'Peg City Kid, a frequent commenter on my site, has posed challenges to my post "Myth of the Moderate".
His comment was long, and passionate. I intend to divide his challenges into 8 individual posts, in which I will answer each of his concerns, two in each entry. The numbered, italicized portions are 'Peg's unedited comments, under which is my response.
1. You kill me Canadianna!! "People of Principal and Compassion" That's what brought around residential schools, the Christians "compassion" for the native people and the "Principle" that directed them to "help". Very good, Canadianna.
So you believe that social engineering was wrong in the case of Residential Schools, but now you are supporting it through gay-marriage? There’s no consistency to your argument. If Residential Schools were wrong (which they were) because they were trying to impose a social norm through indoctrination and re-education, and in the process it destroyed a culture, then surely same-sex marriage should be wrong for precisely the same reasons. Unless of course we are employing a double standard here. Your premise seems to be that the cultural and societal norms of the Judeo-Christian value system should be destroyed at the whim of government and radical interest groups --- not because it is the legal, valid or logical thing to do, but because we, the inheritors of these values, are the majority-- so there is no intrinsic significant importance in maintaining our heritage, history and traditions. I beg to differ.
2. You have done exactly what the far left loves to do, ignore the opinions of those who disagree, and replaced them with words you concocted with no purpose other than to show them in a negative light for your gain.
First of all, get an education. If I am on any side of this issue, it is the political right. And, as I have argued, it is right of centre, not far right.
Next, I have not ignored the opinions of those with whom I disagree. If your arguments don't hold up it is because you have not argued well, not because of anything I have said or done.
And everyone uses words to advance their argument. What would you have me do, send out thought waves? I have no desire to put your opinions in a negative light, but I believe this is still a free country – and I am still allowed to challenge the government line (and given that you are parroting their words, your line) – particularly on my own blog. It’s called free speech, and you know what? It's also for people who don't agree with you.
Besides, not once in my post did I give my personal position on SSM. My premise was that the political spectrum has shifted. I believe the reason the spectrum has shifted is not because SSM is the right thing for society, but because the Liberals are trying to distract Canadians from other, pressing and disturbing issues related to their own deplorable governance.
Why do you suppose the introduction and passing of the SSM bill was at the forefront as soon as the Liberals took office last year? My answer -- Because it’s a divisive issue, and it’s one where uneducated people, unskilled in critical thinking, will automatically respond with fear and ridicule when they are told (wrongly, in my opinion) that denying the ‘right’ to SSM will end by 'taking away' equality rights for others. This is not to say anyone who agrees with SSM is uneducated, or that they are not critical thinkers. Many on the ‘pro’ side present valid and challenging arguments, but they are not the people the Liberals are targeting with this issue. The government is targeting those whose reaction will be anger or fear, rather than an openness to dissent or debate.
Challenges/responses continued on the next entry.
2 comments:
First off, I want to thank you for responding, This obviously took alot of time.
My example about the residential schools was to illastate all the "good" Judeo-Christian princapals have done for the minorities in Canada and maybe thats a good reason to leave them out.
Obviously I feel very strongly about religion in our society. However, at no point did I say I wanted it 'destroyed', in fact I had clearly indicated that I felt it should be removed from government all together.
As I'm sure you're aware Canadianna, traditions fade. Things change and eventually traditions hundereds of years old, just aren't practiced anymore. This definition of marriage is one of these traditions.
2. Canadianna, I have 2 diplomas and probably do more for my community than you ever will. You took what was obviously a typo and turned it against me. I'm already starting to feel that, like most conservatives, you are more eager to insult than you are to discuss.
Cannadiana, I was wrong, never did you give your exact position on gay marriage, but you cartainly implied it. Perhaps I jumped to conclusions, but this is something you really don't have a right to judge me on, as this is a mark of a conservative. Correct if I'm wrong, please. What is your stance on gay marriage?
Your right Canadianna, this is a divisive issue, that's why it was on the forefront Liberal agenda. Stop wasting my time.
Poor Liberals, uneducated in critical thinking. I think you should look that phrase up, then go through all your post.
As you said;
"The government is targeting those whose reaction will be anger or fear, rather than an openness to dissent or debate."
They call them conservatives.
You say you don't want religion destroyed, and yet you go on to say that the government has an obligation to make sure that people are not being denied their 'rights' within their religion. Therefore, the religion must be altered to accomodate the government definition of marriage -- thereby changing one if its sacraments and fundamental purposes. I would argue, that is destroying it.
You say 'stop wasting my time'. I didn't mean to sneak over to your place in the middle of the night and log onto my site. Sorry about that.
I'm not going to get into a pi**ing match with you. You know nothing about me or my life. But if I am nothing an nobody, and if I do nothing for anybody, I am still entitled to my opinion.
Say what you will Peg, but throughout this debate, you have implied that I am a bigot. You have said that you believe that religion should be altered to accomodate the state line on marriage. You have said that people who speak their opinions are guilty of hate crimes.
You have argued poorly, because your argument begins and ends with characterizing someone who doesn't agree with you -- it's not enough for you to think me wrong. You must think worse of me. That I 'hate'. You have to think that I am a person who would endorse internment camps and segregation. Despite what you might have intended, that is what your arguments imply.
That's what I mean about not tolerating dissent.
Post a Comment