4 ms·

>I'm guessing it's people like you, i.e., progressives. If that's not partisan, I don't know what is. Who is "progressives"? And who says I am one? You have

>I'm guessing it's people like you, i.e., progressives. If that's not partisan, I don't know what is. Who is "progressives"? And who says I am one? You have a very warped view if you think basic human rights is partisan. The US may well have a fringe group of lunatics who feel that human rights are bad, but in the rest of the free world human rights is not a "depends on your political affiliation" deal. >I also fear you've misunderstood ESR. I fear you have no idea who Eric is. He is a bigot, hates gays, liberals, blacks, hispanics, and basically anyone who isn't part of his fringe group of lunatics. You are interpreting his nonsense in the least offensive way possible, but that doesn't mean it is the most accurate way.

mhartl 14y ago
You have a very warped view if you think basic human rights is partisan. That's not what I wrote. I asked who gets to decide what constitutes a "basic human right". Notions about "basic human rights" differ; many are near-universal, such as a "right to life", but a large number of them divide along tribal lines. For example, including "men have a right to marry other men" in the list is very much a recent progressive addition. Other additions, such as "rights" to housing and health care, might sound nice, but to many observers they look suspiciously like rationalizations for political patronage. Gay marriage is an excellent example. Righteous, progressive crusaders from a hundred years ago would be astonished (and probably horrified) to find gay marriage on the list of "basic human rights". That doesn't mean gay marriage is wrong, but it's disingenuous to claim that gay marriage is obviously a basic human right and that anyone who opposes it is a bigot. Those who insist on its inclusion do so as members of a particular political tribe. Incidentally, my own views are distinct from what I wrote above. Any attempts to infer my exact views from this discussion will undoubtedly be in error. I do intend to discuss these issues at length at some point, but this isn't the right forum for it. I fear you have no idea who Eric is. He is a bigot, hates gays, liberals, blacks, hispanics... I actually know a lot about ESR. In fact, I offer a prize of $100 to anyone who can find even one example establishing that ESR hates gays, blacks, or Hispanics. (He may well hate liberals—at least, some of them—and the feeling is probably mutual.) Note: The bar for establishing "hate" and claiming the prize is very high. Among other things, making claims that might be true doesn't count as "hate". For example, suppose someone makes the claim "the scientific evidence indicates that people descended from central European Jews are, on average, more intelligent than those descended from non-Jewish Europeans." This doesn't mean the claimant "hates" non-Jewish Europeans, even if the claim turns out to be false.
- papsosouid 14y ago
  Ignoring the point doesn't refute it. The idea that gay people are in fact people, and have the same rights as anyone else is not a partisan issue in modern, civilized nations. And saying "if I invent a definition of hate that excludes hatred, then by that definition Eric doesn't hate gays" is not a productive line of discourse.

mhartl 14y ago

You have a very warped view if you think basic human rights is partisan. That's not what I wrote. I asked who gets to decide what constitutes a "basic human right". Notions about "basic human rights" differ; many are near-universal, such as a "right to life", but a large number of them divide along tribal lines. For example, including "men have a right to marry other men" in the list is very much a recent progressive addition. Other additions, such as "rights" to housing and health care, might sound nice, but to many observers they look suspiciously like rationalizations for political patronage. Gay marriage is an excellent example. Righteous, progressive crusaders from a hundred years ago would be astonished (and probably horrified) to find gay marriage on the list of "basic human rights". That doesn't mean gay marriage is wrong, but it's disingenuous to claim that gay marriage is obviously a basic human right and that anyone who opposes it is a bigot. Those who insist on its inclusion do so as members of a particular political tribe. Incidentally, my own views are distinct from what I wrote above. Any attempts to infer my exact views from this discussion will undoubtedly be in error. I do intend to discuss these issues at length at some point, but this isn't the right forum for it. I fear you have no idea who Eric is. He is a bigot, hates gays, liberals, blacks, hispanics... I actually know a lot about ESR. In fact, I offer a prize of $100 to anyone who can find even one example establishing that ESR hates gays, blacks, or Hispanics. (He may well hate liberals—at least, some of them—and the feeling is probably mutual.) Note: The bar for establishing "hate" and claiming the prize is very high. Among other things, making claims that might be true doesn't count as "hate". For example, suppose someone makes the claim "the scientific evidence indicates that people descended from central European Jews are, on average, more intelligent than those descended from non-Jewish Europeans." This doesn't mean the claimant "hates" non-Jewish Europeans, even if the claim turns out to be false.

papsosouid 14y ago
Ignoring the point doesn't refute it. The idea that gay people are in fact people, and have the same rights as anyone else is not a partisan issue in modern, civilized nations. And saying "if I invent a definition of hate that excludes hatred, then by that definition Eric doesn't hate gays" is not a productive line of discourse.