[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: TD's 1AR, Part I
Considering your argument depth in this gem your backchannel to me is
even more hilarious. (I am staying nearly civil he claims I cannot make a
"fucking" argument after posting this marvel)
On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Tim, not tim wrote:
> This discussion has really migrated from where my original post was
> directed. I was defending ABC's right to air whatever commercials they saw
> fit as a "business decision" motivated by profit...not politics.
Discrimination cannot come from economics? My restaurant I can serve
who I like no ____________(insert whatever group you want blacks,
chicano, hispanic, latino, womyn, men, asian....)
Most oppression in this country HAS come from people bifurcating
politics and economics. This notion of it is my property I will do what I
like is at the heart of the discrimination.
> I do not know...but I defend their right to do whatever the hell they want...it
> is their station after all.
Stellar argument, deafening depth and consideration with great thought
and longevity. Come up with that one all on your own did you? By the way
it is not THEIR station. The only reason they can broadcast is because
the government rents out public airwaves which is why I think they have a
responsibility to carry alternative advertisements. The same way At&t has
to rent phone line access to other carriers.
As Abbie Hoffman used to say the first amendment does not mean jack in
this country because of capitalist limitations on distribution and
access. Having a printing press in my basement does not do anything to
ensure my ideas have free play in the marketplace if distribution and
access is DENIED.
And I am talking about fair and equal access. You get to make
connection with 30 million people at one time and I have to walk the
streets hand delivering pamphelets one by one is NOT equal thus skewing
the marketplace (since you seem to love free market analogies so).
> One thing that really disturbs me is the *assumtion*, on the part of my
> detractors that homosexuality is inherently a genetic trait and not a behavior.
> We may not agree on whether it is behavior or genetics, but then again neither
> does science. There have been no definitive studies that have translated into
> scientific fact with regard to a genetic link to homosexuality. There are
> studies that exist that point to a genetic link...but the scientific fact on
> this issue comes down on the side of behavior. In any case, just because one
> has desires whether they are genetic or behavioral, the choice to act on those
> desires is just that, a choice that results in an action, and actions are
> regulated by laws...beliefs are not.
First i will partially agree with you only in that I think the
genetic versus behavior is a side show created by bigots to skew the
issue. Even if we win it is genetic I do not know if it gets us much.
Race is genetic and their is still racism and people will only say that
even if it is genetic alcoholism is genetic and it is still a disease to
be cured. I do not think we need genetics though.
I will point out the internal link flaws in your last sentence
though. (by the way the reason I do not think you make arguments, getting
back to Zack's pinball post, is frequently your paragraphs talk about
something and then end in a tangential assertion. There is no warrant to
connect the top and bottom part of your above paragraph).
Why does the fact that laws regulate actions not make it discrimination?
My belief is christianity I practice it in a church. Law bans churches, law
is discrimination of religion. Just because it bans an action instead of a
belief is irrelevant. Why is that fact I can believe something sufficient
if I cannot PRACTICE my beliefs?
And you will not even let me AIR my beliefs in a commercial SPEECH
not ACTION (as action is defined for your purposes the practice of
engaging in sexual relations with a person of the same sex ). I will
answer you silly we can never make laws then analysis below where it occurs.
> I am called a
> bigot, because I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle. The majority of
> congress,and your beloved president (Mr. Bill), do not support gay marriage.
> Initiaves in Colorado and Oregon have shown that large portions of America do
> not agree with this lifestyle either. By the logic that has been used against
> me, most of congress, the president, and huge portions of society are bigots as
And this is an argument why? First he is no more my beloved president
then he is yours. If you are attempting to say I am left Bill is left
then I laugh. You can play Limbaugh tactics of moving the debate to the
right by calling the center left but it will not make it so. I am WAY to
the left of beloved Bill and I did not vote for him PRECISELY because he
has sold out gay/lesbian/bisexuals. We can have political discussions of
tactics later but those questions do not answer whether things are
discrimination or bigotry only whether that bigotry is mildly acceptable
for a greater good.
The point remains YES Bill and Congress and the Supreme Court in
Bower's and the public and ABC as well as you and I all have practiced
and will practice various degrees of racism, sexism, homophobia, and
classism. And we should attempt to stomp that out where ever possible.
And notice an important point here WE ARE ALL RACIST. I have driven
done the street and locked doors when I see minorities standing on the
corner, avoided going through "you know THOSE" neighborhoods and if you
will admit it to yourself YOU HAVE ALSO. The difference is whether we
ACKNOWLEDGE that otherization and attempt to correct it or we are
reactionary and say I am not a racist blacks ARE lazy. The more you are
of the latter the more I care less of your existence on this planet.
(insert African-American for black and Caucasian for white where you feel
appropriate. I frequently maintain the color distinction if it is the
choice I feel someone would use in making a statement when talking in
discussion format. I would LOVE to have discussions with people on this
sometimes it is a question I have been seeking thought on and never get
to talk about it much). Like I said before 6 billion people cannot get
along with all.
> This issue is not the same as race or religion...my race does not cause me
> to act or behave in a way that society has deemed "deviant". My race does not
> translate into a fixed set of actions. The real question is whether or not
> society has the right to regulate the behaviors/actions of its citizens.
Really? No distinctions, accent choices, language choices, arguments
styles frequented by different races. African American culture is
socialized to use narratives more often? It is not racist to ignore
DIFFERENT language choices like eubonics? I am not so sure the line is as
black and white as you think. And religion CERTAINLY is the same. Laws to
suppress ACTIONS to carry out religious practice IS discrimination. Laws
against Native American use of peyote for religious ceremonies for example.
> you indict the government for discouraging homosexual behavior, then you must
> also indict it for discouraging murder, rape or any other socially unacceptable
Ah analogies the finest and strongest of argument forms. You got me, I
concede bring on big brother and 1984, lets regulate hair color, clothes
choice, body-piercing, body size (you obese deviant person you), do not
forget nothing but the missionary position just prior too or during
ovulation (after all sex is for procreation anything else is deviant).
Ban on all birth control including the rhythym method and withdrawl (how
dare you pull out before those sperm have a chance to do their job out
that back in there). Like to sleep during the day what a freak you are,
NORMAL people work 9-5 how dare you differ you deviant. Take that back
good people with proper protestant work ethic work 12 hour days how dare
you work less the 60 hours a week more jobs you slacker that is the law.
Normal people have two kids per family where are yours, wait you have
seven what a deviant you are you must get rid of five but how there is no
birth control ahhhhh I am so confused.
Get real. The equation of me with a murderer because I suck a man's
penis is what makes you truly ignorant. WE consent to the act. We keep it
in the bedroom. We only walk down the street together and get called
names and attacked. Rape and murder is definitionally NONCONSENSUAL. This
answer alone proves your brilliant analytical skills.
> As for the ad hom issue...the first response I got to my post was from
> Matt Stannard, when he said that I would be "up against the wall" and my "blood
> would run". What ever happened to discourse? I have seen this over and over
> again...consevative views are effectively silenced by the "libral Elite" on the
> "L", simply because they disagree...suddenly ad homs are considered OK, if the
> view presented is unacceptable.
And I know this ad hom occured why? Oh yeah YOU posted it to the l.
The L did not censor you Matt did. He also did it backchannel. The
threat was also not direct. I will not defend Matt's backchannel post to
you but as Malcolm used to say if it happens maybe it is because the
chickens have come home to roost. You reap what you sow.
And I will bet you make posts like that one to get responses out of
people. Why else did you sign the post the way you did. What I can
remember of you in high school was you enjoyed playing the let's ad hom
each other in cute ways game. Maybe now that we are adults we can put
away our childish games?
> PS Martin...try making a fucking arguement, instead of just trashing me.
Ditto. Or just learn what an argument is. I have said Frigg's post
is a fallacy of equivocation, I think it is, gave reasons why, and asked
him to provide rationale for his assertions. He responded with pull my
arguments. I said NOT an answer. I will resend my posts to you
backchannel and point out the arguments if you missed them that bad.
And we never debated in high school by the way. We were in the same congress
ONCE otherwise I was in novice the first semester and you moved to
Kentucky the second. I would be glad to put my college record up against
yours or debate you sometime if you really want. I would think we could
keep this better then I am better then you are game.
Justice, Peace, and Love
Martin Che Harris, TSU Research Coordinator
"To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of people"
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page