|
RottenK posted:I do not understand the desire to stay fair and avoid dirty tricks when fighting against evil pieces of poo poo that cheat and lie all the time. Also, no one gives a poo poo about extramarital affairs, they can go weeping to the people who might care, and be forgiven because they are One Of Us.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 09:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 16, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
Kegluneq posted:Well for one it means you can still criticise them for that. Their base won't give a poo poo but people on the fence might turn on them. "Oh, they can't even stay faithful to their own wives, why do they give so much of a poo poo about the sanctity of marriage?" You're never trying to turn believers with strategies like that, you're trying to sway people in the middle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:It's an ad hominem attack. Unless she's personally been smeared by anti-LGBT lawmakers it's not actually tit for tat. Plus she would almost certainly be found guilty of slander if she's going off rumours. Ad hominem means "to the person", which is perfectly fine if the person is deserving of attack. Ad hom is only a bad word if you're trying to use it to prove you're right about something else, if the point is just to say "gently caress you, you're a prick", then its perfectly valid. And I was assuming she was revealing true poo poo and not random rumors
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 10:21
|
|
|
I feel like it would also make sense to attack your opponent if what they propagate is "Family Values", while they break "Family Values". It's not strictly ad hominem, I don't think, but just displaying their dishonesty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 10:37
|
|
|
It's not like she'd be wrong. Alabama politicians are all about family values, while they're all scummy. My local sheriff had a problem lately. His wife walked into his office, slapped him so hard he fell down, and yelled at him telling him that she would take everything he owns. See, recently the sheriff has been porking his secretary, and given her promotions where she's making almost as much or more than the head detective. I love small town usa. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 12:32
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Best headline: "Mormons condemn discrimination of gays and demand the right to discriminate gays" (transl.).  And then the LDS church put out a release saying, "Aw guys, these other news outlets have headlines like 'LDS Church is cool with gay people,' can you please focus on that instead of the rest of what we were saying?"  I'm so disappointed. If the message had limited itself to marriage then fine, I would just smile about the empty rhetoric and ignore it. But trying to reserve the right for "religious exemptions" to non-discrimination laws is a pile of bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:Plus she would almost certainly be found guilty of slander if she's going off rumours. It is nearly impossible to slander a public official.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:I like the NY Times treatment: That's why I was saying this is a positioning thing rather than changing what they're selling. They're trying to support changes to the law that will INCREASE discrimination while trying to claim the opposite. They're quite used to their "flock" meekly accepting this type of thing so it bothers them when they try it in public and people don't lap it up. The only reason they felt it necessary to try in the first place is that a LARGE number of young people are dropping away. It's also the reason they built a church owned mall in SLC. Gotta diversify their revenue streams, you see.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:It is nearly impossible to slander a public official. It's also only slander if they can prove that she doesn't believe what she's saying is true, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:It's also only slander if they can prove that she doesn't believe what she's saying is true, right? It's only slander if they can prove she acted with actual malice, which in practice means actual knowledge the statement is not true. This is only true for public figures though - if I were to slander you it'd be a much lower standard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
RottenK posted:I do not understand the desire to stay fair and avoid dirty tricks when fighting against evil pieces of poo poo that cheat and lie all the time. It's the same sort of logic that causes conservatives to agree torturing the "bad people" is ok because we're the good guys. Yes publicly exposing someone's sexual history isn't nearly as bad as waterboarding or forced feeding but the point is if we're actually the good guys we should be above their tactics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
It is not underhanded at all to demonstrate that a "family values" politician is full of poo poo via exposing infidelity. As soon as you claim to support the "sanctity of marriage" or whatever as a reason to discriminate against LGBT people, the fact that you're totally ok with cheating on a spouse is relevant information and absolutely should be exposed to the public. It's the public figure's infidelity combined with their politics that makes publicly exposing their hypocrisy fair game. That isn't on the people doing the exposing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:It's the same sort of logic that causes conservatives to agree torturing the "bad people" is ok because we're the good guys. Yes publicly exposing someone's sexual history isn't nearly as bad as waterboarding or forced feeding but the point is if we're actually the good guys we should be above their tactics. This isn't about sexual history, its about lying. I'm not sure why exposing someone for cheating isn't a good thing regardless of the context, you're essentially arguing that it would be "the tactics of the bad guys" if you don't let these people get away clean with foul acts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:It's the same sort of logic that causes conservatives to agree torturing the "bad people" is ok because we're the good guys. Yes publicly exposing someone's sexual history isn't nearly as bad as waterboarding or forced feeding but the point is if we're actually the good guys we should be above their tactics. She's just upholding the Alabama government's oft-stated commitment to family values. Family values are very important to Alabama, don't voters deserve to know that the politicians they elect will uphold their deep commitment to a bible-based marriage?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:It's the same sort of logic that causes conservatives to agree torturing the "bad people" is ok because we're the good guys. Yes publicly exposing someone's sexual history isn't nearly as bad as waterboarding or forced feeding but the point is if we're actually the good guys we should be above their tactics. I think liars and hypocrites should be exposed regardless of which side they are on. There are numerous examples of liberals whose private behavior has discredited their own issue advocacy, they should have known better. If you don't want to be exposed as a liar and a hypocrite don't be one in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I think liars and hypocrites should be exposed regardless of which side they are on. There are numerous examples of liberals whose private behavior has discredited their own issue advocacy, they should have known better. If you don't want to be exposed as a liar and a hypocrite don't be one in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
twodot posted:I think this is an ok rule, but "Blackmail liars into altering their public political stance" is bad, and "Publically blackmail liars into altering their public political stance" is just bad strategy since anyone who does drop family values rhetoric will look guilty of something. Yeah I agree in these sort of situations it would be best to just expose the information outright or stay quiet rather than make a spectacle about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
twodot posted:I think this is an ok rule, but "Blackmail liars into altering their public political stance" is bad, and "Publically blackmail liars into altering their public political stance" is just bad strategy since anyone who does drop family values rhetoric will look guilty of something. This. Also, I just feel that issues of fidelity and expectations of fidelity are between a person and their significant other(s). They deserve all kinds of misfortune in the cosmic sense, but I'm seeing literally the exact same logic people use to justify the death penalty even as they oppose abortion rights--that doing a bad thing makes a person fair game for any and all indignities that may be inflicted upon them. I keep thinking back to that famous quote about an eye for an eye leaving the whole world blind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:This. Also, I just feel that issues of fidelity and expectations of fidelity are between a person and their significant other(s). The same should apply to homosexuality, rather than make it a legal issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
gently caress these people. Their whole stated position is that homosexuality is a sin and as such we're not deserving of equal rights. If I"m a politician my public stance is "abortion is evil" and it turns out I made my mistress get an abortion like that one guy, it should absolutely be made an issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:It's the same sort of logic that causes conservatives to agree torturing the "bad people" is ok because we're the good guys. Yes publicly exposing someone's sexual history isn't nearly as bad as waterboarding or forced feeding but the point is if we're actually the good guys we should be above their tactics. No.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:This. Also, I just feel that issues of fidelity and expectations of fidelity are between a person and their significant other(s). They deserve all kinds of misfortune in the cosmic sense, but I'm seeing literally the exact same logic people use to justify the death penalty even as they oppose abortion rights--that doing a bad thing makes a person fair game for any and all indignities that may be inflicted upon them. I keep thinking back to that famous quote about an eye for an eye leaving the whole world blind. Having true things said about them: any and all indignities. Okay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:This. Also, I just feel that issues of fidelity and expectations of fidelity are between a person and their significant other(s). They deserve all kinds of misfortune in the cosmic sense, but I'm seeing literally the exact same logic people use to justify the death penalty even as they oppose abortion rights--that doing a bad thing makes a person fair game for any and all indignities that may be inflicted upon them. I keep thinking back to that famous quote about an eye for an eye leaving the whole world blind. This phrase is a pragmatic argument not a moral one
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
I don't feel like outing people because you decided they deserved it is something I'm very interested in participating in, and I wouldn't be very impressed with anyone who claimed to do it in my name.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:gently caress these people. Their whole stated position is that homosexuality is a sin and as such we're not deserving of equal rights. If I"m a politician my public stance is "abortion is evil" and it turns out I made my mistress get an abortion like that one guy, it should absolutely be made an issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Freudian posted:I don't feel like outing people because you decided they deserved it is something I'm very interested in participating in, and I wouldn't be very impressed with anyone who claimed to do it in my name. Pretty much. I've always held it as a cardinal rule that outing gay people is just something you don't do and it seems really twisted to use it against someone just because you're the good guys. Road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that. RagnarokAngel fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
 he is the poster child for modern forced-outing. Babeu is the standard for the vile human piece of poo poo in politics which needs to be revealed for who he is and what he does. Bethamphetamine fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Do It Once Right posted:
Would. As a side note, does anyone have any good op-eds or articles about why religious freedom exemptions are a crock of poo poo? I keep telling my rear end in a top hat brother this but he's all 'that's just your opinion maaaaaaan' and I'd like some reading for my own edification.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Would. Are you a vulnerable 16 to 18 year old mexican twink? No? well, you're not going to be this man's type. As an elected sheriff who played an integral role in John McCain's national presidential campaign, he'll have to deport you rather than rape you for years until you get too old. Nostalgia4Infinity posted:As a side note, does anyone have any good op-eds or articles about why religious freedom exemptions are a crock of poo poo This is an important and good thing that I want to know - I do paperwork every day - why can't I claim that my paperwork, for certain people, is bad, unchristian and and disgustingly wrong? As a person who fills out secular paperwork, why can't I sue the US gov't because Obama is bad and did bad benghazi thing? I have a religion and everything?!? LOWTAZX? Why are you bad and wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Your daily dose of schadenfreude: So Rachel Maddow just revealed that Bryan Fischer has been fired from the American Family Association. Fischer has said a shitload of offensive things in the past, and not just about the LGBT community, so I want to know what the hell the final straw was. For those of you unfamiliar with Fischer (you lucky, lucky bastards): http://www.glaad.org/cap/bryan-fischer E: vvvvv I knew he was anti-Muslim, but I didn't know he was anti-Semitic as well 
katium fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
katium posted:Your daily dose of schadenfreude: He recently said Jews don't have religious rights here, and he previously said they don't deserve any protections The AFA is sponsoring a trip for Republican politicians to Israel, and Israel found out 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Chris James 2 posted:He recently said Jews don't have religious rights here, and he previously said they don't deserve any protections Bryan Fischer would have been a king-maker goldenboy in 10 years, if he would have kept his (anti-semitic) mouth shut. Lol. Sorry you were 'too' christian for america's christians. They don't talk about how they 'really' feel about the jews. See page 2 of any thread about Israel for confirmation of this fact.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
*Edit: goddamn it, double post*
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Do It Once Right posted:*Edit: goddamn it, double post* Amazing post/name combo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
katium posted:Your daily dose of schadenfreude: He is a effectively a slightly more palatable Westboro member, in that he proclaimed patriotism in order to hold onto his listeners. Dude was insane about everything, not just social issues. This is a man who once wanted to stone a whale to death.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Pretty much. I've always held it as a cardinal rule that outing gay people is just something you don't do and it seems really twisted to use it against someone just because you're the good guys. Road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that. Outing gay people can put their lives in physical danger, which is just like when a straight bigot is found to be porking his secretary because Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Would. Race-mixing is against my religion so I shouldn't have to hire blacks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Outing gay people can put their lives in physical danger, which is just like when a straight bigot is found to be porking his secretary because Disclosing anyones personal details, because they are idiots and you don't agree with them is a weird way to try to win an argument. * Firstly, it is tabloid-politics. Because of some percieved scandal, you don't have to engage with their politics or help muster opposition against them? He slept with not-his-wife, clearly he is unfit for office. That's the stuff that make people tired of politics and the press and less likely to want to hear your real argument for your cause. * Secondly, while having an affair exposed may not threaten his life, it can have vast ramifications for those around him, that you cannot predict and want no hand in causing. Even if he may have it coming in your optics, his wife and childrens and friends lives could be sunk by having it dragged through the press. To say nothing of the secretary that you are using as leverage for your crusade. * Thirdly, there is so much wrong with these peoples lines of reasoning that it is really not necessary to resort to underhanded tactics like "exposing them". * Fourthly it's a weak-rear end argument. All they have to do to get out from under it, is to issue a not-apology, have a nice photo-op with the wife holding hands and say something contrite about how this crisis reaffirmed their understanding of the importance of their idea of family values (giving them a platform to talk about exactly the type of vile poo poo they want to say). You'll likely end up helping him spread the message in the end. The way you deal with evil shits in office, is you convince enough people they are evil shits by reasoned argument and then hopefully get them voted out. You don't call the paparazzi! This is no different than a pro-LGBT politician losing political clout, because Fox News starts a rumour that they are secretly gay and porking the poolboy. Fucks sake, you don't accept these tactics when used against your cause, so don't use them yourself. GhostBoy fucked around with this message at 13:09 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Outing gay people can put their lives in physical danger, which is just like when a straight bigot is found to be porking his secretary because Wrong. Private sex lives (assuming adult consenting partners) aren't anyone's business. This holds true regardless of the orientation of who they are loving. I know there's this idea that somehow we can out somebody and make Ted Haggart II happen, but honestly that won't happen and also moves you away from the moral high ground. Besides, people in these kinds of positions tend to self-immolate anyway, so you don't need to give them a nudge over the edge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
GhostBoy posted:Fucks sake, you don't accept these tactics when used against your cause, so don't use them yourself. Have you considered that it's because it's bad when our cause is hurt, and good when their cause is hurt. I don't see a point in caring what tactics are used to beat them down as long as they end up beaten. It's not like the other side is going to start playing fair any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 13:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 16, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
Of course, the woman we're talking about has to go to work every day and be demonized for her private sex life, why shouldn't she try to stop it by challenging the people doing it to imagine what it would feel like to have it done to them? All they have to do to avoid her apparently evil plot is...to stop doing the thing they don't want done to them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 13:14
|
|