Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
61 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Open Letter to Chad_Ellis rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
Chad_Ellis wrote:
Darilian wrote:
It's one thing to argue that a Presidential candidate, if elected, would use his powers to enforce laws in one direction or another.

It's quite a different thing to argue that a Presidential candidate, if elected, would be using his power of the Executive to be creating new laws out of whole cloth.

In the Santorum thread, the second position was what was being argued.


Except that it wasn't. You just keep repeating this bullshit and then bemoaning the fact that people are demonizing Santorum. Other than a few random shots by people about what Santorum would like to do, the bulk of the discussion has focused on his actual words and what it implies that he says that the current distribution of pornography is illegal.

Hell, in one thread you declared that an OP that quoted Santorum's own issue page with the sole added comment that he didn't seem to think much of free speech was actually arguing that Santorum is trying to create new laws by fiat even though that same poster clarified later that how he reads Santorum's words is that Santorum believes that current laws already prohibit the distribution of porn currently in practice. It's like you'd rather ignore the attempts at substance and focus on a couple of random comments about what Santorum would like to do so that you can stick to your narrative about how political discussion in the U.S. is all about destroying one's opponents.

So tell us all again how it's everyone else who is engaged in hyperbole?


I will.

You are.

In four threads, we've got people hyperventilating that a Santorum presidency means an American Theocracy, and how can the American people be so stupid as to vote in favor of that. In the OP you refer to, the poster takes Santorum's statements and then tries to spin them as being contrary to the 1st Amendment. In the 'open letter', a columnist from San Francisco says that theocracy in Un-American, but yet, even Sisteray tries to argue that 'Well, NO ONE is saying that Santorum wants to create a Theocracy'. AND THEN, you try and take me to task for conflating several issues running around in several different threads and trying to synthesize them into one or two responses.

It's crap, Chad. Total, utter crap. You'll sit by and let all this bullshit about Santorum slide, when I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't if it were about Romney- much less Obama. AND THEN- you get all pissy with me, that I dare to poke my finger in your eye and demonstrate this double standard- that civility means that you agree with the speaker.

What amazes me, however, is the extent to which all of you missed the point that I made twice in that thread- that the real problem that these discussions reveal is that the power of the Executive branch is SO STRONG, he or she can enforce the laws on the books the way that they want to, up to and including ignoring laws that have been passed by Congress. That's the real problem at hand- Santorum is just the symptom.

But again- rather than address the key problem of the age in this country, we'd rather just go on putting on dramatic overstatements of "HOW UNREASONABLE it is that SOME PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH ME!!!!!" Or, we get your sanctimonius crap of "How much I'd lose respect for someone because they're being so UNREASONABLE".

Kee-Rist.

But then it hit me. I realized a key thing that you, and a lot of others in this forum- and indeed, the United States as a whole- have either forgotten, or never knew.

American Politics has never been civil.

Read the newspaper articles around the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Consider the vehement arguments in Congress after Reconstruction. Look at the power of Yellow Journalism in driving a drumbeat to war with Spain. Consider the power of William Jennings Bryran's rhetoric with "You will not crucify us on this Cross of Gold!"

We have this mythology, somehow, that Democracy means that everyone has these reasoned debates. Sure. But we forget that underneath of all that, Democracy is a full contact sport. And it has never been otherwise. Just ask Nicias of Athens on his feelings about the possibility of a Democracy being able to make an informed decision and get back to me. I'll be hanging out with Alcibiades.

That's the point- the type of political discourse that you are decrying Santorum- and others in RSP- is the norm. It is what is normal in our- and indeed, ANY political democracy. Its nasty, vicious, petty.

Now, I know that you're a good egg, and I know that you want this to be different. Sure deal. I'd like it to be different also. But I've got this small problem.

The alternative to a nasty political discourse is 'deferring to the experts'- and I've come to the conclusion that that is worse. Experts have failed us- Political, Economic, Religious. They have taken the rhetoric that its 'for the good of the nation' and used that to line their politics, accrue more power to their stations, and try to dissuade people from paying attention. MOreover, they use jargon and technical language to dissuade people from even TRYING to pay attention- because if we did, we would realize that while the particulars can be pretty arcane, the big picture is NEVER so complicated that an educated layperson can't figure it out. And that scares them, for it erodes the justification for their power and privilege in our society.

I think you're mostly pissed off because I can actually think of several reasons to vote for Santorum, and you can't see any. Therefore, either I, or you, must be an idiot, because to vote for Santorum is to admire and want to emulate his political, moral, and economic vision.

Here's the deal about Democracy- and why its so incredibly wonderful.

You don't get to tell me how to vote. Oh, you can try and influence it, try to either appeal to the angels of my nature or the demons of my cynical side- but you don't get to vote for me.

But- and here we get to the nub of the issue- one can influence me, at least, by being consistent in HOW one treats issues. I don't like bullies- of ANY stripe- and when I see people ganging up on someone, or an idea, I'll step in. I think that Santorum, in these threads, is being so vilified as to be bullying. Your desire to demonstrate that there are no rational reasons that one could use to justify a Santorum candidacy only facilitates that bullying- albeit, for the best of motives, as you're afraid that somehow I've made a big mistake in my reasoning and want to point that out to me.

Except of course, that's bullshit reasoning. I can have several reasons to vote for Santorum and not actually support his political program. I could, for instance, vote for him in the primary in the hopes that it leads to a brokered convention. I could vote for him to demonstrate my disgust with Romney. I could also vote for him out of spite to all of those out there who want to tell me that they know better than I about what is a 'reasonable' way to vote.

Have you ever considered the point of view that maybe I'm defending Santorum because no one else in these forums will? That the bullying against him, and his supporters, is so bad that to even stand up and say "Hey, I don't agree with all that Santorum has to say, but I think you're being unfair against his positions" is met with derision and hostility?

And then you dare tell me that you're standing as the voice of reason and fairness?

The reason that our politics are nasty is because we- always- have a tendency to act as if a win by the other side could be the end of the Republic. I used to decry that, but I've realized that I don't think that there is any way around it- because the alternative is to let 'experts' decide what is better for us.

So remember that when you pass by a post by someone decrying how 'stupid' Americans are for voting for Santorum. Democracy means that we have the right to be stupid- and it is the burden of the experts to show others why they're right and we're wrong, not the other way around.

Experts work for us. Not the other way round.

And where do I fit in all of this? I'm going to continue to point out that I really don't care what you argue, but that its how you argue it. I don't like Santorum, you don't like Santorum, but I don't like how Santorum and his positions are being treated in these threads. And I'm going to continue to point that out, because I think that how we disagree is more important than the disagreement itself.

Darilian
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shouldn't this be in geekmail?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
quozl wrote:
Shouldn't this be in geekmail?


No.

Darilian
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Why?

quozl
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
quozl wrote:
Why?

quozl

Because there's no point in taking the moral high ground if no one knows you're doing it, of course.
18 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonny Lawless
United States
Bountiful
Utah
flag msg tools
Love my girls!
badge
My name is Glenn! Long have I carried Cyrus's hopes and dreams, and now I bear the Masamune as well! Henceforth, I claim them as my own! I shall slay the Fiendlord Magus and restore our honor!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
quozl wrote:
Why?

quozl


Because it's a good read.
12 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
damiangerous wrote:
quozl wrote:
Why?

quozl

Because there's no point in taking the moral high ground if no one knows you're doing it, of course.


If you think that is the motivation for the post, then you clearly

1). Don't know me.
2). Didn't really read the post.

I have no need to take a 'moral high ground'. Especially not in RSP.

Now, if you had said an ethical high ground, you would be at least have been vaguely paying attention.

To be clear-
if anyone thinks I'm personally upset with Chad, they need their head examined. If there is any 'motive', its to clear up some misconceptions that I fear are making the conversations murky, at best.

Darilian


5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LeeDambis wrote:
The left is finally getting angry again, and Rick Santorum is one hell of a target of opportunity.





Did the left ever STOP being angry???

Hummm... apparently I missed that 15 minutes.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
LeeDambis wrote:
So, politics has never been civil, you've accepted that as inescapable, but you can't allow this piling on Santorum...because it's uncivil? Or is it unfair? Or is it confusing because there's so much anger and emotionalism attached?

What you're seeing here, Dar, is the uncivil left swinging full-force at the biggest representative of a social conservatism that they both fear and detest. That matches play-for-play the kind of uncivil rhetoric that's been loosed on Obama since before he even took the oath of office. Three and-a-half years of that is bound to result in a hurricane-force blowback against the candidate who most closely resembles the perceived values of Obama-haters.

Rick Santorum is not an evil man. He's a reactionary, though, and that could well lead him to do things as president that aren't just disagreeable to the left (and to social libertarians like me) but things that would be thoroughly despicable. The emotionalism and abandonment of rationality are not only understandable, they're also good for the Democrats' election chances. The left is finally getting angry again, and Rick Santorum is one hell of a target of opportunity.





Any problems that Santorum might represent will still be with us no matter WHO we elect, because the Executive Branch has the power to use the Bureaucracy to enforce the law selectively. Thus, every election can be misrepresented by people out to make the vote either a sanction for Paradise or Armageddon.

The only reason that we might be in more danger due to the American proclivity for uncivil politics is that the Presidency is vastly more powerful today than it was in the 19th Century. To really screw up the nation took someone like Buchanan.

Can we change the culture? Maybe. I doubt it, but its possible. But our political culture is so ingrained, so much a part of our modern Democracy, I don't see how anyone could get any real advantage in trying to change it. Power devolves to those who can best harness the culture- and that means having clear (but simplistic) solutions to our complicated problems, while demonizing the opposition. The more you explain, the more nuanced your positions, the more ammunition you give to the enemy to demonize you.

So I don't see it changing- not by elites, in any event. Thus, the only way it can change is for people to realize that their votes matter. If that requires a 'Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun' moment, then so be it. The only way for people to realize that that only way things can get better is if they decide to change them. That's why I feel this current 'anti-Elite' atmosphere to be a good thing- it makes the elites realize that ultimately, they have to work for us, the body politic.

The next step will be for the body politic to realize the simplistic solutions aren't always going to work, and therefore we need elites to GUIDE us- but not tell us what to do. But that won't happen until the issue is forced.

So force the issue, I say! Vote for Santorum, and force the GOP convention to actually DECIDE what they hell they want to do for November 2012. Otherwise, they'll just continue to drift along with Romney, and then blame HIM for the defeat, only forestalling any real decision for another 4 years.

If drama is the only way to get people to pay attention, then drama there must be.

Darilian
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
There won't be a brokered convention unless there is a huge Santorum surge. So most of this is academic, except for the fact that due to hideously arcane political bullshit in Texas, I'm not going to vote on the issue until close to June.

I only present the concept of a brokered convention as an example of how someone could rationally vote for Santorum in the primaries, but yet, not actually want to see him as President.

What I'm mostly trying to take on is the sentiment that one would have to be a moron- or a religious lunatic- to want to vote for Santorum, because to vote for a candidate is to have that candidate be a reflection of the voter.

Which is total bullshit- I can vote for Pee Wee Herman for President, and this doesn't bear any reflection on me as a person. But yet, we believe this- and this desire for 'Subway Sandwich Candidates' who can only be supported if they reflect ME!!! in every way possible- is, I feel, a symptom of the rather odd disconnect that is making American politics even weirder than it usually is.

But all of that pales with the very REAL structural problems that we have currently with the centralization of power not in just the Federal Government, but in the hands of the Executive Branch.

Darilian
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Welcome Rolling Stones
Latvia
Bullshit
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Rick Santorum is a dick.

49xjohn
5 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
I see you...
United States
Avon
Ohio
flag msg tools
"I made a promise on the grave of my parents...
badge
...that I would rid this city of the evil that took their lives. "
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
49xjohn wrote:

Rick Santorum is a dick.

49xjohn


At the very least, he has one.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Welcome Rolling Stones
Latvia
Bullshit
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dispaminite wrote:
49xjohn wrote:

Rick Santorum is a dick.

49xjohn


At the very least, he has one.

Do tell!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
I see you...
United States
Avon
Ohio
flag msg tools
"I made a promise on the grave of my parents...
badge
...that I would rid this city of the evil that took their lives. "
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
49xjohn wrote:
Dispaminite wrote:
49xjohn wrote:

Rick Santorum is a dick.

49xjohn


At the very least, he has one.

Do tell!


But then he won't get the republican nomination. My lips are sealed.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
I don't understand why only elites can be civil.

There is a superficial inconsistency in complaining about someone using an argumentative tactic you deplore in a political argument while defending the claim that deplorable argumentative tactics are a necessary and desirable element of the political system you advocate.

You don't seem to object to anyone's daring to say anything which supports their view. If Chad were to recognize that he were being unfair while claiming to be fair, that would seem like exactly the kind of nasty discourse you support. Your problem seems to be, instead, how he thinks about it--you think you know better than he does what he ought to think about himself, and you're trying to get him to agree with you. Personally, I think you might be right, but I have no problem with people who know things telling people who don't what's what.

In any case, I appreciate your attempt to help those of us who are baffled by the rise of Santorum understand his appeal. So I suspect there's something wrong with the principles to which you're appealing to justify your actions, but am optimistic that a good ground could be found.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
quozl wrote:
Shouldn't this be in geekmail?


Agreed. Or at least he should be calling me a jerk in some Facebook group, not here, right?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi Dar.

I still think you're full of shit on this. You think I am. That's cool; it's like when BJ and I discuss abortion, only replacing "well-meaning, but evil" with "full of shit".

It's late, so I'll offer an actual reply in the morning.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:
quozl wrote:
Shouldn't this be in geekmail?


Agreed. Or at least he should be calling me a jerk in some Facebook group, not here, right?


You must not have not read it yet. He didn't call you a jerk.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
stpauler wrote:
No, it's stupid to say that because you voted for X you must believe all that X does. Unfortunately, a lot of people find boxes convenient. Life has shorthands and this is just one of them. Crying "unfair" seems a bit ridiculous at this point.


Lacking other evidence, I understand that people are going to attribute to you the positions of a candidate for whom you publicly state you plan to vote. What's wrong with giving people other evidence that your vote is tactical and expecting them to listen to that as much as to the intended vote? What you're saying is worthy of ridicule seems not only totally reasonable to me, expecting someone to be okay with others ignoring half of what they say in order to justify a false belief seems itself ridiculous.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi Dar,

First off, thanks for explaining your disagreement in such detail. I’ll try to explain point-by-point why I still disagree with your assessment.

Darilian wrote:
In four threads, we've got people hyperventilating that a Santorum presidency means an American Theocracy, and how can the American people be so stupid as to vote in favor of that. In the OP you refer to, the poster takes Santorum's statements and then tries to spin them as being contrary to the 1st Amendment. In the 'open letter', a columnist from San Francisco says that theocracy in Un-American, but yet, even Sisteray tries to argue that 'Well, NO ONE is saying that Santorum wants to create a Theocracy'. AND THEN, you try and take me to task for conflating several issues running around in several different threads and trying to synthesize them into one or two responses.

Since it seems to me that there’s a lot of misunderstanding (alongside some genuine disagreement) going on here, I’m going to start with a clarifying point. When you said, “the second position (that Santorum would create new laws by fiat) was what was being argued,” I took that to mean that it was either the only thing being argued or that it was dominating the discussion. That’s what I was calling bullshit on, because as I read the threads (and I reread them before replying here) I see that as very much a sideline with most of the bandwidth taken up by much more reasonable arguments.

Alongside that, I do think you have engaged in hyperbole. Take the “Open Letter” thread. A poster links to an open letter that suggests that Santorum wants religion (specifically his own) to play more of a part in Government and says, “you would substitute one form of tyranny for another? Am I getting that right?” Nowhere does the open letter assert that Santorum wants to impose theocracy – only that he wants more laws that limit people’s freedoms on religious grounds. You, however, declared that the letter did claim this and also that by linking to the letter the OP claims it as well.

Take the “frumpish” thread on Free Speech. He quotes Santorum and says that he doesn’t seem to think much of the first amendment. He later clarifies that Santorum “seems to believe pornography is illegal, and that he will enforce those laws….This is not about currently illegal pornography such as child pornography, this is about standard pornography which is currently produced, sold and distributed within the U.S.” Your response chided him for overstating Santorum’s position “to the point of ridiculousness” and implied that he was saying Santorum would make laws out of whole cloth. Later you went further and outright said that this is what he was arguing, which is simply absurd.

Quote:
It's crap, Chad. Total, utter crap. You'll sit by and let all this bullshit about Santorum slide, when I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't if it were about Romney- much less Obama. AND THEN- you get all pissy with me, that I dare to poke my finger in your eye and demonstrate this double standard- that civility means that you agree with the speaker.


I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about here. I think I ignore about 90% of the extreme rhetoric in RSP – if I didn’t, I’d never get anything done. The only stupid attack I can recall bothering to rebut recently was the claim that Republicans are all racist since some Republicans are racist.

I let bizarre attacks against Obama go all the time, and while Romney is too boring to keep people’s interest for long I ignore most of the extreme stuff said about him, too. (I did waste some time with ShreveportLAGamer, but that was more about nastiness towards Mormons than towards Romney.) Maybe you can help me understand with some examples, because I just don’t see it.


Quote:
What amazes me, however, is the extent to which all of you missed the point that I made twice in that thread- that the real problem that these discussions reveal is that the power of the Executive branch is SO STRONG, he or she can enforce the laws on the books the way that they want to, up to and including ignoring laws that have been passed by Congress. That's the real problem at hand- Santorum is just the symptom.


Well, it wouldn’t be a Darilian rant without the assumption that we’ve all missed your point. In this case, however, it’s not a question of having missed it. I just don’t agree with it. While I do think that the Executive has become too powerful I don’t think discretion over law enforcement is the main place that’s happening. Moreover, some discretion is both necessary on practical grounds and a deliberate part of the checks and balances system of government.

Quote:
But then it hit me. I realized a key thing that you, and a lot of others in this forum- and indeed, the United States as a whole- have either forgotten, or never knew.

American Politics has never been civil.

Read the newspaper articles around the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Consider the vehement arguments in Congress after Reconstruction. Look at the power of Yellow Journalism in driving a drumbeat to war with Spain. Consider the power of William Jennings Bryran's rhetoric with "You will not crucify us on this Cross of Gold!"

We have this mythology, somehow, that Democracy means that everyone has these reasoned debates. Sure. But we forget that underneath of all that, Democracy is a full contact sport. And it has never been otherwise. Just ask Nicias of Athens on his feelings about the possibility of a Democracy being able to make an informed decision and get back to me. I'll be hanging out with Alcibiades.


Dar, I like you. I really do. But here is where you go past mild and almost-charming arrogance and come off really badly. Putting aside the name-dropping (we all know you’re highly educated), where on earth do you get the presumption that everyone else in RSP is so ignorant about American history?
I’ve read the Lincoln Douglas debates at least a dozen times. I’ve also studied attack pamphlets from much earlier in our history. I’m not sure what I’ve ever said that got you going in this direction but it’s far from the first time that you’ve drawn an absurd and insulting view of the historical ignorance those who happen to disagree with you must have. And I think you’re usually wrong about them.

Quote:
That's the point- the type of political discourse that you are decrying Santorum- and others in RSP- is the norm. It is what is normal in our- and indeed, ANY political democracy. Its nasty, vicious, petty.


Your point seems completely off-topic to me. The criticisms of Santorum aren’t that he’s being nasty, vicious or petty. If they were, we’d have threads about Santorum claiming that Obama doesn’t care about American quality of life or that Obama’s theology isn’t based on the Bible or his other personal attacks on Gingrich, Romney and Obama.

Instead we have threads about his policies and the values he says would guide his Presidency. We have Bramadan condemning him not for being a bad person but for being “Iranian on social issues and French on economic issues”. You may disagree with the claim that his promise to go after Internet porn is a first amendment issue but surely it’s a policy-based attack.

(Snip the “alternatives are worse” bit because it’s rebutting a position I don’t hold.)

Quote:
I think you're mostly pissed off because I can actually think of several reasons to vote for Santorum, and you can't see any. Therefore, either I, or you, must be an idiot, because to vote for Santorum is to admire and want to emulate his political, moral, and economic vision.


I think this is another bizarre attempt at mind-reading that just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. We had a thread where you said you were considering voting for Santorum. I was shocked and said so. You then laid out the things you like about Santorum and why Romney had utterly disqualified himself in your eyes. IIRC, I thumbed and tipped your response. So how do you conclude that I’m pissed off that you like some things about Santorum or think you’re an idiot? Talk about making shit up out of whole cloth.

Let me be really clear on this, so we don’t repeat this particular misunderstanding. I don’t assume anyone is an idiot for who they support politically. They may interpret the facts differently than I do. They may have different values from my values. They may have a strategy in mind that hasn’t occurred to me. Even if I listen to their reasons and think that they’ve made a bad decision based on their own criteria I know that I don’t have all the information and that so much of what goes into this sort of decision is the sort of judgment call that can’t be simplified down to pure right-or-wrong analysis.

I asked for your reasons. You gave them. Some of them were more compelling for me personally, but they’re your reasons and I respect them.

Quote:
But- and here we get to the nub of the issue- one can influence me, at least, by being consistent in HOW one treats issues. I don't like bullies- of ANY stripe- and when I see people ganging up on someone, or an idea, I'll step in. I think that Santorum, in these threads, is being so vilified as to be bullying. Your desire to demonstrate that there are no rational reasons that one could use to justify a Santorum candidacy only facilitates that bullying- albeit, for the best of motives, as you're afraid that somehow I've made a big mistake in my reasoning and want to point that out to me.


Again, I think you’ve seriously misunderstood me. As for bullying, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Quote:
Have you ever considered the point of view that maybe I'm defending Santorum because no one else in these forums will? That the bullying against him, and his supporters, is so bad that to even stand up and say "Hey, I don't agree with all that Santorum has to say, but I think you're being unfair against his positions" is met with derision and hostility?

And then you dare tell me that you're standing as the voice of reason and fairness?


I have no problem with you defending Santorum for whatever reason. What I called you out on is misrepresenting the attacks. Having reread the threads I stand by that. If you like I'm happy to support that in detail. Perhaps I’ve misread your intent, but you seem to imply that the main thrust of the various threads is that Santorum is going to make new laws by fiat and perhaps impose an outright Theocracy. If not, I hope you’re clarify. If so, I call bullshit.

How you get from that to me “daring” to tell you that I’m "the voice of reason and fairness" I don’t know. I don’t think I’ve ever claimed to be the voice of anything. I just saw you repeating a claim that I thought was bullshit, so I called you on it. The same thing happens to me and to any other regular poster on RSP. No need to read more into it than that.

edit for typo
15 
 Thumb up
1.51
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
All the thumbs for this:

Chad rather eloquently wrote:
Let me be really clear on this, so we don’t repeat this particular misunderstanding. I don’t assume anyone is an idiot for who they support politically. They may interpret the facts differently than I do. They may have different values from my values. They may have a strategy in mind that hasn’t occurred to me. Even if I listen to their reasons and think that they’ve made a bad decision based on their own criteria I know that I don’t have all the information and that so much of what goes into this sort of decision is the sort of judgment call that can’t be simplified down to pure right-or-wrong analysis.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
There is no Dana, only Zuul
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I think that how we disagree is more important than the disagreement itself.


I'm +1'ing this in a separate post because I think it's one of the most important points. We will, obviously, never have complete consensus on a concept*, but even when we disagree - it matters how we choose to do so.




* unless it's about unicorns because anyone who hates unicorns is a douche. obviously. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeH-BAm17pk
2 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Timothy Adamson
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:
Perhaps I’ve misread your intent, but you seem to imply that the main thrust of the various threads is that Santorum is going to make new laws by fiat and perhaps impose an outright Theocracy. If not, I hope you’re clarify. If so, I call bullshit.


And yet in another thread frumpish writes "This is not about currently illegal pornography". I read the conversations exactly as Darilian did: that some thought that Santorum would essentially create new law.

His method for doing this may be using existing obscenity law as a pretext, but they believe that (1) the law does not support this, and (2) that there's nothing to prevent Santorum from interpreting the law however he wants. Even if (1) is true, (2) is not. If the the law doesn't support it, then the courts will (eventually) stop him from enforcing non-existant law. But some were ignoring that fact. If (2) were true, then that would essentially be creating new law.

Santorum says a lot of stuff that scares a lot of people, but I'm not sure how much of it he can actually do anything about. The Presidency isn't a legislative position, and that's what this is really about.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
timonkey wrote:
Chad_Ellis wrote:
Perhaps I’ve misread your intent, but you seem to imply that the main thrust of the various threads is that Santorum is going to make new laws by fiat and perhaps impose an outright Theocracy. If not, I hope you’re clarify. If so, I call bullshit.


And yet in another thread frumpish writes "This is not about currently illegal pornography". I read the conversations exactly as Darilian did: that some thought that Santorum would essentially create new law.

His method for doing this may be using existing obscenity law as a pretext, but they believe that (1) the law does not support this, and (2) that there's nothing to prevent Santorum from interpreting the law however he wants. Even if (1) is true, (2) is not. If the the law doesn't support it, then the courts will (eventually) stop him from enforcing non-existant law. But some were ignoring that fact. If (2) were true, then that would essentially be creating new law.

Santorum says a lot of stuff that scares a lot of people, but I'm not sure how much of it he can actually do anything about. The Presidency isn't a legislative position, and that's what this is really about.


Even if the courts eventually stop him, is it unfair to criticize him for apparently wanting to pursue his own interpretation of the law?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Timothy Adamson
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Even if the courts eventually stop him, is it unfair to criticize him for apparently wanting to pursue his own interpretation of the law?


Not at all, but let's call it what it is.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.