"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover there are other views." -William F Buckley
So true
R.W.: "The frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance, freedom and open-mindedness. Question: Isn't the real truth that they are intolerant of religion? They refuse to tolerate it's importance in our lives." -Ronald Reagan.
B.R.: Yes, amazing quotes and quite accurate, but this controversy isn't just about belief or opinion, it's also about drowning the political system with millions of dollars, to continue oppressing American citizens we claim to think are our equals. To ignore that vital element on either an intellectual or emotional level, is to be willfully ignorant and woefully out of touch with the next generation of Americans.
R.W.: It just about belief and opinion.
R.W.: Should we make political contributions illegal ? Shall we just do away with the first amendment? Maybe only liberal companies should be allowed to contribute since only they know what's best for everyone. They are, after all, much mote enlightened than the rest of us. Companies like Ben and jerrys should be run out of all the red states since they don't share the same standards as the local community.
Me: It ain't about equality.
S.H.: As I posted on another friend's comment thread: "Everyone has the right to spend their money as they choose. The owner of Chick-fil-A has the right to give his money to organizations that oppose changing the traditional definition of marriage. Gays (and others) have the right to not eat in his restaurants if they don't like it. Others have the right to patronize his restaurants if they do like it. (And, judging from the reported success of "Support Chick-fil-A Day," it sounds like there's a lot of the latter.) None of those behaviors equate to "hate" in my opinion. They are all the choices of free people in a free market society. I'm getting really tired of hearing people brand as "hate" any behavior or expression of political opinion they don't happen to agree with.
"I *do* have a problem when government officials decide they're going to deliberately try to damage a business because of its owner's personal moral views, or the political causes he chooses to support."
As R.W. points out, liberals would be screaming from the housetops if conservative government officials were trying to penalize Ben and Jerry's because of their support of liberal causes, or Amazon.com because Jeff Bezos announced he was giving $2.5 million to *support* Washington's gay marriage law.
R.W.: Who says the NEXT generation has all the answers? Why is it if we disagree with our children WE are the ones who are ignorant ? Why don't you go ask a child of the sixties, who is now driving a BMW and ask them how their idyllic vision turned out for them.
R.W.: Let us March on Amazon! We can't tolerate his religious bigotry against people whoes traditions go back thousands of years. If the Republicans win the governorship, we can have him exercise his constitutional right to run them out of town. (a right Ben believes he has) Jeff Bezos has no right to drown the political system with Millions of dollars. (a right B.R.does Not believe a person has)
B.R.: Fair points, all. But who cares about liberal vs conservative? I don't. If we're really talking about people's rights, let's focus on the basic human rights that are being denied. The victims in this situation are not Chick-Fil-A or the people of Boston or anyone who feels punished by the tide turning on their ability to have a say in others' love lives. RELIGION IS NOT UNDER ATTACK. Millions of people can't love the way you can. How would you feel?
Me: it ain't about rights.
B.R.: What's it about, Rich?
Me: There is no right to marriage. It's a privilege granted by law, and the law defines those who qualify.
S.H.: B.R., I have to take issue with the statement "Millions of people can't love the way you can." They absolutely can. I do not care what people do in their bedrooms, or with whom. We're talking about the definition of marriage. If you actually research Washington's domestic partner law, for example, you'll find that it really is, as the nickname implies, "everything but marriage." And that's fine with me. I believe domestic partners *should* be able to share medical information, have inheritance rights, participate in survivors' benefits and retirement plans, etc.
But "everything but marriage" is not enough for the gay community. They are saying to the rest of society, in effect, "We insist that you agree with us that our relationships are equivalent to yours in every way and of equal value to society. And if you refuse to agree with us, you're a hater, and we will force you to concede the point through the court system, or any other means available to us."
But the relationships are *not* equivalent, in two very obvious ways: (1) they cannot produce society's next generation, and (2) they cannot provide both male and female role models to that next generation. We may not agree on the importance of those differences, but it cannot be denied that they exist. And, given that they exist, I believe it's appropriate for society as a whole - which has an obvious vested interest in the well-being of its next generation - to decide how important they are. A majority of Americans still believe that they are important enough that the traditional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman should be granted special recognition.
R.W.: B.R., hey I got to help you out. You will not win any arguments talking in these sweeping Armageddon type terms. You say thinks like "Millions of people can't love the way you can" knowing full well that no one can regulate love. You bemoan someone "drowning the political system with millions of dollars, to continue oppressing American citizens" when you know that YOUR side ALSO gives millions. You say that anyone who does not agree with is "willfully ignorant and woefully out of touch with the next generation of Americans" as if your opinion is the ONLY opinion, and even this arrogant statement that the "NEXT GENREATION OF AMERICANS" all must think like YOU do. Well maybe most of the theatre set in Seattle does, maybe the local college students do, but that is a far cry from including the entire next generation. I don't think I can jelp you with this other than to point it out. But I can help you with statements that you have made concerning peoples "RIGHTS" in which you have misspoke several times. (Not just in this thread but in others on the same topic.) Here is a link that will teach you free of charge about the constitution. It took place live last year but all the lessons are archived. When you get done with the Constitution 101, there is another more in depth course which is also free of charge:
Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the U.S. Constitution - Hillsdale College www.hillsdale.edu
B.R.: Your gifts are appreciated, but you must agree on one thing: stop viewing me as just a liberal or a lefty or a Dem or an Obama voter, and I'll stop viewing you as strictly conservative, republican, right wing, and a Mitt Romney voter. I'm tired of important debates coming down to accusations of the general specter of the other side. I want compromise between the two halves of America above all else. Though our words get heated and sloppy, I want us to try this out. You've changed my mind about a few things thus far, but I get the strong feeling you haven't reevaluated your ideas regardless of what I say. First question: is there anything Obama has done that you like or think is good?
R.W.: Actually I have answered that before. Obama, made the right call and invaded a foreign land and killed Osama. Yes it is the call I think any president would have made but still he made it. I heard that not everyone in his administration backed that call and I'm glad he didn't listen to them. He kept many of GW's plans in place concerining the protection of this country. I'm not always please HOW he is doing things, like broadcasting our withdrawl date from Iraq and Afghanistan but still. But economincally he has done nothing I can think of that would warrant praise. In fact, the very same things he ran on, and said about GW, he has done EXACTLY the same thing. I get tired of him SAYING one thing and doing another, but let me get back to what he has done that I like. I can't think of much. Maybe you can suggest some things and I can tell you if I agree. Healthcare, no. Stimulous, no. Making enemies of American business's like Wall street, big oil, banks, Pharmeceuticals, Hospitals, Insurance companies, etc. He pits blacks against whites, Rich against poor. Man against Woman. He has divided this nation like no other. But I'm still trying to think what I like. Help me out. What do you think I SHOULD like?
B.R.: I'll continue the Obama chat soon, on the post I made on your wall. I read something just now about the Chick-Fil-A controversy that represents the way I feel about it, and is more eloquent and passionate than my attempts. It's also very fair and well-thought out. It also seeks to compromise, not pit anyone against anyone else. I really hope you and all the other people on this thread will read it:
The Chick Fellatio: stuck in the craw www.owldolatrous.com
Me: R.W., dammit, COMPLIMENT Obama to prove that you're fair!
Me: B.R., your link is the worst kind of misrepresentation, stereotypes, and strawmen, all dressed up in "let's all be reasonable" garb. Rather than analyze it on FB, I'll copy it to my blog and supply a link later.
R.W.: The title alone is offensive
Me: I didn't take a lot of time, but here it is:
Mountain Man Trails: The Chick Fellatio: stuck in the craw
B.R.: Thanks Rich, I genuinely accept and appreciate the falsities that you've pointed out, and I'll bring them into my collective understanding of this issue. It saddens me that neither of you have seemed to grasp or welcome ANY of this man's perspective into your heart, however - or if you have, you may be keeping it to yourself for some unknown reason. I guess I'm just sick of the desire to win arguments being more important than the desire to enlarge one's personal world. Nevertheless, be assured that your words have changed me, and helped me create a more accurate and relevant case for what I believe.
B.R.: And I'm not asking R.W. to compliment Obama to prove that he's fair. I'm asking him to search for things he likes about the side he hates, because if we cannot find anything to like in our opposition, that's a travesty unworthy of our founding fathers. Thankfully, he does like at least a few things.
Me: No haters here, sorry. What we are talking about is opposing concepts. Ideas, not personalities. There is no obligation for anyone to point out nice things about ideas that are disagreed with. No kumbaya is required. This is nothing other than a simple debate. People have opinions, and debate them.
I systematically evaluated this man's perspective, and found it to be flawed at its most basic level. He initially made some good points, but then essentially backtracked on them later on. So, I respectfully responded to those things. In my opinion, he's wrong. Period. No hate, no sadness, no malice. His IDEAS are flawed. That's it.
Again, this is a debate about ideas. Bad ideas do not expand perspective. Bad ideas need to be rejected.
B.R.: Can you tell me which points he made that you thought were good? I prefer conversation to debate, and conversation requires both insistence and concession.
Me: With the unfortunate exception of a couple of weeks ago, B.R., I generally find that you are willing to debate ideas. Most people who lean Left that I have conversed with have a veneer of tolerance and civility that quickly disappears once someone disagrees with them. That's why I tend to persist in engaging you.
Me: "My hope here is to find common ground with those who have disagreed with me on the issue..." I agree, but it turns out to be only so much noise.
B.R.: Here's the thing: a debate has an outcome. There is a winner or loser to a debate, or to the contest that the debate is part of. That's why there's no concessions or compromise in a debate. We don't have an outcome on Facebook, we simply talk, and post, and talk, and post. This is a better forum for conversation than it is for debate. And for us to continue talking about this, it'd be great to know that a) you guys want to know where I stand just like I want to know where you stand, and b) my words are actually affecting you, rather than just slamming against a wall and falling into nothing. Does that makes sense?
Me: It's not my job to affirm you, Ben. For all you know, it might indeed fall on deaf ears. Or maybe it revolutionized me. Doesn't matter.
I am not referring to a debate as in an official event that is judged, with an outcome pronounced. The debate I refer to is the exchange of ideas where concepts are developed or rejected.
Lastly, you are not as guilty of this, but frequently what is presented to me is simply regurgitated nonsense that someone read somewhere. For example, the article you linked to where the author writes, "Jesus had almost nothing to say about sexual behavior of any kind." I see this kind of assertion made frequently. I would call things like this "liberal's urban legends," because they so frequently resurface.
But it is the Left that accuses people like me of not thinking. It's irritating, and that's why I oppose it wherever I find it.
B.R.: Well, I'm not accusing you of not thinking; I'm accusing you of not changing.
Me: So if I think but then do not change, is it possible that my thought process led me to the conclusion that I should not change?
B.R.: For that to happen 100% of the time would build a pretty good case for rigidity of opinion. Why should we debate if neither of us is going to evolve? I don't mean you need to become liberal or I become conservative. But it's like World War I out here - there's liberals on one edge, and conservatives the other, and a giant chasm of no-man's-land between, where neither party wants to concede or compromise or admit that the other one has changed their point of view. Do you like how polarized our nation is? Does that make you happy, or do you wish it was different?
R.W.: In order to affect us Ben, you have to use less sweeping language. (for me anyway.) Things like "because if we cannot find anything to like in our opposition, that's a travesty unworthy of our founding fathers." That statement can only come from someone who doesn't know that much about our founding fathers who often bitterly opposed each other. To think, if I don't say anything nice about someone, I am disrespecting the very men who founded this nation seems to me absurd.
B.R.: I don't need personal affirmation that my opinion is correct or better than anything. But if I'm going to keep talking to you guys, I'd like to know if and when I'm actually affecting your point of view, even if it's rare. Deal?
R.W.: sure.
Me: Polarization is a good thing. Uniformity would indicate lack of independent thought.
Me: When I was younger I was extremely Left. I have changed considerably, to conservative for a number of years, and now I'm leaning libertarian these days. So I'm moving farther to personal liberty, and farther from big government control.
So, if you're trying to suggest that a person who is persuaded of a particular position is inflexible, you are barking up the wrong tree.
No comments:
Post a Comment