quote: So, to be clear on this, you would be okay if they set up a tyrannical fundamentalist regime that immediately began launching terrorist attacks on the United States? Because it would have initially won a popular vote?
I actually WAS thinking about this but decided not to carry out that end in what I said.
No, I wouldn't be OKAY with it. They're perfectly free to make those decisions, but they also have to deal with the consequences.
quote:No, not really. I've proven myself pretty unlikely to AGREE with them, and very unlikely indeed to do anything but mock them, but I would argue that it's perfectly possible to understand someone's motivations and concerns and still dismiss them entirely.
On at least one issue, the gay marriage amendment, you have on several occassions misstated the purpose and intent of the people supporting it. And this is on an issue I agree with you on.
posted
Ah. As that's the only reason I never put forward, perhaps I'm missing a reason that you believe I'm leaving out. Would you identify which reason that is, then, so I can tell you you're wrong? *grin*
(Note: if you'd like, I could go create a new thread on which I attempt to write sensibly on why I think people who oppose gay marriage oppose gay marriage without once mentioning their belief in God. But that would be terminally dull, don't you think?)
posted
OK, I've tried three times, and "As that's the only reason I never put forward, perhaps I'm missing a reason that you believe I'm leaving out" just doesn't make sense to me. What do you mean by only reason I never put forward?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"What do you mean by only reason I never put forward?"
I mean that I've listed, over the last seven years, dozens of reasons that anti-gay-marriage advocates take very seriously -- like the legal logic behind the recognition of husband/wife marriage, the preservation of what they believe is the most fundamental unit of society, the need to hold the wall against what they consider an assault on their values, etc. I've addressed them all in turn, because I find them all ultimately lacking. And the one -- the only one -- I have not addressed is "my God said so," precisely because I have no good answer to that argument.
It's not that I don't understand why they feel the federal recognition of same-sex marriage would be a bad thing; it's that I understand dozens of their reasons -- some of which they don't all universally share, mind you -- and disagree with all of 'em.
In this, you may find me remarkably similar to our president (to bring this back to the topic). I think the reason these letters seem insulting is that the writers do not pause to consider that perhaps those who disagree with them already know their reasons and have decided to disagree; the assumption is that most Americans haven't thought things through. As I think this is an accurate assessment in this case, I'm not insulted by the allegation -- but I can understand why other people would be.
quote: And if the consequences would be immediate re-occupation of their country, is that really freedom?
Perhaps the consequences would be devastating war where we don't care to help them set up a system of government not including a brutal dictatorship. Let them pick up their own pieces.
That reply, remember, is based on the hypothetical of them attacking the U.S. We have every right to defend ourselves.
posted
No, I won't change many people's minds. I have changed some, when I care to get into the debate and that has mostly been when discussing in person. Online, I rarely have the patience lately.
That said, the reasons I listed above are more than likely milling through the heads of a significant number of voters.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do you believe that it is impossible to name an operation for something other than what it is actually meant to accomplish?
Oh yes, it is possible. It happens too often in Israeli issues. (Got it from the US?)
Operation "Homat Magen", "Wall of defence", was ridiculous. According to a calculation of mine, at the rate of x metres per y weeks it would take about 700 years to complete a mere 200-250 KM or so.
That WAS the actual rate.
Jonny
[Note: Speed might have changed, but the concept remains. No defence for 700 years? And who said the wall will NECESSARILY defend Israel?]
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
