lol

>> ^bareboards2:
I capisce. I just don't agree.
Look, you have to talk to folks in ways they will hear.
You arguing about this completely proves my point.
You are arguing that there is a perfect way to discuss this. Because of your mindset.
I absolutely agree with you about the reason why government should stay out of bedrooms and houses. But I can also see, very clearly, that this argument will hold no water with religious types. Why can't you?
Which proves my point that religious people need to hear it in their language.
I would also caution about you believing the lawmaker "implied" god's wants this. That is NOT what he said. In fact, I would be surprised if he is religious at all.
Might I suggest that you listen to the vid again? He chose his words very carefully. He is looking to change deep held beliefs -- all that stuff about "think about it later", he wants these folks to be reflective within their own logic system and he understands, as you clearly do not, that letting go of a long held belief system is hard.
You can prove me wrong by agreeing with me now. Or you can continue to prove my point by repeating endless variations on how this should only be discussed through the prism of government interference.
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^bareboards2:
Methinks you missed the point, my friend.
He came up with a religious argument to counter religious stupidity.
This may be a turning point.
>> ^rottenseed:
upvote for the sentiment but he totally missed the point. The point being "what the fuck do we, the government, have any business in people's sexuality as long as its not hindering another?"


I totally know what you mean. This is an ends justifies a means type of thing. But just because he said it, and implied that it's what god must want, doesn't mean people will agree.
If you make the argument that the government has NO business in our personal lives, I think that everybody can find something about that they can relate to. Capisci?

I capisce. I just don't agree.

Look, you have to talk to folks in ways they will hear.

You arguing about this completely proves my point.

You are arguing that there is a perfect way to discuss this. Because of your mindset.

I absolutely agree with you about the reason why government should stay out of bedrooms and houses. But I can also see, very clearly, that this argument will hold no water with religious types. Why can't you?

Which proves my point that religious people need to hear it in their language.

I would also caution about you believing the lawmaker "implied" god's wants this. That is NOT what he said. In fact, I would be surprised if he is religious at all.

Might I suggest that you listen to the vid again? He chose his words very carefully. He is looking to change deep held beliefs -- all that stuff about "think about it later", he wants these folks to be reflective within their own logic system and he understands, as you clearly do not, that letting go of a long held belief system is hard.

You can prove me wrong by agreeing with me now. Or you can continue to prove my point by repeating endless variations on how this should only be discussed through the prism of government interference.


>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^bareboards2:
Methinks you missed the point, my friend.
He came up with a religious argument to counter religious stupidity.
This may be a turning point.
>> ^rottenseed:
upvote for the sentiment but he totally missed the point. The point being "what the fuck do we, the government, have any business in people's sexuality as long as its not hindering another?"


I totally know what you mean. This is an ends justifies a means type of thing. But just because he said it, and implied that it's what god must want, doesn't mean people will agree.
If you make the argument that the government has NO business in our personal lives, I think that everybody can find something about that they can relate to. Capisci?

Red hair is a genetic anomaly. Should we legislate against them, too?


>> ^quantumushroom:

If the odds of being born gay were 50%, perhaps it would be less viewed as a genetic anomaly.
How many more serial killers and pedophiles does 'God' have to create before we let them run amok as well?

I capisce. I just don't agree.

Look, you have to talk to folks in ways they will hear.

You arguing about this completely proves my point.

You are arguing that there is a perfect way to discuss this. Because of your mindset.

I absolutely agree with you about the reason why government should stay out of bedrooms and houses. But I can also see, very clearly, that this argument will hold no water with religious types. Why can't you?

Which proves my point that religious people need to hear it in their language.

I would also caution about you believing the lawmaker "implied" god's wants this. That is NOT what he said. In fact, I would be surprised if he is religious at all.

Might I suggest that you listen to the vid again? He chose his words very carefully. He is looking to change deep held beliefs -- all that stuff about "think about it later", he wants these folks to be reflective within their own logic system and he understands, as you clearly do not, that letting go of a long held belief system is hard.

You can prove me wrong by agreeing with me now. Or you can continue to prove my point by repeating endless variations on how this should only be discussed through the prism of government interference.



In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
>> ^bareboards2:

Methinks you missed the point, my friend.
He came up with a religious argument to counter religious stupidity.
This may be a turning point.
>> ^rottenseed:
upvote for the sentiment but he totally missed the point. The point being "what the fuck do we, the government, have any business in people's sexuality as long as its not hindering another?"



I totally know what you mean. This is an ends justifies a means type of thing. But just because he said it, and implied that it's what god must want, doesn't mean people will agree.

If you make the argument that the government has NO business in our personal lives, I think that everybody can find something about that they can relate to. Capisci?

>> ^bareboards2:

Methinks you missed the point, my friend.
He came up with a religious argument to counter religious stupidity.
This may be a turning point.
>> ^rottenseed:
upvote for the sentiment but he totally missed the point. The point being "what the fuck do we, the government, have any business in people's sexuality as long as its not hindering another?"



I totally know what you mean. This is an ends justifies a means type of thing. But just because he said it, and implied that it's what god must want, doesn't mean people will agree.

If you make the argument that the government has NO business in our personal lives, I think that everybody can find something about that they can relate to. Capisci?

>> ^rottenseed:

upvote for the sentiment but he totally missed the point. The point being "what the fuck do we, the government, have any business in people's sexuality as long as its not hindering another?"


Excactly, the nature vs nurture discussion/problem is scientifically interesting and yes, the evidence on sexuality points to nature.

But isnt that completely irrelevant? Say if someone chooses (given that its even possible) to change their sexual attraction somehow, or perhaps experiments with S/M or whatever, isnt that like.. uh, i dont know.. None of anybody elses fucking business? Oh yeah thats it.

Homosexuality isnt a choice, but it would matter fuck all if it was. Its a choice consenting adults would have every right to make.

>> ^bareboards2:

Methinks you missed the point, my friend.
He came up with a religious argument to counter religious stupidity.
This may be a turning point.
>> ^rottenseed:
upvote for the sentiment but he totally missed the point. The point being "what the fuck do we, the government, have any business in people's sexuality as long as its not hindering another?"



Nahhh, it does miss the point. He ends up supporting the course of action you and I would support, but he never addresses the 500 pound gorilla in the room, what business just government have to decide what marriage even is? Isn't that completely personal and private. The only reason we really have it is to stop Mormons from practicing their religion, and for money...always the money.

I will upvote because he seems like a good and decent man, however. Bold, frankness isn't something you get from a lot of political types.

Methinks you missed the point, my friend.

He came up with a religious argument to counter religious stupidity.

This may be a turning point.

>> ^rottenseed:

upvote for the sentiment but he totally missed the point. The point being "what the fuck do we, the government, have any business in people's sexuality as long as its not hindering another?"

We're on the right side of history. Yippee for us and thanks for the promote!

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
*promote the logic

http://videosift.com/video/Minnesota-State-Lawmaker-Asks-Perfect-Question-about-Gays

Oh oh oh ohhhhhh!!!!!

Lookee what I just found!!!!!!!!!!!

UNWANTED is right.

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

http://www.stopshariahnow.org

Little by little Shariah is creeping into our society, as per the following examples:

*footbaths in banks & airports (Minneapolis)
*polygamy (USA & UK)
*forced child marriages (Europe & Canada)
*honor killings (USA, Canada, Europe)
*spousal abuse among Muslim immigrant populations (USA & Europe)
*Islamic holidays replacing American holidays like Labor Day (Tyson Foods)
*publicly funded Shariah-Islamic schools (Virginia, NY, Minnesota)
*companies creating Islamic prayer rooms (Wachovia)
*nurses required to turn beds towards Mecca five times a day (UK)
*elimination of wine and alcohol at hotels (Hyatt)
*separation of men and women for recreation activities (Harvard)
*taxi drivers refusing to pick up passengers with wine, alcohol or seeing eye dogs (Minneapolis)
*and a growing Shariah Finance investment market supported by Citibank, UBS, HSBC, Dow Jones, Standard & Pours, and nearly every national investment bank you can think of, which is branding “Shariah” as some innocuous religious accommodation required by “moderate” Muslims

No wonder she won Minnesota!

Rank↓ State↓ 2009↓ 2008↓ 2007↓ 2004-2006↓
1 Maryland $79,272 $78,454 $78,725 $77,985
2 New Jersey $68,342 $70,378 $67,035 $64,169
3 Connecticut $67,034 $68,595 $65,967 $59,972
4 Alaska $66,953 $68,460 $64,333 $57,639
5 Hawaii $64,098 $67,214 $63,746 $60,681
6 Massachusetts $64,081 $65,401 $62,365 $56,236
7 New Hampshire $60,567 $63,731 $62,369 $60,489
8 Virginia $59,330 $61,233 $59,562 $55,108
District of Columbia $59,290 $57,936 $54,317 $47,221 (2005)[3]PDF
9 California $58,931 $61,021 $59,948 $53,770
10 Delaware $56,860 $57,989 $54,610 $52,214
11 Washington $56,548 $58,078 $55,591 $53,439
12 Minnesota $55,616 $57,288 $55,082 $57,363
13 Colorado $55,430 $56,993 $55,212 $54,039
14 Utah $55,117 $56,633 $55,109 $55,179
15 New York $54,659 $56,033 $53,514 $48,201
16 Rhode Island $54,119 $55,701 $53,568 $52,003
17 Illinois $53,966 $56,235 $54,124 $49,280
18 Nevada $53,341 $56,361 $55,062 $50,819
19 Wyoming $52,664 $53,207 $51,731 $47,227
20 Vermont $51,618 $52,104 $49,907 $51,622
United States $50,221 $52,029 $50,740 $46,242 (2005) [4]PDF
21 Wisconsin $49,993 $52,094 $50,578 $48,874
22 Pennsylvania $49,520 $50,713 $48,576 $47,791
23 Arizona $48,745 $50,958 $49,889 $46,729
24 Oregon $48,457 $50,169 $48,730 $45,485
25 Texas $48,259 $50,043 $47,548 $43,425
26 Iowa $48,044 $48,980 $47,292 $47,489
27 North Dakota $47,827 $45,685 $43,753 $43,753
28 Kansas $47,817 $50,177 $47,451 $44,264
29 Georgia $47,590 $50,861 $49,136 $46,841
30 Nebraska $47,357 $49,693 $47,085 $48,126
31 Maine $45,734 $46,581 $45,888 $45,040
32 Indiana $45,424 $47,966 $47,448 $44,806
33 Ohio $45,395 $47,988 $46,597 $45,837
34 Michigan $45,255 $48,591 $47,950 $47,064
35 Missouri $45,229 $46,867 $45,114 $44,651
36 South Dakota $45,043 $46,032 $43,424 $44,624
37 Idaho $44,926 $47,576 $46,253 $46,395
38 Florida $44,736 $47,778 $47,804 $44,448
39 North Carolina $43,674 $46,549 $44,670 $42,061
40 New Mexico $43,028 $43,508 $41,452 $40,827
41 Louisiana $42,492 $43,733 $40,926 $37,943
42 South Carolina $42,442 $44,625 $43,329 $40,822
43 Montana $42,322 $43,654 $43,531 $38,629
44 Tennessee $41,725 $43,614 $42,367 $40,676
45 Oklahoma $41,664 $42,822 $41,567 $40,001
46 Alabama $40,489 $42,666 $40,554 $38,473
47 Kentucky $40,072 $41,538 $40,267 $38,466
48 Arkansas $37,823 $38,815 $38,134 $37,420
49 West Virginia $37,435 $37,989 $37,060 $37,227
50 Mississippi $36,646 $37,790 $36,338 $35,261
Puerto Rico $17,500 $17,000

Want to know what it even worse? Laws like this are still on the books, and enforced.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law:

"In Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, New Jersey, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, car dealerships continue to operate under blue-law prohibitions in which an automobile may not be purchased or traded on a Sunday. Maryland permits Sunday automobile sales only in the counties of Prince George's, Montgomery, and Howard; similarly, Michigan restricts Sunday sales to only those counties with a population of less than 130,000. Texas and Utah prohibit car dealerships from operating over consecutive weekend days.

Many states still prohibit selling alcohol on Sunday, or at least before noon on Sunday, under the rationale that people should be in church on Sunday morning, or at least not drinking.

Blue laws may also prohibit retail activity on days other than Sunday. In Massachusetts and Connecticut, for example, blue laws dating to the Puritans of the 17th century still prohibit most retail stores, including grocery stores, from opening on Thanksgiving and Christmas."

I'm so glad these were ruled to be unconstitutional here in Canada in 1985.
>> ^kceaton1:

So sad that this is more or less true. It leaves me speechless.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

How is what these guys said any different than what the 'other guy' says (and gets a pass)?

What I think is different about things like what Angle and Bachmann said is that are incitement of violence.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Politicians since times ancient have grossly extrapolated the actions/policies of their opponents.
[snip]
Bachman wanted people 'armed and dangerous'. Barak Obama wanted people "angry, get in their face, hit back twice as hard, bring a gun". I see no difference.

First, you need to source your Obama quote. I only found this as context:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

Kinda sounds like it's a metaphor, does it not?

Secondly, that never became any sort of Democratic talking point or campaign slogan. You didn't hear it coming out of the mouths of everyone on the left every 10 seconds for the better part of a year, the way you heard "death panels".

Thirdly, have you followed the link on Bachmann's full quote, and read it in context? If not, here's more:

I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people – we the people – are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.

I see the word revolution being used literally. I see talk of losing the country, of losing freedom, in the context of saying "I want people armed and dangerous".

Fourth, have I mentioned that this is in the larger context of falsely accusing Democrats of making up global warming?

So, the Obama quote isn't well sourced, doesn't involve a lie, was pretty transparently a metaphor for traditional electioneering activities, and I suspect if Obama was asked about it today he'd say it was a poor word choice. Bachmann's quote we have audio recordings of, involves a big lie, was pretty clearly about armed insurrection against the legitimate government of the United States, and while I suspect she would say "I didn't mean that", she probably wouldn't confess to any kind of issue with her word choice.

I don't see any equivalence.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Palin's death panel is an exaggeration of the rationed care that IS a part of Obamacare. Similarly, Democrats accuse the GOP of starving people when they want to cut a social program.

Really? Neither statement is true.

First, medical care is a scarce resource, and any system by which we choose to distribute it is by definition "rationing", whether it's a market, or something else, so saying "Obamacare" has "rationing" is a meaningless statement. Even if I grant some special meaning of the word "rationing", there still isn't anything even remotely like Palin's "death panel" in the bill anywhere.

Second, when have Democrats accused Republicans of starving people? To be frank, I wish they would, especially since it's true more often than not. The closest I've seen is Alan Grayson saying that the Republican health care plan is "#1 Don't get sick. #2 If you do get sick, die quickly."

For that one to be true you need to wrap some caveats around it, but basically if you can't afford insurance, or have a preexisting condition, that was totally accurate.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Do I like the overblown rhetoric? No, but it is part and parcel of any vigorous debate.
No normal person takes these statements literally though. And trying to pander to the NOT normal people seems to me an exercise in futility. Moreover, trying to be "PC" using the outliers of society as a standard is an impossible moving target, and rather subject to opinion.

To a large degree, this is a response to an argument I'm not making. I actually really like overblown rhetoric. What I don't like is the way the right imputes sinister motives to the left. It's not just "they're corrupt and beholden to special interests (and sometimes mansluts)", these days it's "they're coming to take your guns, kill your family, make your kids into gay drug addicts, take your house, your job, and piss on the American flag while surrendering to every other nation in the world".

The left is getting pretty coarse about the right, but most of our insults are that Republicans are corrupt and beholden to special interests...and dumb, heartless liars.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
There is no nice way to say this, but you are wrong. They were not, and you know it. There is no GOP candidate who would have survived 5 seconds if they'd been calling for armed rebellion if they lost. That is hyperbole.

I'd love to be wrong about this. I am not. Scroll back up to my first comment here, there are two videos of Republicans calling for armed insurrection if they lose. These two were small potatoes, but Michele Bachmann and Sharron Angle both were saying the same thing, just a little less directly. Rick Perry has been a bit more overt, but also a lot less graphic (talk of secession rather than revolution). Not to bring the Tea Party into this, but they kept showing up with signs talking about "Watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants"

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I put it to you kindly that this opinion is another symptom of perception bias. Would you not agree that from Glenn Beck's perspective his infamous 'chalkboard histories' are an attempt to educate and outreach? And quite frankly, I feel very little sense of 'outreach' or 'education' when liberals call conservatives hateful, angry, evil, nazis, corporate shills, mind numbed robots, neocons, teabaggers, racist, sexist, and bigoted.

No, Beck's not trying outreach with his blackboards. He's painting a false picture of history in which liberalism is about violence and domination, and entirely overrun by a conspiracy of nefarious interests. That's not outreach, that's poisoning the well so that it's impossible for people who think he's illuminating some sort of truth (and to be clear, he is not), to talk to the people who haven't subscribed to Beck's belief that liberalism progressivism is just the new mask the fascists have put on to insinuate themselves into modern society so they can subvert it from within.

It's true that the left isn't engaging in outreach when they're calling you names. I suspect you haven't seen much outreach, given the way you personally tend to approach topics around here. You don't seem like the kind of person who's open to outreach.

That said, if I thought there was a way to show you what I think is good about liberalism, I would do so. I'd be happy to give you my take on what liberals believe and why, if you're genuinely interested in trying to understand the way we think.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Sure - just be sure to allow that both ways. Criticize conservative pundits all you want. But don't get all testy if conservatives criticize liberal ones. And if you try to pin accessory to murder on conservatives, don't be surprised when they get their back up.

Yeah, I didn't. See, the right's been calling us murderers and tyrants quite a bit lately. They've been making the case in countless different ways that government run by Democrats, and especially by Obama is fundamentally illegitimate. Not "something we strongly disagree with" but a total break with the fundamental principles of our government that present a direct threat to people.

Here I personally went one click further and suggested that perhaps this is an intentional strategy to rile up the crazies, so they'll physically intimidate liberals.

Again, I'd love to see someone prove me wrong about that. Ad hominem tu quoque arguments won't really do the job.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
That is because I'm bearding the lion in its metaphorical den, so to speak. The sift is liberally slanted. I'm not. So even when dare to challenge the consensus groupthink - even when done respectfully - I get blowback. I would say that I am incredibly patient, respectful, and moderate in my tone. I rarely (if ever) make things personal. Even when I'm on the receiving end of some rather nasty abuse I tend to keep it civil.

I think then there may be room for me to maybe help understand the kinds of reactions you get.

Part of the issue is a lot of your comments are of the formation "What liberals are saying is utterly, demonstrably, and obviously false, and in fact, they're more guilty of it than the right". You then support your argument with a litany of asserted facts...that you don't source, and are in direct contravention of what was said elsewhere (regardless of whether it'd been sourced or not).

Part of the issue with making an argument purely on challenging facts is that you run headlong into questions about the legitimacy of the source, and those can be some of the ugliest arguments of all, especially if the only source cited is yourself.

I'd recommend trying to make philosophical or moral arguments that don't hinge on the specific circumstances, especially when we're talking about events we only know about from news stories. I find it helps move conversations from heat to light when you shift the discussion to the underlying philosophical disagreement like that.

I also think you'll get farther with making a positive statement about what you believe, than a negative statement about what you believe liberals believe. (i.e. instead of "Liberals just want to boss people around with their nanny state", try "Conservatives are trying to give people more freedom to choose how to run their own lives")

People will likely still disagree with you, but at least there's a chance they'll respond to what you said, rather than just hurl invectives at you.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I don't apologize for being a rare conservative voice in a chorus of liberals, but that doesn't mean that "I" am responsible for 'increased vitriol'. The vitriol comes when people other than myself. I simply present a different point of view.

I don't think you should apologize. However, I also think you have to be willing to accept some responsibility for how people react to what you say. I'm self-aware enough to know that what I say is going to sound inflammatory to some people, and I certainly don't feel like criticism of my own inflammatory speech is somehow an assault on my free speech.

If you're getting a lot of vitriol (and I know you are), and that's not what you want, I think you should examine the way you're presenting yourself rather than assuming it's all the result of some sort of universal liberal intolerance.

This place has a bunch of really thoughtful people who enjoy civil discussion with people who they disagree with. If that's what you want, I gotta say I think you're just pushing the wrong buttons.