|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Call me naive and idealist all you want, but timing your announcement about supporting basic human rights for maximum political impact is disgusting. A minor nuanced policy issue? Sure, go ahead and play your support for maximum timing. An issue where tons of people are having their rights violated daily? gently caress no, you need to throw your support behind it ASAP. A not inconsiderable number of people in the country don't think it is an issue of basic human rights, and getting all of these people to live together under one roof is why we have politicians in the first place. You can think they're wrong, and of course they think you're wrong, and politicians are the ones we ask to reconcile the two. When an issue is particularly divisive and popular opinion is split, asking a politician to pick one side and demand that the other bow down in submission is extreme (and liable to hurt you later, when the tide shifts and you're not on the winning side of an issue). It's pointlessly petty to rage at politicians for not simply supporting their causes and beliefs like a thundering train. Consider that just as supporting an issue strategically might be good for their approval numbers, it can also be good for actually, practically achieving results. A politician who just flatly insists on something they support might not manage to bring it about, while one who waits for when the public mood is right and the move can actually succeed will get results. Then again I don't mean this to be a statement of outright support for how this issue or many others have been handled, but it doesn't really help anyone to just roundly condemn anyone who tries to be political in politics.
|
#
¿
May 10, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 16, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:Scalia is shadowboxing in preparation to face Big Gay What gets me is that yes, that is a reduction to the absurd, and yes, he probably knows what that is, and yes they can be persuasive but only if the person you're speaking to agrees with your comparison of ideas. If you say "If we can't morally object to homosexuality in our law, how can we to murder and bestiality?" and the person you're speaking to doesn't think those things are at all comparable then obviously your argument doesn't persuade. Maybe Scalia's point is that if you want to understand the mindset of the legislators who work against homosexuality you have to consider someone who accepts the comparison. Maybe Scalia is taking a really pedantic read of the guy's question and is explaining literally "why" you make the comparison. Or maybe he's just being an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 16:48
|
|
