Wednesday, August 25, 2010

On Freedom of Speech--Straight to the Point

The First Amendment does not grant you immunity to reactions to the things it does grant you the right to say.
Nor does it, incidentally, grant you a medium with which to say it. (And it certainly doesn't require private citizens or companies to grant you one.)

I think this is gonna be a thing with me, now...

On Bigotry--Straight to the Point

If you're advocating an action or decision that harms certain people in order to help others, you're likely wrong.
If you're advocating an action or decision that harms certain people while doing nothing to help anyone out of an apparent desire to harm that kind of person, you are wrong.

It ain't rocket surgery.

Consistancy FTW!

Recently I came across a pretty nifty gay rights blog and was reading through the archives. I found a link to an article on a, let's call it a "gay-unfriendly" news site, to which the author was responding.

The article was nonsense, and didn't actually seem to say anything other than tossing out a few barbs for the purpose of being offensive. Terribly written.

In the "Recent News" section, however, there was a link to a pro-life article whose title actually looked interesting. Frowning at the impending attack upon the English language and horrific representation of a cause dear to my heart, I clicked the link--and found a pretty good article.
It was largely about disingenuous language from the Pro-Choice movement. (Note: The first article I read on the site made use of the phrase "homosexualist agenda". A lot.)

Now, these articles were written a few years apart by two different people. Maybe the site had simply hired better writers in the intervening years.

But I think it points to something else, a problem with the idea of political parties (especially a system that specifically supports two opposing parties) that has long been a pet peeve of mine.

I fairly often see people that look an awful lot like they chose one issue that they think is really important, and that they've thought a lot about, and that they know really well, and where they can make great arguments for their stance--the same reasoning that convinced them of their point of view in the first place.
They then choose a political party based on this one issue, and fall in line with their party on other issues. This is especially true of actual politicians--if they fail to fall in line with their party all over the place they are called out on it as a failure. Meaning that people who actually base their stances on multiple issues on reasoning (even, in many cases, the same reasoning) can not be elected to office. That's, y'know, bad.

The reason I think this is true is simple. People are often able to very convincing on one issue or a few related issues. If they then comment on other issues, they often take the side that coincides with "Liberal" or "Conservative"--but either don't bother to explain why ("I don't understand; she was so eloquent five seconds ago"), or just do so very badly (often fumbling over arguments that use "logic" that contradicts their impassioned speech on the first issue).

These are two issues where I think this shows up quite a bit.
The news website is actually a Pro-Life site, but it's "Conservative" so it has a few articles on "related" issues. Similarly, gay rights related news articles and blogs often throw out some of those brilliantly illogical abortion-related buzzwords without bothering to defend them.

Personally, I hold the truth to be self-evident that all are created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain rights that I think should be held inalienable, such as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--and when I say "all" I mean all--but I know that's something of an original thought that hasn't been around for at least, say, two thousand years or anything.