Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Hey, you've been throwing out some awful strong language about ravings
But not
your ravings. There is a big difference between attacking x's ideas and attacking x. However, I definitely use intemperate language at times about ideas or abstract groups of people (boxes, in your parlance) I find distasteful, and I take your point that this is bad rhetoric for arguing with someone who may identify with those ideas or groups (or fellow travelers, or whatever the weaker association is). I probably won't stop because "I'm obnoxious and disliked, did you know that?" and likewise I expect and accept it from opponents because arguing is a contact sport. Ad hom's a whole other breed of cat.
Intellectual honesty is all we have on a message board, though. Otherwise, why bother having the argument at all? I try to extend the benefit of the doubt of honesty and I'd appreciate the same from you. There have been a handful of posters over the years who have treated this like a courtroom and defended their client with whatever BS they needed to win. Those people are pathetic and worthy only of Ignore. They're also, happily, rare here (there are boards where they predominate, and I wish they'd go there). For the most part, people here are giving it their honest best.
Your last paragraph about "the shoe fitting" seems very un-Bob. I was at the time sure you were addressing that criticism specifically to me -- it was in the context of my argument and I was the only one making it. I'll accept that it was a general statement (which I reject) but I think you can see why I would see it as a direct, personal attack.
Now, back to the action:
you to openly advocate that certain groups don't deserve to have their voice and their views be part of the millieux of open discussion
Except I didn't advocate that. I am all for everybody speaking their mind in the marketplace of ideas. I am also for calling BS on the "Christians huddled in fear under the terrible social pressures being brought to bear against them." The people who are making that claim have
no idea what pressure is. They are part of the loudest, pushiest, most self-satisfied pressure group in this country's history, and they're now freaking out because the rest of us are finally having the temerity to stand up and push back
just a little. They equate the right to marry with the right to prevent somebody else from marrying. That is insanity, and the fact they claim it with no self-reflection of the gross asymmetry is only ascribable to how long they've had complete dominance of their point of view.
Well, that's changing, and they need to get used to it. Just like slave owners lost power, and WASPs lost power, and whites lost power, and men lost power, now Fundies are losing power, because democracy's a b
itch. And as can be seen from how well those other groups are doing (well, maybe not the slave owners... though I think there's a lesson here about how to handle it) this is hardly a death sentence. But just like those other groups, they're going to wail and rend their garments and say oh noes this is the end of America! I am not saying they shouldn't be allowed to say it; on the contrary, I'm saying pass the popcorn.
I don't proclaim them a problem and say that they're fair game and be fine with them being intimidated and shunted to the side of society
That's a bizarre reading of "fair game." In my book, fair game means we are allowed to say, "hey, it turns out those people who are advocating this position in the name of general Constitutional principles are really just feathering their nest." Groups always get offended when this is pointed out, particularly this specific group because they are used to playing that card as an ace. It's no longer an ace. They need to fight their battles on Constitutional grounds now, rather than just politicizing the issue and knowing the pols will cave to the pressure.
Being equal under the law only sucks if you're used to being favored.
