray about free speech and democracy and liberties all you want, but you, as a citizen, do not have the right to restrict or deny others their own rights, no matter how much you may dislike or disagree with them. That’s that.
Like it or not, there are limits to free speech and citizens’ power over the rights and privileges of others.
It your view that California voted to deny gays of their rights. It is our view that the Supreme Court ruled to deprive us of our rights (ie. the right to get married, since redefining marriage destroys its meaning). You say, "What right does the majority have to tell a minority they can't get married?" We say, "What right does a minority have to force a majority to change their time and religiously-honored, most sacred institution to comply with the whims of a few troubled people?" We are not stopping you from making any kind of relationship with anyone you want. We are not forcing you to do anything. We just will not tolerate you forcing us to change our morals and enshrining anti-religious/anti-marriage bigotry in law.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link!
@John Galt:
ReplyDeleteYou know, I was gonna make an epic comment taking apart your silly, dumb, ignorant and bigoted claims, using evidence and common sense to explain just how and why what you said is so very silly and demonstrably wrong, and illustrate how you pretty much ignored everything said before now …
But then, I checked out your blog in full (having only read the post-in-question previously).
You know what I then figured? Why bother.
These are the same people who are out there trying to overthrow Roe v Wade. It's ok for them to speak against laws they don't like. I read that blog and was disgusted by his/her use of the terms perverts and troubled individuals.
ReplyDeletehi my friend.i don't know a good translator to persian. google translator is not bad. but it couden't translate very good.i have written about a programm in IRAN-TV that a prson in this programm try to evaluate about paoulo coeilo's books. he didn't understand about paoulo good and tried to demote his personality. i was bewildered when i watched the person let himself speak about paoulo that from my view is a greate writer. i turn off TV and swer to him. i know why he said these things. because paoulo is opposed to this government and is fan of arash hejazi(his translator in iran) and the governmet want to break himself. i wrote that i hate from this person and then published the biography of paolo onmy web. exccuse me if i was garrulous.after this blog i will publishe the text blingual especially for you. have a good time.
ReplyDeleteThe guy's pen-name is "Who is John Galt." Why did a religious nutter who wants the gov't to keep gays from marrying take his pen name from one of the most anti-religious, anti-bureaucracy books ever written?
ReplyDeleteWell, you're all welcome to Good Sense, but you must know that it won't be worth your time if all you can do is multiply synonyms of "bigot." (Sorry Joe) You can keep pretending that only your views make sense and therefore there is no need to have a logical, rational discussion, but then you must accept the fact that many people won't take you seriously. I'm not going to be bullied by your name-calling and dogmatic dismissal of clear and rational reasoning. I'm not afraid of your anti-religious, anti-family rhetoric. (Thank God for the first amendment!) In fact, I am happy to see it because it proves my point much better than I could ever say it.
ReplyDeleteYou will lose because you are self-contradictory. You say you stand for freedom of conscience and yet you ruthlessly ridicule our religion and morals. You say you only want to support love, but you yell out hate-filled rhetoric. You claim that gay marriage is not only not harmful to children or society, but have the audacity to claim it is BETTER than real marriage. Well, that claim not only goes against all conventional wisdom but does not stand up to the test of reason. Your position, your tactics and who you are are the reason that so-called "gay marriage" is failing. You cannot sell such a fallacy to America.
Lynne, we can discuss my proper use of those terms, but I get the impression that you don't want a rational discussion.
ReplyDeleteCynic, getting the government to force all of your "religious nutters" out there to accept gay relationships as marriage is not my idea of freedom, or lack of bureaucracy. Just because you think you are right doesn't mean you have the right to force others to accept your beliefs. No one is telling gay people they can't be in committed relationships. But you are telling us that we must change our beliefs and morals to recognize them as marriage or else we will get sued. As John Galt would say, GET THE HELL OUT OF MY WAY!!!"
About John Galt ... maybe you should read the book before you comment on something you don't know about. :)
You again?
ReplyDeleteA) Ridiculing religious beliefs (and anything else) is not an affront to “freedom of conscience” (or, for the matter, free speech). It is, in fact, the very expression of our freedom of thought and speech that allows us to share our opinions that what you say and think is stupid, wrong and bigoted.
B) Are you seriously trying to lecture us on employing “hate-filled rhetoric”? Sorry, but stop projecting. You’re the one who is labeling millions of good and decent people, who happen to be sexually attracted to others of the same gender, as “perverts”, “troubled people”, and etc. This only shows how fundamentally bigoted you are, if you are unable to comprehend how a person’s sexual attraction has absolutely nothing to do with anything of anyone else’s business. And if you honestly believe that calling intolerant folks (like you) who despise these people and would seek to deprive them of their right to marry (like you do), “bigots”, is wrong, then you have a neurological issue.
C-a) No, gay marriage is not harmful to children, society, or your neighbor’s pet parrot. It only affects LGBT people, in the sense that it provides them the legal right to wed those they love. (I would now demand from you any sort of evidence, explanation or reason showing how and/or why same-sex marriage is detrimental to anyone in any way, then, that’d be a waste of my typing, wouldn’t it?)
C-b) When the hell has anyone ever claimed that gay marriage was somehow superior to traditional marriage? This is nothing but a pure and facile fabrication. If you expect to be taken seriously (and much less treated with respect), it would be a good idea not come into the ring with outright lies about us and our words and beliefs, you dishonest moron.
You are nothing but a transparently pathetic, dishonest and cowardly little bigot, John Galt. You whine about how mean and wrong we are, yet you come to us with nothing but lies, weaseling and blatant hypocrisy that could choke an elephant to death. You claim to support the First Amendment and freedom of thought/freedom of speech, yet shrivel up and snarl whenever your precious fallacious views are challenged and/or debunked. You claim to espouse logic and rationality, yet are filled to the brim with preconceptions, intolerance and willful ignorance. You know nothing of what you argue about, and yet have the audacity to waltz in here (and anywhere else) and assert that we, individuals obviously far more intelligent and knowledgeable than yourself, are the ones who are employing fallacies and distortions.
Unfortunately for you, we will not lose. Look around: gay marriage is being approved across the country faster than ever before, and the rate is only increasing with time. Countless polls, surveys and data prove this. Your time of intolerance, bigotry and denial of rights to others on the basis of anything, from their race or religion to, yes, their sexuality, is coming to an end, and fast. Better just weep a little tear and get used to it.
Note – I’m so very proud of my efforts here that I’ve decided to blog them. =P
ReplyDelete(Yeah, staying up for 48 hours and no sleep results in me talking like this, now. Bed. Beeeed … *falls out of chair*
LOL, this is your idea of a ration discussion?! Well Mr. Joé "Ad Hominem" McKen, I'm finding it hard to extract your clear points out of all of your hate speech.
ReplyDeleteTo review, so far I (and all of my kind) have been called on this single page:
Fail[ures]
bleaters
morans [sic]
pissy
dumbass
nonsensical idiocy
conservative demagoguery
hate-filled bigots
fundamentally shite
Bray[ers]
silly, dumb, ignorant and bigoted
religious nutter
stupid, wrong and bigoted
fundamentally bigoted
intolerant folks (like you)
you have a neurological issue
you dishonest moron
pathetic, dishonest and cowardly little bigot
lies, weaseling and blatant hypocrisy that could choke an elephant to death
[you] are filled to the brim with preconceptions, intolerance and willful ignorance
You know nothing of what you argue about
Your time of intolerance, bigotry and denial of rights to others
Do you see what I mean when I said "multiplying synonyms for bigot"?
It would seem clear to me that anyone who would feel the need to spew forth this pile of excrement is certainly "troubled." ("Forever in Hell" also seems to be an advertisement for someone that is troubled, though admittance I do not know the story behind Personal Failure's title. Her name would also seem to indicate a bit of "trouble" as well.)
Joe McKen, I am completely willing to have a clean, reasonable argument with you, but I don't want to wade through your hate-speech. If your position is solid enough, you should be able to argue it without resorting to name-calling, bullying and personal attacks. Leave any personal issues you have with me (or think you have with me -- wow, that's the very definition of being bigoted, isn't it? Hating someone you haven't even met because of their professed views...)at the door and make your best case. If you can do that, I will be waiting. If not, you don' have a very strong leg to stand on, do you?
A) Yes, we know what we write. You don’t really have to repeat it all.
ReplyDeleteB) Insults and pointy words to not make a discussion any less rational. Less civil and respectful, perhaps. There is a difference.
You want a rational argument? Get the ball rolling, then: pull up one single credible argument for your views, one that hasn’t been debunked or shown to be utterly false, or that relies upon religious ideology (which we place absolutely no credence in whatsoever). Bring up statistics showing how traditional marriages are failing as a direct result of the advent of gay marriages. Pull up some research denoting a sudden influx of horrible things happening now that gays are allowed to wed. (And, of course, don’t mistake correlation for causation. That don’t fly here, either.)
Go on. Do it. Bring up your arguments.
C) You complain about being this not being a “rational debate”, yet you use no hint of evidence or reason to support your claims and assumptions (and this is when you don’t outright and knowingly lie, as you did above). That is why I label you as a hypocrite. Care to refute me?
D) You complain about “hate speech”, yet obviously have no idea what it even is. To refresh your memory: “hate speech” is inflammatory and derogatory verbiage aimed at someone aimed at solely their ethnicity, religion, appearance, sexuality, etc. – anything that would make them part of a minority. Insulting someone and calling them a bigot, liar, idiot, etc. does not equate to hate speech, no matter how much you’d like it to be so. No-one is attacking your person for your religion, or political beliefs. We are attacking your religion and political beliefs themselves. Learn the difference.
E) No, I do not hate you. I don’t even despise you. I hold no animosity – or any feeling of any kind – towards you at all. I simply see you as a dishonest whiner who claims to espouse rationality, yet piles on fallacies and nonsense in the very next breath. Such is my impression of you, not my feelings for you as a person.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Now, go ahead. How and/or why does or would gay marriage be, in any real way, shape or form, detrimental to traditional marriages, or society, or children, or anyone or anything at all? Especially considering every single bit of research and data that comes to light about gay marriage and its effects only serve to explicitly and wholly destroy such claims?
Really, just one good argument would make my day.
John Galt wrote:
ReplyDeleteIt would seem clear to me that anyone who would feel the need to spew forth this pile of excrement is certainly "troubled." ("Forever in Hell" also seems to be an advertisement for someone that is troubled, though admittance I do not know the story behind Personal Failure's title. Her name would also seem to indicate a bit of "trouble" as well.)
For your consideration: your extrapolation is ill-advised, and your conclusion is wrong.
There is a difference between Ad Hominem and simple insults. What Joe did, for the most part, was the latter. What we find above would be the former, were your extrapolations correct (which, intriguingly, they are not. I am unsure as to whether this means that the statement no longer qualifies as an Ad Hominem fallacy, or if it is merely an unfair extrapolation. Regardless, it was intended as an Ad Hominem whether or not you realised this as you wrote it.)
LOL!!! Well, I guess I should have known this is not the place for a rational discussion on these topics. If you can't even own up to your own biases and name-calling, there is not any chance that we can have a civilized discussion and actually learn anything from eachother.
ReplyDeleteGood day gentlemen. You are burning your own crusade to the ground by your own hatred and selfishness. That makes me much more confident for the future.
… Well, that was short.
ReplyDeleteAt least I won’t have to update my post a dozen more times, though. =P
Who is Wesley Mouch wrote:
ReplyDeleteBAWWWWWWW! Criticizing and making fun of me and my ideas is hate speech and if you do this you are against freedom of speech. BAWWWWWWW! My views are entitled to the respect of others just like I am entitled to a job. Now if you'll excuse me, all this cognitive dissonance resulting from trying to reconcile the teachings of Ayn Rand and Jesus Christ is giving me quite the headache.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Why do people keep saying that when idiots leave? Getting knocked down by the door slamming closed would be teh lulz.
ReplyDeleteWho is John wrote:
ReplyDeleteLeave any personal issues you have with me ... at the door and make your best case. If you can do that, I will be waiting.
Joe replied
[An extensive comment that makes a number of good points, and to the best of my ability to discern contains only two insults ("hypocrite" and "dishonest whiner")]
Who is John responded:
LOL!!! Well, I guess I should have known this is not the place for a rational discussion on these topics. If you can't even own up to your own biases and name-calling, there is not any chance that we can have a civilized discussion and actually learn anything from eachother.
Master John Galt.
You have not owned up to your own biases and name calling, nor have you attempted to promote a rational discussion. You have instead complained multiple times about the insults directed at you, and refused in a rather immature fashion to address the valid points in between the rational points, whilst failing to make any points of your own.
When Joe McKen wound back his insults to negligable levels, despite previously saying that such behavior would prompt a rational discussion, you left.
I find this behavior odd in the extreme. Certainly, I would not be capable of it.
I would therefore direct your attention to the old Aesop about the mother crab telling her children to stop walking sideways, and the child crabs response: "It is far better to lead by example, than to try to make others do what you do not."
I'm probably wasting my time, but:
ReplyDeleteWho is John Galt? wrote: "It is our view that the Supreme Court ruled to deprive us of our rights (ie. the right to get married, since redefining marriage destroys its meaning)."
Are you seriously arguing that if gays and lesbians are allowed to get married, that will somehow change the nature of my marriage? Or yours, presuming you have one? More generally, do you think that the difference between "the union of a man and a woman" and "the union of two people" will shatter the entire institution of marriage and send it tumbling down in flaming ruins?
'Cause from where I'm standing*, I just don't see it. If anything, thousands of people lining up for the opportunity to get married - in the face of strong, pervasive, and often vicious opposition - looks like an endorsement of the institution, not an attempt to destroy it. Borrowing Thomas Jefferson's standard: gay marriage neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
The historical argument is, at best, myopic; in the length of human history and the breadth of human societies, marriage has meant a great many things. (Bible quiz: How many wives did David have?) The concept of marriage as a way of sealing an alliance with another family/tribe/kingdom is at least as prominent, historically speaking, as the idea of it being between one man and one woman; probably more so.
The legalization of gay marriage is not stopping you from making any kind of relationship with anyone you want. We are not forcing you to do anything. We just will not tolerate you forcing us to change our morals and enshrining anti-gay/anti-marriage bigotry in law.
* Texas, actually; also, on my seventh year of marriage, with a four year old and a second child on the way.