9 ms·

Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21211419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21211419. There's no point arguing if you can't even accurately

Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21211419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21211419. There's no point arguing if you can't even accurately state the other side's views (you know, the ones Obama aligned himself with in 2008 in order to get elected). This used to be a required skill in political debating, but it's not taught or practiced much now. It definitely is more work than simply putting bad intentions or premises into your opponent's mouth, grandstanding against the resulting straw-man, and hiving off into disjoint factions that can be divided and conquered more easily. Still, I would never pull that kind of crap on you or any other HN antagonists. We need to work together against common enemies, if we can. Warmongers, crypto-backdoor advocates, surveillance capitalists, banksters, polluters, DRM-everything vendors -- in general, the monied interests and oligarchs who call too many shots today.

nobody9999 6y ago
>There's no point arguing if you can't even accurately state the other side's views (you know, the ones Obama aligned himself with in 2008 in order to get elected). Obviously, I don't know the specific thoughts in your head, but I expect (and please do correct me if I am wrong) it goes something like this: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid, and are the only marriages which should be recognized. But a 'civil union' would be okay as that wouldn't violate my religious belief." Or something similar. Your agreement with President Obama's stated alignment to similar views, which (as I'm sure you know) turned out not to be his views[0] at all clarifies your view for me. Thank you. However, regardless of your personal views (especially as it appears to be part of your religious belief), it's inappropriate for California or the US as a whole to regulate civil marriage in this fashion. As Judge Walker found in Hollingsworth v. Perry, Proposition 8 was a violation of the due process and equal protection rights of those seeking to marry others of the same biological sex[0]. And I believe that reasoning, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented[1], were more than sufficient to support Judge Walker's ruling. I strongly recommend you read those transcripts, as I did. The arguments and evidence presented are clear and convincing. But I'd go even further and say that regulating marriage in this way to satisfy a specific set of religious beliefs is unsupportable on First Amendment grounds (and applied to the several states via the 14th Amendment), as preferring one set of beliefs disadvantages the First Amendment rights of others who do not share those beliefs. The views you appear to hold and that President Obama claimed to hold are, if codified into law, in direct conflict with the Constitution. While you may believe that it's morally or ethically wrong for those of the same sex to marry, and to act upon that belief (by not marrying someone of the same sex), it is not permissible for the government to enshrine that belief into law. As such, it's not that I don't understand those views. Although whether I understand them or not is irrelevant. My issue is that the government is restricted from giving preference to those (or any other) religious views. Those religious views may be relevant to those who hold them, but they cannot be imposed on others who do not. It's a pretty simple idea. That's no straw-man. That's a core tenet of our system of government. >Still, I would never pull that kind of crap on you or any other HN antagonists. We need to work together against common enemies, if we can. Warmongers, crypto-backdoor advocates, surveillance capitalists, banksters, polluters, DRM-everything vendors -- in general, the monied interests and oligarchs who call too many shots today. You apparently misunderstand my point and my motivation. Just because I disagree with your views on this particular subject, doesn't necessarily mean that I must needs reject any other views you might have. Don't confuse me with someone who immediately assumes you are an unredeemably evil person because you don't share this particular view with me. I never said anything even approaching that. What's more, the issue is moot and has been for just over five years. You accuse me of "putting bad intentions or premises into your opponent's mouth, grandstanding against the resulting straw-man, and hiving off into disjoint factions that can be divided and conquered more easily," but that's clearly not the case. In fact, if you read through this thread you'll see that I strongly support your right not only to hold the views that you do, but to act upon those views, within the strictures of our legal system, as you see fit. Even more, you assume that I am unwilling to work with those who share some goals, but not others. As to the ones you mention: "Warmongers, crypto-backdoor advocates, surveillance capitalists, banksters, polluters, DRM-everything vendors -- in general, the monied interests and oligarchs who call too many shots today," I am also appalled and wish to change the trajectory of each and every one of those important issues. And I'm happy to work with those who support those goals and wish to address them in a principled way. As I said repeatedly in this thread, that if we wish to have a free society, we must tolerate even -- no, especially -- views with which we vehemently disagree. It's not about specific views or ideas, it's the principle that's important -- at least to me. That I disagree with your views on marriage equality (or at least what I understand of them based on your support for Proposition 8 and your further elucidation here) is based in exactly the same set of principles. As you should have noted, I loosed my venom just as strongly against those who seek to punish or silence others for views with which they disagree. And again I do so in support of exactly the same principles. I find it disappointing that you attack me for expressing my views while I'm defending your right to express yours. More's the pity. To put a fine point on that, please note that I did not denigrate you as a human or a citizen, nor did I call for you to be silenced or forced to betray your beliefs. Just the opposite in fact. All I did was rather pointedly disagree with (my understanding of) your views on marriage equality. Please try to separate your reaction from my statements. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/10/obama-frustrated-same-sex-marriage-david-axelrod-book https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/10/obama-frustr... [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/supreme-court-prop-8-oral-arguments-transcript.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/sup...
- BrendanEich 6y ago
  Religion is irrelevant here. California was not ever a confessional state. It has 29 sections of law, one of which (over-)regulated marriage for reasons unrelated to religious precepts. You are still assuming too much, and overwriting.

nobody9999 6y ago

>There's no point arguing if you can't even accurately state the other side's views (you know, the ones Obama aligned himself with in 2008 in order to get elected). Obviously, I don't know the specific thoughts in your head, but I expect (and please do correct me if I am wrong) it goes something like this: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid, and are the only marriages which should be recognized. But a 'civil union' would be okay as that wouldn't violate my religious belief." Or something similar. Your agreement with President Obama's stated alignment to similar views, which (as I'm sure you know) turned out not to be his views[0] at all clarifies your view for me. Thank you. However, regardless of your personal views (especially as it appears to be part of your religious belief), it's inappropriate for California or the US as a whole to regulate civil marriage in this fashion. As Judge Walker found in Hollingsworth v. Perry, Proposition 8 was a violation of the due process and equal protection rights of those seeking to marry others of the same biological sex[0]. And I believe that reasoning, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented[1], were more than sufficient to support Judge Walker's ruling. I strongly recommend you read those transcripts, as I did. The arguments and evidence presented are clear and convincing. But I'd go even further and say that regulating marriage in this way to satisfy a specific set of religious beliefs is unsupportable on First Amendment grounds (and applied to the several states via the 14th Amendment), as preferring one set of beliefs disadvantages the First Amendment rights of others who do not share those beliefs. The views you appear to hold and that President Obama claimed to hold are, if codified into law, in direct conflict with the Constitution. While you may believe that it's morally or ethically wrong for those of the same sex to marry, and to act upon that belief (by not marrying someone of the same sex), it is not permissible for the government to enshrine that belief into law. As such, it's not that I don't understand those views. Although whether I understand them or not is irrelevant. My issue is that the government is restricted from giving preference to those (or any other) religious views. Those religious views may be relevant to those who hold them, but they cannot be imposed on others who do not. It's a pretty simple idea. That's no straw-man. That's a core tenet of our system of government. >Still, I would never pull that kind of crap on you or any other HN antagonists. We need to work together against common enemies, if we can. Warmongers, crypto-backdoor advocates, surveillance capitalists, banksters, polluters, DRM-everything vendors -- in general, the monied interests and oligarchs who call too many shots today. You apparently misunderstand my point and my motivation. Just because I disagree with your views on this particular subject, doesn't necessarily mean that I must needs reject any other views you might have. Don't confuse me with someone who immediately assumes you are an unredeemably evil person because you don't share this particular view with me. I never said anything even approaching that. What's more, the issue is moot and has been for just over five years. You accuse me of "putting bad intentions or premises into your opponent's mouth, grandstanding against the resulting straw-man, and hiving off into disjoint factions that can be divided and conquered more easily," but that's clearly not the case. In fact, if you read through this thread you'll see that I strongly support your right not only to hold the views that you do, but to act upon those views, within the strictures of our legal system, as you see fit. Even more, you assume that I am unwilling to work with those who share some goals, but not others. As to the ones you mention: "Warmongers, crypto-backdoor advocates, surveillance capitalists, banksters, polluters, DRM-everything vendors -- in general, the monied interests and oligarchs who call too many shots today," I am also appalled and wish to change the trajectory of each and every one of those important issues. And I'm happy to work with those who support those goals and wish to address them in a principled way. As I said repeatedly in this thread, that if we wish to have a free society, we must tolerate even -- no, especially -- views with which we vehemently disagree. It's not about specific views or ideas, it's the principle that's important -- at least to me. That I disagree with your views on marriage equality (or at least what I understand of them based on your support for Proposition 8 and your further elucidation here) is based in exactly the same set of principles. As you should have noted, I loosed my venom just as strongly against those who seek to punish or silence others for views with which they disagree. And again I do so in support of exactly the same principles. I find it disappointing that you attack me for expressing my views while I'm defending your right to express yours. More's the pity. To put a fine point on that, please note that I did not denigrate you as a human or a citizen, nor did I call for you to be silenced or forced to betray your beliefs. Just the opposite in fact. All I did was rather pointedly disagree with (my understanding of) your views on marriage equality. Please try to separate your reaction from my statements. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/10/obama-frustrated-same-sex-marriage-david-axelrod-book https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/10/obama-frustr... [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/supreme-court-prop-8-oral-arguments-transcript.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/sup...

BrendanEich 6y ago
Religion is irrelevant here. California was not ever a confessional state. It has 29 sections of law, one of which (over-)regulated marriage for reasons unrelated to religious precepts. You are still assuming too much, and overwriting.