4 ms·

his support of a political position The problem is his support was for an anti-human rights issue, not just another "either side has valid points" political ar

by seiji 12y ago

his support of a political position The problem is his support was for an anti-human rights issue, not just another "either side has valid points" political argument.

obvious_throw 12y ago
This is only accurate within the perpetually-expanding conception of "human rights" that many seem to assume is static.
flatdeviant 12y ago
This is hindsight bias. You can compare this to racism: back in the 18th and 19th centuries, racist and antisemitic people were in the overwhelming majority, and this only changed recently. And yet, applying 21st century moral values to the 18th century is completely meaningless, as every historian who studied these time periods will tell you.
- seiji 12y ago
  This is hindsight bias. Except Prop 8 was five years ago and not 200 years ago? I know I'm sure not absolved of my mistakes (or even debt) from five years ago. Public activism during one's lifetime is on the table as a factor for judging that someone. Now, you can try to argue whether the decisions of the person are actually what the person believes or if they were just following to feel like they belong or feel important or be around their _other_ bigoted friends. Either way, it doesn't show great capacity for independent thought.
  - flatdeviant 12y ago
    I don't see how you can think your beliefs are the product of "independent thought" while theirs are just an attempt are "feeling important". This is awfully arrogant and dismissive. For the record, I support gay marriage, but that doesn't mean I'm ready to let go of rational thinking: conservatives' opinions are not inferior to mine simply because I disagree with them, and I hope you can understand that. There is no such thing as a "moral high ground", only self-deception.
LordKano 12y ago
I was tempted to ignore this but my desire to combat this canard won out. There were more than two sides to the Proposition 8 fight. I happen to be neutral on the issue of whether or not same sex unions should be recognized by the government but I too supported Proposition 8. Not because I want to deny anyone anything but because the way to go about doing it should be legislative and not by having a judicial activist issue a fiat. Some other states moved to legally recognize same sex unions via the legislative process and in those states, once the law passed, the fight was over. Why is this distinction important? Because once we set the precedent that it's a "human rights issue" to be able to marry whomever you wish, what is to stop the FLDS church from suing because we don't recognize their polygamous marriages? Once you accept the premise that marrying whomever you wish is a "human rights issue", there's no argument in favor of same sex marriage that doesn't equally apply to three or five person marriage.
- seiji 12y ago
  having a judicial activist issue a fiat. legislative process and in those states, In 2004, Karl Rove maneuvered "anti-marriage" amendments to voted on in many states during the presidential election season. So, the republican establishment riled up all the religious nutters to vote both for bush and, while they were there, why not vote your bible faith to restrict rights for actual humans too? That's our legislative process—easily manipulatable, corruptible by riled up motivated voters who don't actually represent the majority. So, we fix wrong decisions of the people with checks and balances. We dissolve the tyranny of the many and restore balance to the force. suing because we don't recognize their polygamous marriages? there's no argument in favor of same sex marriage that doesn't equally apply to three or five person marriage. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Is there any downside to multi-marriage besides it just making you feel squicky?
  - LordKano 12y ago
    There is one very big downside. Our insurance premiums are based upon the idea that at worse, there will be one working spouse, one non-working spouse and their children (who will at some point grow up and get their own insurance). Where will the money come from to pay for Elder Smith's four wives and their fifteen children? Everyone else's premiums, of course! But then, that only strengthens the case for "Single Payer", right?
cgore 12y ago
In general, freedom of speech is one of the places where conservatives tend to do a lot better than liberals. You are making a really good example of that.
- seiji 12y ago
  Freedom of speech means the government (notably: federal government, though most states have similar rights) can't stop you from saying things or shut you down just because they don't like what you have to say. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with private parties exacting revenge on you for saying, doing, or promoting objective wrongness. Freedom of speech is not freedom of equality of validness of opinion.
  - LordKano 12y ago
    Because of the 14th Amendment, the states are bound by the 1st Amendment's prohibitions against abridging the freedom of speech. "Freedom of speech" is a concept that is bigger and more far reaching than the government. If someone threatens to punch you in the face for saying something that he doesn't want you to say, he has violated your freedom of speech. If your employer fires you for something that you said outside of work and separate from your duties as an employee, that employer has also violated your freedom of speech. The notable difference being that in most circumstances, there's nothing illegal about that. The point that I'm making here is that it's absolutely possible to suppress suppress freedom of speech without violating the law.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      A common misconception. The freedom to speech is the guarantee that the government will not silence you. In contrast being shouted down at a meeting or losing your job is common and not protected. If your employer doesn't want to support your opinions, they are free to stop paying you. That is a freedom too.
      - cgore 12y ago
        The philosophical concept of freedom of speech and the legal protections of that concept are not the same thing, although the one protects the other from which it derives. The protections are a viewpoint legally enshrined that was common in the political circles at the time and that I still agree with: No matter how much I disagree with your viewpoint, I think you should be allowed to express that viewpoint. If I am a family member or a friend I'm not going to disown or disavow you for them. I think it is very important that bosses embrace this view too, because otherwise you just get a lot of sycophantic yes-men, an echo chamber. The correct approach is to let everyone be free to voice their opinion before the decision is made: if you don't want their opinions, then what are you paying them for? Once a decision is made it is necessary for everybody to work towards that, but making a good decision requires lots of input, and those who disagreed with the final choice shouldn't be punished in any way, otherwise there quickly won't be any disagreement.

by seiji 12y ago

his support of a political position The problem is his support was for an anti-human rights issue, not just another "either side has valid points" political argument.

obvious_throw 12y ago

This is only accurate within the perpetually-expanding conception of "human rights" that many seem to assume is static.

flatdeviant 12y ago

This is hindsight bias. You can compare this to racism: back in the 18th and 19th centuries, racist and antisemitic people were in the overwhelming majority, and this only changed recently. And yet, applying 21st century moral values to the 18th century is completely meaningless, as every historian who studied these time periods will tell you.

seiji 12y ago
This is hindsight bias. Except Prop 8 was five years ago and not 200 years ago? I know I'm sure not absolved of my mistakes (or even debt) from five years ago. Public activism during one's lifetime is on the table as a factor for judging that someone. Now, you can try to argue whether the decisions of the person are actually what the person believes or if they were just following to feel like they belong or feel important or be around their _other_ bigoted friends. Either way, it doesn't show great capacity for independent thought.
- flatdeviant 12y ago
  I don't see how you can think your beliefs are the product of "independent thought" while theirs are just an attempt are "feeling important". This is awfully arrogant and dismissive. For the record, I support gay marriage, but that doesn't mean I'm ready to let go of rational thinking: conservatives' opinions are not inferior to mine simply because I disagree with them, and I hope you can understand that. There is no such thing as a "moral high ground", only self-deception.

LordKano 12y ago

I was tempted to ignore this but my desire to combat this canard won out. There were more than two sides to the Proposition 8 fight. I happen to be neutral on the issue of whether or not same sex unions should be recognized by the government but I too supported Proposition 8. Not because I want to deny anyone anything but because the way to go about doing it should be legislative and not by having a judicial activist issue a fiat. Some other states moved to legally recognize same sex unions via the legislative process and in those states, once the law passed, the fight was over. Why is this distinction important? Because once we set the precedent that it's a "human rights issue" to be able to marry whomever you wish, what is to stop the FLDS church from suing because we don't recognize their polygamous marriages? Once you accept the premise that marrying whomever you wish is a "human rights issue", there's no argument in favor of same sex marriage that doesn't equally apply to three or five person marriage.

seiji 12y ago
having a judicial activist issue a fiat. legislative process and in those states, In 2004, Karl Rove maneuvered "anti-marriage" amendments to voted on in many states during the presidential election season. So, the republican establishment riled up all the religious nutters to vote both for bush and, while they were there, why not vote your bible faith to restrict rights for actual humans too? That's our legislative process—easily manipulatable, corruptible by riled up motivated voters who don't actually represent the majority. So, we fix wrong decisions of the people with checks and balances. We dissolve the tyranny of the many and restore balance to the force. suing because we don't recognize their polygamous marriages? there's no argument in favor of same sex marriage that doesn't equally apply to three or five person marriage. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Is there any downside to multi-marriage besides it just making you feel squicky?
- LordKano 12y ago
  There is one very big downside. Our insurance premiums are based upon the idea that at worse, there will be one working spouse, one non-working spouse and their children (who will at some point grow up and get their own insurance). Where will the money come from to pay for Elder Smith's four wives and their fifteen children? Everyone else's premiums, of course! But then, that only strengthens the case for "Single Payer", right?

cgore 12y ago

In general, freedom of speech is one of the places where conservatives tend to do a lot better than liberals. You are making a really good example of that.

seiji 12y ago
Freedom of speech means the government (notably: federal government, though most states have similar rights) can't stop you from saying things or shut you down just because they don't like what you have to say. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with private parties exacting revenge on you for saying, doing, or promoting objective wrongness. Freedom of speech is not freedom of equality of validness of opinion.
- LordKano 12y ago
  Because of the 14th Amendment, the states are bound by the 1st Amendment's prohibitions against abridging the freedom of speech. "Freedom of speech" is a concept that is bigger and more far reaching than the government. If someone threatens to punch you in the face for saying something that he doesn't want you to say, he has violated your freedom of speech. If your employer fires you for something that you said outside of work and separate from your duties as an employee, that employer has also violated your freedom of speech. The notable difference being that in most circumstances, there's nothing illegal about that. The point that I'm making here is that it's absolutely possible to suppress suppress freedom of speech without violating the law.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    A common misconception. The freedom to speech is the guarantee that the government will not silence you. In contrast being shouted down at a meeting or losing your job is common and not protected. If your employer doesn't want to support your opinions, they are free to stop paying you. That is a freedom too.
    - cgore 12y ago
      The philosophical concept of freedom of speech and the legal protections of that concept are not the same thing, although the one protects the other from which it derives. The protections are a viewpoint legally enshrined that was common in the political circles at the time and that I still agree with: No matter how much I disagree with your viewpoint, I think you should be allowed to express that viewpoint. If I am a family member or a friend I'm not going to disown or disavow you for them. I think it is very important that bosses embrace this view too, because otherwise you just get a lot of sycophantic yes-men, an echo chamber. The correct approach is to let everyone be free to voice their opinion before the decision is made: if you don't want their opinions, then what are you paying them for? Once a decision is made it is necessary for everybody to work towards that, but making a good decision requires lots of input, and those who disagreed with the final choice shouldn't be punished in any way, otherwise there quickly won't be any disagreement.