3 ms·
> Come back when you can intelligently make an argument that is internally consistent. I have to agree with the others commenting on your posts, you have some s
by AlexMax 13y ago
> Come back when you can intelligently make an argument that is internally consistent. I have to agree with the others commenting on your posts, you have some serious cognitive dissonance.
Could it be that you've managed to ferret out hypocrisy in their mental model in just a few short minutes?
Or are you (and others) just straw-manning their position to be "Discrimination is bad no matter what!" so you can tear it down easily? I hope you yourself don't subscribe to that mental model, because it's not only overly-reductive, but like you said, it actually just plain doesn't work - neither in favor of the status quo or for changing it.
- bluntly_said 13y agoNo, his cognitive dissonance is that he claims to only want the word marriage for the rights, ignoring they are already present. He then claims the because the rights aren't present, co-opting the word marriage is ok, because it's only to gain those rights. He's essentially trying to force marriage to mean what he thinks it should, while expounding how terrible those who support prop-8 are when they do the same. That's internal inconsistency. He rejects and demonizes one group for taking the same actions he is. To Sum: ------ Prop-8 "Marriage is only between man and woman" Karunamon: "Marriage is between any two adults" Karunamon: "How dare they say marriage must mean that, it's not what I believe, they are bigots." ------ Rights are not involved, California offered equal rights to both groups. At best he can appeal that separate but equal is not a good state, and I agree with him there.