Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________mixqec

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, M100C wrote:

> Dan,
> You have brilliant, thoughtful posts regarding Chrysler products, but you're
> showing your ignorance regarding politics.

False. I am showing that my politics differ from yours. That doesn't make
me ignorant -- nor does it make you ignorant. Nevertheless, your claim of
exclusive truth and rectitude is noted.

> You are from Michigan, right?

Wrong.

> Michigan residents voted overwhelmingly for a constitutional amendment
> to define "marriage" as an institution between a man and a woman. Why
> would so many other states add the same amendment to their
> constitutions?

Oh, several reasons:

1) History shows us that when given the option to vote on it, the majority
will virtually always opt to oppress the minority. It matters not at all
whether the majority/minority split is along lines of skin color,
religion, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, religion or whatever.
(Not that America cares much about the rest of the world's opinion, but
people in much of the rest of the world are gobsmacked that matters of
civil rights would be put to a popular vote, for exactly this reason. It's
worth noting that much of the rest of the world has much longer experience
running societies than does the USA.)

2) Again, per Gandhi, the stages of social change: "First they ignore you,
then they ridicule and denounce you, then they debate you, then you win."
The pattern is clearly obvious with any social issue you care to pick,
from slavery to women's suffrage to segregation...to gay rights. The flood
of gay marriage bans -- just like the flood 60 years ago of bans on
mixed-race marriage -- are a reaction to the possibility of two men or two
women getting married. Not long ago, the very idea was unthinkable, the
possibility didn't exist, and so no such bans were necessary. This is
not the only parallel, either. In both cases, God and the Bible were
used as rationale for the bans. In both cases, the rhetoric was along
the lines of "protecting the institution of marriage".

3) Never discount the strong motivational power of ignorance and fear!

The bans are a laughable insult and a sad commentary on American society
(apparently we've learnt nothing), but they will be temporary. They'll
last more than 4 years and less than 20. In 40 years, most of society will
look back on these bans with embarrassment, shame and regret, just as most
of society looks back on the anti-black laws of the 1950s and earlier with
embarrassment, shame and regret.

And that's not me being "ignorant", Mr. M100C, though I suppose it's easy
enough for you to make that accusation from the comfy obscurity of
anonymity. That's me having a different view than you do.

-DS

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, M100C wrote:

> Dan,
> You have brilliant, thoughtful posts regarding Chrysler products, but you're
> showing your ignorance regarding politics.

False. I am showing that my politics differ from yours. That doesn't make
me ignorant -- nor does it make you ignorant. Nevertheless, your claim of
exclusive truth and rectitude is noted.

> You are from Michigan, right?

Wrong.

> Michigan residents voted overwhelmingly for a constitutional amendment
> to define "marriage" as an institution between a man and a woman. Why
> would so many other states add the same amendment to their
> constitutions?

Oh, several reasons:

1) History shows us that when given the option to vote on it, the majority
will virtually always opt to oppress the minority. It matters not at all
whether the majority/minority split is along lines of skin color,
religion, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, religion or whatever.
(Not that America cares much about the rest of the world's opinion, but
people in much of the rest of the world are gobsmacked that matters of
civil rights would be put to a popular vote, for exactly this reason. It's
worth noting that much of the rest of the world has much longer experience
running societies than does the USA.)

2) Again, per Gandhi, the stages of social change: "First they ignore you,
then they ridicule and denounce you, then they debate you, then you win."
The pattern is clearly obvious with any social issue you care to pick,
from slavery to women's suffrage to segregation...to gay rights. The flood
of gay marriage bans -- just like the flood 60 years ago of bans on
mixed-race marriage -- are a reaction to the possibility of two men or two
women getting married. Not long ago, the very idea was unthinkable, the
possibility didn't exist, and so no such bans were necessary. This is
not the only parallel, either. In both cases, God and the Bible were
used as rationale for the bans. In both cases, the rhetoric was along
the lines of "protecting the institution of marriage".

3) Never discount the strong motivational power of ignorance and fear!

The bans are a laughable insult and a sad commentary on American society
(apparently we've learnt nothing), but they will be temporary. They'll
last more than 4 years and less than 20. In 40 years, most of society will
look back on these bans with embarrassment, shame and regret, just as most
of society looks back on the anti-black laws of the 1950s and earlier with
embarrassment, shame and regret.

And that's not me being "ignorant", Mr. M100C, though I suppose it's easy
enough for you to make that accusation from the comfy obscurity of
anonymity. That's me having a different view than you do.

-DS

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Wound Up wrote:


> > What part of hatred didn't you understand? That was the subject under
> > discussion, not intolerance.

> A LOT of people -HATE- gays? Well, not having been the target, I can't
> say how it feels, but a LOT in terms of likening it to the election?
> No, I'm with you; give me some evidence, because that's a very flimsy
> argument.

The difference between hatred and intolerance is *de facto* merely a
question of degree. The UN is expert on this kind of semantic dancing on
the head of a pin; they spend months arguing whether to "firmly reprimand"
or "strongly censure" countries that misbehave.

DS

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Wound Up wrote:


> > What part of hatred didn't you understand? That was the subject under
> > discussion, not intolerance.

> A LOT of people -HATE- gays? Well, not having been the target, I can't
> say how it feels, but a LOT in terms of likening it to the election?
> No, I'm with you; give me some evidence, because that's a very flimsy
> argument.

The difference between hatred and intolerance is *de facto* merely a
question of degree. The UN is expert on this kind of semantic dancing on
the head of a pin; they spend months arguing whether to "firmly reprimand"
or "strongly censure" countries that misbehave.

DS

Dan,

And John Kerry's "altar boy" credential, along with his assertion that "God
gives us everything" is his shortwinded way of saying, "I'm with you,
Brother!" to the Christian voters, no?
And your knee-jerk conclusion that Christians are not thinkers is tantamount
to illustrating your own ignorance, hatred and intolerance, for which you
have condemned others in this very post, no?

I can sum up your careening rebuttals in one word: UNCLE!


"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, indago wrote:
>
>> I am recalling a program I saw on cable of a search into why an
>> individual is gay. An individual, seeking to understand why someone is
>> gay, asked a gay person: "Why are you gay?" The gay person looked him
>> straight in the eye and asked: "Why are you straight?"
>
> A clever and apt rejoinder, to be sure, and it might make the light of
> understanding come on for some thinking people, but not for those
> self-proclaimed "Christians" for whom thinking is tantamount to blasphemy.
> For those individuals, the answer to "Why are you straight?" runs along
> the lines of "Because that is God's order for the world. Homosexuality is
> inherently disordered, an abomination before God, and it is a behavior and
> a lifestyle choice at best, and a sickness at worst. Come pray with us and
> Jesus will cure you of your homosexual urges."
>
> That's a longwinded way of saying what President Bush's Karl Rove said
> just the other day:
>
> "If we want to have a hopeful and decent(!) society, we ought to aim for
> the ideal, and the ideal is that marriage ought to be, and should be, a
> union of a man and a woman."
>
> Yep, that's the Bush administration..."spreading freedom and democracy
> around the globe" (the Brits called it "bringing them civilisation" a
> century ago...didn't work out too well back then, either).
>
>

Dan,

And John Kerry's "altar boy" credential, along with his assertion that "God
gives us everything" is his shortwinded way of saying, "I'm with you,
Brother!" to the Christian voters, no?
And your knee-jerk conclusion that Christians are not thinkers is tantamount
to illustrating your own ignorance, hatred and intolerance, for which you
have condemned others in this very post, no?

I can sum up your careening rebuttals in one word: UNCLE!


"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, indago wrote:
>
>> I am recalling a program I saw on cable of a search into why an
>> individual is gay. An individual, seeking to understand why someone is
>> gay, asked a gay person: "Why are you gay?" The gay person looked him
>> straight in the eye and asked: "Why are you straight?"
>
> A clever and apt rejoinder, to be sure, and it might make the light of
> understanding come on for some thinking people, but not for those
> self-proclaimed "Christians" for whom thinking is tantamount to blasphemy.
> For those individuals, the answer to "Why are you straight?" runs along
> the lines of "Because that is God's order for the world. Homosexuality is
> inherently disordered, an abomination before God, and it is a behavior and
> a lifestyle choice at best, and a sickness at worst. Come pray with us and
> Jesus will cure you of your homosexual urges."
>
> That's a longwinded way of saying what President Bush's Karl Rove said
> just the other day:
>
> "If we want to have a hopeful and decent(!) society, we ought to aim for
> the ideal, and the ideal is that marriage ought to be, and should be, a
> union of a man and a woman."
>
> Yep, that's the Bush administration..."spreading freedom and democracy
> around the globe" (the Brits called it "bringing them civilisation" a
> century ago...didn't work out too well back then, either).
>
>

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, M100C wrote:

> And your knee-jerk conclusion that Christians are not thinkers

....exists only in your mind.

Please don't put words in my mouth, Mr. M100C (if that *is* your real
name). Not on the first date, at least.

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, M100C wrote:

> And your knee-jerk conclusion that Christians are not thinkers

....exists only in your mind.

Please don't put words in my mouth, Mr. M100C (if that *is* your real
name). Not on the first date, at least.

Dan,
My name is Chris ... no obscurity intended. I assumed (incorrectly) from
the umich address that you were near to me ... perhaps in Ann Arbor.

You are revealing your limited political knowledge, and this is what I meant
by ignorant. To be fair, you have forgotten more than I know about Chrysler
products, and relative to your expertise, I am ignorant.

But, your ramble is very Will Hunting-ish. A lot of academic conjecture,
albeit pointless for straightforward debate. Think more logical. Think
smaller than Ghandi, the Bible or God. What would cause so many states to
petition adding an amendment to define marriage as an institution between a
man and woman?

How about this:
- for Christians, it is upholding their Biblical interpretation of marriage
- more importantly, for the rest of the overwheming majority in all states,
it is the fear of liberal, activist judges who enact law, instead of
interpreting it.

Don't you see the irony? All that work to get liberal, activist judges in
Massachusetts to enact marriage as an institution between same-sex couples
led to amendments to other state constitutions to prohibit liberal, activist
judges from doing the same. Plain and simple.


"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, M100C wrote:
>
>> Dan,
>> You have brilliant, thoughtful posts regarding Chrysler products, but
>> you're
>> showing your ignorance regarding politics.
>
> False. I am showing that my politics differ from yours. That doesn't make
> me ignorant -- nor does it make you ignorant. Nevertheless, your claim of
> exclusive truth and rectitude is noted.
>
>> You are from Michigan, right?
>
> Wrong.
>
>> Michigan residents voted overwhelmingly for a constitutional amendment
>> to define "marriage" as an institution between a man and a woman. Why
>> would so many other states add the same amendment to their
>> constitutions?
>
> Oh, several reasons:
>
> 1) History shows us that when given the option to vote on it, the majority
> will virtually always opt to oppress the minority. It matters not at all
> whether the majority/minority split is along lines of skin color,
> religion, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, religion or whatever.
> (Not that America cares much about the rest of the world's opinion, but
> people in much of the rest of the world are gobsmacked that matters of
> civil rights would be put to a popular vote, for exactly this reason. It's
> worth noting that much of the rest of the world has much longer experience
> running societies than does the USA.)
>
> 2) Again, per Gandhi, the stages of social change: "First they ignore you,
> then they ridicule and denounce you, then they debate you, then you win."
> The pattern is clearly obvious with any social issue you care to pick,
> from slavery to women's suffrage to segregation...to gay rights. The flood
> of gay marriage bans -- just like the flood 60 years ago of bans on
> mixed-race marriage -- are a reaction to the possibility of two men or two
> women getting married. Not long ago, the very idea was unthinkable, the
> possibility didn't exist, and so no such bans were necessary. This is
> not the only parallel, either. In both cases, God and the Bible were
> used as rationale for the bans. In both cases, the rhetoric was along
> the lines of "protecting the institution of marriage".
>
> 3) Never discount the strong motivational power of ignorance and fear!
>
> The bans are a laughable insult and a sad commentary on American society
> (apparently we've learnt nothing), but they will be temporary. They'll
> last more than 4 years and less than 20. In 40 years, most of society will
> look back on these bans with embarrassment, shame and regret, just as most
> of society looks back on the anti-black laws of the 1950s and earlier with
> embarrassment, shame and regret.
>
> And that's not me being "ignorant", Mr. M100C, though I suppose it's easy
> enough for you to make that accusation from the comfy obscurity of
> anonymity. That's me having a different view than you do.
>
> -DS

Dan,
My name is Chris ... no obscurity intended. I assumed (incorrectly) from
the umich address that you were near to me ... perhaps in Ann Arbor.

You are revealing your limited political knowledge, and this is what I meant
by ignorant. To be fair, you have forgotten more than I know about Chrysler
products, and relative to your expertise, I am ignorant.

But, your ramble is very Will Hunting-ish. A lot of academic conjecture,
albeit pointless for straightforward debate. Think more logical. Think
smaller than Ghandi, the Bible or God. What would cause so many states to
petition adding an amendment to define marriage as an institution between a
man and woman?

How about this:
- for Christians, it is upholding their Biblical interpretation of marriage
- more importantly, for the rest of the overwheming majority in all states,
it is the fear of liberal, activist judges who enact law, instead of
interpreting it.

Don't you see the irony? All that work to get liberal, activist judges in
Massachusetts to enact marriage as an institution between same-sex couples
led to amendments to other state constitutions to prohibit liberal, activist
judges from doing the same. Plain and simple.


"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, M100C wrote:
>
>> Dan,
>> You have brilliant, thoughtful posts regarding Chrysler products, but
>> you're
>> showing your ignorance regarding politics.
>
> False. I am showing that my politics differ from yours. That doesn't make
> me ignorant -- nor does it make you ignorant. Nevertheless, your claim of
> exclusive truth and rectitude is noted.
>
>> You are from Michigan, right?
>
> Wrong.
>
>> Michigan residents voted overwhelmingly for a constitutional amendment
>> to define "marriage" as an institution between a man and a woman. Why
>> would so many other states add the same amendment to their
>> constitutions?
>
> Oh, several reasons:
>
> 1) History shows us that when given the option to vote on it, the majority
> will virtually always opt to oppress the minority. It matters not at all
> whether the majority/minority split is along lines of skin color,
> religion, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, religion or whatever.
> (Not that America cares much about the rest of the world's opinion, but
> people in much of the rest of the world are gobsmacked that matters of
> civil rights would be put to a popular vote, for exactly this reason. It's
> worth noting that much of the rest of the world has much longer experience
> running societies than does the USA.)
>
> 2) Again, per Gandhi, the stages of social change: "First they ignore you,
> then they ridicule and denounce you, then they debate you, then you win."
> The pattern is clearly obvious with any social issue you care to pick,
> from slavery to women's suffrage to segregation...to gay rights. The flood
> of gay marriage bans -- just like the flood 60 years ago of bans on
> mixed-race marriage -- are a reaction to the possibility of two men or two
> women getting married. Not long ago, the very idea was unthinkable, the
> possibility didn't exist, and so no such bans were necessary. This is
> not the only parallel, either. In both cases, God and the Bible were
> used as rationale for the bans. In both cases, the rhetoric was along
> the lines of "protecting the institution of marriage".
>
> 3) Never discount the strong motivational power of ignorance and fear!
>
> The bans are a laughable insult and a sad commentary on American society
> (apparently we've learnt nothing), but they will be temporary. They'll
> last more than 4 years and less than 20. In 40 years, most of society will
> look back on these bans with embarrassment, shame and regret, just as most
> of society looks back on the anti-black laws of the 1950s and earlier with
> embarrassment, shame and regret.
>
> And that's not me being "ignorant", Mr. M100C, though I suppose it's easy
> enough for you to make that accusation from the comfy obscurity of
> anonymity. That's me having a different view than you do.
>
> -DS