I basically just told him that his last email wasn't even the point of what I was trying to discuss with him and that he obviously wasn't arguing in good faith. I'm done talking to this bozo.
If you weren't willing to argue in good faith, why did you bother replying in the first place? i'm happy you didn't just send him an email that was nothing more than insults and expletives, but... Why did you do it in the first place?
I think he is doing it partially for the shock value but from what I've read he clearly understands, and sympathizes, with the actual problem he is confronting here.
Good on him as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah, I take him as pretty genuine. He was pretty buzzworthy to start with, so it's not like he needs a claim to fame. He's Bay Area, so it's not something he's unfamiliar with either.
Good on him. I love rap, but it's always been a little hard to rationalize that part. The genre could definitely use the spokesperson.
If you are going to write to an elected official about any shenanigans your state/city/etc. is pulling with LGBT issues, I cannot stress enough that you must remain civil. Otherwise your recipient is likely to label you as a fringe element and either ignore you or send you generic (perhaps even prefabricated) replies.
You can be a bit more relaxed with people on your side, but even then you cannot come off as an emotional nut that cannot calmly discuss an issue with desiring the opposition's literal demise. No politician is going to want to associate with that, even if they agree with your position.
I basically just told him that his last email wasn't even the point of what I was trying to discuss with him and that he obviously wasn't arguing in good faith. I'm done talking to this bozo.
If you weren't willing to argue in good faith, why did you bother replying in the first place? i'm happy you didn't just send him an email that was nothing more than insults and expletives, but... Why did you do it in the first place?
While my first email was admittedly harsh and could have been written much better, I'm not sure how you feel I wasn't arguing in good faith. You'll have to explain that one to me.
And I did it because I always talk about how terrible politicians are on a variety of issues but never actually say anything to them. I probably released a little bit too much pent up annoyance/anger at the guy in my first email and I realize now that I should have taken some of the more insulting parts out, but I had my reasons for emailing him in the first place.
I mean, I'm not gay and I'm sure that the anger I feel is nothing compared to an actual homosexual having to live in the south, but growing up in Tennessee my entire life has made it easy for my blood to boil at the drop of a hat when it comes to issues like this. I go to church every Sunday and hear people talk about Jesus and loving your neighbor and then I hear the same people say the most hateful and terrible things about a group of people that they haven't even bothered to get to know...it's enough to drive you up the wall when you've heard it your entire life. I'm sorry if I made "the movement" (or whatever name you want to attribute to gay civil rights) look bad. Certainly wasn't my intention.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
I basically just told him that his last email wasn't even the point of what I was trying to discuss with him and that he obviously wasn't arguing in good faith. I'm done talking to this bozo.
If you weren't willing to argue in good faith, why did you bother replying in the first place? i'm happy you didn't just send him an email that was nothing more than insults and expletives, but... Why did you do it in the first place?
While my first email was admittedly harsh and could have been written much better, I'm not sure how you feel I wasn't arguing in good faith. You'll have to explain that one to me.
Sorry, I misread your post. You said he wasn't willing to argue in good faith (I didn't really get that from his argument, but, whatever) and I read that as "I wasn't really willing to argue in good faith". Sorry for the accusation. I did not mean to offend you. I read it as a "Eh, I'm not willing to stoop down and argue with that bigot." when it really didn't mean that at all.
I really only thought he was arguing in bad faith with his second response, honestly. His first response, while I didn't agree with it, was at least an attempt to have a discussion.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
0
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
I really only thought he was arguing in bad faith with his second response, honestly. His first response, while I didn't agree with it, was at least an attempt to have a discussion.
But it's an argument nonetheless, the example you gave falls within the purviews of anti-bullying laws. That's where you step in and explain how hard it is to help a gay kid who's being bullied without being able to talk about his sexuality at all.
I mean, come on, I made the same argument, are you saying i was making it in bad faith?
If you'll read my second email to the senator, you'll notice that I said those things. I said he's undermining a teacher's power to stop anti-gay style bullying and making it impossible for children to talk to school counselors about issues they may be going through.
So the fact that he responded with a simple, "I sponsored some anti-bullying legislation" really doesn't get into the meat of the discussion I was trying to have with him. He's either not interested in our conversation, too busy to get in depth or thinks that his hand-waving response is actually a good one. In any case, I can tell that continuing to try and discuss it with him probably isn't going to yield anything useful.
And again, I admit I may have set him on edge with my first email and perhaps I didn't deserve a response in the first place. But he did respond and my second email was less emotion and more logic. I was expecting that if he responded well to an overly emotional email, then I would get an equally good response from a more well thought out one. Sadly not the case.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Edit: Oh man, I forgot how crazy Knoxville is. You'd think with UT being there it wouldn't be, but it's so, so crazy. Completely off topic: Would Jesus reject firearms?
As the editorial correctly points out, there is an honorable tradition of lawyers defending unpopular and controversial clients. Civil liberties organizations, for example, have repeatedly, and admirably, defended plaintiffs whose views they abhor (such as members of the Ku Klux Klan), in order to protect cherished principles like freedom of speech and assembly. In this case, there is no greater good, no cherished larger issue at stake; the only issue contested is discrimination. There is no venerable tradition of lawyers defending laws that single out certain groups for discrimination.
smeej on
IT'S A SAD THING THAT YOUR ADVENTURES HAVE ENDED HERE!!
I really, really, don't understand why religious folk think their way of life is being threatened.
Or how they interpret the bible/constitution/law, in the first place, really.
edit: And I can never understand the "choice" angle from people who are free to choose their religion. Guhh.
They think their way of life is being threatened because the people running the religions (a.k.a. the people asking them for money) tell them their way of life is being threatened.
I really, really want every married couple who believes in denying marriage to homosexuals to forfeit all the privileges that being married guarantees.
So bad it hurts.
Randy King is a great troll and I am angry.
Comparing an activity with race, religion, and gender is highly offensive.
What's next; will you insert a reference to conflict resolution into the definition of of the word 'murder" so you can make that legal too? You cannot legislate the absolution of your sins.
smeej on
IT'S A SAD THING THAT YOUR ADVENTURES HAVE ENDED HERE!!
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I really really don't care that religous people feel their way of life is being threatened.
This is an argument that's always rang a little hollow to me, as well.
It's not like legalizing gay marriage somehow is a zero-sum event, where every time a gay couple gets married a church gets burnt down.
They usually make vague references to churches being forced to marry gays despite the fact that any law would probably allow churches to continue to be retarded just like the Civil Rights Act did with churches.
Actually, I kind of respect him. He has a bit of a point. Lawyers defend unpopular shit all the time. It's their job.
It may be respectable to defend a bigot's freedom of speech, it, however, is not respectable to defend a bigot's right to discriminate.
A lawyer who defends a business owner's right to march and say 'I hate green people' is respectable, even if the business owner's speech is reprehensible. A lawyer who defends a business owner's right to ban green people from shopping in his store is not.
Curious about this odd behavior and concerned that he had misunderstood our interaction, I caught up with him in front of the concession stand in Section D,” McReynolds wrote. “I … began to tell him that I was not asking him to leave the section, just to take off his mask. Again … he interrupted and said, ‘I was just taking a walk. Is it illegal to walk around?’ I told him ‘no,’ and was surprised by his sudden confrontational attitude. … He again asked if walking around was illegal. I told him ‘no’ and again began to explain that he did not have to leave his seat, just take off the mask. He continued to ask if walking around was illegal. … Thinking that something was not right (he kept saying the same phrase over and over, would not make eye contact and kept shifting on his feet, left to right) I asked to see his ticket.”
Man, I'm going to call it right now . . . in a year or two Campbell's going to get caught trolling for men in some bathroom stall. No one hates gays like the self-loathinggay Republican politician.
The whole "HURF DURF IS IT ILLEGAL TO WALK NOW" attitude reminds me so much of Sen. Larry Craig (R-Gayville Idaho).
Posts
If you weren't willing to argue in good faith, why did you bother replying in the first place? i'm happy you didn't just send him an email that was nothing more than insults and expletives, but... Why did you do it in the first place?
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
And that, my friends, is a classy gent.
Yeah, I take him as pretty genuine. He was pretty buzzworthy to start with, so it's not like he needs a claim to fame. He's Bay Area, so it's not something he's unfamiliar with either.
Good on him. I love rap, but it's always been a little hard to rationalize that part. The genre could definitely use the spokesperson.
You can be a bit more relaxed with people on your side, but even then you cannot come off as an emotional nut that cannot calmly discuss an issue with desiring the opposition's literal demise. No politician is going to want to associate with that, even if they agree with your position.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
While my first email was admittedly harsh and could have been written much better, I'm not sure how you feel I wasn't arguing in good faith. You'll have to explain that one to me.
And I did it because I always talk about how terrible politicians are on a variety of issues but never actually say anything to them. I probably released a little bit too much pent up annoyance/anger at the guy in my first email and I realize now that I should have taken some of the more insulting parts out, but I had my reasons for emailing him in the first place.
I mean, I'm not gay and I'm sure that the anger I feel is nothing compared to an actual homosexual having to live in the south, but growing up in Tennessee my entire life has made it easy for my blood to boil at the drop of a hat when it comes to issues like this. I go to church every Sunday and hear people talk about Jesus and loving your neighbor and then I hear the same people say the most hateful and terrible things about a group of people that they haven't even bothered to get to know...it's enough to drive you up the wall when you've heard it your entire life. I'm sorry if I made "the movement" (or whatever name you want to attribute to gay civil rights) look bad. Certainly wasn't my intention.
Fuck I love Takei.
EDIT: Wow that works in more than one way!
Sorry, I misread your post. You said he wasn't willing to argue in good faith (I didn't really get that from his argument, but, whatever) and I read that as "I wasn't really willing to argue in good faith". Sorry for the accusation. I did not mean to offend you. I read it as a "Eh, I'm not willing to stoop down and argue with that bigot." when it really didn't mean that at all.
Once again, i am sorry.
You love a dude? That's so Takei, man.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
But it's an argument nonetheless, the example you gave falls within the purviews of anti-bullying laws. That's where you step in and explain how hard it is to help a gay kid who's being bullied without being able to talk about his sexuality at all.
I mean, come on, I made the same argument, are you saying i was making it in bad faith?
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
So the fact that he responded with a simple, "I sponsored some anti-bullying legislation" really doesn't get into the meat of the discussion I was trying to have with him. He's either not interested in our conversation, too busy to get in depth or thinks that his hand-waving response is actually a good one. In any case, I can tell that continuing to try and discuss it with him probably isn't going to yield anything useful.
And again, I admit I may have set him on edge with my first email and perhaps I didn't deserve a response in the first place. But he did respond and my second email was less emotion and more logic. I was expecting that if he responded well to an overly emotional email, then I would get an equally good response from a more well thought out one. Sadly not the case.
edit: reading the article, it looks like it's probably not the only firm the GOP hired, but still.
According to the report, the officer asked Campfield why he had not said he was going to his correct seat, and he said again, “I told you I was walking around. Is it illegal to walk around?”
“After five or six attempts at explaining this to him, I told the man I was not going to play word … games with him,” the officer wrote. “He had violated the mask policy, was in the wrong section and was being argumentative and uncooperative.”
Edit: Oh man, I forgot how crazy Knoxville is. You'd think with UT being there it wouldn't be, but it's so, so crazy. Completely off topic:
Would Jesus reject firearms?
Awesome. Good for that law firm.
Paul Clement has quit the firm so he can keep defending DOMA.
Preemptive edit: And the minute I type that, I come to a charming note by a Mr. Randy E King that contains the phrase "same-sex enthusiasts"
This exact thing happened to me. I was like "wow, this is relatively civil and well written... oh... oh, okay."
Or that anybody's having, really.
"I'm an avid kayaker, I love to cook, and I'm a same-sex enthusiast."
"--you're gay?"
"Oh, lord no. I just like keeping up with gay interests."
I have to say, I thought it was hilarious.
Wait for them to pull a Vince McMahon and start calling them "The Same Sex Universe"
Or how they interpret the bible/constitution/law, in the first place, really.
edit: And I can never understand the "choice" angle from people who are free to choose their religion. Guhh.
So bad it hurts.
Randy King is a great troll and I am angry.
This is an argument that's always rang a little hollow to me, as well.
It's not like legalizing gay marriage somehow is a zero-sum event, where every time a gay couple gets married a church gets burnt down.
They usually make vague references to churches being forced to marry gays despite the fact that any law would probably allow churches to continue to be retarded just like the Civil Rights Act did with churches.
Actually, I kind of respect him. He has a bit of a point. Lawyers defend unpopular shit all the time. It's their job.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
It's ongoing.
Until the Supreme Court either rules on it, or passes, it's still being defended, and still needs representation.
It may be respectable to defend a bigot's freedom of speech, it, however, is not respectable to defend a bigot's right to discriminate.
A lawyer who defends a business owner's right to march and say 'I hate green people' is respectable, even if the business owner's speech is reprehensible. A lawyer who defends a business owner's right to ban green people from shopping in his store is not.
Man, I'm going to call it right now . . . in a year or two Campbell's going to get caught trolling for men in some bathroom stall. No one hates gays like the self-loathing gay Republican politician.
The whole "HURF DURF IS IT ILLEGAL TO WALK NOW" attitude reminds me so much of Sen. Larry Craig (R-Gayville Idaho).