The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

[joecct]

At one time there was a sequence of thread titles that made puns out of each SCOTUS name: "Release the Kagan", "Roberts Rules of Order", "Doubting Thomas", something about Breyer's ice cream, etc.

oh, well.

Look up the lyrics to "The Flintstones".

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

It's not parsing, it's reasoning, and it's far from ridiculous. You are trying to conflate two separate things, as anybody who's ever been in the "you called me stupid," "no, I said that's a stupid think to say" fight knows.

You keep wanting to apply your labels to me, and when they don't stick you say "stop wriggling around and let me label you, darn it!" You can address the argument or tell me where the argument is irrelevant or tell me to pound sand. The thing you don't get to do is to say "I'm ignoring your argument and telling you want your real motives are."

Given this discussion began with you labeling everyone who does not support gay marriage as being homophobic, the irony of you claiming this now is incredible.

And trying to nuance around this is funny, given how you constantly blast conservative Christians with all sorts of over the top stuff, showing no nuance at all most of the time.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I have far more reason to say you are Christianphobic (given your serial ramblings about how conservative Christians are horrible in every way possible and cause pretty much every problem in existence and then some) than you do for calling me or my viewpoint (whatever fine line you're trying to make there) homophobic. But I don't, as I find such labeling counterproductive among other reasons. But, such labeling is an easy way to stigmatize those with a different view. Happens all over the place, but calling people homophobic is a grossly obvious example these days. Homophobic is one of those overused stick people in a box words that should be given a break. Anyone remotely not supporting anything related to homosexuality is labeled homophobic and you're a classic example of that.

No, you keep trying to expand the target of my attack (evangelicals of all religions who want to impose the words from their Magic Book on the rest of us) to a larger group ("conservative Christians").

I am calling your viewpoint homophobic. You, I have no idea, and really don't care. For that matter, I don't care about your viewpoint, provided you keep it in your pants and don't start dribbling it over public policy. At that point it becomes a public issue. I'll give you a counter-example you can identify with: "war on Christians." IMO, this is laughably overused and all it really means is "I don't like what you're saying so I'm going to invent a fake but scary-sounding name for it."

Just as me with what I deem "war on Christians," you are no more qualified to tell us when homophobia is "overused" than I. I'm sure when it gets used to describe a view you hold, you think that's overreach. How many people hold hateful views but know they're hateful? Maybe a few sociopaths like White Power types who say, "yes, I am racist, for the following good reasons..." But most people by definition do not think their views are hateful, otherwise they wouldn't hold them. The few times people actually have a come to Jesus moment and realize they hold a hateful view, they typically have a personal crisis and dramatically change their view.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Given this discussion began with you labeling everyone who does not support gay marriage as being homophobic

(deep breaths... calm... go to happy place).

The viewpoint is homophobic. Not (necessarily) the person. No matter how many times you try to confuse those two things, they are different.

Let me help you. When I see three black guys walking along a city street at dusk, I'm a little scared. White guys, I'm not. That is a racist viewpoint. I don't think I'm a racist, I hope not anyway, -- but I know I hold at least one racist viewpoint (which modifies what I said below about sociopaths... we all probably hold a few views that are bigoted, and know it. Whites can't jump. But I don't think many people consciously pull the viewpoint from an evaluation of the whole person -- "white people are bad." In fact I'd call the latter the operational definition of an x-ist, as distinguished from someone who holds an x-ist viewpoint).

 

[unofan]

(deep breaths... calm... go to happy place).

The viewpoint is homophobic. Not the person. No matter how many times you try to confuse those two things, they are different.

Let me help you. When I see three black guys walking along a city street at dusk, I'm a little scared. White guys, I'm not. That is a racist viewpoint. I don't think I'm a racist, I hope not anyway, -- but I know I hold at least one racist viewpoint. If you called me out on that as holding a racist viewpoint, I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'd see your point. If you called me a racist, I'd have a problem with you.

See the difference?

Everyone's a little bit racist...
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tbud8rLejLM

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Everyone's a little bit racist...
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tbud8rLejLM

favorite line:


Brian:
But you're racist, too.

Christmas Eve:
Yes. I know.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

(deep breaths... calm... go to happy place).

The viewpoint is homophobic. Not (necessarily) the person. No matter how many times you try to confuse those two things, they are different.

Let me help you. When I see three black guys walking along a city street at dusk, I'm a little scared. White guys, I'm not. That is a racist viewpoint. I don't think I'm a racist, I hope not anyway, -- but I know I hold at least one racist viewpoint (which modifies what I said below about sociopaths... we all probably hold a few views that are bigoted, and know it. Whites can't jump. But I don't think many people consciously pull the viewpoint from an evaluation of the whole person -- "white people are bad." In fact I'd call the latter the operational definition of an x-ist, as distinguished from someone who holds an x-ist viewpoint).

since I'm lazy, what viewpoint of Bob Gray's started all of this?

 

[unofan]

since I'm lazy, what viewpoint of Bob Gray's started all of this?

Was Joe, not Bob actually. He said (paraphrasing here), "I'm not homophobic, I just think marriage is between a man and a woman."

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Was Joe, not Bob actually. He said (paraphrasing here), "I'm not homophobic, I just think marriage is between a man and a woman."

And then I said:

I am absolutely certain there were people who said "I am not a racist, yet I don't believe the races should mix."

It may be true that clause B does not imply clause A.

Which Bob has now ignored for about 6 posts, telling me I said the exact opposite, that B implies A.

Basically, this is Bob being wrong about propositional calculus.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

(deep breaths... calm... go to happy place).

The viewpoint is homophobic. Not (necessarily) the person. No matter how many times you try to confuse those two things, they are different.

Let me help you. When I see three black guys walking along a city street at dusk, I'm a little scared. White guys, I'm not. That is a racist viewpoint. I don't think I'm a racist, I hope not anyway, -- but I know I hold at least one racist viewpoint (which modifies what I said below about sociopaths... we all probably hold a few views that are bigoted, and know it. Whites can't jump. But I don't think many people consciously pull the viewpoint from an evaluation of the whole person -- "white people are bad." In fact I'd call the latter the operational definition of an x-ist, as distinguished from someone who holds an x-ist viewpoint).

You realize nothing you say is gonna change his mind right? You are yelling at a brick wall...

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I'm not ageist but I believe marriage should be between 2 consenting adults that love each other.

I'm not biphobic (couldn't find a better word) but I believe marriage should be between 2 consenting adults that love each other and aren't married to other people.

Are those statements ageist and biphobic?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

since I'm lazy, what viewpoint of Bob Gray's started all of this?

I jumped in when Kepler told joe he was homophobic because he did not support gay marriage. Kepler can't get past the fact that he can define anyone he wants as whatever he wants, but that doesn't mean others have to accept being defined that way. He's so locked in on what he believes is homophobic that he just can't get past that into a broader discussion. We are expected to accept his definition and accept that we're homophobic. Not gonna happen.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I jumped in when Kepler told joe he was homophobic because he did not support gay marriage. Kepler can't get past the fact that he can define anyone he wants as whatever he wants, but that doesn't mean others have to accept being defined that way. He's so locked in on what he believes is homophobic that he just can't get past that into a broader discussion. We are expected to accept his definition and accept that we're homophobic. Not gonna happen.

Would you please read the billion or so words of explanation I've offered the last 24 hours again. Because this is getting to be:

"White."

"Stop saying 'Black.'"

"I didn't say 'Black.'"

"Stop lawyering the point."

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

You realize nothing you say is gonna change his mind right? You are yelling at a brick wall...

I'm not yelling, though in my head there's a bit of a side eye.

Mostly I'm trying to articulate what I meant for the benefit of anybody else who cares. I am starting to catch on that Bob won't or can't get what I'm saying.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Would you please read the billion or so words of explanation I've offered the last 24 hours again. Because this is getting to be:

"White."

"Stop saying 'Black.'"

"I didn't say 'Black.'"

"Stop lawyering the point."

So you never said anyone was homophobic, just that joe's viewpoint on this specific topic was homophobic? Is that really the distinction you're trying to stand on?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

No, you keep trying to expand the target of my attack (evangelicals of all religions who want to impose the words from their Magic Book on the rest of us) to a larger group ("conservative Christians").

I am calling your viewpoint homophobic. You, I have no idea, and really don't care. For that matter, I don't care about your viewpoint, provided you keep it in your pants and don't start dribbling it over public policy. At that point it becomes a public issue. I'll give you a counter-example you can identify with: "war on Christians." IMO, this is laughably overused and all it really means is "I don't like what you're saying so I'm going to invent a fake but scary-sounding name for it."

Just as me with what I deem "war on Christians," you are no more qualified to tell us when homophobia is "overused" than I. I'm sure when it gets used to describe a view you hold, you think that's overreach. How many people hold hateful views but know they're hateful? Maybe a few sociopaths like White Power types who say, "yes, I am racist, for the following good reasons..." But most people by definition do not think their views are hateful, otherwise they wouldn't hold them. The few times people actually have a come to Jesus moment and realize they hold a hateful view, they typically have a personal crisis and dramatically change their view.

I'm gonna call you and others out for pulling the homophobic card out anytime anyone says anything remotely unsupportive of gay marriage or whatever your agenda being pushed at the moment is. You and other liberals complain constantly about how conservatives label liberals unfairly in a variety of ways (a complaint I agree with to some extent), but you can't see the log in your own eye when you do it constantly to others.

You can call me or my views whatever you want, but that doesn't any of what you would be claiming true. You're being lazy and putting anyone in a certain box who doesn't take a certain position on a certain issue. Don't be surprised when you get push back for doing that. It's a common tactic in politics and sometimes it even gets some traction in the public arena. But again it doesn't mean it's true. A phobia is "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation." (Webster online) I have no such thing toward homosexuality or homosexuals. I don't fear them. If you knew me and the situations I'm in, you'd know how laughable such an assertion is. Some of us exist and think in ways that are outside your preconceived notions.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

So you never said anyone was homophobic, just that joe's viewpoint on this specific topic was homophobic? Is that really the distinction you're trying to stand on?

Pretty much. With lots of extra words because trying to distinguish that difference and the implications that lead from it in general is interesting. But at the end of the day this is, "You've been home all day, did you do the dishes." "No." "Well that was pretty lazy." "Oh, so you're calling me lazy?" "No, I said that was a lazy action, not that you're lazy." (door slam) (door slam)

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I'm gonna call you and others out for pulling the homophobic card out anytime anyone says anything remotely unsupportive of gay marriage or whatever your agenda being pushed at the moment is. You and other liberals complain constantly about how conservatives label liberals unfairly in a variety of ways (a complaint I agree with to some extent), but you can't see the log in your own eye when you do it constantly to others.

You can call me or my views whatever you want, but that doesn't any of what you would be claiming true. You're being lazy and putting anyone in a certain box who doesn't take a certain position on a certain issue. Don't be surprised when you get push back for doing that. It's a common tactic in politics and sometimes it even gets some traction in the public arena. But again it doesn't mean it's true. A phobia is "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation." I have no such thing toward homosexuality or homosexuals. I don't fear them. If you knew me and the situations I'm in, you'd know how laughable such an assertion is. Some of us exist and think in ways that are outside your preconceived notions.

Who's parsing now? The definition of homophobia is:

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

I would call this a clear situation of discrimination, and you certainly also have an aversion to the lifestyle of gays if not the gays themselves.

I've done the best I can at stating as clearly I can what I mean. If you don't get it, don't agree with it, don't accept that I'm being honest, or whatever, fine. I'm pretty close to done. You've accused me of being intellectually dishonest, and other than being from Boston there aren't many errant charges I hate more.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Who's parsing now? The definition of homophobia is:

I'm parsing by going back to a definition of what a phobia is and then explaining that I have no such thing and neither do my views? I'm not sure how to dial back to an even more basic level if that one is too tough to get ahold of.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I'm parsing by going back to a definition of what a phobia is and then explaining that I have no such thing and neither do my views? I'm not sure how to dial back to an even more basic level if that one is too tough to get ahold of.

I quoted the actual definition of homophobia to you. Your definition of "phobia" is about as relevant as if you quoted the definition of "ant" when being accused of being an "informant."

I give up. These exchanges do no good at all.