Typical Markadelphia. Ghandi? Or the Palins? The answer is easy if you start paying attention to what Ghandi actually did and said. It's no surprise they he's Marky's hero.
Joseph Lelyveld has written a generally admiring book about Mohandas Gandhi, the man credited with leading India to independence from Britain in 1947. Yet "Great Soul" also obligingly gives readers more than enough information to discern that he was a sexual weirdo, a political incompetent and a fanatical faddist—one who was often downright cruel to those around him. Gandhi was therefore the archetypal 20th-century progressive intellectual, professing his love for mankind as a concept while actually despising people as individuals.
I'm not attacking the Palins' characteristics and using their traits to prove a premise false. I'm saying that by making a purchased at Chik-Fil-A (in the name of free speech of support one man/one woman), they supported an agenda of hate.
The fact is that Cathy contributes money to groups that support restrictive rights for gay couples. Not really something a "conservative" should be all about, right?
"I am speaking up for him, and his First Amendment rights, and anybody else who would wish to express their not anti-gay people sentiment, but their support for traditional marriage, which President Obama and Joe Biden they both supported the exact same thing until just a few months ago when Obama had to flip flop to shore up the homosexual voter base."
I thought it was only about free speech.
And how about that victim card? I guess we can play it when it suits us:)
Have you noticed the organizations being targeted as "hate" groups for their position on marriage are the ones that are focused first and foremost on helping couples build stronger, more fulfilling, and durable marriages, and that they're the most effective groups at achieving that? The Cathy's run the WinShape Marriage camps. Focus on the Family. Family Research Council. American Family Association. Etc.
Do you think that's a mere coincidence? Especially in light of things like this?
The twisted truth is that gay men have been at the heart of every major fascist movement that ever was - including the gay-gassing, homo-cidal Third Reich. With the exception of Jean-Marie Le Pen, all the most high-profile fascists in Europe in the past thirty years have been gay. It's time to admit something. Fascism isn't something that happens out there, a nasty habit acquired by the straight boys. It is - in part, at least - a gay thing, and it's time for non-fascist gay people to wake up and face the marching music.
Note that one of Ghandi's failings was that he fit this pattern. He was apparently a homosexual. He was friends with both Hitler and Mussolini. And he held the position that the Jews should not resist the Nazi's. But he didn't condemn the Nazi's violence.
That you consider him to be a good role model in spite of—and it seems, because of—these facts says so much about you; and that's not good things about you.
are focused first and foremost on helping couples build stronger, more fulfilling, and durable marriages, and that they're the most effective groups at achieving that?
...as long as they aren't gay. You forgot that part. But then you're doing the competing victimizations thing again, calls of counter prejudice...classic pivoting tactics away from the responsible party in the first place: the ones who are actively seeking to deny gay people the right to marry in a civil environment. They can already do it in many churches so all that's left is how the government defines marriage.
A government, btw, that you supposedly want out of people's personal lives.
Rather than continued ad hominem on Gandhi, why don't you explain why you think gay people (under civil law) should not be allowed to marry?
Doug Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue, as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.
Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument,
First of all, I'm not using the ad hominem fallacy against you. Second, you brought up Ghandi's character as one to be emulated. Therefore, since Ghandi's character IS your point, it's entirely relevant to examine that character.
12 comments:
Your doing it wrong when you knowingly perpetuate a lie for political purposes. Gandhi would likely disown you as the cheap party whore you are.
Typical Markadelphia. Ghandi? Or the Palins? The answer is easy if you start paying attention to what Ghandi actually did and said. It's no surprise they he's Marky's hero.
Among the Hagiographers
Joseph Lelyveld has written a generally admiring book about Mohandas Gandhi, the man credited with leading India to independence from Britain in 1947. Yet "Great Soul" also obligingly gives readers more than enough information to discern that he was a sexual weirdo, a political incompetent and a fanatical faddist—one who was often downright cruel to those around him. Gandhi was therefore the archetypal 20th-century progressive intellectual, professing his love for mankind as a concept while actually despising people as individuals.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mirror
I'm not attacking the Palins' characteristics and using their traits to prove a premise false. I'm saying that by making a purchased at Chik-Fil-A (in the name of free speech of support one man/one woman), they supported an agenda of hate.
This is where the founders of Chick-fil-A put their money. That's an agenda of hate?!?
I always knew you had things backwards, but wow…
Rose colored glasses, eh Noni?
The fact is that Cathy contributes money to groups that support restrictive rights for gay couples. Not really something a "conservative" should be all about, right?
Hey check this out..
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57484182-503544/palin-chick-fil-a-owner-getting-crucified/
"I am speaking up for him, and his First Amendment rights, and anybody else who would wish to express their not anti-gay people sentiment, but their support for traditional marriage, which President Obama and Joe Biden they both supported the exact same thing until just a few months ago when Obama had to flip flop to shore up the homosexual voter base."
I thought it was only about free speech.
And how about that victim card? I guess we can play it when it suits us:)
Have you noticed the organizations being targeted as "hate" groups for their position on marriage are the ones that are focused first and foremost on helping couples build stronger, more fulfilling, and durable marriages, and that they're the most effective groups at achieving that? The Cathy's run the WinShape Marriage camps. Focus on the Family. Family Research Council. American Family Association. Etc.
Do you think that's a mere coincidence? Especially in light of things like this?
The Strange, Strange Story of the Gay Fascists
The twisted truth is that gay men have been at the heart of every major fascist movement that ever was - including the gay-gassing, homo-cidal Third Reich. With the exception of Jean-Marie Le Pen, all the most high-profile fascists in Europe in the past thirty years have been gay. It's time to admit something. Fascism isn't something that happens out there, a nasty habit acquired by the straight boys. It is - in part, at least - a gay thing, and it's time for non-fascist gay people to wake up and face the marching music.
Note that one of Ghandi's failings was that he fit this pattern. He was apparently a homosexual. He was friends with both Hitler and Mussolini. And he held the position that the Jews should not resist the Nazi's. But he didn't condemn the Nazi's violence.
That you consider him to be a good role model in spite of—and it seems, because of—these facts says so much about you; and that's not good things about you.
are focused first and foremost on helping couples build stronger, more fulfilling, and durable marriages, and that they're the most effective groups at achieving that?
...as long as they aren't gay. You forgot that part. But then you're doing the competing victimizations thing again, calls of counter prejudice...classic pivoting tactics away from the responsible party in the first place: the ones who are actively seeking to deny gay people the right to marry in a civil environment. They can already do it in many churches so all that's left is how the government defines marriage.
A government, btw, that you supposedly want out of people's personal lives.
Rather than continued ad hominem on Gandhi, why don't you explain why you think gay people (under civil law) should not be allowed to marry?
why don't you explain why you think gay people (under civil law) should not be allowed to marry?
Been there, done that. You didn't get it. You didn't want to get it. Why should I waste my time (again)?
BTW, when you're saying someone's ideas are good, pointing out what those ideas are is NOT an ad hominem!
Ad Hominem Fallacy
Doug Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue, as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.
Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument,
First of all, I'm not using the ad hominem fallacy against you. Second, you brought up Ghandi's character as one to be emulated. Therefore, since Ghandi's character IS your point, it's entirely relevant to examine that character.
University upholds study finding children do better with straight parents than homosexuals
Post a Comment