quote:Tres, it is clear that you do not understand the premises I'm arguing from. I do not demand that you agree with those premises, but until you show some sign of understanding that they differ from yours, we will be talking past each other. Try again.
The premises you are arguing from involve the idea that religious people are irrational and think they get their morals from God when actually they make up their own morality at their own whim or the whim of their churches. Under those premises, it doesn't even make sense to talk about divine moral law; divine moral laws only exist if God or something divine exists. So, if we are approaching this from your premises, I don't see why we'd be even arguing about divine law at all.
But the question is not about what we can conclude based on your premises. The question is, do these people who are anti-gay marriage have a valid reason for their belief under THEIR OWN premises.
quote:Which is why many of us are trying to make the point that preventing same-sex marriage is immoral. Once enough people figure that out, then their understanding that it was always immoral and God has actually always loved same-sex marriages will come to light.
That's a reasonable thing to do. I don't think publishing a map of those who oppose same-sex marriage so those people can be harassed is going to be an effective method of convincing people same-sex marriage is moral though. I don't think refusing to do business with or be friends with opponents of same-sex marriage is going to change their minds either. We'd need much more effective methods than that.
quote:Hypothetical: if you could make it so that no one who had physically violent impulses towards Prop 8 supporters were swayed one way or another by the existence of the map (i.e. if they do violence, they would have done the exact same thing if the map didn't exist), would you still disagree with its existence?
I think the only actual problems with the map are (1) it might incite hatred, violence, or angry feelings towards individuals, and (2) I think it was intended to incite hatred, violence, or angry feelings towards individuals. If these weren't true then, no, I don't think there'd be a problem with it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:True transparency would allow the targetted individuals to know who was observing them- how many hits the page had, who had looked at their address specifically.
This is an excellent idea. Prop-8 supporters should code up just such a version of the map.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Sterling, I'd appreciate it if you could answer my hypothetical at some time.
I'm sorry, it's a little "out there" for me. I can't imagine how one would make it so that people inclined to violence wouldn't be more inclined to do so by ready knowledge of those they'd be inclined to target, any more than I can off the top of my head come up with a perfect law such that information would be widely available for benevolent purposes but withheld from those who would use it for malevolent ones.
I think what you're really asking is do I have a problem with the availability of the information, beyond the possibility that it be used for violence and/or intimidation; the answer is no.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Sterling, I'd appreciate it if you could answer my hypothetical at some time.
I'm sorry, it's a little "out there" for me. I can't imagine how one would make it so that people inclined to violence wouldn't be more inclined to do so by ready knowledge of those they'd be inclined to target, any more than I can off the top of my head come up with a perfect law such that information would be widely available for benevolent purposes but withheld from those who would use it for malevolent ones.
I think what you're really asking is do I have a problem with the availability of the information, beyond the possibility that it be used for violence and/or intimidation; the answer is no.
That's why it's called a hypothetical - it doesn't have to be plausible or even possible. It's meant to test the limits of your theory without little constraints like reality.
Thanks for the answer - but what do you consider intimidation? Would someone at work mentioning it be intimidation? A customer coming up to an owner and telling them they'd no longer be shopping at his store because of his donation? A neighbor making a point to put up a gay pride flag while glaring at you?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: That's why it's called a hypothetical - it doesn't have to be plausible or even possible. It's meant to test the limits of your theory without little constraints like reality.
Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm just not sure that, as a hypothetical, it's terribly useful as a means of examining the situation. The persons in the discussion, perhaps.
From my point of view, I'd much rather have some practical ideas on how to minimize what seem to me rather obvious negatives to someone publishing information in this form.
quote: Thanks for the answer - but what do you consider intimidation? Would someone at work mentioning it be intimidation? A customer coming up to an owner and telling them they'd no longer be shopping at his store because of his donation? A neighbor making a point to put up a gay pride flag while glaring at you?
I'm tempted to say it's intimidation when the subject feels threatened, but that's terribly vague. From a practical standpoint, I would say it's intimidation when it increases the likelihood of violence (or appearance thereof) toward the subject, their loved ones, or their property as a result of the subject's activity (with an eye towards punishing said activity or preventing them from engaging in same in the future.)
When someone who is not by choice a public figure is made to feel threatened and vulnerable for engaging in legal activities, that concerns me.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: This is an excellent idea. Prop-8 supporters should code up just such a version of the map.
And it would be used as frequently as the one without transparency, because the people who would use it would agree that one shouldn't engage in any kind of public activity or participate in the internet with an anticipation of anonymity or privacy, right...?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a good question. It's entirely possible that people might place some value on their privacy, so the creators of the new map would have to offer some incentive. Maybe Facebook-like features allowing you to "poke" people who donated to the wrong cause?
But, seriously, we require public notification of political donations precisely because we do not believe these things should be private. The expectation of privacy here is nonsensical.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to assume that our opinions about this are far enough apart that you simply don't perceive why this bothers me. Yes, donations are public, Yes, those names and addresses are and should be easily accessible. Yes, technology allows us to make a nice, easy map that points directly at those donors and even provides directions. I don't question any of that, and would not change it.
And I'm still uneasy about that map.
There's something about presenting that information in such an incredibly user-friendly, "here-they-are-over-here-right-here!" format that bothers me. My first thought, upon seeing it, is that it's a call to action. If it could be set so that you couldn't zoom down to street levels I'd feel better about it. I'm sure I'll get more used to it as such things become more prevalent.
Put it this way. It is possible to learn a great deal about me from my public postings online. I'm fully aware of this and I choose to post what I do anyway. Yet if someone were to create a site that mapped out my daily routine, including my phone numbers, driving route, friends and family, and buying habits, I'd be creeped the hell out. I would see that as threatening. Intellectually I would know that I have absolutely no right to complain, but it would still be intimidating. Not because I was expecting privacy, but because someone bothered to assemble it.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if someone didn't bother to assemble it about you in particular, but assembled such a site about everyone? It wouldn't be that much harder.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it was about everyone, not so much. My point is that someone collecting such info about specifically me apparently has an agenda, a goal in mind when they collected and presented that information. The people making the anti-Prop-8 map seem to me to have an intention, and I can't see where making it easier to track down opponents in such a contentious situation is for a good cause.
Again, not saying it isn't legal. Just saying it makes me uneasy. I really don't think you're going to somehow logic me out of my uneasiness. It doesn't stem from a logical source.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
From Robert A. Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." This is what I thought of immediately upon seeing that map.
quote:Let me mention those fink spies out of order. Wyoh had been fiercely ready to eliminate them but when we got around to them she had lost stomach. I expected Prof to agree. But he shook head. "No, dear Wyoh, much as I deplore violence, there are only two things to do with an enemy: Kill him. Or make a friend of him. Anything in between piles up trouble for the future. A man who finks on his friends once will do it again and we have a long period ahead in which a fink can be dangerous; they must go. And publicly, to cause others to be thoughtful."
Wyoh said, "Professor, you once said that if you condemned a man, you would eliminate him personally. Is that what you are going to do?"
"Yes, dear lady, and no. Their blood shall be on my hands; I accept responsibility. But I have in mind a way more likely to discourage other finks."
So Adam Selene announced that these persons had been employed by Juan Alvarez, late Security Chief for former Authority, as undercover spies--and gave names and addresses. Adam did not suggest that anything be done.
One man remained on dodge for seven months by changing warrens and name. Then early in '77 his body was found outside Novylen's lock. But most of them lasted no more than hours.
Orinoco wrote:
quote:Please site your own ass.
I believe you mean "cite."
quote:I'm sick of people like you.
Good.
quote:What in my comments led you to believe I was talking about same sex sibling marriages in the first place, I have no idea.
Why were you replying to my comments about incest then if you didn't bother reading them? I'm the one that brought up incestuous marriage in this thread, I believe, and I specifically named same-sex sibling incestuous marriage as an example. You were replying to me. Please pay attention.
If you have no opinion, then you don't have to post. But you really should have an opinion, because all the arguments for same-sex marriage can be used to support same-sex sibling incestuous marriage, so either the arguments are invalid or one really ought to support both.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:all the arguments for same-sex marriage can be used to support same-sex sibling incestuous marriage, so either the arguments are invalid or one really ought to support both.
Come on now. You're missing an obvious argument against same sex sibling marriage that doesn't apply to same sex marriage in general.
Siblings might have lifelong abusive relationships with each other. This can interfere with with the consent necessary for marriage. (This kind of close familial relationship can facilitate coercion that is infeasible in most other situations.)
I would not be against specific cases of sibling marriage under two conditions:
1) Siblings were raised separately (due to adoption or whatever). This addresses the abuse/coercion aspect.
AND
2) Reproduction is ruled out (because of same sex or because of permanent sterility).
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or read "Speaker for the Dead," for that matter. Am I the only guy who read that book and thought, why didn't Miro just get a vasectomy and marry Ouanda?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because they were Catholics, who believe in objective sin quite apart from whether anyone is actually harmed.
As a side note, permanent sterility seems a little harsh. Wouldn't it be simpler to screen the children for harmful recessives? We should have the technology for that any year now. No abortion required, just have impregnation be by IVF only, and ensure the right sperm-egg combinations are used.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: As a side note, permanent sterility seems a little harsh. Wouldn't it be simpler to screen the children for harmful recessives? We should have the technology for that any year now. No abortion required, just have impregnation be by IVF only, and ensure the right sperm-egg combinations are used.
It's going to be a little while yet...
The problem is that a brother-sister mating will have homozygous for alleles that are only found in that family, so it will be very hard to predict what the outcome will be.
You could predict stops, and and amino acid changes in proteins, but promotors, small RNAs, enhancers, methylation, we just don't know enough about sequence features like that to be able to predict what mutations there are tolerable, and which ones aren't. Heck, we don't even know where all such sites are in the genome...prices for sequencing the whole genome are coming down, but being able to predict whether a kid homozygous for this or that mutation will develop properly...it's going to be a long while before we work that out.
I do agree with you that sterility is harsh. We don't keep people with known genetic problems from mating, brother-sister pairs will likely have more problems, and unpredictable ones, but I don't know that it's a difference of kind, just degree. I think such a pairing should require genetic counseling...they need to know that the odds of having unhealthy children is quite high, but I don't think they should have to undergo sterility treatment. They might be okay with the risk.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Darn you, Chris, and your "saying things I want to say better than I'd say them."
I agree on an intellectual level that political contributions are and should be public information. If money's going to talk, we need to know who's making it do the talking.
But as I've said before, I almost wish that it took five minutes to find a single address, rather than someone being able to quickly and easily find people they might consider a target for harrassment in their neighborhood. I feel that, on some level, the greater the investment of time and mental energy, the less likely it is that someone is doing something stupid with the information.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I feel that if someone has violent impulses towards these people - truly violent, rather than "shaming" or things of that nature - then they'll look up the information whether it's in an easy-to-reach format or not. And until someone presents actual evidence one way or the other, I feel like the burden of proof should lie with those who want to restrict information.
And, of course, if the cause is important enough that you donated to Prop 8, I really don't see how others "shaming" you or protesting in front of your house or deciding not to do business should matter. Either you stand up for your principles in the face of (non-violent) opposition, or they're not really values - they're hobbies.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then I guess the question is: what would you accept as "proof", and what are you willing to do if proof does indeed prove you wrong?
And I don't really think we accomplish anything by forcing people who make political contributions to make their causes take center-stage in their lives whether they like it or not. Is it really for us to judge whether other people care "enough" about their causes to support them?
Also- I don't know how the law stands- if this becomes the tactic of the future, aren't we just encouraging people to use loopholes to obfuscate their involvement? "Oh, I support 'Families First', but it's because of their adoption work, not because of their anti-gay marriage stance- that my contribution happened to come in just before their major campaign is a coincidence."
If we encourage people to find ways to keep their contributions in shadow for fear of reprisal, I think everyone loses.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would accept a scientific study done on this topic, or one similar enough to it that the analogy would hold.
quote:And I don't really think we accomplish anything by forcing people who make political contributions to make their causes take center-stage in their lives whether they like it or not. Is it really for us to judge whether other people care "enough" about their causes to support them?
Prop 8 takes center stage in the lives of the ones it affects - i.e. homosexuals in California, some of whom are wondering if their perfectly legal marriages will be invalidated because of the supporters of Prop 8. Frankly, I disagree with your stance on this matter - actually, I don't have any sympathy with it at all. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. And I'm not judging if people care "enough" - I'm just saying that if you're going to express your opinion in the community, you should not be surprised if others disagree with you, potentially in ways that make your life tougher. Suck it up and take personal responsibility for your actions.
The law says that this is publicly available information. Information that is open to the public can, of course, be used by the public. I don't see how your supposed "loophole" is a loophole - you donate to Families First, you'll be known as a donor to them, and others can draw conclusions as they like regarding that donation. If you don't want them to draw certain conclusions, consider your decisions carefully. And I don't agree that the end result from something like this will be some weird shadowy "donation world" where donations are hidden away. You have to present some evidence to believe this, or else this is just a slippery slope.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The volcanic irony of this entire situation is so delicious I can hardly stand it. Every time I read this thread, I imagine whole communities huddled under their covers thinking, "Oh Sweet Jesus, please protect me from the gays!"
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. And I'm not judging if people care "enough" - I'm just saying that if you're going to express your opinion in the community, you should not be surprised if others disagree with you, potentially in ways that make your life tougher. Suck it up and take personal responsibility for your actions.
There's a difference between participating in the legal system and wanting to express your opinion in the community. For instance, if you voted for Obama, that doesn't necessarily mean you want to broadcast to the world that you voted for Obama. It probably just means you want Obama to win. Similarly, donating money to Prop 8 doesn't necessarily mean that you want to broadcast to the world that you support Prop 8. It more likely just means you want Prop 8 to pass.
In a world where people are always judged fairly in spite of the controversial opinions they may hold, it would make sense to always own up 100% to whatever you believe in. But on this particular issue, there exist at least some people who are likely to unfairly assume that anyone who votes for Prop 8 is a bigot. Some people have already expressed an opinion like that on this thread. The direct consequence of making sweeping judgements like that is that people are afraid to tell you what they believe, because they are afraid you'll judge them unfairly. I don't think you can blame them too much that fear.
So, it is fair to demand people to own up to their political beliefs, but only if it is also fair for them to expect us not to draw sweeping negative conclusions about them based on their beliefs.
That is, for instance, why it was wrong for Jews to be forced to wear stars in Germany so as to identify their religious beliefs. Admitting your religion by itself is not inherently dangerous - but admitting it to people who hate anyone with your religion is.
quote:The law says that this is publicly available information. Information that is open to the public can, of course, be used by the public.
Just because you can build a weapon with everyday, legally available materials doesn't mean you should build such a weapon.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a good comparison. Creating this map and drawing attention to is a lot like forcing Jews to wear stars to identify themselves.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That's a good comparison. Creating this map and drawing attention to is a lot like forcing Jews to wear stars to identify themselves.
Actually, it's nothing like it. Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those of you who favor this use of the information, would you feel the same if it were a map of people who voted for and against the proposition. Would you favor legislation that made information about how individuals voted generally available to the public? If that information was available, would you think this was an ethical way to use that data?
If not, what do you see as the salient ethical difference between voting for a proposition and donating money to the campaign?
And before there is any mistake, I know that even keeping a record of the names and addresses of everyone who voted for or against the proposition is against the law and would violate a centuries old tradition that protects the secrecy of the ballot. My question isn't about what "is", its about what should be.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just because you can build a weapon with everyday, legally available materials doesn't mean you should build such a weapon.
This is absolutely true. What you are saying, however, is that it should not be legal to assemble such a weapon out of freely available materials. What we are saying is that it should not be legal to fire such a weapon with the intent to harm someone.
And unlike a gun, which can only be used to threaten or inflict harm, these maps can in fact be used for constructive purposes. In other words, there's a considerably stronger argument for the existence of these maps than for the legality of gun ownership.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it's not. It's a ridiculous analogy, from my point of view. Could you explain why you think there's a similarity?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: There's a difference between participating in the legal system and wanting to express your opinion in the community. For instance, if you voted for Obama, that doesn't necessarily mean you want to broadcast to the world that you voted for Obama. It probably just means you want Obama to win. Similarly, donating money to Prop 8 doesn't necessarily mean that you want to broadcast to the world that you support Prop 8. It more likely just means you want Prop 8 to pass.
First, you're conflating voting with donations, when they aren't at all the same thing. Second, this isn't about what people want - it's about what's right, both ethically and for a functioning democracy. Personally, I want a unicorn to take me to the polls every November.
quote: In a world where people are always judged fairly in spite of the controversial opinions they may hold, it would make sense to always own up 100% to whatever you believe in. But on this particular issue, there exist at least some people who are likely to unfairly assume that anyone who votes for Prop 8 is a bigot. Some people have already expressed an opinion like that on this thread. The direct consequence of making sweeping judgements like that is that people are afraid to tell you what they believe, because they are afraid you'll judge them unfairly. I don't think you can blame them too much that fear.
So, it is fair to demand people to own up to their political beliefs, but only if it is also fair for them to expect us not to draw sweeping negative conclusions about them based on their beliefs.
I'm not blaming them for their fear - although I do think it's silly, I'm simply saying that it shouldn't be a free ride. Yes, expressing an opinion publicly through donation or free speech may mean that people are mean to you, or judge you unfairly. That's life. Adults are willing to accept the consequences of their actions, which includes the consequences of speaking up when you have a minority opinion. If you aren't willing to speak up, that's fine - but don't expect others to grant you anonymity when you try to influence politics beyond your vote just because you'll be hurt when people are mean to you.
quote: That is, for instance, why it was wrong for Jews to be forced to wear stars in Germany so as to identify their religious beliefs. Admitting your religion by itself is not inherently dangerous - but admitting it to people who hate anyone with your religion is.
This is nothing like the Jews being forced to wear stars, and it's pretty pathetic that you tried to stretch that far. But, really, I wouldn't expect anything less from you.
quote:Just because you can build a weapon with everyday, legally available materials doesn't mean you should build such a weapon.
I'm not sure why you're bringing weapons into the picture, as, um, no one has said in this thread that violence is okay. However, if someone wants to make, say, a gun at home just to challenge themselves mentally, or for the craftsmanship of it - and have no plans to use it against people, and do have plans on how to store it safely (and the technical expertise to actually do it), I have no problem with it.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Those of you who favor this use of the information, would you feel the same if it were a map of people who voted for and against the proposition. Would you favor legislation that made information about how individuals voted generally available to the public? If that information was available, would you think this was an ethical way to use that data?
If not, what do you see as the salient ethical difference between voting for a proposition and donating money to the campaign?
And before there is any mistake, I know that even keeping a record of the names and addresses of everyone who voted for or against the proposition is against the law and would violate a centuries old tradition that protects the secrecy of the ballot. My question isn't about what "is", its about what should be.
One is giving your opinion in the voting box as to your beliefs regarding the best options for our country. The other is trying to influence other's beliefs about the best option. Not at all the same thing, and I don't think you should be able to do the second while hiding your face, which is essentially what those who want donations to be anonymous are requesting.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is nothing like the Jews being forced to wear stars...
I've been trying to think of ways it might be similar, and I came up with this argument:
If people in this country were required to make their religion and race a matter of public record, and these public records were available to be collected into a map, and there were a massive media blitz coordinated with federal disincentives intended to discredit and slander members of a specific religion, and there were moreover a substantial number of people somehow able to correlate the map information in real-time, thus making it impossible for someone to conceal his membership in that religion while in public (and perhaps even a crime to try) -- well, then it would be a fair analogy.
I don't see that this particular situation meets even half of those criteria, and think Godwin's Law as a consequence would advise against that particular sort of analogy. But YMMV.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, see, I don't really care to convince either you or Tresopax. And I don't know how
quote:That is, for instance, why it was wrong for Jews to be forced to wear stars in Germany so as to identify their religious beliefs. Admitting your religion by itself is not inherently dangerous - but admitting it to people who hate anyone with your religion is.
can possibly considered a "lovely explanation". Maybe it could count as a claim...
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, having people know you were a Jew was the least harmful part of the whole "stars" bit. The problem wasn't that Jews were identifiable; the problem was that the government was actively restricting the rights of Jews while fomenting unrest against them, and further humiliating them by forcing them to identify themselves had the dual benefit of publicly differentiating them from the community and making it harder for them to pass as non-Jews.
This map, as far as I can tell, does none of those things.
It is more directly analogous to producing a "Map of the Stars' Homes." The stars might not want to be on the map; at the very least, stalkers might find the map to be a time-saving measure.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
For your analogy, you would have to add the choice factor. People can chose whether or not to donate to a political cause; people could not chose whether or not to be Jews. Even non-religious Jews had to wear stars.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The other major difference I see is that it's really no one's business what religion you are - but it is people's business when you're trying to influence the laws of the nation we all live in. Politics is not, and should not, be private information (note - "politics =! political opinions).
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe we're just defining politics differently. To my mind, "politics" or being "political" is taking action in the political sphere, which is social by nature - i.e. talking about policies, donating, lobbying, writing letters, protesting, calling people, going to a rally, etc, etc. Voting is just participating in our democracy - there's no social aspect to it, other than the social choice mechanism that inputs the votes and outputs the decision. If you want to call it politics, that's cool - but know that I'm talking about the social sphere of politics, where you're directly or indirectly interacting with others. Political opinions are not necessarily social in that sense, since you can hold them without anyone ever knowing what you believe.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure why you're bringing weapons into the picture, as, um, no one has said in this thread that violence is okay.
Something doesn't have to cause physical violence to be a weapon. It just has to harm people.
quote:First, you're conflating voting with donations, when they aren't at all the same thing. Second, this isn't about what people want - it's about what's right, both ethically and for a functioning democracy. Personally, I want a unicorn to take me to the polls every November.
Neither voting nor donating are things that necessarily imply the person doing the voting or the donating is doing so in order to express their opinion to the community. I think most people who donate assume, even though the records are public, that most of their friends and neighbors will never know they donated. That may be a bad assumption, but you still can't say that by donating their primary intention was to declare to the world that they support Prop 8.
quote:This is nothing like the Jews being forced to wear stars, and it's pretty pathetic that you tried to stretch that far. But, really, I wouldn't expect anything less from you.
1. As I said, the example of the Jews being forced to wear stars illustrates the way in which the degree to which it is reasonable to publicly profess one's beliefs is dependent on the degree to which the public is going to unfairly persecute or harass you based on those beliefs.
2. What do you mean that you wouldn't expect anything less from me? What have I done?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It strikes me as odd that people would be willing to donate money in order to sway other people to their opinion and yet be unwilling to publicly acknowledge that opinion.
I'm not saying that Prop 8 supporters do that* - as far as I know, they aren't complaining about being public.
*though, anecdotally, many of the people I know who voted for Prop 8 seem less than happy about it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Something doesn't have to cause physical violence to be a weapon. It just has to harm people.
But mostly I don't think we should care (as a society) about harms other than physical violence or extreme emotional harm. For instance, there exist people who are really upset by the fact that I've married someone who's not of my race - I know 'cause they told me so. But I don't really give a flip about their being upset, and I don't think society should either. The fact that their lives are a little less better off (from the dis-utility of being upset) because of my marriage shouldn't factor into our calculations about whether or not we should allow interracial marriage. So first you need to prove that we should have a reason to care about any particular harm. Physical violence is an obvious one. Whatever harm you're positing here isn't.
quote:Neither voting nor donating are things that necessarily imply the person doing the voting or the donating is doing so in order to express their opinion to the community. I think most people who donate assume, even though the records are public, that most of their friends and neighbors will never know they donated. That may be a bad assumption, but you still can't say that by donating their primary intention was to declare to the world that they support Prop 8.
By donating the person is trying to influence the votes of others. That is, in the end their primary purpose. And those sorts of actions should not be private information in a democracy. And I never said that "by donating their primary intention was to declare to the world that they support Prop 8".
quote:1. As I said, the example of the Jews being forced to wear stars illustrates the way in which the degree to which it is reasonable to publicly profess one's beliefs is dependent on the degree to which the public is going to unfairly persecute or harass you based on those beliefs.
2. What do you mean that you wouldn't expect anything less from me? What have I done?
1. The analogy is pretty horrible, for the many reasons Tom & I wrote above. 2. You have a history of making bad analogies here on Hatrack.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems odd to me that people who are happy to applaud "outing" those who exercise their political speech are unhappy about "outing" those who actually voted to bring Proposition 8 to pass.
Speaking about the vote is NOT "more" political than actually voting. Why is voting sacred? According to your lights, there should be no expectation of privacy when it comes to politcal action. Voting is the ultimate political action.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I'm not saying that Prop 8 supporters do that* - as far as I know, they aren't complaining about being public.
*though, anecdotally, many of the people I know who voted for Prop 8 seem less than happy about it.
Actually, kmboots, from what I've read googling, some of the groups that that were pro-Prop 8 filed with the California courts to have the donation records sealed before this map was ever made, because of some of the threats that have been made against supporters. Most legal experts say that they will not win the case. I do think that the gay community in California should step up to condemn the threats and physical harassment (they may have done this - not living in California, I don't hear much of the news there) - physical violence is never cool.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Speaking about the vote is NOT "more" political than actually voting.
I would argue that it is. One is referendum; the other is advocacy. Historically, Americans have argued that the latter should not be done in private, while the former should be. Whether you agree or not, the distinction has been made for far longer than we've been alive.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I do think that the gay community in California should step up to condemn the threats and physical harassment (they may have done this - not living in California, I don't hear much of the news there) - physical violence is never cool.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It seems odd to me that people who are happy to applaud "outing" those who exercise their political speech are unhappy about "outing" those who actually voted to bring Proposition 8 to pass.
Speaking about the vote is NOT "more" political than actually voting. Why is voting sacred? According to your lights, there should be no expectation of privacy when it comes to politcal action. Voting is the ultimate political action.
Okay... If you want to call voting the ultimate political action, that's fine. My problem is with making actions which are meant to influence the votes of others anonymous. Group those actions under whatever header you want, and call them whatever you want. I don't care about names.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Speaking about the vote is NOT "more" political than actually voting. Why is voting sacred? According to your lights, there should be no expectation of privacy when it comes to politcal action. Voting is the ultimate political action.
Jhai already explained what she meant by political action and voting wasn't included. There's no reason to argue semantics at this point.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think she is crafting her definition deliberately to leave out voting because she recognizes that there is a strong gut feeling that voting should be secret.
Her definition is flawed. Voting is absolutely meant to influence the behavior of others. It is the actual vote that caused the law to be changed. It is completely political.
However, we all know that making voting public is a crappy thing to do. So is that map.
And really, I can't believe that opponents to Proposition 8 are defending their stance with "this is how it has been done historically." The irony and hypocrisy is a little too rich.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
