> [Arlo had asked] > Let's keep this very concise. Tell me, why should "gay marriage" be decided > upon by "the majority of voters", but "interracial marriage" be a natural > right above "majority voting"? > > [Ian] > The question is, will Platt answer ? > > [Arlo] > This IS the crux of the matter. Both the question, in the dialogic sense, > and the expected ongoing distortions and evasions, in the rhetorical sense.
Why answer when Arlo has already determined I will not answer the question? > I think Micah's point, and I hope I have not misread HIM, is that whatever > consensual adult relationship I have in my home should be honored by the > government with respect to the same civil contracts and legal accords > offered to any other citizen involved in their own consensual adult > relationships. > > Whether or not, individually, one argues that such-and-such "marriage > benefit" or civil affordances are, in fact, offered, is another matter. The > point is, if ANY are, they should be given with equal respect and without > concern for how one one individual chooses to make his/her own family. Yes, we know you endorse polygamy and whatever other associations people might come up with and call it "marriage." > What's funny, of course, is that this is THE libertarian position. Which is > why Platt's whole "Me Libertarian, Champion of Freedom, You Commie, > Enslaver and Murderer of Millions" rhetoric is especially transparent here. > Words like "freedom" and "libertarian" are simply buzzwords to Platt who > champions neither. What he champions is social conservativism, the same > sort of Victorian prudery he opines so often. This is the sort of broad personal attack unsupported by evidence and thus intellectually empty. > In other words, you have the glorious freedom to make the same choices > Platt has made. Should you choose differently, say to marry a same-sex > partner, or wear a hijab, or what have you, then suddenly you find that > "freedom" has been replaced with "conformity". Why do you think the biggest > boogeyman that appears throughout Platt's daily Hannity recaps is > "diversity"? What's funny is your alleged support of "diversity" except diversity of ideas. > And while all that is going on, of course, there are the typical "commie" > and appeals to neoconservative state nationalism and unyielding patriotism, > and the expected talk-radio attacks on anything that that does not blindly > adhere to the Glorious Nation Myth, or anything that challenges the prudish > social conservatism that he masquerades as "freedom". More blather. > And, of course, Ian, calling him on this leads to the anticipated and > predictable "oh boo hoo, I'm the victim of ad hominem attacks" crap that > has a legacy that predates my time in this forum. I ignore it, because I > know that no one else buys it. How could you possible know that "no one else buys it?" Typical dishonest exaggeration. >Sure, Keith has been a model of patience, > and if you peruse the archives you'll see that I had my days of patience > with Platt. But years of dealing with the same old distortions, the same > old, tired rhetorical tricks, the same hypocritic, sadly ironic and > Wurlitzer poundings of the same squalking points has pushed me over any > civil bridge I may have stradled. Maybe Keith will fare better, perhaps. I > make no claims about my lack of patience and tolerance. It is what it is. > But it comes after years and years of this crap. Same old, same old. > Do you know, and maybe Horse can confirm this, that we had TWO people > unsubscribe shortly after starting a conversation that challenged modern > American capitalism. One was a Swede, and one was (if I recall) an > Englishman. They had wanted to problematize modern notions of capitalism > and have a reasoned dialogue alternatives. One, oddly, argued from an Adam > Smith-esque perspective, the other from a global perspective (I dont have > my email archives in front of me, I can get them tomorrow to find the names > and dates). At any rate, BOTH emailed me pretty much saying "they give up" > after Platt bombarded the discussion with the same old tired crap he doles > out ad nauseum. Off-line I encouraged both to stay, and contribute, but > they declined. This is the kind of stuff that happens when his garbage goes > unchallenged. Can't defend their anti-capitalist positions? Why am I not surprised?. > It may irritate to no end regular contributors who have to sift through the > same repeated garbage, and the same repeated challenged, but silence worses > the problem, and newcomers and lurkers (as happened) find themselves seeing > the forum not as a place for honest, thoughtful dialogue. And I do > apologize for my role in this. Were it only so simply as to ignore it. I've > seen the results of that. I have two emails sitting in my inbox, basically > giving up on MD, and that saddens me and makes me ashamed. Yes, I too am ashamed of your constant personal attacks and incivility.. > [Ian] > Arlo takes huge risks following these arguments through with Platt. > > [Arlo] > And I encourage everyone to set their email filters to find any MD post > with both "Arlo" and "Platt" in the body of the email and trash it > immediately. As I said, I know my uncivility dealing with his garbage, and > I know the round and round and round crap dialogue that ensues. That way > newcomers can see that his garbage is not given free pass, but long-termers > can ignore it. I agree to your "uncivility" in our exchanges. When it arises, I meet it head on in like manner, tit-for-tat. I guess you just expect me to rollover and bow to your self-idolized academic intellect. > And what do you think the chances that the question will still go > unanswered, that the discussion we should be having will actually occur? I > repeat to refresh weary minds. > > "Why should "gay marriage" be decided upon by "the majority of voters", but > "interracial marriage" be a natural right above "majority voting"? OK I'll answer the question even though Arlo has already said the answer is distorted and evasive. Because all contentious social issues should be decided by voters first before being reviewed by the Supreme Court. That's the way our system works. I would not want to live in a system like communism where rulings come down from on high first without any regard for what the people want. I notice you sneaked in "natural right" without explanation. Why is interracial marriage a "natural right?" What are "natural rights" anyway? moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
