Yawn another Republican sex scandal

[Pangloss]

I don't know. Why don't you explain that to them, instead of trying to make them look bad for feeling as they do?

[iNow]

Why not do both? I'm perfectly happy making a racist feel bad for their racism. In much the same way, we SHOULD ostracize homophobes, or people who attempt to differentially legislate the conferment of our privileges and benefits based solely on sexual preference.

[bascule]

Well, to be fair they are not outlawing homosexuality

 

What about the Defense of Marriage Act, a Republican-sponsored bill which was opposed exclusively by Senate Democrats and got only 1 of its 67 nay votes in the House from a Republican. Although to be fair, it was supported by a large number of Democrats and signed into law by a Democratic president.

 

As far as I'm concerned it's unconstitutional as it violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause. A marriage in one state should be recognized by all other states.

[iNow]

Well, to be fair they are not outlawing homosexuality

What about the Defense of Marriage Act, a Republican-sponsored bill which was opposed exclusively by Senate Democrats and got only 1 of its 67 nay votes in the House from a Republican. Although to be fair, it was supported by a large number of Democrats and signed into law by a Democratic president.

 

As far as I'm concerned it's unconstitutional as it violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause. A marriage in one state should be recognized by all other states.

 

I agree with you that the Defense of Marriage Act is wholly bigoted, discriminatory, unconstitutional, and has zero place in our secular society, however, it does not "outlaw homosexuality."

 

What it does do is to state that, despite the Full Faith and Credit Clause, states will not be mandated to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states. It further states that, for the purpose of granting state conferred benefits and privileges at the federal level, a "marriage" will be defined as a union between one man and one woman, at the exclusion of two partners of the same sex.

 

Again, I agree with you that it's a disgusting piece of legislation which stands in direct opposition to our constitutionally guaranteed rights and it should be discarded for the rubbish it is, but it does not "outlaw homosexuality."

 

 

[/Pedantic]

[Pangloss]

Why not do both? I'm perfectly happy making a racist feel bad for their racism. In much the same way, we SHOULD ostracize homophobes, or people who attempt to differentially legislate the conferment of our privileges and benefits based solely on sexual preference.

 

Be careful what you wish for. One year we're ostracizing racists and people who don't believe in global warming. But the next year we're ostracizing those heartless secularists who want to cut off Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. Public opinion is funny that way.

 

But ultimately the most important question you need to be asking here is whether you want people voting your way because it's the right thing to do or because of fear and intimidation.

[iNow]

Again, why not both?

[bascule]

Be careful what you wish for [...] ostracizing racists [...] people who don't believe in global warming [...] heartless secularists who want to cut off Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.

 

That slope seems rather slippery

[Pangloss]

Again, why not both?

 

Er, I'm confused... I thought I answered that question in my previous post. There were two parts to my answer to your question of why it's a bad idea for people to accept the use of scorn and ridicule as a means of persuasion:

 

1) Potential for backfire when public opinion differs from yours.

 

2) Intimidation doesn't change people's minds.

 

That having been said, I'll happily state that sometimes ridicule can be effective in opening people's minds to the possibility that they may be wrong. It's a fine line, but it's one that pundits and political columnists have walked successfully for decades. The key is probably a matter of maintaining respect and listening to what people have to say, as we do here. (Such methods seem to be most effective when they are presented in a manner that the viewer can see as comfortably different from their own, but I'm just speculating there.)

 

Obama talks about the value of listening and mutual respect in his book "The Audacity of Hope," which I quoted earlier, and I'm sure we've all heard him talk about this in his speeches and such. That's the interesting thing about the guy -- he actually means it, it's not just pandering. He actually sees open-minded conversation and mutual respect as a means to an end.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Be careful what you wish for [...] ostracizing racists [...] people who don't believe in global warming [...] heartless secularists who want to cut off Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. [/quote']That slope seems rather slippery

 

There's a reason I quoted something that *actually happened*, as opposed to something that could happen in your worst nightmares. It's not a slippery slope if it's already taken place.

[bascule]

There's a reason I quoted something that *actually happened*, as opposed to something that could happen in your worst nightmares. It's not a slippery slope if it's already taken place.

 

It is if there isn't a causal relationship between the events. The only relationship I'm seeing is crap that consumes the public consciousness. Why not throw in MLB players on steroids, OJ, the Jacko trial, and Jon and Kate Plus 8 while you're at it?

[iNow]

There were two parts to my answer to your question of why it's a bad idea for people to accept the use of scorn and ridicule as a means of persuasion:

 

1) Potential for backfire when public opinion differs from yours.

 

2) Intimidation doesn't change people's minds.

 

That having been said, I'll happily state that sometimes ridicule can be effective in opening people's minds to the possibility that they may be wrong. It's a fine line, but it's one that pundits and political columnists have walked successfully for decades. The key is probably a matter of maintaining respect and listening to what people have to say, as we do here.

 

I think the point you are missing is that this is about more than just ridicule. It is about ostracization from the group. We are a social species... pack animals who have evolved in troops. There is accepted behavior within the troop, and unaccepted behavior within the troop. Those troop members who engage in unacceptable behavior are cast out... they are shunned... they are ostracized... and rightly so. The advancement of the larger collective depends greatly on removal of weaknesses, falsehoods, and double-standards.

 

While I appreciate the point you make that it's not fun being on the wrong side of these things... being the one subject to the ridicule... my point remains. There are certain behaviors which absolutely should be shunned and ostracized if we are to advance ourselves as a species. This is how we strengthen the pack. And, you know what? I don't respect all beliefs. I don't respect people who think that the easter bunny is real, and I don't respect people who think global warming is a big conspiracy. I certainly respect their right to believe what they want, but I don't have to respect the belief itself. This is a crucial difference. I respect your right to believe what you want, but the belief itself is not worthy of ANY respect or deference if the belief itself is ridiculous, fallacious, and/or based on nothing more than scripture.

 

My argument is simply this. It is not only okay to ostracize bigoted and hateful mindsets, but it's actually important, imperative, and indispensable. I ostracize racists. I ostracize child molesters. I ostracize cheats, and liars, and thieves, as do we all. In much the same way, I ostracize homophobes, and I speak out openly and passionately against those who seek to legislate their homophobic bigotry... a bigotry grounded in nothing more than their special book of fairy tales written by barely literate tribal peoples during the iron age... bigotries selectively chosen for no good reason, all while they ignore other teachings in their special book of fairy tales about behaviors and actions in which they themselves might engage... such as infidelity.

 

So yeah... It sure would suck gigantic donkey nuts if I were the one being ostracized. I concede that. However, I accept that possibility in the knowledge that it's more important to stand up for what is right than to remain silent in hopes that the same bright light of truth won't be shone upon my own faults.

 

Yes, we should ostracize these people, point out their hypocrisy, and demonstrate how laughably inconsistent and ignorant they are. At the same time, it's important to note that this is about much more than ridicule. It is about equality, and it is about fighting for what is right, even when we may be doing so at the expense of our own ability to get away with things.

 

Please don't dismiss our desire to call attention to these issues as merely a desire to "ridicule," as that is not only inaccurate and disingenuous, but also disrespectful of the actual position being put forth.

[The Bear's Key]

I wouldn't be harder on Democrats for failures on social issues of equality and social justice.

I would. It needs to be done, else they're apt to slip into a comfortable routine of such failures.

 

Be careful what you wish for. One year we're ostracizing racists and people who don't believe in global warming. But the next year we're ostracizing those heartless secularists who want to cut off Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. Public opinion is funny that way.

Yes, but we can't do nothing. However, Pangloss, I do agree with you that ostracizing is not the preferable route. It's too easy, and low-rate: a verbal punishing tool.

 

A better approach is (possibly) to live in a way that earns respect/admiration for the qualities you put forth, then go strongly disapprove of a person's activities of degradation and superiority-laced hypocricy, but meanwhile you try not to hold a grudge of immaturity (or vendetta) against them, which lets the person know you detest what they do -- or might say -- and not them as a person. A smarter, reasonable approach is tons more efficient.

 

Ostracizing works, much the same as oil does for the world's energy needs. On a small scale, it might work fine, but on a larger scale it's a fairly crude manner of handling things and often pollutes the social atmosphere with undesirable elements that'll probably come back to haunt us.

Edited June 30, 2009 by The Bear's Key
clarified butter

[Pangloss]

It is if there isn't a causal relationship between the events. The only relationship I'm seeing is crap that consumes the public consciousness. Why not throw in MLB players on steroids, OJ, the Jacko trial, and Jon and Kate Plus 8 while you're at it?

 

You mean like your association of this individual's infidelity and the failures of the Republican Party?

 

But no, I don't agree that there's no relationship between demonizing Republicans over ideological differences due to personal failures, and the overall degradation of American politics. And neither does anyone who ever complains about Conservative Talk Radio or the "Faux News Channel".

 

 

My argument is simply this. It is not only okay to ostracize bigoted and hateful mindsets, but it's actually important, imperative, and indispensable. I ostracize racists. I ostracize child molesters. I ostracize cheats, and liars, and thieves, as do we all.

 

Well IMO there is a huge difference between ostracizing people for breaking the law and ostracizing people for opinions they hold. So if you want to ostracize this governor for cheating on his wife, I'm right behind you, but when you go to call people names simply for thinking that it should be called a "civil union" instead of "marriage", then you won't find me behind you anymore. That's my right, just as it is yours to keep blasting the guy.

 

I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to do it, I'm saying you should know that it comes at a cost. Scorn and derision aren't the best way to bring about changes in people's opinions. That's why I don't participate in it. But you certainly have a right to do so.

 

Just as Rush Limbaugh does.

 

 

Please don't dismiss our desire to call attention to these issues as merely a desire to "ridicule," as that is not only inaccurate and disingenuous, but also disrespectful of the actual position being put forth.

 

Okay, I promise not to do that -- I'll stick with accurate comparisons and non-disengenuous, respectful discourse. I haven't suggested (and don't believe) that you just like to intimidate people for the fun of it. I know you better than that, and I hope I haven't given anyone that impression!

 

Since we're on the subject, I'd like to ask you not to undermine other people's opinions by casting them in the minority view, or casting yours as factual or more objectively valid. Folks here are smarter than the average bear, and deserve equanimity in conversation.

 

 

A better approach is (possibly) to live in a way that earns respect/admiration for the qualities you put forth' date=' then go strongly disapprove of a person's activities of degradation and superiority-laced hypocricy, but meanwhile you try not to hold a grudge of immaturity (or vendetta) against them, which lets the person know you detest what they do -- or might say -- and not them as a person. A smarter, reasonable approach is tons more efficient.

 

Ostracizing works, much the same as oil does for the world's energy needs. On a small scale, it might work fine, but on a larger scale it's a fairly crude manner of handling things and often pollutes the social atmosphere with undesirable elements that'll probably come back to haunt us.[/quote']

 

Well put.

[iNow]

I'm still failing to understand your point. You seem to be arguing to ignore their hypocrisy. I know that's not what you explicitly said, but it underlies practically every response you've made.

 

It's as if you are okay calling them out, but only if it's done in your special way... which you have also failed to properly articulate.

[GutZ]

What is exactly the argument here...I am kinda lost.

 

Is this Crucifixion vs Construct criticism?

 

(You like that reference don't ya, thats a "no spin" headline in all it's perfection)

 

I see how hypocrisy has no influence on a person's ability to run his position. I don't think this is the issue. I see this more of a republican ideology that clashes with what they deem moral or unnatural and what is reality.

 

I think too much is focused on the individual, but the individual is the on making the example of the hypocrisy of ideology. I don't think it's worry for the majority of republicans because...well...rush...you know his listener types...It is a relevant conflict with in the party and I think it only hurts them in the long run...

 

It's inevitable, all of here can see and has probably even shown at one point the fallacies of "sanctity of marriage", even if our positions are different we all agree that it's a bullshit term. I may want civil unions for all relationship, or just have the government not recognize relationships at all and have whatever religion or group preform whatever ceremonial crap they want within their own communities.

 

So I don't see where that leaves us within this conversation. What other way do you express concern? especially since we probably all believe gay deserve the same rights as straight people.

 

Let's not forget that politics deals with lots of social issues and parties are suppose to represent the views of a particular opinion, so what level do you hold an individual responsible for an action that doesn't register with what he suppose to be pursuing? You have to accept with the job you are a voice or the figurehead of the populous you represent. I don't think this is the same as a " some regular job position...guy" who commits adultery....At least from your parties, maybe the problem is more that the party seems to ignore the issue and continually ignore it.

 

Like I said before the Repub need to new message....it's not in tolerence or religous base. This path they take is there own destruction.

 

Worst part is I consider myself more conservative in nature but there hasnt been one party that I see really who represents it. Maybe the green party here in canada but thats gone like off the edge lately.

Edited June 30, 2009 by GutZ

[Pangloss]

You seem to be arguing to ignore their hypocrisy. I know that's not what you explicitly said, but it underlies practically every response you've made.

 

It's as if you are okay calling them out, but only if it's done in your special way... which you have also failed to properly articulate.

 

A perfect illustration of my point, complete with a straw man that you know is a straw man, the suggestion of underlying motives, marginalization, and even an accusation of illiteracy. Nice -- it never ceases to amaze me the way you can pop these things out like it's second nature.

 

Of course intimidation doesn't really work on me, because unlike most folks here I can actually see your long and colorful infraction sheet! But I suppose others will read the above and find it to be of value, and they can't see your infractions, so your post could indeed have the desired effect on some. Who knows? Maybe I'm wrong and you're right. Maybe that IS the best way to change people's minds.

 

You know, if nothing else this thread has demonstrated very graphically that the allure of "talk radio" is not limited to conservatives. Even very intelligent people can come to believe that intimidation and ostracizing ridicule is an effective way to change people's minds. I think I will bookmark this thread and offer it as evidence against the claim that only people of low intelligence are swayed by, for example, conservative talk radio.

[iNow]

You've still not answered the question I've put forth. What is this "other way?" You seem to be advocating ignoring such hypocritical actions among our political leadership.

[Pangloss]

No questions have been put to me in this thread that I have not answered completely and with clarity.

 

I have not advocated ignoring hypocritical actions amongst the political leadership.

[iNow]

No questions have been put to me in this thread that I have not answered completely and with clarity.

 

Okay, and I'm sure that's true. However, I'm really stupid. I'd like to blame my parents for poor genes, but in reality, I'm just lazy and can't be bothered to better educate myself. I really am borderline retarded.

 

With that concession up front, and despite the clarity with which you have already expressed your position repeatedly, I'm seriously struggling to understand what precisely you are advocating that we do differently under these circumstances.

 

You have repeatedly wagged your finger at members like bascule and me for pointing out hypocrisy in our political leaders, and for noting how frequent said hypocrisy seems to be continually arising out of Republicans lately. You keep telling us that we are just being vengeful, and suggesting that we are somehow wrong for posting about how their actions (such as infidelity) directly contradict the motivations they've shared for their previous stances on political issues (such as being against gay marriage as a result of the concept of marriage being somehow sanctimonious).

 

Okay... Be nice. That's your point. What I don't understand from your posts is how you suggest we do that without pointing openly and directly to the aforementioned hypocrisies. I basically disagree with your own suggestions surrounding our motivations... how you are dismissing the truth in our points, and instead telling us what a bunch of partisan hate mongers we are. I disagree profoundly with that, and I'm still struggling to understand what are proposing we do as an alternative.

 

So... at this point you can remind me how you've already presented your position "completely and with clarity," or perhaps you can realize that I am genuinely missing your point and try to explain it in another way.

 

I'm so sorry for being such a thick moron, but I'm simply not getting you (and I also don't appreciate how personal you tend to make your responses to me, and as you well know, my infractions in former threads have ZERO to do with my questions to you in this one... not to mention you are abusing your privileges as a staff member by discussing them in the open without my express permission, and worse, with zero context).

Edited June 30, 2009 by iNow

[Pangloss]

I don't think you're stupid. I stated in my last post that this discussion demonstrates that intelligent people can be persuaded by the notion that ostracizing others can be a productive way to change minds. Who did you think I was talking about?

 

I haven't accused you of being a "partisan hate monger" either. I see a huge difference between "partisan hate mongers" and people who value progress on specific issues more highly than one's right to have an opinion go unassailed. Derision, after all, is only the endpiece of Rush Limbaugh's bag of disconcerting tricks. None of his other means -- the distortions, the statistical skewing, the outright lying -- are even in your round house, as far as I can tell.

 

So this is just more straw men. What's with all the fuss and feathers anyway? I thought we were just talking here. I'm sorry if my bringing up your rap sheet offended you. You seemed to want to talk about persuasion tactics and how they work or not work, and I thought that illustrated the point of why that post wouldn't work on me. Was that a mistake -- were you actually trying and belittle my opinion? If so then I think you really misunderstood where I was coming from with my replies.

 

Now to repeat my answer to your question, at your request:

 

Okay... Be nice. That's your point. What I don't understand from your posts is how you suggest we do that without pointing openly and directly to the aforementioned hypocrisies.

 

The alternative I'm suggesting is to hold them accountable for their actions without associating those actions with disparate political issues. Say "you're wrong to commit adultery", and not something like "these gay marriage opponents on grounds of marriage sanctity can't even keep their own zippers zipped up" (etc). The former is holding them accountable for their actions. The latter is hitting them while they're down because they don't share your ideological opinion.

[GutZ]

Fair enough, but that's how I treat all people, the same standards. The rights of lots of people to me is more important to me, than some guy who is being criticized.

 

Politicians have to be accountable for what they believe when they have the responsibility of governing a lot of people. That's how I feel and I would expect nothing else from myself.

 

To me it's not an personal attack....If it was my "team" (I don think that way) I'd still be saying the samething.

 

I am super critical of Obama too. Joe Biden with his views on drugs.

 

If you are responsible for the well being of a large population, you better be able to defend your views regardless.

 

No offence but we got one life, and too short to be denying basic human rights because believes it's immoral with out a solid argument for it verbal or physically.

 

I am a meanie

[iNow]

perhaps you can realize that I am genuinely missing your point and try to explain it in another way.

 

Now to repeat my answer to your question

Oh well. So much for that...

 

 

 

The former is holding them accountable for their actions. The latter is hitting them while they're down because they don't share your ideological opinion.

This seems to be where our disagreement rests. You suggest that a politicians actions should never be judged in terms of their previously stated motivations. You suggest we should focus solely and in an isolated manner on the indiscretion alone, and that we are wrong to show how said indiscretion exemplifies their hypocrisy on issues against which they've stood throughout their political career.

 

I disagree. I say that their actions tell a larger story, and that often their actions illustrate how specious, weak, and ill founded many of their political positions often are. I suggest that you cannot separate the two... you cannot avoid demonstrating how their own actions contradict their own political positions, when they really do stand in opposition to one another. In fact, I suggest the direct opposite. I suggest that their stated motivations must be secular in nature, and that their own personal actions should align with their previously stated motivations for putting laws on the books. These individuals are legislating... they are making laws which impact our society... which impact our citizens. The argument here is that these laws presently under discussion about same sex marriage are supported by nothing more than these politicians silly notions of marriage being a sanctimonious institution... notions informed by nothing other than their holy book.

 

I say that, if they are going to actively seek to prevent citizens from having equal protections and representation in our laws... and if they are doing so with their stated motivation being the "sanctity of marriage," then when they act in their own marriages in a manner which is anything but sanctimonious, the extension of that indiscretion to their political and legislative history is perfectly warranted, and DIRECTLY relevant.

 

You can disagree. I don't care, but stop telling me that my motivations are for vengeance, or due to a desire to "kick them while their down" because they have a different ideology than myself. My logic is sound, and if you wish to challenge me, then focus on the logic itself, not on my history of unashamedly calling a spade a spade and sometimes doing so in a manner which earned me an infraction.

[Pangloss]

No.

[The Bear's Key]

The alternative I'm suggesting is to hold them accountable for their actions without associating those actions with disparate political issues. Say "you're wrong to commit adultery", and not something like "these gay marriage opponents on grounds of marriage sanctity can't even keep their own zippers zipped up" (etc). The former is holding them accountable for their actions. The latter is hitting them while they're down because they don't share your ideological opinion.

A little background...

 

To start, no one's even brought up sharing an ideological opinion. Maybe their criticism is simply an unconsious effort to reveal the politician for who they really are: either someone firmly of their word and principles, or someone constantly in disguise because they're exactly like the very people they condemn (a disguise earns religious votes, while the condemnations paint the opposition as spiritually-corrupt hooligans....two birds with one stone).

 

The leaders in question have much to gain from any broadcast or local preachers who cast many of us in society as radicals drowning the nation in a cesspool of immorality and ruining the foundations of their pet religion. And the dogma becomes a politician's shiny armor -- they echo it by judging ordinary citizens who'd rather live-and-let-live and not have politicians butt-in, wielding their lawmaker powers in selfish/unconstitutional ways.

 

Yet if held accountable for misdeeds while in their shiny armor, the politician can easily make you out to be their pre-defined radical who's attacking not them...but sanctity itself (and consequently, the people who aspire to it).

 

Unless you're clever about it.

 

And not every politician's that way. Many do have real, personal beliefs and don't wield faith as a political tool. But quite a bunch are that way, and have a nasty effect.

 

The tactics of political/religious cons often have mutual synergy.

 

Look, for example, at some (freakin crazy) quotes by a popular "religious" guy. And there you'll find keywords of the Republican Party, which villify "the Left", Supreme Court rulings, public education, liberal media, feminists, socialists, welfare, gun control, teachers strikes, nuclear freezes, marijuana decriminalization, Hollywood and a lot others.

 

Not a coincidence, I'd wager.

 

Plus there are many others like him across the nation. I grew up surrounded by religion, and his manner of distorting logic is recognizably the same as a con's: easily and on the fly.

 

My link to an atheist website for the quotes might seem a bit ironic, as I'm faithful, but in truth I see nothing wrong by others' disbelief. In fact, I see the majority of it as a byproduct of the cons and politicians who twist faith -- and consequently push others away from it.

 

And plenty of times I've witnessed (in real life) authoritarians who'd verbally ream a person (youngster/spouse) with the attitude of "do as I say not as I do".

 

That angle of superiority, held over people who don't live according to scripture and/or politicized morals -- whose tenets btw conveniently doesn't apply to such preachers (but only when they can hide it successfully) -- is likely what's being attacked here. From what I can see, iNow and bascule are trying to put a nasty dent in their shiny armor.

 

If so, I'd be more than happy to stand in line with the ding bat (and pun ).

 

Yet, I'd use tact to grant it a more effective and powerful swing at their armor. Can iNow and bascule use more tact on the issue? Yes, I believe so. That's the point you might want to address. But really, if you read through the linked quotes and understand the damaging tactics used, who can really blame their leap to unveil a holier-than-thou politician's hypocricy?

 

Not I.

 

You suggest we should focus solely and in an isolated manner on the indiscretion alone, and that we are wrong to show how said indiscretion exemplifies their hypocrisy on issues against which they've stood throughout their political career.

 

I disagree. I say that their actions tell a larger story, and that often their actions illustrate how specious, weak, and ill founded many of their political positions often are. I suggest that you cannot separate the two...

Exactly. If any other issue they stand for is really just an ideological weapon (say they continually betray it while falsely painting the opposition as doing so), then it's up to us to ensure it can anytime become a double-edged sword.

 

These individuals are legislating... they are making laws which impact our society... which impact our citizens. The argument here is that these laws presently under discussion about same sex marriage are supported by nothing more than these politicians silly notions of marriage being a sanctimonious institution... notions informed by nothing other than their holy book.

Not entirely. A lot of it's also informed by strategic voter-base rallying methods, and they use scripture as just a tool to cement the strategy.

[iNow]

I say that, if they are going to actively seek to prevent citizens from having equal protections and representation in our laws... and if they are doing so with their stated motivation being the "sanctity of marriage," then when they act in their own marriages in a manner which is anything but sanctimonious, the extension of that indiscretion to their political and legislative history is perfectly warranted, and DIRECTLY relevant.

 

You can disagree. I don't care, but stop telling me that my motivations are for vengeance, or due to a desire to "kick them while their down" because they have a different ideology than myself. My logic is sound, and if you wish to challenge me, then focus on the logic itself

No.

Gee, that certainly was helpful. What a mature response that was. Thanks for setting such a fine example with your leadership, Mr. Politics board moderator.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That angle of superiority, held over people who don't live according to scripture and/or politicized morals -- whose tenets btw conveniently doesn't apply to such preachers (but only when they can hide it successfully) -- is likely what's being attacked here. From what I can see, iNow and bascule are trying to put a nasty dent in their shiny armor.

 

If so, I'd be more than happy to stand in line with the ding bat (and pun ).

You're right, and I'd even take it a step further by suggesting that it's about more than putting dents in their proverbial armor, but actually about removing the armor altogether.

 

When a position is well justified, and grounded in logical, secular reasoning (such as prevention of measurable harm to others or their property) then it doesn't need shiny armor to defend it against disagreement. It can stand soundly on its own merit, and can do so because the logic is consistent across world views or ideologies.

 

It's when we base our positions on these other things like religious views that the shiny armor becomes more necessary. So, yes... let's dent the hell out of it at every chance we get... and maybe even remove it entirely when we can.

 

 

Yet, I'd use tact to grant it a more effective and powerful swing at their armor. Can iNow and bascule use more tact on the issue? Yes, I believe so. That's the point you might want to address. But really, if you read through the linked quotes and understand the damaging tactics used, who can really blame their leap to unveil a holier-than-thou politician's hypocricy?

 

Not I.

Another point I can willingly concede. There is always room for more tact. Absolutely. Any lack of tact, however, doesn't make the position being put forth wrong, invalid, or inappropriate in any way, which I've been trying very hard to convey in my previous responses to Pangloss.

 

Your response here gives me hope that the time I spent articulating my motivations hasn't all been for naught, as you clearly grasp the root of the issue under discussion as evidenced by your summary. So, thanks for that. I was starting to lose hope.

 

 

Not entirely. A lot of it's also informed by strategic voter-base rallying methods, and they use scripture as just a tool to cement the strategy.

Indeed, a very fair point, and frankly one that I think causes me much agitation on this issue. I sort of get around it in my previous posts by consistently using the term "stated" as a descriptive adjective preceding the term "motivations"... such as "their stated motivation was" or "their stated motivation is"... which allows my focus on the hypocrisy to strike a more direct hit... a more damaging blow to their shiny armor, since the armor resides in the "stated" motivation.

 

However, you're point that this (their "actual" or their "true" motivations) is about more than their religious belief is absolutely true... without question, and I'd be wrong to deny that. As you said, it's also about manipulation of the voters in a way that helps to "cement their strategy." What I'm now considering after reading your reply is that perhaps it is this manipulation itself which helps feed the intensity and passion I feel for this.

 

Not only does it bother me deeply that we often govern more based on manipulation than on objectivity, but even more disheartening is that so many members of our voting populace succumb to that manipulation at the expense of more logical and internally consistent positions which aren't rife with fallacies or informed by nothing other than their own personal religious ideologies.

[bascule]

Okay, I've changed my mind on all this. Politicians private lives should be their private lives.

 

If this guy deserves indignation, it's for deserting his post as governor.