The American Left

I've never suggested that we punish success have I? And I've never said you should just hand your country over to illegals. Trying to make me into those strawmen isn't quite clicking is it!

I've argued with a complete and honest understanding of the merits of the right's agenda as well as the left's. On the equality for women thread I've even commended some of the righties for their thorough understanding of the issue.

On the illegals question, I've taken the position that employers need to be held responsible for hiring illegals. That's a long way from handing your country over to them.

This is just you being evasive and dishonest and you're doing that because you refuse to address your libertarian agenda in direct terms by using specific examples. You are capable of better and you are capable of a sound liberal or progressive argument in favour if you would just rise above the libertarian pie in the sky. It has you treading water and running in circles.

- - - Updated - - -

I've never suggested that we punish success have I? And I've never said you should just hand your country over to illegals. Trying to make me into those strawmen isn't quite clicking is it!

I've argued with a complete and honest understanding of the merits of the right's agenda as well as the left's. On the equality for women thread I've even commended some of the righties for their thorough understanding of the issue.

On the illegals question, I've taken the position that employers need to be held responsible for hiring illegals. That's a long way from handing your country over to them.

This is just you being evasive and dishonest and you're doing that because you refuse to address your libertarian agenda in direct terms by using specific examples. You are capable of better and you are capable of a sound liberal or progressive argument in favour if you would just rise above the libertarian pie in the sky. It has you treading water and running in circles.

 

As I figured, you wouldn't get the premise of it. I haven't run in circles or evaded any of your questions. I'm simply tired of you picking and choosing what you want to hear and making a straw man argument off of it. I need not continue addressing something that I've already addressed many times and you wish for something different. My stance is firm, it's not moving, it's the same.

If you need a reminder, find your first thread on libertarianism, my stances are in there as well, if you need a refresher course on my thought process for the stop sign and many things around it as well.

 

The cartoon was very direct and simple to interpret. If I've failed to do that then I claim it's not my fault. If there was some other meaning you wished me to gather from it then you will have to expand on that.

You don't have to answer to me if you don't want to. You can entertain Unifyier and some others who agree with you if you like. I'm just going to continue to prick holes in all our trial balloons. And that's reallly what they are aren't they. You're trying to formulate a position and that's why you even question your own beliefs by stating as much.

 

The 'straw man' continues making 'straw man' arguments. If I put into context of stating immigrants should be allowed to come here to make the country better, a straw man argument would be 'just hand the country over to illegals'. This is essentially what you do with everything anybody says. You take what their saying, completely distort the reality of it, and make it seem like it means something that it doesn't. Then, you try to ridicule the person by saying they're crazy or insane. When, in fact, it's the very straw man argument that you are using that's crazy and/or insane.

Did I expand it enough?

They don't agree with me on every step, nor do you. The difference is when I make my statements, those folks actually can legitimately question me on my stances. Not pull a rabbit out of their @$$ and tell me it's magic.

 

I have never advocated handing your country over to illegals and so if you are going to persist with that lie then there's not much more I can do but continue to deny it. If you can furnish some evidence or proof for your claim then do so. If not then why not just shut the fuk up and get on to the specifics of your agenda?

 

Man, I'm trying to be civil with this but are you truly that stupid?

Point out in that statement where I claimed that you stated that. Please, circle around it a bit, I really want you to think about this one. Then when your brain gets to a boil, let it simmer for a bit, let it rest for about 5 minutes, and then come up with a valid thought. If that's too much for you, give up because obviously thinking wasn't something you were meant to do.

 

All you need to do is explain your intention with the cartoon. I told you clearly that the accusations being made in the cartooon didn't fit me and I told you why. Now you can tell me what your intent was.

I don't accept the accusation of posing straw man arguments unless you specifically give an example of when I did.

Let's start fresh and you make that accusation. I think you are confusing a straw man argument for something totally unrelated, such as me asking for specifics. However, when you make your specific charge we will see.

edit: I'm reading anger and frustration in your words now and I'm detecting it's because you are feeling exposed and inadequate to the challenge. But at the same time, I'm quite pleased to hear that you have now run into an impasse with a fellow libertarian. For what it's worth, you're right and Kenny is wrong. Don't start waffling on your convictions with him even though you are going to have to sound like a socially responsible person to do it. He isn't.

 

Monty, I explained why I posted that cartoon. It's the premise of a straw man argument. It wasn't an implication that you said what was in there, it's simply that's how you continue discussions.

As such, I stated that my political beliefs aren't the best. You stated that if I didn't believe mine were the best then I'm becoming apologetic over my beliefs. I stated that I wasn't apologetic because my beliefs are best for me. They're the best for me, just like socialism is the best for you. Then you stated, and I quote, 'You make it clear that you are still uncertain and are apologizing for your stance'. This is where you are pulling straw man arguments into play. If you didn't understand my stance, I'm fairly certain that you could've understood it after I stated what I said. Then you created a thread of 'Do Libertarians Stand By Their Convictions?', in which was a direct shot at me.

Again, I'm not apologetic for my beliefs and I stand firm on what I believe. My beliefs will always respect the rights of others, even though you disagree with it. I'm just not in the mood for you to keep pulling at something that isn't there. If I said something that you didn't understand, I will ensure that I establish myself to it. I've always said that what you perceive the world to be isn't always what others do. As such, you need to ensure those folks see what you see so they can get the full picture. Don't take my words out of context because I've never once did yours.

 

I see that there's been some discontent here since I last checked this thread. Surprise? Civil debate, when conducted with objectivity, is an excellent way in which to assess the validty of philosophical/political positions. Difficulties in maintaining that civility arise when the issue being discussed is one upon which one or both debater's position(s) is/are based upon strongly-held principles. Unless one's position can be modified/compromised in a way that does not sacrifice the core-principle upon which a debater's position is based, civility can fall by the wayside very quickly.

We face a major problem when trying to maintain civility in debate these days. The problem lies in the unwillingness of many persons to objectively assess the veracity of the principle(s) upon which their positions are based. When debating issues, one must be objective without sacrificing core principles. Gay/Lesbian marriage is a good example of such unwillingness on the part of the American Left. The argument in support of such marriages began with justified claims that gay and lesbian couples didn't have all of the same legal rights as heterosexual, married couples. Those claims were justified, and must be addressed. Many of us on the right expressed willingness to support civil unions that would guarantee gay/lesbian couples the same basic civil rights as hetero married couples. We asked only that the unions not be called "marriages", that those religions opposed to such unions not be forced to condone such unions, and that religously-based organizations not be penalized in any manner for their opposition. The compromise that many Constitutional Conservatives offered have been rejected by the majority of the gay-lesbian community. Their position is that every single demand they have be granted, and that all opposition be silenced and made to comply. Such a position on their part is NOT a compromise. It's dictatorial!

 

First of all, 'separate but equal' tends to be regarded as unconstitutional. Civil Unions exclude same-sex couples from an important social institution and send out the message that their love is somehow inferior. It also amounts in many ways to religious pandering - the belief that "marriage is between a man and a woman as god intended" - and ignores the existence of CIVIL marriage which is completely separate from religious marriage. The only pill I'd be willing to swallow is if the government relinquished the word "marriage" and renamed all references to it as "civil unions". That would be an acceptable compromise IMO, but I disagree with the kind of irrational legal discrimination you're calling for. Unfortunately, the prospect of the government renaming civil marriage civil unions are slim to none, so the only realistic and fair option is to allow same-sex couples access to full marriage.

Furthermore, while I don't doubt that many Republican voters support civil unions, the fact your elected representatives have nearly always voted against them and the fact not a single red state or Republican-controlled legislature has passed civil unions or ANY kind of legal recognition for same-sex couples proves that there is no willingness to compromise.

 

Another point worth noting is that with DOMA on the cusp of being struck down, it will mean any legislature that passes civil unions/domestic partnerships for same-sex couples instead of marriage are voting to deny them the over 1,000 federal benefits that only go to married couples.

 

First of all, “separate but equal” has nothing to do with the question at hand, nor to the argument I made in my last post. Gays and lesbians aren’t being required to use separate water fountains, nor are they required to go to separate schools. Gays and lesbians take part in every aspect of American life with heterosexuals.

The ONLY thing civil unions deny same-sex couples is the designation of their unions as “marriages”! If someone gives you one-million dollars with the stipulation that you must call what you received “pickles” instead of “dollars”, any reasonable person would say “Thanks for the pickles”! Instead, many gays and lesbians aren’t content to compromise on anything.

You’re not opposed to the government pandering to gays and lesbians, but allowing others their guaranteed religious freedom to abstain from supporting the gay/lesbian lifestyle is unacceptable pandering? After thousands of years during which marriage was defined by all societies as being between men and women, there’s suddenly a revelation that during 99.5% of human history, the definition was wrong??

You’re willing to compromise then, are you? I was willing to compromise too, so you and I agree on this?

Please list the remarks in my post that led you to believe I’m calling for irrational legal discrimination??? I freely admitted that gay/lesbian couples are denied some civil rights that they should have. I also admitted that such denials were wrong, and must be addressed. I also insisted that, at the same time, no religion be required to perform or support such unions, for freedom of religion IS a Constitutionally-Guaranteed right. Surely you don’t see that stipulation as “irrational discrimination”, do you?

Many GOP politicians, as most Democrat politicians, don’t compromise before being assured that the other side will do likewise. At this point, GOP politicians see no tendency on the part of Democrats to compromise on anything. If civil unions (as opposed to “marriage”) are coupled with religious protections, and are addressed sensibly by both sides, there’d be a clear path to gay/lesbian civil rights.

The key point in my last post was that for politicians to compromise, both sides must better assess their core principles. Each side may have room to compromise on issues if those basic principles can be maintained while doing so. The suggestions I made in this post and my last one attempted to demonstrate how that might be accomplished. Unless I'm misreading your position, I don't believe that your position and mine are far apart, if at all?

 

I'll reply fully later (it's really late here!), but without sounding arrogant, it's not even as though same-sex marriage advocates even need to compromise on this issue in the long run. Around three-quarters of Democrats and approximately 55% of Independent voters now support it, as well as over 50% of Republicans under 30 and 25-30% of all registered GOP voters. Around 80% of Americans 18-30 want same-sex marriage to be legal in their states. The trajectory is clear - no other issue has gained popularity so quicky than any social issue in living memory:



Basically, Nate SIlver over at 538 calculates that national support is increasing at a rate of 1.5% a year nationally. This means that by 2020 SSM will have majority support in 44 states:



The fact is, once DOMA is either repealed or struck down, the rest is down to voters on a state-by-state basis (provided the Supreme Court doesn't find a Constitutional right to SSM). Surely you don't oppose the people deciding?

 

Agreed but when those whom you debate with doesn't seem to wish to debate but merely throw out insults, it tends to get very difficult. I'm done playing those games and will revert into having serious discussions, I tire of those games.

Why does it need to be different? By changing the name of the same exact thing you would determine heterosexuals, you, in essence, are stating that homosexuality is different, by the very definition. Me, personally, I believe the government should keep it's nose out of their business. Who are we to say what it is and what it isn't? As far as I can tell, they're married. If they accept the same principals as everyone else, why can my wife and I state we're 'married' but two men/women have to say they have a 'civil union'?

This is where I think conservatives are losing this battle. Leave religion out of this as well. If any religion doesn't believe in this type of marriage, so be it. I don't believe that anyone should tell anyone they can/can't get married to someone. If two consenting parties wish to marry one another, why stop them? More over to the point, I don't believe religious beliefs should be forced into marrying folks either. If religions wish to marry gay/lesbian couples, that's their right just as well.

In the end, this is something they should've been able to do for centuries. I don't understand why it continually needs to have laws to be so. What folks don't realize is that because of this fight back, on these various issues, you're essentially giving them more power, in the long run, than had you just accepted it. I accept it because it doesn't effect me. If any two people wish to get married, none of it effects me. If your religion doesn't believe in it, then I'd say talk within your religious group to not allow this to go on. Don't push your views onto others and ask them to pass laws abolishing it. That's where I think folks need to stop. You say you compromise with it being called 'unions' but not being a dictatorial but in them wanting the same thing as heterosexuals is being dictatorial, kind of seems hypocritical, if you ask me.

Just let them marry and call it as such. Government just needs to keep their nose out of it, simple as that.

 

Even though I agree with you that public support for same-sex marriage is at a all time high, as far as the public goes, and I see gays being excluded from marriage as unconstitutional, I just don't think the Supreme Court is going to really render a decision on either DOMA or Prop 8. Even Ginsburg, one of the most liberal judges on the high court, cited what a mistake Roe v Wade was, because the court acted in a hastily manner, which ignited a culture war, still ragging 30 years later. I truly think the court is hesitant to tackle this issue, and render a final ruling. Prop 8 will be sent down back to the lower court's ruling, which will keeps the original ruling, which makes Prop 8 null and void in the state of California. As far as DOMA goes, I don't have the foggiest clue how the court will come down on this issue.
I hope they would render a decision, claiming bans on gay marriage unconstitutional, so we can get on with life without being bombarded by activist on both side of this issue. But on the other hand one would expect the high court to act with jurisprudence, and take the dynamics of this issue into careful consideration.

To sum up a long winded rant, I'm sure the high court is going to dodge rendering a decision.

 

I'm pleased to see that our discussion is remaining civil and respectful. I hope the civility continues.

Your comments support the contention I made in my last few posts. Arguments for "political compromise" are everywhere, and it's always conservatives who're accused of being unwilling to compromise. However, when conservatves offer a genuine compromise as I did by supporting civil unions, the response is "Not Acceptable". In defining "civil unions", I explained that the compromise I described would give gay and lesbian couples virtually 100% of the legal protections allowed to heterosexual couples. I requested one tiny little compromise in return, that being the name given to the contract. Compromise doesn't mean that one side gives the other everything it demands. Surely you see that distinction?

 

But It makes no sense to compromise on an issue that is rapidly gaining support, that's my point. Voters have already given approval to it in 3 states with a lot more planned. I'm ok with leaving it to the voters to decide, because you know as well as I do it will be legal nationally at some point.

 

You're just mad because I'm calling you on your libertarian nonsense with arguments you can't stand up to. So why not mention my name in all your insinuations you are making on all the threads you frequent!
You decided you wanted to play with the grownups. Get over yourself.

 

He's not even an American as I understand it. What he has to say about this country is kind of laughable.

 

I see both sides and understand the arguments over this very well. If the case is to be made for two men/women being called a 'civil union', then how about a man & a woman being called a 'binding contract'?

For me, I don't see why there needs to be a compromise on this issue. I think there are plenty of other things we need to stand firm on (IE: Gun control), this one isn't something I believe folks should argue in regards to. However, I can see why the push for compromise as folks wish to have compromise all over the place.

The way I look at it is from a rights perspective. I'll respect your rights, you should respect mine. Let folks get married and call it as such, then when it comes to things on your rights, that's when you call for the same thing. Obviously, this isn't as easy as it seems, but that's what I'm running with.

 

California, arguably the most liberal State in the Union, voted FOR proposition 8 that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. As usual, a leftwing judge then decided that the "will of the people" is meaningless if the left doesn't agree with the peoples' will. The voters DID decide in California, and what good did it do them?

It's also interesting to note that before the vote against same-sex marriage in California, all the polls indicated strong support FOR gay marriage. When voters are allowed to vote, they tend to oppose gay marriage.

 

I congratulate you for your optimistic outlook on life. I stopped laughing at leftists years ago. I find them hateful, bigoted, and dangerous, not funny. I'll bet you sleep better than I do.

 

Jeez, kid, could you BE any more one-dimensional?

 

You gotta love Mississippi. They are severely inbred and their intransigence is increasing.
But they did get around to outlawing slavery a couple of months ago, so let's give credit where it's due.

 

On gun control, you come to an immediate conclusion, never stopping to think of the rights of the gun owners being balanced with the rights of those who are suffering and dying at the hands of the gun owners. But the libertarian will always declare his decisions on rights to be the only choice. The more libertarians they are, the more that is true, and so it's just sometimes true with you because you have a little liberal bird flying around in your brain that keeps telling you what is really right and decent and honest.