I’m always puzzled why people like Yglesias and DeBoer are so filled with weepy empathy for foreigners who hate us, and so filled with venomous hatred for their fellow citizens.
I already regret stepping into a fight where I have such affection for all the actors, but, Freddie, if you’re worried that our rational democratic discourse will be polluted by a hot-blooded, brawling, gonzo spirit, just remember: that’s what they said about the Irish.
That's a fair point. I just don't see Ross recognizing what to me is a bare fact: by refusing to compromise at all on the bill, House Republicans are giving up their ability to make that kind of point. In other words, if they'd compromise a bit on the larger bill, they'd be in a better position to argue what you're arguing and change things.
The issue, fundamentally, is whether Roe was legally and Constitutionally correct
No. That was the issue while the decision was being decided. Now the issue is that abortion foes don't have the popular support to pass a constitutional amendment to change the law.
I'm sorry, but I simply can't take seriously an argument, like Linker's, that rests on the assumption that the Constitution was "metaphysically neutral" prior to Roe v. Wade. No document that discusses fundamental citizenship rights could ever be "metaphysically neutral" in any meaningful sense.
Linker is yet another abortion foe who is trying to take his disagreement about the content of the Roe decision and craft it into some sort of disqualifying procedural disagreement with it, in order to perform an end run around the basic fact that we have a country that is deeply conflicted on this issue. It's a constant tactic of those who oppose abortion, to try to wriggle into some philosophical corridor that they think inoculates them from the simple fact that they don't like abortion. Every discussion becomes about process as a way to deflect attention from what is in fact a simple substantive disagreement about morality and policy.
But I need to give this the attention it deserves in a post.
Look, I'm agnostic on this question. I do think that there is a huge difference between a priest being forced to engage in the behavior of giving a sacrament to anyone, like the sacrament of marriage, and a school being allowed to keep children out because they think the children have the status of being gay, a status which might not reveal itself in behavior on school grounds in any way. I think it's funny that people mention the right of schools to discriminate on moral content; is any school out there saying "Your daughter can't come to our school because we have an intuition she's a bad person"? Not because of some behavior, but because they believed she was a bad person. Of course that doesn't happen; schools don't think that they can intuit that kind of thing, and anyway don't care. As usual, people are more interested in adjudicating and judging homosexuality than in doing so for morality.
A little checking tells me that all private schools in California are eligible for some sort of tax breaks, although it seems that not all of them take advantage of that opportunity.
is it really beyond the pale for a religious school to expel students who violate core moral guidelines
Is being gay a violation of moral guidelines? Where's the behavior, there? What act would you be punishing them for? What about seeming gay, which is what they were actually expelled for?
Sorry, I think things like being banned from certain jobs, owning or renting certain pieces of property, or attending certain schools because you are gay are all the sorts of things that we should have legal anti-discrimination laws to protect against, just as we do for race.
can you point to an instance where reason and civility worked?
I can think of many instances where civility and reason created a more constructive dialogue for all involved; perhaps no minds were changed on the ultimate question "is there a god", but many minds have been changed about the thousands of ancillary issues and questions being considered. Certainly, peoples minds have been changed in the opposite direction. Conversion and "being born again" happens all the time. So if the question is merely one of whether, on balance, disrespect and derision are a match for inclusion and friendliness, in the specific question or generally, I would say the evidence tells us absolutely not.
That's to say nothing about my first-principles preference for a dialogue of mutual respect and the assumption of good faith.
For better or worse, the state wants children and they offer citizens many incentives to have children.
Then why is the state silent on the thousands of married couples with no intention to ever procreate? Why shouldn't sterile people be legally barred from marriage? Why couldn't gay couples who have already adopted then procure a marriage? Why couldn't a gay person with a biological child decide to rear that child with a person of the same sex and then get a marriage license?
Once again, the idea that civil unions and marriage are legally identical, where it true, would be a mark against separate institutions, not for them. If they are identical, what is the purpose of giving them different names, other than to degrade? None; none at all. Difference for the sake of difference is inevitably insulting. If they're identical, there can be no purpose for different nomenclature other than to insult.
I think, if you think about it, you'll see that from my perspective, gender and sex could be used interchangeably in this dialogue, while from someone else's perspective, they couldn't.
That, to me, is the most damning critique-- sure, you can make apolitical movies, but making apolitical movies about enormously controversial political figures is pretty weird. It's made much weirder when you've got four hours to play with.
t’s another to suggest that what might look like the absence of moral content from one angle appears more firmly as the presence of anti-moral content from the other.
On “compromising yourself into the discussion”
I’m always puzzled why people like Yglesias and DeBoer are so filled with weepy empathy for foreigners who hate us, and so filled with venomous hatred for their fellow citizens.
Huh?
On “not everyone who says he’s your friend is your friend”
I already regret stepping into a fight where I have such affection for all the actors, but, Freddie, if you’re worried that our rational democratic discourse will be polluted by a hot-blooded, brawling, gonzo spirit, just remember: that’s what they said about the Irish.
When in Rome, I do as the Romulans do.
"
I considered that-- but how could Helen be opposed to "ivy league scribblers and feminism"?
On “compromising yourself into the discussion”
That's a fair point. I just don't see Ross recognizing what to me is a bare fact: by refusing to compromise at all on the bill, House Republicans are giving up their ability to make that kind of point. In other words, if they'd compromise a bit on the larger bill, they'd be in a better position to argue what you're arguing and change things.
On “D. Linker on Culture War-Abortion”
The issue, fundamentally, is whether Roe was legally and Constitutionally correct
No. That was the issue while the decision was being decided. Now the issue is that abortion foes don't have the popular support to pass a constitutional amendment to change the law.
"
I'm sorry, but I simply can't take seriously an argument, like Linker's, that rests on the assumption that the Constitution was "metaphysically neutral" prior to Roe v. Wade. No document that discusses fundamental citizenship rights could ever be "metaphysically neutral" in any meaningful sense.
Linker is yet another abortion foe who is trying to take his disagreement about the content of the Roe decision and craft it into some sort of disqualifying procedural disagreement with it, in order to perform an end run around the basic fact that we have a country that is deeply conflicted on this issue. It's a constant tactic of those who oppose abortion, to try to wriggle into some philosophical corridor that they think inoculates them from the simple fact that they don't like abortion. Every discussion becomes about process as a way to deflect attention from what is in fact a simple substantive disagreement about morality and policy.
But I need to give this the attention it deserves in a post.
On “Schools, segregation, and gay rights”
Look, I'm agnostic on this question. I do think that there is a huge difference between a priest being forced to engage in the behavior of giving a sacrament to anyone, like the sacrament of marriage, and a school being allowed to keep children out because they think the children have the status of being gay, a status which might not reveal itself in behavior on school grounds in any way. I think it's funny that people mention the right of schools to discriminate on moral content; is any school out there saying "Your daughter can't come to our school because we have an intuition she's a bad person"? Not because of some behavior, but because they believed she was a bad person. Of course that doesn't happen; schools don't think that they can intuit that kind of thing, and anyway don't care. As usual, people are more interested in adjudicating and judging homosexuality than in doing so for morality.
On “pragmatics first”
You guys seem right that it has legal standing behind it. It's despicable, and it turns my stomach to think about it.
On “Schools, segregation, and gay rights”
A little checking tells me that all private schools in California are eligible for some sort of tax breaks, although it seems that not all of them take advantage of that opportunity.
"
quite frankly that school, so long as it doesn’t accept public money, is well within their rights to do so.
All private schools have some sort of tax subsidy, so they are in effect taking public moneys already.
On “pragmatics first”
That means that society as a whole is telling a private school that it cannot decide who it will or will not educate
We already decide that schools can't segregate on the basis of racial discrimination. I don't think this is materially different.
"
is it really beyond the pale for a religious school to expel students who violate core moral guidelines
Is being gay a violation of moral guidelines? Where's the behavior, there? What act would you be punishing them for? What about seeming gay, which is what they were actually expelled for?
"
Sorry, I think things like being banned from certain jobs, owning or renting certain pieces of property, or attending certain schools because you are gay are all the sorts of things that we should have legal anti-discrimination laws to protect against, just as we do for race.
On “atheism and monsters”
can you point to an instance where reason and civility worked?
I can think of many instances where civility and reason created a more constructive dialogue for all involved; perhaps no minds were changed on the ultimate question "is there a god", but many minds have been changed about the thousands of ancillary issues and questions being considered. Certainly, peoples minds have been changed in the opposite direction. Conversion and "being born again" happens all the time. So if the question is merely one of whether, on balance, disrespect and derision are a match for inclusion and friendliness, in the specific question or generally, I would say the evidence tells us absolutely not.
That's to say nothing about my first-principles preference for a dialogue of mutual respect and the assumption of good faith.
On “More on Occupation”
Tragic in the classical sense, meaning that it isn't just some twist of fate, but a function of the traits, and philosophy, of the people involved.
On “human beings, human limits”
Oh, no question about it, Will-- a lot of the damage to postmodernism is self-inflicted. Inexcusably, at times.
On “knowing when to get out of the way”
For better or worse, the state wants children and they offer citizens many incentives to have children.
Then why is the state silent on the thousands of married couples with no intention to ever procreate? Why shouldn't sterile people be legally barred from marriage? Why couldn't gay couples who have already adopted then procure a marriage? Why couldn't a gay person with a biological child decide to rear that child with a person of the same sex and then get a marriage license?
"
Once again, the idea that civil unions and marriage are legally identical, where it true, would be a mark against separate institutions, not for them. If they are identical, what is the purpose of giving them different names, other than to degrade? None; none at all. Difference for the sake of difference is inevitably insulting. If they're identical, there can be no purpose for different nomenclature other than to insult.
"
The question is what rights are conferred by marriage that are not conferred by civil unions. So what are they?
The right to not live under a "separate but equal" facsimile that inherently degrades the partnerships.
"
There are literally hundreds of rights and privileges conferred through marriage that cannot be duplicated through other means.
"
I think, if you think about it, you'll see that from my perspective, gender and sex could be used interchangeably in this dialogue, while from someone else's perspective, they couldn't.
On “a little more on party and perspective”
That, to me, is the most damning critique-- sure, you can make apolitical movies, but making apolitical movies about enormously controversial political figures is pretty weird. It's made much weirder when you've got four hours to play with.
On “earnestness is mine, sayeth the conservative”
Guilty as charged, I guess, MikeF.... And, yeah-- let's united against leader-worship. It's unAmerican.
On “a little more on party and perspective”
t’s another to suggest that what might look like the absence of moral content from one angle appears more firmly as the presence of anti-moral content from the other.
Very interesting, and well taken.
On “The Talking Heads will Feed Themselves”
That's a temptation that I always expressly disavow and catch myself doing time and again... I'm working on it, really.