Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Spanky]

To my fellow Republicans - please forgive me but I just couldn't help myself.

Why I've Stopped Arguing with Social Conservatives

by Pat Sajak’s Alter Ego
Posted Mar 28, 2005

Every time I argue with a Social Conservative, I’m reminded of quarrels I used to have with my parents. The battles never seemed fair because my folks decided what the rules were and what was out of bounds. In addition, because they were parents, they could threaten me in ways I couldn’t threaten them, and they could say things I could never say.

Recently, for example, I was discussing the United Sates Supreme Court with one of my many Social Conservative friends out in Alabam when she said, without any discernable embarrassment, that all the courts that upheld the removing of Shiavo's feeding tube were “worse than Hitler.” Realizing she wasn’t alive during World War II and perhaps she may have been absent on those days when her schoolmates were studying Nazism, I reminded her of some of Hitler’s more egregious crimes against humanity, suggesting she may have overstated the case. She had not; these courts were worse. As I often did when my parents threatened to send me to my room, I let the conversation die.

Aside from being rhetorically hysterical -- and demeaning to the memory of those who suffered so terribly as a result of Hitler and the Nazis -- it served to remind me of how difficult it is to have serious discussions about politics or social issues with committed members of the Right. They tend to do things like accusing members of the left of sowing the seeds of hatred while, at the same time, comparing them to mass murderers. And they do this while completely missing the irony.

The moral superiority they bring to the table allows them to alter the playing field and the rules in their favor. They can say and do things the other side can’t because, after all, God is on their side and they have the corner on the morality market. If a Social Conservative -- one of the good guys -- complains about the content of music, films or television shows, it is OK that he wants to tell other people what to read or listen to or watch; he can be a censor because he knows what is good for the rest of us. However, a Liberal complains certain type of “hate speech” that incites people to commit racist violence then they are accused of enforcing Nazi like politically correct codes.

When liberals want to enforce standards of education from the state or Federal level, like the teaching of science in a Biology class instead of religion, they are accused of infringing on state rights. But, when a husband tries to follow his wife’s wishes as far as dying with respect, the want every branch of the government to intervene no matter what the law says. .

When Social Conservatives want to legislate what you can do with your own body or what you do in the privacy of your own home, that is fine, because they ensuring public morality. But when Liberals want to legislate to make car safers or the food you eat safer, or limit the power of special interests they are asking the Government to intrude where it does not belong. . The excesses of the Conservatives are to be excused because these folks operate from the higher moral ground and the benefit of the greater wisdom and intelligence gained from their closeness to God.

In a different Mid West conversation, I complained to another Conservative friend about some of the Right’s tone concerning the 2004 elections. I thought it insulting to hear those “blue state” voters caricatured as “the urban elite leftist masses, brain washed into stupification by CBSNews and all the Chardonnay and Brie that they consume”. My friend asked, “Well, don’t you think that people who live in the country, who are God fearing, and less exposed to all those crazy foreign ideas are better able to make informed choices?” It turns out it is superiority, not familiarity, which breeds contempt.

The rhetoric has become so super-heated that, sadly, I find myself having fewer and fewer political discussions these days. And while I miss the spirited give-and-take, when Supreme Court Justices become worse than Hitler and when those who vote a certain way do so because they’re idiots, it’s time to talk about the weather.

[chad87655]

Originally posted by Spanky


Recently, for example, I was discussing the United Sates Supreme Court with one of my many Social Conservative friends out in Alabam when she said, without any discernable embarrassment, that all the courts that upheld the removing of Shiavo's feeding tube were “worse than Hitler.” Realizing she wasn’t alive during World War II and perhaps she may have been absent on those days when her schoolmates were studying Nazism, I reminded her of some of Hitler’s more egregious crimes against humanity, suggesting she may have overstated the case. She had not; these courts were worse. As I often did when my parents threatened to send me to my room, I let the conversation die.

Aside from being rhetorically hysterical

Rhetorically hysterical? Really?

Here is what Hitler said on the subject in 1939:

"The authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner
that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most
careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death."

Here is what Greer said about Terri, 2005, "she will die”, which translated into the German means:

"The authority of Dr. Felos and Nurse Mikey Schiavo to be designated by name by this Imperial Court in such manner that Terri Schiavo, according to their hearsay and inuendo, is incurably vegetative can, upon a most circumstantial diagnosis of her condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death by starvation, as the same shall be administered by this Court through its agents, Dr. Felos and nurse Mikey Schiavo."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Col_Nathan_Jessup
What the revisionist pussies love to forget that this country was built upon the backbone of young men. Young men who were violently tortured and who bled the RED of our Red, White and Blue.

Do you think the patriots of Boston and Philly and weren't tortured and starved by the Boddy redcoats back in 1777? They raped the women and left injured Minutemen to starve in stocks, while bleeding from infected, gaping wounds from primative musket fire. Same thing in the War of 1812, except this time we had the French and the Redskins piling on with the torture.

In the Spanish-American war, US soldiers, when caught, would be left to die of thirst in a hole. Unlike this Schiavo chick, these boys were awake.

And do we really need to talk about WWII? Baatan? Those slope savages slaughtered ever injured soldier they could find. If they weren't deliberately maimed first. Many were beheaded and their heads were taked as trophies. Two more words: Iwo Jima.

And what was that quagmire in the 60's? You know, the one where the commie pigs tortured and kept our boys in pens for tens of years. Too bad the Geneva Convention was around to prevent it.

And you dare to talk about torture.

i like this sock, but I don't remember it having some 200 posts.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's nice to see you paying such close attention to my posts, but it would be more gratifying if you understood them.

When i expound on things you cannot understand, like science, I try and distill the facts so that the poorly-read of you can understand my point.

You might want to try and distill the few dozen some blogs that inform your opinions here, then we'll understand better:

Ty- last Summer:
"DU and the other blogs I read and accept as gospel say oil for food is a meaningless distraction cooked up by Chalabi to cover for his other lies."

Ty-now:
"Annan's family getting super rich over the bodies of dead Iraq kids isn't something that would cause me to question the role of the UN in the world generally, and in the Iraq decisions in particular- because my blogs explained blah blah blah- meaningless strained- frankly- wierd- distinction- blah blah....."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Adder
I don't say this lightly, 'cause you are mostly a good guy, but you are a pig.

Stop with the PC shit. You aint getting laid from the girls on PB.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Spanky
To my fellow Republicans - please forgive me but I just couldn't help myself.

Why I've Stopped Arguing with Social Conservatives....

Why apologize to them? You just illustrate the truth. Fuck the self-righteous urban-sophisticate liberals convinced of their own elite superiority, fuck the self-righteous bible-banger conservatives convinced of their own divine inspiration.

Everyone vote libertarian!

[F.U. Harold Carswell]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Stop with the PC shit. You aint getting laid from the girls on PB.

Not since I scored Not Me's hoo haa and took her out of commission.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
War sucks. War allows civilized people to do uncivilized things. Hopefully, we catch them, explain to the world that this wasn't acceptable to us, and punish appropriately (which said appropriateness includes the context of the war we sent those kids into.) But, it's war. How many dead? How much destroyed? And, how much worse would it have been for Iraqis to have SH continue in place? All important contextual issues.

It's neither right nor Right, but I can't get too het up* about it.

(PWT term of art.)

War sucks. It never ceases to amaze me how people who would find things outrageous in other contexts can so easily dismiss them when they occur in the context of war.

Well, at least you're in good company. Even the Supreme Court was willing to suspend the very principles we were fighting to defend in the Japanese internment camp cases.

We hold these truths to be self-evident...

Except when it's convenient not to.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Stop with the PC shit. You aint getting laid from the girls on PB.

You're only partially right -- non-pigness is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The wife/daughter/sister/mother would have to be guilty of a grave offense.

Like, not naming names?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No, you misunderstand me. Innocents should never be beaten.

Well, thank the Lord above we have mechanics from West Virginia and unemployed inner-city kids in their late teens to make that judgment on the spot. Otherwise, something might go wrong with your system.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If a women was known to have killed and had information that would prevent further killing, is raping her not a justifiable way to get the information? I don't see this moral delema (sp?) differently than if we substitute "beating" for "raping".

If you don't see this as morally reprehensible, period, then it is because you apparently lack a moral compass. There is no further point in debating this issue.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Well, thank the Lord above we have mechanics from West Virginia and unemployed inner-city kids in their late teens to make that judgment on the spot.

So, above, you make fun of my "shit happens" point, and here, your point is, shit is gonna happen? I suppose you coould just state your overall rule as, "I get to review everything in hindsight, and I'll let ya know when you fuck up".

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
So, above, you make fun of my "shit happens" point, and here, your point is, shit is gonna happen? I suppose you coould just state your overall rule as, "I get to review everything in hindsight, and I'll let ya know when you fuck up".

Since it will take Wanker 35 years to catch up, I think what he was saying is that we should not be giving the people on the ground discretion as to whether they can beat the crap out of someone for information (or sodomize him, or whatever), not that "shit is going to happen." club/hank seemed to be proposing that the individual soldiers make the call. wanker was pointing out that perhaps people pulled in from the National Guard are not terribly well-equipped to make such calls.

It seems like it should not be first thing in the morning where you are, unless you are in Hawaii on vacation or something, but I think they have plenty of coffee there.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
So, above, you make fun of my "shit happens" point, and here, your point is, shit is gonna happen? I suppose you coould just state your overall rule as, "I get to review everything in hindsight, and I'll let ya know when you fuck up".

No. I was criticizing your generally dismissive attitude about the fact that shit happens.

And my point was not that "shit happens." My point was that Club was full of shit with his "tortures only okay if they're really bad guys" theory, because there is no way in the context of Abu Ghraib to know who the bad guys are at the time they're deciding to beat or rape them and/or their families.

I would prosecute the soldiers who committed the unlawful acts. I would prosecute the officers who were charged with supervising them. I would prosecute the commanders who oversaw Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.

And I would obtain counsel who clearly understood that, if individual liberties mean anything in our society, then they apply universally, and violation of them cannot be condoned.

Shit happens. But a decent people clean it up.