Principia Discordia

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/252zsbwa.asp?pg=1

     This is just an all around great read.

 :lulz:

Quote

Ah, Tina, my opposition to same-sex marriage does not originate in the pew. However much sympathy, affection--indeed, love--I have for certain gay persons, "gay marriage" burlesques a primal institution rooted in nature. Marriage, as a unique bond between male and female, predates all politics and religious doctrines. And no one has to believe in God to see social anarchy, with children adrift in the wreckage, at the end of the same-sex marriage road.

...

The story disclosed other "suspect" donations of mine (to pro-life groups and, most damning, to the Swift Boat vets) and referred to my Catholicism.

I like how she knows so much about cognitive science that she can definitively separate her beliefs about marriage from her Catholicism.

I was about to throw down a "citation needed" tag on the very same paragraph.

Not only cognitive science, but sociology, history and genetic and evolutionary human behaviour.

It's fucking creepy as hell that someone can just look up your charitable or political contributions and then harass you or try to damage your career. It's both creepy and frightening that a paper can publish a list of names and HOME ADDRESSES of people who donated to a particular cause, especially with the full knowledge that most of their readership is vehemently opposed to that cause and the people who supported it. I mean, fuck, that's just not right. It's not right when the right-wing does it to the left, and it's still not right when the left-wing does it to the right. It's some unethical bullshit, is what it is.

Who fucking cares whether this woman understands the underlying motivations about her beliefs? I may not agree with her at all, but I don't think that or her self-analysis are relevant.

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 01:33:57 AM
It's fucking creepy as hell that someone can just look up your charitable or political contributions and then harass you or try to damage your career. It's both creepy and frightening that a paper can publish a list of names and HOME ADDRESSES of people who donated to a particular cause, especially with the full knowledge that most of their readership is vehemently opposed to that cause and the people who supported it. I mean, fuck, that's just not right. It's not right when the right-wing does it to the left, and it's still not right when the left-wing does it to the right. It's some unethical bullshit, is what it is.

Who fucking cares whether this woman understands the underlying motivations about her beliefs? I may not agree with her at all, but I don't think that or her self-analysis are relevant.

Except the paper didn't do it.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/13/BA0R16EIMB.DTL&tsp=1

QuoteThe newspaper did not print her home address or the addresses of other donors.

Mullarkey, an artist, contributed $1,000 to the Prop. 8 cause. But her donation to a statewide initiative was public information, available on the Web site of the California secretary of state.

The Prop. 8 donor database, which was provided to newspapers by the Associated Press, didn't include Prop. 8 supporters alone, as Mullarkey strongly suggested.

It was weighted 2-1 in the other direction, including 96,000 records of donors who were against Prop. 8 and 46,000 in favor of it.

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 01:33:57 AM
It's fucking creepy as hell that someone can just look up your charitable or political contributions and then harass you or try to damage your career. It's both creepy and frightening that a paper can publish a list of names and HOME ADDRESSES of people who donated to a particular cause, especially with the full knowledge that most of their readership is vehemently opposed to that cause and the people who supported it. I mean, fuck, that's just not right. It's not right when the right-wing does it to the left, and it's still not right when the left-wing does it to the right. It's some unethical bullshit, is what it is.

Who fucking cares whether this woman understands the underlying motivations about her beliefs? I may not agree with her at all, but I don't think that or her self-analysis are relevant.

What would be unethical is if all the people who bought her art with GLBT subject matter were denied knowledge of her true intentions.

That she lies about her motivations is entirely the crux of the issue here. If she didn't make art with GLBT subject matter, people wouldn't be nearly as pissed off at her backstabbing, swine behavior.

(http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/5253/maureenmullarkeyatlasem.jpg)

(http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8999/maureenmullarkey.jpg)

Quote from: Automaton on March 14, 2009, 02:10:00 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 01:33:57 AM
It's fucking creepy as hell that someone can just look up your charitable or political contributions and then harass you or try to damage your career. It's both creepy and frightening that a paper can publish a list of names and HOME ADDRESSES of people who donated to a particular cause, especially with the full knowledge that most of their readership is vehemently opposed to that cause and the people who supported it. I mean, fuck, that's just not right. It's not right when the right-wing does it to the left, and it's still not right when the left-wing does it to the right. It's some unethical bullshit, is what it is.

Who fucking cares whether this woman understands the underlying motivations about her beliefs? I may not agree with her at all, but I don't think that or her self-analysis are relevant.

What would be unethical is if all the people who bought her art with GLBT subject matter were denied knowledge of her true intentions.

That she lies about her motivations is entirely the crux of the issue here. If she didn't make art with GLBT subject matter, people wouldn't be nearly as pissed off at her backstabbing, swine behavior.

(http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/5253/maureenmullarkeyatlasem.jpg)

(http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8999/maureenmullarkey.jpg)

1. You clearly didn't read the whole article

2. I know gays who are opposed to gay marriage. Does that make them backstabbing swine?

Quote from: Cain on March 14, 2009, 01:51:47 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 01:33:57 AM
It's fucking creepy as hell that someone can just look up your charitable or political contributions and then harass you or try to damage your career. It's both creepy and frightening that a paper can publish a list of names and HOME ADDRESSES of people who donated to a particular cause, especially with the full knowledge that most of their readership is vehemently opposed to that cause and the people who supported it. I mean, fuck, that's just not right. It's not right when the right-wing does it to the left, and it's still not right when the left-wing does it to the right. It's some unethical bullshit, is what it is.

Who fucking cares whether this woman understands the underlying motivations about her beliefs? I may not agree with her at all, but I don't think that or her self-analysis are relevant.

Except the paper didn't do it.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/13/BA0R16EIMB.DTL&tsp=1

QuoteThe newspaper did not print her home address or the addresses of other donors.

Mullarkey, an artist, contributed $1,000 to the Prop. 8 cause. But her donation to a statewide initiative was public information, available on the Web site of the California secretary of state.

The Prop. 8 donor database, which was provided to newspapers by the Associated Press, didn't include Prop. 8 supporters alone, as Mullarkey strongly suggested.

It was weighted 2-1 in the other direction, including 96,000 records of donors who were against Prop. 8 and 46,000 in favor of it.

So it only printed their names and states of residence?

That's better. Marginally. I still think it's pretty fucking alarming. Like I said, harassment of that nature isn't OK when the right does it, and it's still not OK when the left does it.

Quote from: Automaton on March 14, 2009, 02:10:00 AM
What would be unethical is if all the people who bought her art with GLBT subject matter were denied knowledge of her true intentions.

I have to revisit this statement, because I  think it is utter and complete bullshit. The social and political viewpoint of every artist does not need to be made public in case it might offend a purchaser of their art. Her statements clearly indicate that she is not against gays, she is against gay marriage. How, exactly, is that relevant to her artistic depiction of scenes from a Gay Pride parade? If the purchasers were concerned, they could have asked her what her social viewpoints were. She could have declined to answer, but the choice to buy the art would still lie in her hands.

I'm not very public with my social, religious, and spiritual views in my business life. I think that I, like every other American in any line of work, have the right to keep those separate from my career. Do you think it would be acceptable for someone to go dredging through your private life and mail a portfolio of everything you've been involved in to your employer?

I find it frightening that people even think that way, frankly. It's a perspective of punishing someone for their views.

Her views are that I'm not a person.  Just saying.

Quote from: Requia on March 14, 2009, 03:53:31 AM
Her views are that I'm not a person.  Just saying.

She stated that she has affection and love for you, WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE HER?!

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 02:15:10 AM

Quote from: Cain on March 14, 2009, 01:51:47 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 01:33:57 AM
It's fucking creepy as hell that someone can just look up your charitable or political contributions and then harass you or try to damage your career. It's both creepy and frightening that a paper can publish a list of names and HOME ADDRESSES of people who donated to a particular cause, especially with the full knowledge that most of their readership is vehemently opposed to that cause and the people who supported it. I mean, fuck, that's just not right. It's not right when the right-wing does it to the left, and it's still not right when the left-wing does it to the right. It's some unethical bullshit, is what it is.

Who fucking cares whether this woman understands the underlying motivations about her beliefs? I may not agree with her at all, but I don't think that or her self-analysis are relevant.

Except the paper didn't do it.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/13/BA0R16EIMB.DTL&tsp=1

QuoteThe newspaper did not print her home address or the addresses of other donors.

Mullarkey, an artist, contributed $1,000 to the Prop. 8 cause. But her donation to a statewide initiative was public information, available on the Web site of the California secretary of state.

The Prop. 8 donor database, which was provided to newspapers by the Associated Press, didn't include Prop. 8 supporters alone, as Mullarkey strongly suggested.

It was weighted 2-1 in the other direction, including 96,000 records of donors who were against Prop. 8 and 46,000 in favor of it.

So it only printed their names and states of residence?

That's better. Marginally. I still think it's pretty fucking alarming. Like I said, harassment of that nature isn't OK when the right does it, and it's still not OK when the left does it.

Political donations are always a matter of public record, for reasons which are pretty obvious, when you think about it from a corruption POV.

Quote from: The HomophobeEmails started coming. Heavy with epithets and ad hominems, most in the you-disgust-me vein. Several accused me, personally, of denying the sender his single chance at happiness after a life of unrelieved oppression and second-class citizenship.

And they were right.

Epithets and ad hominem attacks (but not threats or worse) are in order.  We all have the freedom to speak our minds, vote our conscience, and donate to the political causes we believe in.  But that freedom does not include immunity to public scorn.  Also, I do not care if her beliefs are rooted in the pulpit or not; the fact is, she went out of her way to make people miserable, people who did her no harm (and would not do her harm by becoming married).  For this, she deserves every ass nugget of shit that rains down on her.

 

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 02:23:43 AM

Quote from: Automaton on March 14, 2009, 02:10:00 AM
What would be unethical is if all the people who bought her art with GLBT subject matter were denied knowledge of her true intentions.

I have to revisit this statement, because I  think it is utter and complete bullshit. The social and political viewpoint of every artist does not need to be made public in case it might offend a purchaser of their art. Her statements clearly indicate that she is not against gays, she is against gay marriage. How, exactly, is that relevant to her artistic depiction of scenes from a Gay Pride parade? If the purchasers were concerned, they could have asked her what her social viewpoints were. She could have declined to answer, but the choice to buy the art would still lie in her hands.

I'm not very public with my social, religious, and spiritual views in my business life. I think that I, like every other American in any line of work, have the right to keep those separate from my career. Do you think it would be acceptable for someone to go dredging through your private life and mail a portfolio of everything you've been involved in to your employer?

I find it frightening that people even think that way, frankly. It's a perspective of punishing someone for their views.

I agree with you on the art issue.  Art should never have to come with a disclaimer or statement of intent.

However, I don't buy for a minute that she isn't against Gays.  She went to great lengths to step on them.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 14, 2009, 05:53:03 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 02:15:10 AM

Quote from: Cain on March 14, 2009, 01:51:47 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 01:33:57 AM
It's fucking creepy as hell that someone can just look up your charitable or political contributions and then harass you or try to damage your career. It's both creepy and frightening that a paper can publish a list of names and HOME ADDRESSES of people who donated to a particular cause, especially with the full knowledge that most of their readership is vehemently opposed to that cause and the people who supported it. I mean, fuck, that's just not right. It's not right when the right-wing does it to the left, and it's still not right when the left-wing does it to the right. It's some unethical bullshit, is what it is.

Who fucking cares whether this woman understands the underlying motivations about her beliefs? I may not agree with her at all, but I don't think that or her self-analysis are relevant.

Except the paper didn't do it.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/13/BA0R16EIMB.DTL&tsp=1

QuoteThe newspaper did not print her home address or the addresses of other donors.

Mullarkey, an artist, contributed $1,000 to the Prop. 8 cause. But her donation to a statewide initiative was public information, available on the Web site of the California secretary of state.

The Prop. 8 donor database, which was provided to newspapers by the Associated Press, didn't include Prop. 8 supporters alone, as Mullarkey strongly suggested.

It was weighted 2-1 in the other direction, including 96,000 records of donors who were against Prop. 8 and 46,000 in favor of it.

So it only printed their names and states of residence?

That's better. Marginally. I still think it's pretty fucking alarming. Like I said, harassment of that nature isn't OK when the right does it, and it's still not OK when the left does it.

Political donations are always a matter of public record, for reasons which are pretty obvious, when you think about it from a corruption POV.

Yeah, but I looked it up and SF Chronicle published a link to a map with prop 8 donor addresses. Yeah, they didn't publish the addresses themselves, just the link. What's alarming is that people whose social/political views I happen to agree with in most areas think that THIS IS ACCEPTABLE, for the sole reason that this woman's social/political views happen to be opposing theirs. I would like to see how these same people would feel if a right-wing paper published a link to the addresses of people who supported a controversial, winning, gay-rights or abortion-rights bill. That kind of thing has happened in Oregon, and it led to the murders of several midwives.

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 08:09:53 AM
Yeah, but I looked it up and SF Chronicle published a link to a map with prop 8 donor addresses. Yeah, they didn't publish the addresses themselves, just the link. What's alarming is that people whose social/political views I happen to agree with in most areas think that THIS IS ACCEPTABLE, for the sole reason that this woman's social/political views happen to be opposing. I would like to see how these same people would feel if a right-wing paper published a link to the addresses of people who supported a controversial, winning, gay-rights or abortion-rights bill. That kind of thing has happened in Oregon, and it led to the murders of several midwives.

Strictly speaking, it's perfectly legal (the information is public record).  Kosher?  No, not really.

That being said, I rather approve of the poop rain she has received via email...so long as it remains as stated by the petulant author:  Epithets and ad hominems.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 14, 2009, 08:13:12 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 08:09:53 AM
Yeah, but I looked it up and SF Chronicle published a link to a map with prop 8 donor addresses. Yeah, they didn't publish the addresses themselves, just the link. What's alarming is that people whose social/political views I happen to agree with in most areas think that THIS IS ACCEPTABLE, for the sole reason that this woman's social/political views happen to be opposing. I would like to see how these same people would feel if a right-wing paper published a link to the addresses of people who supported a controversial, winning, gay-rights or abortion-rights bill. That kind of thing has happened in Oregon, and it led to the murders of several midwives.

Strictly speaking, it's perfectly legal (the information is public record).  Kosher?  No, not really.

That being said, I rather approve of the poop rain she has received via email...so long as it remains as stated by the petulant author:  Epithets and ad hominems.

Legal? Yeah. That's what makes it scary. Scarier still? The  people whose ideologies I agree with who think this is a perfectly acceptable tactic as long as it's directed at people they do not agree with.

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 08:30:37 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 14, 2009, 08:13:12 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 08:09:53 AM
Yeah, but I looked it up and SF Chronicle published a link to a map with prop 8 donor addresses. Yeah, they didn't publish the addresses themselves, just the link. What's alarming is that people whose social/political views I happen to agree with in most areas think that THIS IS ACCEPTABLE, for the sole reason that this woman's social/political views happen to be opposing. I would like to see how these same people would feel if a right-wing paper published a link to the addresses of people who supported a controversial, winning, gay-rights or abortion-rights bill. That kind of thing has happened in Oregon, and it led to the murders of several midwives.

Strictly speaking, it's perfectly legal (the information is public record).  Kosher?  No, not really.

That being said, I rather approve of the poop rain she has received via email...so long as it remains as stated by the petulant author:  Epithets and ad hominems.

Legal? Yeah. That's what makes it scary. Scarier still? The  people whose ideologies I agree with who think this is a perfectly acceptable tactic as long as it's directed at people they do not agree with.

1.  An open society was never promised to be a safe society.  Sometimes you have to choose.

2.  I think it's a legal behavior no matter who does it.  I think the editor is an irresponsible fuckwit, though.

Nobody ever said we live in an "open" society. There are a lot of areas where laws protect our privacy. I think it's really interesting that private purchases are protected by confidentiality laws, but donations aren't. My guess is that it's part of the political machine, so that other political groups can more easily add to their mailing/propaganda lists those who ante up.

I'm also noticing the utter partisan sliminess of the press, on both sides. Left or right... they're both tainted. The editor of SF Chronicle tried to tar her as a liar by saying that they didn't publish the addresses, and that's technically true... they merely published a link to a map of donor addresses.

To those of you who think this harassment is acceptable because you find the woman's views reprehensible... what the fuck is wrong with you? You're as disgusting as the people who think it's OK to send hate mail to queers who try to adopt. I'm sorry, condoning harassment because you don't agree with the political views of the person being harassed is fucking sick.

Quote from: Requia on March 14, 2009, 03:53:31 AM
Her views are that I'm not a person.  Just saying.

Oh, that's a line of reactionary hyperbole if I ever read one. She is against gay marriage, therefore she doesn't view gays as human beings? That's a far stretch. I'm opposed to polygamy, does that mean I don't consider polyamorous people to be human beings?

I'm opposed to all forms of marriage. This way I get top piss of gays and heterosexuals.

F'kin sick perverts the lot of them :argh!:

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 14, 2009, 05:58:33 AM


I agree with you on the art issue.  Art should never have to come with a disclaimer or statement of intent.

However, I don't buy for a minute that she isn't against Gays.  She went to great lengths to step on them.

By donating to prop 8?

How is that "great lengths to step on" gays?

I disagree with her stance on gay marriage, but come on now, Roger.

Basically the issue is a newspaper publishing a link to a map of addresses of people who donated to a cause most of the paper's readers oppose. I see that as ethically bankrupt and socially irresponsible, and bordering on fomenting hate crimes. What if the map was of donors to the campaign of a gay marriage bill, and it was published by the Washington Examiner?

If you believe marriage is some ancient traditional deal between a man and a woman of opposite sexes then, IMO, you're perfectly entitled to think gay marriage is out of line without, necessarily, being against gay people. It may be the case that you are against gay people but it doesn't logically follow.

Of course a campaigner isn't going to see it that way - if you are in favour of prop 8 you are a homophobic queer hater and this will probably be seen by the more militant anti-8 contingent as license to assault.

Publishing a list of these "homophobic queer haters" will make a violent assault against them more likely to happen.

People may well get beaten the shit out of over something as arbitrarily stupid as promising to live with someone for ever.

SNAFU  :lulz:

If she's only against marriage she has the right to campaign in favor of some other way to get gays to have the same rights.  (the whole civil union deal)  She didn't, she chose to strip them of those rights.

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 04:49:56 PM
Oh, that's a line of reactionary hyperbole if I ever read one. She is against gay marriage, therefore she doesn't view gays as human beings? That's a far stretch. I'm opposed to polygamy, does that mean I don't consider polyamorous people to be human beings?

I don't have multiple wives, but you've really never considered getting violent to defend your beliefs?  You never saw that you might need to defend yourself from someone else's ignorant/righteous beliefs?  Extreme non-violence can only take you so far.

voting against prop 8 is not a vote against civil unions, how do you know she doesn't vote yes for, or support civil unions in other ways?

Quotefrom that article:
Who was it who predicted that if fascism ever came to the United States, it would come in the guise of liberal egalitarianism?

Unfortunately I think it was Jonah Goldberg.   :x

"The monkey medium is the monkey message."

Marshall McLuhan describes the "content" of a medium as a juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind.   

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 14, 2009, 06:01:07 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 04:49:56 PM
Oh, that's a line of reactionary hyperbole if I ever read one. She is against gay marriage, therefore she doesn't view gays as human beings? That's a far stretch. I'm opposed to polygamy, does that mean I don't consider polyamorous people to be human beings?

I don't have multiple wives, but you've really never considered getting violent to defend your beliefs?  You never saw that you might need to defend yourself from someone else's ignorant/righteous beliefs?  Extreme non-violence can only take you so far.

What does this have to do with the conversation?

Quote from: Requia on March 14, 2009, 05:41:28 PM
If she's only against marriage she has the right to campaign in favor of some other way to get gays to have the same rights.  (the whole civil union deal)  She didn't, she chose to strip them of those rights.

You have no idea whether she voted in favor of civil unions. Furthermore, it's FUCKING IRRELEVANT.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 14, 2009, 05:13:57 PM
If you believe marriage is some ancient traditional deal between a man and a woman of opposite sexes then, IMO, you're perfectly entitled to think gay marriage is out of line without, necessarily, being against gay people. It may be the case that you are against gay people but it doesn't logically follow.

Of course a campaigner isn't going to see it that way - if you are in favour of prop 8 you are a homophobic queer hater and this will probably be seen by the more militant anti-8 contingent as license to assault.

Publishing a list of these "homophobic queer haters" will make a violent assault against them more likely to happen.

People may well get beaten the shit out of over something as arbitrarily stupid as promising to live with someone for ever.

SNAFU  :lulz:

Exactly.

I don't agree with her views.  I also don't agree with the level of harassment she was subjected to, which I thought was obvious since I've mentioned other people suffering for this sort of thing before.

However, I have to note, the Weekly Standard was one of the publications which went out of their way to castigate their political enemies and create the sort of intellectual and social climate where the Freikorps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freikorps) wouldn't feel out of place in.  To quote pre-insanity Hitchens again, they went out of their way to "create a hooligan atmosphere" where they could "bully and blackmail the opposition and accuse it of treachery and sympathy for the other side" and this filtered down into the wider political culture as playing dirty and winning no matter the cost - by direct harassment and threats against those they disagreed with (see the Adam Yoshida theory of righwing commentary for a fuller understanding of how this works).

So while it was wrong, I've also got to note its very much a case of reaping what has been sown.  Unfortunately, bad actions replicated by both sides in an argument don't tend to lead to realization of one's own hideous techniques, but only make one more trenchent in your own position and belief of personal righteousness.  And one side doing it does make the other think "well, two can play this game".  Its either lying down and letting them get away with it, or escalating in return.

I don't know what the solution is.

Quote from: Cain on March 14, 2009, 06:33:16 PM
I don't agree with her views.  I also don't agree with the level of harassment she was subjected to, which I thought was obvious since I've mentioned other people suffering for this sort of thing before.

However, I have to note, the Weekly Standard was one of the publications which went out of their way to castigate their political enemies and create the sort of intellectual and social climate where the Freikorps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freikorps) wouldn't feel out of place in.  To quote pre-insanity Hitchens again, they went out of their way to "create a hooligan atmosphere" where they could "bully and blackmail the opposition and accuse it of treachery and sympathy for the other side" and this filtered down into the wider political culture as playing dirty and winning no matter the cost - by direct harassment and threats against those they disagreed with (see the Adam Yoshida theory of righwing commentary for a fuller understanding of how this works).

So while it was wrong, I've also got to note its very much a case of reaping what has been sown.  Unfortunately, bad actions replicated by both sides in an argument don't tend to lead to realization of one's own hideous techniques, but only make one more trenchent in your own position and belief of personal righteousness.  And one side doing it does make the other think "well, two can play this game".  Its either lying down and letting them get away with it, or escalating in return.

I don't know what the solution is.

My solution is the same as it usually is -

:popcorn: +  :lulz:

Quote from: Cain on March 14, 2009, 06:33:16 PM
I don't agree with her views.  I also don't agree with the level of harassment she was subjected to, which I thought was obvious since I've mentioned other people suffering for this sort of thing before.

However, I have to note, the Weekly Standard was one of the publications which went out of their way to castigate their political enemies and create the sort of intellectual and social climate where the Freikorps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freikorps) wouldn't feel out of place in.  To quote pre-insanity Hitchens again, they went out of their way to "create a hooligan atmosphere" where they could "bully and blackmail the opposition and accuse it of treachery and sympathy for the other side" and this filtered down into the wider political culture as playing dirty and winning no matter the cost - by direct harassment and threats against those they disagreed with (see the Adam Yoshida theory of righwing commentary for a fuller understanding of how this works).

So while it was wrong, I've also got to note its very much a case of reaping what has been sown.  Unfortunately, bad actions replicated by both sides in an argument don't tend to lead to realization of one's own hideous techniques, but only make one more trenchent in your own position and belief of personal righteousness.  And one side doing it does make the other think "well, two can play this game".  Its either lying down and letting them get away with it, or escalating in return.

I don't know what the solution is.

It's not right when the Weekly Standard does it, either, but in terms of "reaping what has been sown", I don't think that many of the people on that donor map could be accused of sowing this particular seed. One wing using bullying and blackmailing tactics in retaliation for the other wing doing it only perpetuates... and will escalate... the cycle. As I've said before, it's not acceptable when EITHER side does it, and when the constituent base believes it's justified against "the other side" it lets this bullying and extortion continue unchecked.

I say we oppress both groups and force them to unite to get rid of us.
Its about time America got a real taste of invasion.

Excuse me, i'm going to tax some tea.

Fundamentally, I don't see a difference between publishing the names of people who donate to a political cause and abolishing the secret ballot system.  Either we keep political donations secret and votes secret, or make both public.

And unless you're only planning on casting ballots for safe issues, the secret ballot is a survival advantage.

Quote from: Two Frame Animation on March 14, 2009, 11:53:21 PM
Fundamentally, I don't see a difference between publishing the names of people who donate to a political cause and abolishing the secret ballot system.  Either we keep political donations secret and votes secret, or make both public.

And unless you're only planning on casting ballots for safe issues, the secret ballot is a survival advantage.

:mittens:

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 06:17:54 PM

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 14, 2009, 06:01:07 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 04:49:56 PM
Oh, that's a line of reactionary hyperbole if I ever read one. She is against gay marriage, therefore she doesn't view gays as human beings? That's a far stretch. I'm opposed to polygamy, does that mean I don't consider polyamorous people to be human beings?

I don't have multiple wives, but you've really never considered getting violent to defend your beliefs?  You never saw that you might need to defend yourself from someone else's ignorant/righteous beliefs?  Extreme non-violence can only take you so far.

What does this have to do with the conversation?

The threat of violence against the "homophobes" in support of prop 8.  It's not the equivalent of a colored person protesting alone at a KKK rally, but how many people on this forum do you think would punch bill o'reilly in the face if they saw him IRL?  Would you be at your door ready for a logical debate and in the worst case a shotgun?

Quote from: Nigel on March 15, 2009, 02:10:28 AM

Quote from: Two Frame Animation on March 14, 2009, 11:53:21 PM
Fundamentally, I don't see a difference between publishing the names of people who donate to a political cause and abolishing the secret ballot system.  Either we keep political donations secret and votes secret, or make both public.

And unless you're only planning on casting ballots for safe issues, the secret ballot is a survival advantage.

:mittens:

One of the hazards.  Would you be prepared for violence to defend your vote?

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 15, 2009, 03:13:06 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 06:17:54 PM

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 14, 2009, 06:01:07 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 04:49:56 PM
Oh, that's a line of reactionary hyperbole if I ever read one. She is against gay marriage, therefore she doesn't view gays as human beings? That's a far stretch. I'm opposed to polygamy, does that mean I don't consider polyamorous people to be human beings?

I don't have multiple wives, but you've really never considered getting violent to defend your beliefs?  You never saw that you might need to defend yourself from someone else's ignorant/righteous beliefs?  Extreme non-violence can only take you so far.

What does this have to do with the conversation?

The threat of violence against the "homophobes" in support of prop 8.  It's not the equivalent of a colored person protesting alone at a KKK rally, but how many people on this forum do you think would punch bill o'reilly in the face if they saw him IRL?  Would you be at your door ready for a logical debate and in the worst case a shotgun?

What the shit? Are you suggesting I'd bring my gun if Bill O'Reilly came to my door? That's fucking ludicrous.

Quote

Quote from: Nigel on March 15, 2009, 02:10:28 AM

Quote from: Two Frame Animation on March 14, 2009, 11:53:21 PM
Fundamentally, I don't see a difference between publishing the names of people who donate to a political cause and abolishing the secret ballot system.  Either we keep political donations secret and votes secret, or make both public.

And unless you're only planning on casting ballots for safe issues, the secret ballot is a survival advantage.

:mittens:

One of the hazards.  Would you be prepared for violence to defend your vote?

:facepalm:

Something about missing the point...

Quote from: Nigel on March 15, 2009, 04:04:26 AM
What the shit? Are you suggesting I'd bring my gun if Bill O'Reilly came to my door? That's fucking ludicrous.

No, if someone came to your door that had ideological 'disagreements' with your voting.  Would you be prepared to defend yourself violently if logical discussion has failed?

Quote
:facepalm:
Something about missing the point...

This is unrelated to your point.  How important is the right to vote to you?  That is the fucking question.  Most people advocate voting for the sake of voting, but wouldn't go as far as to stand up and say "Yea,  I voted this way" against the threat of violence and be prepared to violently defend your belief.  Is it becoming more clear?

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 15, 2009, 04:20:07 AM
This is unrelated to your point.  How important is the right to vote to you?  That is the fucking question.  Most people advocate voting for the sake of voting, but wouldn't go as far as to stand up and say "Yea,  I voted this way" against the threat of violence and be prepared to violently defend your belief.  Is it becoming more clear?

If it's unrelated, have you considered starting a new thread?

Quote from: Nigel on March 15, 2009, 04:21:36 AM
If it's unrelated, have you considered starting a new thread?

Skillfull dodge.  It's messed up that a false sense of privacy had been violated, but if you ain't ready to defend your vote by whatever means necessary DON'T vote.  Go be the frightened citizen of some other nation where the winner has been decided in advance.  Those people have courage and give meaning to the vote. 

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 15, 2009, 04:35:27 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 15, 2009, 04:21:36 AM
If it's unrelated, have you considered starting a new thread?

Skillfull dodge.  It's messed up that a false sense of privacy had been violated, but if you ain't ready to defend your vote by whatever means necessary DON'T vote.  Go be the frightened citizen of some other nation where the winner has been decided in advance.  Those people have courage and give meaning to the vote. 

But you see, voting here IS private and confidential. Do you not live in the United States? Are you suggesting that because it's worse in other countries, it's not wrong to erode people's rights here?

Quote from: Nigel on March 15, 2009, 04:42:34 AM

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 15, 2009, 04:35:27 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 15, 2009, 04:21:36 AM
If it's unrelated, have you considered starting a new thread?

Skillfull dodge.  It's messed up that a false sense of privacy had been violated, but if you ain't ready to defend your vote by whatever means necessary DON'T vote.  Go be the frightened citizen of some other nation where the winner has been decided in advance.  Those people have courage and give meaning to the vote. 

But you see, voting here IS private and confidential. Do you not live in the United States? Are you suggesting that because it's worse in other countries, it's not wrong to erode people's rights here?

Would you still vote even if that put you in danger?  That is the most important thing you can really extract from this.  How important is voting to you? Would you... etc etc

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 15, 2009, 04:55:04 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 15, 2009, 04:42:34 AM

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 15, 2009, 04:35:27 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 15, 2009, 04:21:36 AM
If it's unrelated, have you considered starting a new thread?

Skillfull dodge.  It's messed up that a false sense of privacy had been violated, but if you ain't ready to defend your vote by whatever means necessary DON'T vote.  Go be the frightened citizen of some other nation where the winner has been decided in advance.  Those people have courage and give meaning to the vote. 

But you see, voting here IS private and confidential. Do you not live in the United States? Are you suggesting that because it's worse in other countries, it's not wrong to erode people's rights here?

Would you still vote even if that put you in danger?  That is the most important thing you can really extract from this.  How important is voting to you? Would you... etc etc

No, really that's a completely separate issue.

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 15, 2009, 04:35:27 AM
Skillfull dodge.  It's messed up that a false sense of privacy had been violated, but if you ain't ready to defend your vote by whatever means necessary DON'T vote.  Go be the frightened citizen of some other nation where the winner has been decided in advance.  Those people have courage and give meaning to the vote. 

Bullshit.  A non-secret vote has NO advantages.  None. 

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 15, 2009, 03:13:06 AM
The threat of violence against the "homophobes" in support of prop 8.

Why the quotes?  If you support proposition 8, you're a homophobe.  Dress it up with things like "definitions of marriage", etc, all you like.  You aren't fooling anyone.

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 04:43:54 PM
Nobody ever said we live in an "open" society. There are a lot of areas where laws protect our privacy. I think it's really interesting that private purchases are protected by confidentiality laws, but donations aren't.

Private purchases don't lead to the wholesale purchase of government, like anonymous political donations would.

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 04:43:54 PM
To those of you who think this harassment is acceptable because you find the woman's views reprehensible... what the fuck is wrong with you? You're as disgusting as the people who think it's OK to send hate mail to queers who try to adopt. I'm sorry, condoning harassment because you don't agree with the political views of the person being harassed is fucking sick.

Let's look at this another way:  This woman is out to ruin the private lives of about 10% of the population, based on hate and/or fear alone.

While I don't condone anything further, this woman's hurt feelings don't stack up to the rights of one person, let alone 30 million or so.

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 04:49:56 PM

Quote from: Requia on March 14, 2009, 03:53:31 AM
Her views are that I'm not a person.  Just saying.

Oh, that's a line of reactionary hyperbole if I ever read one. She is against gay marriage, therefore she doesn't view gays as human beings? That's a far stretch. I'm opposed to polygamy, does that mean I don't consider polyamorous people to be human beings?

I don't think it's hyperbole.  Filthy assistant at work, on the subject of Gay rights:  "Who cares?  They're just fags."

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 05:00:59 PM
By donating to prop 8?

IIRC, she was an active campaigner.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 14, 2009, 05:13:57 PM
If you believe marriage is some ancient traditional deal between a man and a woman of opposite sexes then, IMO, you're perfectly entitled to think gay marriage is out of line without, necessarily, being against gay people.

If someone doesn't approve of Gay marriage, then they shouldn't enter into one.  They have no business stomping on the rights of others.  I have exactly as little patience for them as I have for the screwheads who decided listening to our phone calls was a good idea, or that ignoring habeas corpus was the fucking cat's ass.  There is no difference at all, in principle, between Alberto Gonzales and someone who supports odious shit like prop 8.  They are both opposed to individual liberty.

TGRR,
Making Thomas Paine look reasonable since the Johnson Administration.

Quote from: fomenter on March 14, 2009, 06:02:12 PM
voting against prop 8 is not a vote against civil unions, how do you know she doesn't vote yes for, or support civil unions in other ways?

"Separate but equal" is garbage.  If they were equal, you wouldn't need another name for the concept.

i happen to support civil unions, i was surprised to find out (during the prop8 discussions) that the civil unions don't give all the same rights to gay couples, i  had been under the impression till then that they did, and that giving equal rights was the whole point of granting civil unions..

Quote from: fomenter on March 15, 2009, 06:58:07 AM
i happen to support civil unions, i was surprised to find out (during the prop8 discussions) that the civil unions don't give all the same rights to gay couples, i  had been under the impression till then that they did, and that giving equal rights was the whole point of granting civil unions..

For future reference:  If you need a new name for the same rights, then the rights aren't really the same, are they?

civil unions are new? i thought heterosexual couples who had been living together as husband and wife for 7 or more years without a marriage were considered by law to have a civil union? from long before the law was applied to gay couples?

Quote from: fomenter on March 15, 2009, 07:05:11 AM
civil unions are new? i thought heterosexual couples who had been living together as husband and wife for 7 or more years without a marriage were considered by law to have a civil union? from long before the law was applied to gay couples?

No, that's "common law marriage".  A very different thing.

POP (the sound of gluteal cranial inversion reversing..) misunderstood civil union as the same thing, that it was supposed to be granting the same rights to gays as common law marriage granted to strait couples a legal "non religious" recognition of rights..

Quote from: fomenter on March 15, 2009, 07:28:01 AM
POP (the sound of gluteal cranial inversion reversing..) misunderstood civil union as the same thing, that it was supposed to be granting the same rights to gays as common law marriage granted to strait couples a legal "non religious" recognition of rights..

There is no "religious" recognition of marriage.  A Justice of the Peace can marry a couple with precisely the same legal standing as a minister can.

QuotePOP (the sound of gluteal cranial inversion reversing..)

in my confused understanding, since the preservation of marriage is being promoted by religious nuts who don't accept gay marriage, the civil union was an equivalent to (same as) a justice of the piece marriage/common law marriage, to grant equal rights to gays.. silly me i guess 

edit to add - it was my understanding that the civil union was supposed to grant every right and be the same as marriage in every way, except for the right to use the word marriage on the legal documents, since it pissed off religious people

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 15, 2009, 06:47:04 AM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 14, 2009, 05:13:57 PM
If you believe marriage is some ancient traditional deal between a man and a woman of opposite sexes then, IMO, you're perfectly entitled to think gay marriage is out of line without, necessarily, being against gay people.

If someone doesn't approve of Gay marriage, then they shouldn't enter into one.  They have no business stomping on the rights of others.  I have exactly as little patience for them as I have for the screwheads who decided listening to our phone calls was a good idea, or that ignoring habeas corpus was the fucking cat's ass.  There is no difference at all, in principle, between Alberto Gonzales and someone who supports odious shit like prop 8.  They are both opposed to individual liberty.

TGRR,
Making Thomas Paine look reasonable since the Johnson Administration.

Knowing this just might be a tad off-topic  :oops:  but Alberto Gonzales?   :x 

QuoteCOMMENTARY:
Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus

by ROBERT PARRY
In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S. Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every American.  ...

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011907Parry.shtml

& then:

QuoteSATIRE:
How to Interpret the Ten Commandments
An attempt at legal analysis of Biblical law following Gonzalesian logic.
by DEBORAH KORY

Thankfully, Gonzales finally straightened out two centuries of muddle-headed lawmaking the other day when he testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding government surveillance.  ...

Okay--here goes. My attempt at the Ten Commandments following Gonzalesian logic:

1.  I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me.

Since it does not explicitly state that God exists outside the borders of the United States, God must not exist outside of the United States. In fact, God IS the United States and the President is our Pope—except the Pope is Catholic and German and the Germans are godless Communists and we failed to extinguish Communism in Vietnam and therefore must extinguish Islamism in the Middle East.

2.  You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

There is no explicit mention here of oil. It is totally fine to make an idol out of oil and to watch "American Idol." Guantanamo is surrounded by water, out of which the Leftist Jew-dominated media has created a Golden Calf in its own terrorist-sympathizer image.

3.  You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.

Notice there's no mention here of "Allah." Catch my drift?
...
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/012207KORY2.shtml

I love this Decade!  :)

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 15, 2009, 04:55:04 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 15, 2009, 04:42:34 AM

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 15, 2009, 04:35:27 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 15, 2009, 04:21:36 AM
If it's unrelated, have you considered starting a new thread?

Skillfull dodge.  It's messed up that a false sense of privacy had been violated, but if you ain't ready to defend your vote by whatever means necessary DON'T vote.  Go be the frightened citizen of some other nation where the winner has been decided in advance.  Those people have courage and give meaning to the vote. 

But you see, voting here IS private and confidential. Do you not live in the United States? Are you suggesting that because it's worse in other countries, it's not wrong to erode people's rights here?

Would you still vote even if that put you in danger?  That is the most important thing you can really extract from this.  How important is voting to you? Would you... etc etc

If you have to defend your vote with violence, then it's not really a vote, it's a method of keeping score during an armed conflict.  Because, see, immediately after the election all the people who voted against the interest of the most armed and vicious group will find themselves mysteriously unable to cast a ballot next election.

Quote from: Two Frame Animation on March 15, 2009, 06:03:01 PM

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 15, 2009, 04:55:04 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 15, 2009, 04:42:34 AM

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 15, 2009, 04:35:27 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 15, 2009, 04:21:36 AM
If it's unrelated, have you considered starting a new thread?

Skillfull dodge.  It's messed up that a false sense of privacy had been violated, but if you ain't ready to defend your vote by whatever means necessary DON'T vote.  Go be the frightened citizen of some other nation where the winner has been decided in advance.  Those people have courage and give meaning to the vote. 

But you see, voting here IS private and confidential. Do you not live in the United States? Are you suggesting that because it's worse in other countries, it's not wrong to erode people's rights here?

Would you still vote even if that put you in danger?  That is the most important thing you can really extract from this.  How important is voting to you? Would you... etc etc

If you have to defend your vote with violence, then it's not really a vote, it's a method of keeping score during an armed conflict.  Because, see, immediately after the election all the people who voted against the interest of the most armed and vicious group will find themselves mysteriously unable to cast a ballot next election.

Lech isn't a big fan of self-determination, I think.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 15, 2009, 06:41:32 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 04:43:54 PM
To those of you who think this harassment is acceptable because you find the woman's views reprehensible... what the fuck is wrong with you? You're as disgusting as the people who think it's OK to send hate mail to queers who try to adopt. I'm sorry, condoning harassment because you don't agree with the political views of the person being harassed is fucking sick.

Let's look at this another way:  This woman is out to ruin the private lives of about 10% of the population, based on hate and/or fear alone.

While I don't condone anything further, this woman's hurt feelings don't stack up to the rights of one person, let alone 30 million or so.

So you think it would be OK for a militant right-wing newspaper in a largely right-wing community to publish a link to the addresses of gay-rights supporters?

Quote from: Nigel on March 16, 2009, 07:17:17 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 15, 2009, 06:41:32 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 04:43:54 PM
To those of you who think this harassment is acceptable because you find the woman's views reprehensible... what the fuck is wrong with you? You're as disgusting as the people who think it's OK to send hate mail to queers who try to adopt. I'm sorry, condoning harassment because you don't agree with the political views of the person being harassed is fucking sick.

Let's look at this another way:  This woman is out to ruin the private lives of about 10% of the population, based on hate and/or fear alone.

While I don't condone anything further, this woman's hurt feelings don't stack up to the rights of one person, let alone 30 million or so.

So you think it would be OK for a militant right-wing newspaper in a largely right-wing community to publish a link to the addresses of gay-rights supporters?

It's a bunk comparison. You're assuming the Chronicle is comparable to right wing militant groups.


The difference is that the "militant" gay-rights supporters don't have a history of oppression, violence, and murder against the opposition.

The militant anti-gay crowd does.

Quote from: Automaton on March 16, 2009, 06:17:40 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 16, 2009, 07:17:17 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 15, 2009, 06:41:32 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 04:43:54 PM
To those of you who think this harassment is acceptable because you find the woman's views reprehensible... what the fuck is wrong with you? You're as disgusting as the people who think it's OK to send hate mail to queers who try to adopt. I'm sorry, condoning harassment because you don't agree with the political views of the person being harassed is fucking sick.

Let's look at this another way:  This woman is out to ruin the private lives of about 10% of the population, based on hate and/or fear alone.

While I don't condone anything further, this woman's hurt feelings don't stack up to the rights of one person, let alone 30 million or so.

So you think it would be OK for a militant right-wing newspaper in a largely right-wing community to publish a link to the addresses of gay-rights supporters?

It's a bunk comparison. You're assuming the Chronicle is comparable to right wing militant groups.


The difference is that the "militant" gay-rights supporters don't have a history of oppression, violence, and murder against the opposition.

The militant anti-gay crowd does.

You're still making the distinction that a certain political tactic is OK from one side but not from the other. I'm saying that it's not. What is it, EXACTLY, that YOU think makes it OK from one faction but not from the other?

Do you think anything exists to prevent a right-wing publication with largely right-wing militant readership from publishing a link to a map with the addresses of donors to a gay-rights campaign? Do you think there should be?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 15, 2009, 06:37:01 AM

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 15, 2009, 03:13:06 AM
The threat of violence against the "homophobes" in support of prop 8.

Why the quotes?  If you support proposition 8, you're a homophobe.  Dress it up with things like "definitions of marriage", etc, all you like.  You aren't fooling anyone.

It should be legal for straights and gays to marry people of the same sex.  However, no reprisals should be taken against a church that doesnt want to have anything to do with it. 

Quote from: Two Frame Animation on March 15, 2009, 06:03:01 PM
If you have to defend your vote with violence, then it's not really a vote, it's a method of keeping score during an armed conflict.  Because, see, immediately after the election all the people who voted against the interest of the most armed and vicious group will find themselves mysteriously unable to cast a ballot next election.

If you are willing to stand up and vote knowing that the most armed and vicious group disagrees with you, that's balls.  If the issue being voted over isn't worth that risk to you or you aren't ready to take that risk (priorities) reassess your need to vote, your views on voting, and/or the topic at hand...

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 16, 2009, 07:42:36 PM

Quote from: Two Frame Animation on March 15, 2009, 06:03:01 PM
If you have to defend your vote with violence, then it's not really a vote, it's a method of keeping score during an armed conflict.  Because, see, immediately after the election all the people who voted against the interest of the most armed and vicious group will find themselves mysteriously unable to cast a ballot next election.

If you are willing to stand up and vote knowing that the most armed and vicious group disagrees with you, that's balls.  If the issue being voted over isn't worth that risk to you or you aren't ready to take that risk (priorities) reassess your need to vote, your views on voting, and/or the topic at hand...

I'm sorry, that is completely fucking retarded.

Quote from: Nigel on March 16, 2009, 07:45:18 PM
I'm sorry, that is completely fucking retarded.

Everyone should be heard.  (!?)

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 15, 2009, 06:04:06 PM
Lech isn't a big fan of self-determination, I think.

Sometimes i think we should let it just let it turn into a free-for-all and see the "strong" starve after there are no weak left for them to feed off.  Some people don't need governance, can't be governed, don't want to be governed but need to be governed. and some governments need to make it so that they have people to govern despite them not needing to be governed.  The term Social Contract comes to mind, but it may not be relevant

You seem to be saying that if the threat to life and safety keeps you at home, then your political convictions weren't strong enough to be worth voting on.

You seem to be saying that in a political system where bullying and threats of physical harm are allowed, only the most determined will vote in opposition of the powerful, and that's A-OK with you.

In reality, a political system where bullying and threats of physical harm are allowed is a fundamentally broken one, because the vote is controlled by the powerful. That's the reason our votes are PRIVATE in this country... so people can vote without fear of being bullied or harmed based on their political convictions, to allow at least some semblance of free democracy.

It's like freedom of speech - if we want it for ourselves, we must also protect it for those we find abhorrent.

Quote from: Nigel on March 16, 2009, 08:08:38 PM
You seem to be saying that if the threat to life and safety keeps you at home, then your political convictions weren't strong enough to be worth voting on.

Maybe in comparison to someone who is willing to (personally) kill for their convictions.  But yes, if your political convictions are not strong enough to spur action that may involve a risk then go ahead and have all the convictions you want, even post about them in online forums.

Quote
You seem to be saying that in a political system where bullying and threats of physical harm are allowed, only the most determined will vote in opposition of the powerful, and that's A-OK with you.

I was saying that i admire the determination of people who will vote in such circumstances, not that it is okay.

Quote
In reality, a political system where bullying and threats of physical harm are allowed is a fundamentally broken one, because the vote is controlled by the powerful. That's the reason our votes are PRIVATE in this country... so people can vote without fear of being bullied or harmed based on their political convictions, to allow at least some semblance of free democracy.

When it reaches your level it becomes a problem?  The system is already broken because our delegates, congressmen, senators etc. face threats like that all the time from every direction... from above, peers, and their constituency.  How can we protect them from violence, blackmail, extortion, and/or their own greed and corruption?  impossible.  One of the cons of voting.  "Not voting" is definitely not preferable to voting, but don't act as if an either-or is God's Amurrica's gift to man.

Are you even actually replying to what I wrote?

Quote from: Nigel on March 16, 2009, 08:28:50 PM
Are you even actually replying to what I wrote?

The "51% of voters can't be wrong" meme is getting pretty old

Quote from: Nigel on March 16, 2009, 07:30:11 PM

Quote from: Automaton on March 16, 2009, 06:17:40 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 16, 2009, 07:17:17 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 15, 2009, 06:41:32 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 04:43:54 PM
To those of you who think this harassment is acceptable because you find the woman's views reprehensible... what the fuck is wrong with you? You're as disgusting as the people who think it's OK to send hate mail to queers who try to adopt. I'm sorry, condoning harassment because you don't agree with the political views of the person being harassed is fucking sick.

Let's look at this another way:  This woman is out to ruin the private lives of about 10% of the population, based on hate and/or fear alone.

While I don't condone anything further, this woman's hurt feelings don't stack up to the rights of one person, let alone 30 million or so.

So you think it would be OK for a militant right-wing newspaper in a largely right-wing community to publish a link to the addresses of gay-rights supporters?

It's a bunk comparison. You're assuming the Chronicle is comparable to right wing militant groups.


The difference is that the "militant" gay-rights supporters don't have a history of oppression, violence, and murder against the opposition.

The militant anti-gay crowd does.

You're still making the distinction that a certain political tactic is OK from one side but not from the other. I'm saying that it's not. What is it, EXACTLY, that YOU think makes it OK from one faction but not from the other?

Do you think anything exists to prevent a right-wing publication with largely right-wing militant readership from publishing a link to a map with the addresses of donors to a gay-rights campaign? Do you think there should be?

It's still a false comparison. You repeating it and trying to couch this in purely partisan terms doesn't make it any less manipulative or false.

It's a clever tactic but you're asking me to compare angry words to bloodshed as though both are bloodshed.

If a conservative group with no history of oppression, violence and murder of the opposition published a link to names/addresses for its readership it would be a fair comparison, and no I wouldn't be concerned. That's not what you actually said and actually implied however.

Do I think militant right wing publishers should have the right to do what the Chronicle did? Yes, and when people cross the line they should get punished for it, regardless of which side of the debate they fall on.

You seem to be trying to spread the meme that "militantly" pro-gay means such people commit the same kind of atrocities that militantly anti-gay people commit and with the same frequency.

I call bullshit. Where's your evidence?

The militant right wing is actually militant. Calling the readership of the San Francisco Chronicle "militant" in the same sense of the word is absolutely ridiculous.

I should have known better than to engage with you... you're all over the place, flat-out INVENTING motivations to assign me, and completely missing the point that harassing people or setting them up for harassment because of their political views is wrong, both for the goose and the gander, and if you let the goose do it, you'd better believe the gander will as well.

If you pick and choose who is treated with human decency based on whether you agree with their political views, everyone loses.

Now, I'm going back to ignoring you completely.

Quote from: Nigel on March 16, 2009, 07:17:17 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 15, 2009, 06:41:32 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 04:43:54 PM
To those of you who think this harassment is acceptable because you find the woman's views reprehensible... what the fuck is wrong with you? You're as disgusting as the people who think it's OK to send hate mail to queers who try to adopt. I'm sorry, condoning harassment because you don't agree with the political views of the person being harassed is fucking sick.

Let's look at this another way:  This woman is out to ruin the private lives of about 10% of the population, based on hate and/or fear alone.

While I don't condone anything further, this woman's hurt feelings don't stack up to the rights of one person, let alone 30 million or so.

So you think it would be OK for a militant right-wing newspaper in a largely right-wing community to publish a link to the addresses of gay-rights supporters?

Nope.  Not right (legal, of course).  Gays are not stomping on the rights of the right wingers.  It's not a double standard...it's just that my standard is based entirely on whether or not someone is trying to eliminate the rights of others.

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 16, 2009, 07:34:49 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 15, 2009, 06:37:01 AM

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 15, 2009, 03:13:06 AM
The threat of violence against the "homophobes" in support of prop 8.

Why the quotes?  If you support proposition 8, you're a homophobe.  Dress it up with things like "definitions of marriage", etc, all you like.  You aren't fooling anyone.

It should be legal for straights and gays to marry people of the same sex.  However, no reprisals should be taken against a church that doesnt want to have anything to do with it. 

Certainly.  Freedom or religion is a right, after all.  And the fact that they won't marry other people is not a violation of those other peoples' rights.

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 16, 2009, 07:42:36 PM

Quote from: Two Frame Animation on March 15, 2009, 06:03:01 PM
If you have to defend your vote with violence, then it's not really a vote, it's a method of keeping score during an armed conflict.  Because, see, immediately after the election all the people who voted against the interest of the most armed and vicious group will find themselves mysteriously unable to cast a ballot next election.

If you are willing to stand up and vote knowing that the most armed and vicious group disagrees with you, that's balls.  If the issue being voted over isn't worth that risk to you or you aren't ready to take that risk (priorities) reassess your need to vote, your views on voting, and/or the topic at hand...

This is utter and complete rubbish.  Fuck off.

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 16, 2009, 07:53:29 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 16, 2009, 07:45:18 PM
I'm sorry, that is completely fucking retarded.

Everyone should be heard.  (!?)

By whom?  I am not required to give serious consideration to, or even listen to, stupid things.

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 16, 2009, 08:01:19 PM
Sometimes i think we should let it just let it turn into a free-for-all and see the "strong" starve after there are no weak left for them to feed off.  Some people don't need governance, can't be governed, don't want to be governed but need to be governed. and some governments need to make it so that they have people to govern despite them not needing to be governed.  The term Social Contract comes to mind, but it may not be relevant

So move to Somalia.  Let us know how that works out for you.  Some of us prefer civilization and the rule of law.

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 16, 2009, 08:40:52 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 16, 2009, 08:28:50 PM
Are you even actually replying to what I wrote?

The "51% of voters can't be wrong" meme is getting pretty old

So why are you serving?  It's obvious that you have nothing but contempt for the republic.

Move to Somalia.  Seriously.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 16, 2009, 11:31:56 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 16, 2009, 07:17:17 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 15, 2009, 06:41:32 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 04:43:54 PM
To those of you who think this harassment is acceptable because you find the woman's views reprehensible... what the fuck is wrong with you? You're as disgusting as the people who think it's OK to send hate mail to queers who try to adopt. I'm sorry, condoning harassment because you don't agree with the political views of the person being harassed is fucking sick.

Let's look at this another way:  This woman is out to ruin the private lives of about 10% of the population, based on hate and/or fear alone.

While I don't condone anything further, this woman's hurt feelings don't stack up to the rights of one person, let alone 30 million or so.

So you think it would be OK for a militant right-wing newspaper in a largely right-wing community to publish a link to the addresses of gay-rights supporters?

Nope.  Not right (legal, of course).  Gays are not stomping on the rights of the right wingers.  It's not a double standard...it's just that my standard is based entirely on whether or not someone is trying to eliminate the rights of others.

NIGEL:  Opun further reflection, it occurs to me that I am arguing that the end justifies the means.  Since this is never morally acceptable, I withdraw my argument.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 16, 2009, 11:34:03 PM
This is utter and complete rubbish. 

Why?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 16, 2009, 11:35:29 PM
So move to Somalia.  Let us know how that works out for you.  Some of us prefer civilization and the rule of law.

Now Sepia's rant comes to mind, the rich eat first.  Fuck all those rants everyone posts about the big scary Machine  :FFF: right? Is that what it is now?  Is this site Fight the Power, or It's Pointless to Fight the Power?

Quote from: Nigel on March 16, 2009, 10:05:23 PM
Now, I'm going back to ignoring you completely.

Does someone watch the office?  SHUN...  UNSHUN... RESHUN

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 16, 2009, 11:38:46 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 16, 2009, 11:31:56 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 16, 2009, 07:17:17 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 15, 2009, 06:41:32 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 04:43:54 PM
To those of you who think this harassment is acceptable because you find the woman's views reprehensible... what the fuck is wrong with you? You're as disgusting as the people who think it's OK to send hate mail to queers who try to adopt. I'm sorry, condoning harassment because you don't agree with the political views of the person being harassed is fucking sick.

Let's look at this another way:  This woman is out to ruin the private lives of about 10% of the population, based on hate and/or fear alone.

While I don't condone anything further, this woman's hurt feelings don't stack up to the rights of one person, let alone 30 million or so.

So you think it would be OK for a militant right-wing newspaper in a largely right-wing community to publish a link to the addresses of gay-rights supporters?

Nope.  Not right (legal, of course).  Gays are not stomping on the rights of the right wingers.  It's not a double standard...it's just that my standard is based entirely on whether or not someone is trying to eliminate the rights of others.

NIGEL:  Opun further reflection, it occurs to me that I am arguing that the end justifies the means.  Since this is never morally acceptable, I withdraw my argument.

Ahhh...  this is why I respect you, man. For serious. For me to fight for a government and a populace which respects my rights, I must also fight for the government and the people to respect the rights of those I disagree with.

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 17, 2009, 12:13:02 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 16, 2009, 11:34:03 PM
This is utter and complete rubbish. 

Why?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 16, 2009, 11:35:29 PM
So move to Somalia.  Let us know how that works out for you.  Some of us prefer civilization and the rule of law.

Now Sepia's rant comes to mind, the rich eat first.  Fuck all those rants everyone posts about the big scary Machine  :FFF: right? Is that what it is now?  Is this site Fight the Power, or It's Pointless to Fight the Power?

What is this site about? Does one person determine it?

Quote

Quote from: Nigel on March 16, 2009, 10:05:23 PM
Now, I'm going back to ignoring you completely.

Does someone watch the office?  SHUN...  UNSHUN... RESHUN

If you haven't been here long enough to understand the reasons behind individual relations, do you have the insight for meaningful commentary?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 14, 2009, 05:53:03 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 02:15:10 AM

Quote from: Cain on March 14, 2009, 01:51:47 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 01:33:57 AM
It's fucking creepy as hell that someone can just look up your charitable or political contributions and then harass you or try to damage your career. It's both creepy and frightening that a paper can publish a list of names and HOME ADDRESSES of people who donated to a particular cause, especially with the full knowledge that most of their readership is vehemently opposed to that cause and the people who supported it. I mean, fuck, that's just not right. It's not right when the right-wing does it to the left, and it's still not right when the left-wing does it to the right. It's some unethical bullshit, is what it is.

Who fucking cares whether this woman understands the underlying motivations about her beliefs? I may not agree with her at all, but I don't think that or her self-analysis are relevant.

Except the paper didn't do it.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/13/BA0R16EIMB.DTL&tsp=1

QuoteThe newspaper did not print her home address or the addresses of other donors.

Mullarkey, an artist, contributed $1,000 to the Prop. 8 cause. But her donation to a statewide initiative was public information, available on the Web site of the California secretary of state.

The Prop. 8 donor database, which was provided to newspapers by the Associated Press, didn't include Prop. 8 supporters alone, as Mullarkey strongly suggested.

It was weighted 2-1 in the other direction, including 96,000 records of donors who were against Prop. 8 and 46,000 in favor of it.

So it only printed their names and states of residence?

That's better. Marginally. I still think it's pretty fucking alarming. Like I said, harassment of that nature isn't OK when the right does it, and it's still not OK when the left does it.

Political donations are always a matter of public record, for reasons which are pretty obvious, when you think about it from a corruption POV.

So do you still think donations should be a matter of public record and that newspapers just shouldn't post the information even though they legally are able to?

Or are you on board for either laws against publishing such information or throwing out the laws on such publicly available information wholesale?

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 17, 2009, 12:13:02 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 16, 2009, 11:35:29 PM

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 16, 2009, 08:01:19 PM
Sometimes i think we should let it just let it turn into a free-for-all and see the "strong" starve after there are no weak left for them to feed off.  Some people don't need governance, can't be governed, don't want to be governed but need to be governed. and some governments need to make it so that they have people to govern despite them not needing to be governed.  The term Social Contract comes to mind, but it may not be relevant

So move to Somalia.  Let us know how that works out for you.  Some of us prefer civilization and the rule of law.

Now Sepia's rant comes to mind, the rich eat first.  Fuck all those rants everyone posts about the big scary Machine  :FFF: right? Is that what it is now?  Is this site Fight the Power, or It's Pointless to Fight the Power?

What does what you're saying now have anything to do with what you said to begin with?  You have used the word "strong" in quotes; you have much to answer for.  You can't just imply that there's something wrong with labelling an unspecified group "strong", without identifying group and/or false qualities associated with strength.

Also, that anarchy means men with guns tell you what to do.  And can kill yuo without filing paperwork.

As for fight the power or no: "Go right ahead, throw yourself at The Power--your blood will just grease its gears, but whatever."

Somalia.

Pope Lecherous seems to be operating under the idea that might makes right.

Quote from: yhnmzw on March 17, 2009, 07:47:50 AM
What does what you're saying now have anything to do with what you said to begin with?

Double standard may not be the right term, but it's the first that comes to mind.  People sit here talking about how much they value voting and everyone should vote all the time, and that's great.  Voting is great.  For the people who supported Prop 8, would they have voted knowing that their names and whereabouts would be made available to people who might hurt them?  Some would, some wouldn't.  Although i disagree with prop 8, i would admire people who are willing to take that risk by voting in accordance with their belief.  Should voting be personally dangerous?  No, that would really suck.  If it was, would you have the courage to go the polls anyways and would you be ready to defend yourself physically if need be?  These are the ridiculous questions i posed before.

If a person is unwilling to do that, they should reassess the 'depth' of their conviction and the importance of being able to vote.  If you would find the risk unacceptable go ahead and don't vote.  As i have pointed out there are plenty of fucked up places, where the 'burden' can be taken off the hands of citizens who are unwilling to stand up for what they believe in.  So hey for all those people who WOULDN'T get violent  FUCK YOU and you can go to Somalia. 

That pretty much sums up what i was trying to convey.

Quote
You have used the word "strong" in quotes; you have much to answer for.  You can't just imply that there's something wrong with labelling an unspecified group "strong", without identifying group and/or false qualities associated with strength.

Also, that anarchy means men with guns tell you what to do.  And can kill yuo without filing paperwork.

Those are the 'strong' ones i was referring to.  They feed off the weak, through violence and fear.  The anarchy that i would like to see would ultimately destroy them.

Quote
As for fight the power or no: "Go right ahead, throw yourself at The Power--your blood will just grease its gears, but whatever."
Somalia.

You're right we can't make a difference and we shouldn't try  :boring:

Somalia

I have lost track of the discussion, but I now can maybe state my own views.

Those who vote for invasiveness should expect it used against them.  If you make tradition synonymous with law, you lose the tradition when we change the law.  Enclaves of whateverthefuck can survive indefinitely.

Attempts to enforce alien moral codes courts disaster for the host society.

Voting against gay marriage decreases the options for success of people that the voter will never see.  And that makes the whole world suck a little bit more than it has to.

Voting according to one's beliefs should start with one's beliefs about the legal/political system.  The originating belief of the American governmental system is that government should only control certain things, and only so much.  Everyone fucking forgets this, and should burn for heresy.

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 18, 2009, 03:29:55 AM

Quote
You have used the word "strong" in quotes; you have much to answer for.  You can't just imply that there's something wrong with labelling an unspecified group "strong", without identifying group and/or false qualities associated with strength.

Also, that anarchy means men with guns tell you what to do.  And can kill yuo without filing paperwork.

Those are the 'strong' ones i was referring to.  They feed off the weak, through violence and fear.  The anarchy that i would like to see would ultimately destroy them.

Well, that's a fantasy.  What I read sounds like the Nietchean type "weak" given a keyboard to type with.  Being "weak" does not mean you're free from being an asshole and getting called on it.

It's just as well that you hate the police, they're only a medium of power anyways.  Resist the signal, stop obsessing over the carrier.

Quote

Quote
As for fight the power or no: "Go right ahead, throw yourself at The Power--your blood will just grease its gears, but whatever."
Somalia.

You're right we can't make a difference and we shouldn't try  :boring:

Somalia

Recently, I was on a trip associated with the phrase "I am the weapon."  It lasted probably months, and it risked my health.  Do never plan to draw first blood.  The devil that troubles you hides in everyone's minds; our work is to banish or weaken it.  We call the Work "Operation Mindfuck".

fuck

Hey, Pope Lecherous: Do you have kids?

Would you be willing to risk them being Napalmed if you voted?

If you answered yes to that, does that make you a better/more strongly convicted person than someone who answered no?

My convictions include a belief in the right to work for political process through due channels without harassment or threats to health, life and livelihood. It would seem, based on your posts, that you find that conviction somehow weak and unworthy of the protections of Democracy.

Quote from: Nigel on March 18, 2009, 09:39:28 AM
Hey, Pope Lecherous: Do you have kids?

Would you be willing to risk them being Napalmed if you voted?

If you answered yes to that, does that make you a better/more strongly convicted person than someone who answered no?

No.

Quote
My convictions include a belief in the right to work for political process through due channels without harassment or threats to health, life and livelihood. It would seem, based on your posts, that you find that conviction somehow weak and unworthy of the protections of Democracy.

Um... no one said that, but in the real world your anonymity is shrinking at a rate proportional to how accessible information becomes.  That's how Democracy should work but guess what, all someone needs is your name.  What will you do when they come knocking on your door?

the end

Quote from: Pope LecherousUm... no one said that, but in the real world your anonymity is shrinking at a rate proportional to how accessible information becomes.  That's how Democracy should work but guess what, all someone needs is your name.  What will you do when they come knocking on your door?

I think I see what you are driving at here. Essentially, you seem to be suggesting that America is rapidly getting to the point where people who hold inconvenient views will be punishable by mob rule because they'll be able to hunt down the dissenters and extract justice.

What I'm not sure about is that you seem to be rather schizophrenic in whether you condone this, or think it somehow makes those who will hold those views more noble to go out and express them when they are going to wake up to a lynch mob in the next morning.

My response would be that this may very well become more 'normal'. But it isn't something that should be encouraged at all, and if some bastard comes to my house looking for revenge because I expressed myself- in an institutionalized way at that- in a fashion he didn't like, I'm glad I have enough friends and family living near me or with me at any point that said bastard would, even if he managed to get me, be taking his teeth home in a baggie.

Of course, I don't have any children. I imagine if I did have dependents, my outlook would change somewhat. It's easy to gamble with your life when you don't have anyone else relying on you to survive.

Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 19, 2009, 02:49:51 PM

Quote from: Pope LecherousUm... no one said that, but in the real world your anonymity is shrinking at a rate proportional to how accessible information becomes.  That's how Democracy should work but guess what, all someone needs is your name.  What will you do when they come knocking on your door?

I think I see what you are driving at here. Essentially, you seem to be suggesting that America is rapidly getting to the point where people who hold inconvenient views will be punishable by mob rule because they'll be able to hunt down the dissenters and extract justice.

What I'm not sure about is that you seem to be rather schizophrenic in whether you condone this, or think it somehow makes those who will hold those views more noble to go out and express them when they are going to wake up to a lynch mob in the next morning.

more noble

Quote
My response would be that this may very well become more 'normal'. But it isn't something that should be encouraged at all, and if some bastard comes to my house looking for revenge because I expressed myself- in an institutionalized way at that- in a fashion he didn't like, I'm glad I have enough friends and family living near me or with me at any point that said bastard would, even if he managed to get me, be taking his teeth home in a baggie.

Of course, I don't have any children. I imagine if I did have dependents, my outlook would change somewhat. It's easy to gamble with your life when you don't have anyone else relying on you to survive.

Thanks for answering the question.

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 19, 2009, 05:36:10 PM

Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 19, 2009, 02:49:51 PM
...
What I'm not sure about is that you seem to be rather schizophrenic in whether you condone this, or think it somehow makes those who will hold those views more noble to go out and express them when they are going to wake up to a lynch mob in the next morning.

more noble

This discussion relies too heavily on the concept of {"a person" "to be" "noble"}.

What is "noble", and how can a given "person" "be" "noble"?  Does "nobility" require the individual to risk things they love?  Why?

The truly "noble" might never risk anything, while the least noble could risk everything-ruin everything, even-for no public benefit.

Assume we can assign a number to "nobility".  The average "nobility" of a group persecuted for its views might be greater than the average "nobility" of the group that currently holds the same views, but that doesn't say anything about the most-noble people to hold the views.  They're probably essentially the same.

There's no telling whether or not saints walk among us these days, that would be martyred if born in other eras.  Don't ask the hidden to show itself, if you have to use violence to bring it forth.

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 19, 2009, 04:02:37 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 18, 2009, 09:39:28 AM
Hey, Pope Lecherous: Do you have kids?

Would you be willing to risk them being Napalmed if you voted?

If you answered yes to that, does that make you a better/more strongly convicted person than someone who answered no?

No.

"No" to what?

Quote
Um... no one said that, but in the real world your anonymity is shrinking at a rate proportional to how accessible information becomes.  That's how Democracy should work but guess what, all someone needs is your name.  What will you do when they come knocking on your door?

the end

What does anonymity have to do with anything?  Do you think that, in the future, violent mobs will pressure others to support the mob view?

In any case, use all recourse available under law.  Or disappear them, tracelessly.

What did you expect?

Just asking.

Huh, I always saw being "noble" as a willingness to sacrifice your own conviction/success/prosperity for the well-being and safety of those you love, not the other way around.

 Dude used the word "anarchy" and suddenly everything made sense.

Point.

this thread disgusts me more than a little.

Quote from: Nigel on March 21, 2009, 06:50:30 AM
Huh, I always saw being "noble" as a willingness to sacrifice your own conviction/success/prosperity for the well-being and safety of those you love, not the other way around.

oh but we must have martyrs

didnt you read 1984?  we need martyrs to prove we are right

Quote from: yhnmzw on March 22, 2009, 06:10:03 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 21, 2009, 06:50:30 AM
Huh, I always saw being "noble" as a willingness to sacrifice your own conviction/success/prosperity for the well-being and safety of those you love, not the other way around.

oh but we must have martyrs

didnt you read 1984?  we need martyrs to prove we are right

... I'm inventing Godwin's law for Orwell

I've heard too many references to 1984 today.

Quote from: Nigel on March 21, 2009, 06:50:30 AM
Huh, I always saw being "noble" as a willingness to sacrifice your own conviction/success/prosperity for the well-being and safety of those you love, not the other way around.

Yea, I think many people would have a big problem with you sacrificing your principles to achieve something desirable...  Do the ends justify the means or dont they?  It seems that has been labeled as the bad in these parts.

To me it is unclear what you value more in this situation; The benefits of voting and democracy, or life?  From the outset it seems like you have switched and simply for the sake of being able to disagree.

Quote from: yhnmzw on March 20, 2009, 10:33:08 PM

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 19, 2009, 04:02:37 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 18, 2009, 09:39:28 AM
Hey, Pope Lecherous: Do you have kids?

Would you be willing to risk them being Napalmed if you voted?

If you answered yes to that, does that make you a better/more strongly convicted person than someone who answered no?

No.

"No" to what?

Quote
Um... no one said that, but in the real world your anonymity is shrinking at a rate proportional to how accessible information becomes.  That's how Democracy should work but guess what, all someone needs is your name.  What will you do when they come knocking on your door?

the end

What does anonymity have to do with anything?  Do you think that, in the future, violent mobs will pressure others to support the mob view?

Peoples' right to vote and not suffer any consequences.  I don't have a problem with that. To answer your second question...  In one of the most undesirable cases, yes.

Quote
In any case, use all recourse available under law.  Or disappear them, tracelessly.
What did you expect?
Just asking.

I don't expect anything different.  Your question probably should have been directed at someone else.

Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on March 21, 2009, 07:11:26 AM
Dude used the word "anarchy" and suddenly everything made sense.

I didnt start it

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 22, 2009, 09:14:19 PM

Yea, I think many people would have a big problem with you sacrificing your principles to achieve something desirable...  Do the ends justify the means or dont they?  It seems that has been labeled as the bad in these parts.

No. They don't.