Wednesday, November 24, 2010

A Bigot is Someone Who is Winning an Argument with a Liberal

The Southern Poverty Law Center has named the Family Research Council as a "hate group". Apparently if you don't go along with the liberals, you are a "hate group." I hate it when that happens!


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess you didn't READ the article. Sounds pretty hateful to me!

For example, I serve, and have served, with a number of gays in my years. It's never been an issue though others try to make it one. The idea that a patriotic American, laying his or her life down for their country, is singled out this way IS hateful and shameful.

I depend on these brave men and women, I put my life in their hands, and any group that's against them is against me as far as I'm concerned. '

This Peter Sprigg character probably never served a day in his life.

BTW, have you?

2:27 PM, November 25, 2010  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I served. I also served with homosexuals and it WAS an issue. Just because you never experienced it does not mean that it can't happen.

No one has a right to serve. It's not about offering people career choices, its about what's best for protecting the nation. We have not had the same experiences on this issue so it is not surprising that we come to different conclusions.

4:15 PM, November 25, 2010  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you are unreal. why don't you volunteer and stick with it?

if you're not going to do that, then you have no right to judge. the US Military needs men, if we are to maintain an all volunteer force then we can't afford to make these choices.

if you want to, we can start a draft! lets do that. you can be our poster child!

I think if this was the 1600s, you are such a weak person you would be persecuting the Quakers and be a card carrying member of the Church of England.

I'm sure that would be preferable to a lot of things for you, but you are a small minded asshole.

this entire blog is about tearing others down, not bringing our country up.

you have almost nothing positive to say.

i'm sorry, i guess i shouldn't be here because i don't agree with your provincial view of the world.

drop dead asshole

8:33 PM, November 25, 2010  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

You should not be here because you are unwilling to use logic, facts, and reason in your debates. That's what we do here.

What I see from you is that it is all emotion and name calling, along with attempting to equate your personal experiences with universal truth. What are you, early 20's? I don't mind a rational debate with someone who takes an opposing view, but you are not providing it, you simply make a series of unsupported judgments and then tell me not to judge (and name-call) when I disagree.

5:21 AM, November 26, 2010  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, a bigot is someone who screams, "I'm for freedom" but would then deny gays the opportunity to serve openly in the U.S. military. It's also hypocritical, if you haven't noticed that before.

Like yourself, those against gays in the military claim that it's a matter of "national security". After all, our military personnel must have total confidence in those they're serving with. Somehow being gay would 'undermine' this confidence. That's same argument white troops used against blacks before integration. And again, the same argument used by men regarding admitting women to the Air Force academy. Given that we're still the world's top military power, I guess those blacks are women really didn't cause the decline that others so fervently voiced.

The reality is that if you exclude a group from performing a duty that others are so free (and proud) to do...and the only argument you have is one that's proven wrong time and time again, then you're either mentally challenged or a bigot who chooses to exclude for the sake of "feeling more comfortable".

And yes, that is hateful.

3:57 PM, November 26, 2010  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

People, I swear I am not typing up the anon's posts myself. I can understand why you would think that because it so beautifully validates the title of this thread.

6:58 PM, November 26, 2010  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

but when I weed through all of the name-calling, you are attempting a logical argument or two in there, and I want to respect that at least. Still, you should come back tomorrow when you have calmed down some, read the interactions, and re-evaluate which of us is displaying "hate."

You have advanced the argument that I can't be for "freedom" if I ban open homosexuals from the military. My idea of freedom is that we are allowed to practice our natural, God-given rights. IOW, the same position as the Founders. One does not have a "right" to serve in the military. We have a right to self-defense, and homosexuals certainly retain that right in regard to their own persons, but that is not the same as being paid by public monies to be the enforcer for the nation's collective right to self defense.

It's not your right if I have to pay for you to exercise it. You have a right to free speech, but I do not HAVE to pay for you to get your own radio talk show. I don't have to let you post on my blog. You have a right to speak freely (without coercion from the state) using whatever resources you can muster on your own.

In the same way, you have a right to keep and bear arms, but that does not mean that I should be taxed in order for you to get a .357 magnum.

There is no "right" (that is, some obligation you are owed by the state that is yours even if a majority of your fellow citizens don't approve) to be a paid soldier in the military.

7:14 PM, November 26, 2010  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Your second attempt at reason is something along the lines of equating blacks and women with homosexuals. To maintain a prohibition against one you argue, is the same as a prohibition against the other. Your argument here fails on several grounds.

The first place it falls apart is that you assume that I also approve of unlimited access in the military for women. I don't. I don't believe that women should be assigned to combat units in the Army, the Marines, or the Navy.

My reasons have some relation to those for banning open homosexuals. Sexual tension will degrade unit cohesion. They had mixed-sex crews on tenders back in my day, and it was very bad news. Multiple pregnancies each deployment. Multiple marriage break ups when they left there spouse for their "love boat" hook ups. The unnatural relations of homosexuality will produce even more tension and add to it normal revulsion. At least the men and women don't shower and poop together!

I reject your attempt to lump blacks into the same category as homosexuals. Its perfectly legitimate to discriminate on behaviors and attitudes. Race is not like that. There is just no moral equivilency. Even in the days of slavery, there was no law against being black, but until the Courts bench-legislated it away a few years ago many states still considered homosexuality a criminal act.

7:27 PM, November 26, 2010  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Your third and final argument was that we are still the top military power on earth, so the inclusion of blacks and women have not hurt us too bad. It rests on the proposition that blacks, women, and homosexuals are all morally equal and also equal in their impact on mil ops.

It's my position that integrating blacks does not involve sexual tensions and so is not the same issue, and that over-integration of females into the military is a mistake.

I believe this policy is one of many that has hurt the recent performance of our military. We are not doing well in Afganistan. We were not doing well against Iraq before we bought the Sunnis off.

I shudder to think of the losses we would take against more competent opponents. Someday, we will not be fighting primitive illiterates who can't shoot straight. Our next opponent might have an air force, might have a navy, might have modern weapons. TO come back alive and keep us free, our military needs to be at its best.

7:36 PM, November 26, 2010  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I served on a submarine (688 Fast Attack) with 5 gay crew members and NO ISSUES.

Now you may have had some issue, like the women that are raped on ships and shore facilities, but that doesn't mean we kick out all heterosexuals now does it?

8:48 PM, November 29, 2010  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"so the inclusion of blacks and women have not hurt us too bad."

God help you sir!

8:49 PM, November 29, 2010  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

"so the inclusion of blacks and women have not hurt us too bad."

Learn to read. I was paraphrasing Anon's argument, not claiming it as my position.

10:47 AM, November 30, 2010  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Again, your anecdotal evidence and mine cancel each other out, except that mine is more certain than yours because (besides the fact I am willing to put my real name on it) there may well have been problems that you were unaware of. Just because you did not perceive of any problems does not mean they did not exist. So what other lines of argument do you have?

10:50 AM, November 30, 2010  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home