The Most Important Political Trick In The Book

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jul 26 2007, 11:28 AM) [snapback]485475[/snapback]</div>

If a dog stands at the property line out the back door every night barking all night, eventually I shoot the dog and go back to sleep.

In the case of same sex marriage, the dog's been barking for about 25 years now, we can't shoot it, so it's wearing people down to the point where they're just about ready to do whatever it takes to shut the dog up (including moving out of the house and giving the key to the front door to the dog).

They're not even gaining ground in this arena based on burden of proof or forcing a burden of proof, but more so by just being continually loud, obnoxious and louder and more obnoxious. What would it take to shut them up?

I think I've outlined the two choices... I'm more in favor of #1, but it seems #2(how appropriate) seems to be the way this will eventually go.

 

Without focusing on one particular area (like same sex marriages, which i think was only provided as an example), this is exactly true. The debates aren't won by answering the tough questions - they're won by forcing your opponent to answer the questions first so you can pick apart his answer and show why various parts of it are wrong/bad.

 

51MPG...Are you just acting rude and callous or are you just a crude person? Comparing the issue of same-sex marriage to an obnoxious barking dog is an extreme simplification in the first place. To then say you would simply shoot the dog, apparently without attempting to rectify the situation in some other manner is just stupid.

Perhaps you don't see the issue as a "civil-rights" issue (and i'm not so sure myself) but surely you can't just ignore the similarities. In the case of African-Americans, they were "barking" for much longer than 25 years, and yes you could shoot them (lynch etc.) for a long time, and that definitely didn't resolve the issue. What would it take to shut them up? How about just letting them get married?

Back to the topic of the thread, as a Libertarian, I believe the burden of proof always lies with the party wanting to restrict individual actions/rights. Unless they can reasonably prove that the act is harmful to others, I don't think they should be prevented from doing it. (And no I don't think Alcohol, tabacco, firearms, etc. should be more controlled).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Loail @ Jul 26 2007, 12:03 PM) [snapback]485518[/snapback]</div>

That was easy... Example #1 of louder and more obnoxious came right out of the woodwork..

And a direct request for the keys to the house included... Sweet!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Loail @ Jul 26 2007, 01:03 PM) [snapback]485518[/snapback]</div>

Oh darn it 51MPG, now you did it..... You opened the preverbial can of worms. Now they are going to beat another perverbial dead horse until ?

thanks guy.. <_< :lol: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FiftyOneMPG @ Jul 26 2007, 01:13 PM) [snapback]485529[/snapback]</div>

Sorry, but your analogy is still flawed: the Institution of Marriage is not "your house". If it is, then you're living in it with millions of other Americans all with different ideas and views, in which case you should learn to get along with them better and not be too tempted to shoot them when they annoy you.

Look, I'm not a "dirty liberal": I'm a lifetime member of the NRA and and against high taxes, a welfare state, abortions whenever you want one, and completely publicizing health-care. I'm just trying to understand why you think the burden of proof should be on the proponents of gay-marriage?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Loail @ Jul 26 2007, 12:20 PM) [snapback]485535[/snapback]</div>

Rattle.... rattle... rattle... clang.... Sure is a lot of racket over there, you must want something...

Instead of you learning to do it our way 96% of the country, you insist the 96% of us accept the immoral ways of the very loud obnoxious 4%.. Which of us should be learning to 'get along'?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FiftyOneMPG @ Jul 26 2007, 01:27 PM) [snapback]485544[/snapback]</div>

I guess in the end it always comes back to how/where people learned their morals. My family has never been very religious, and I've had to cobble together my morals from reading, thinking, and discussion from many different sources. I have read the Bible (Old and New Testament) and I agree that in many of the translations it seems to be pretty clear the the writer(s) was against homosexuality. But in those same translations contradictions abound. Perhaps you believe that the fact my parents didn't baptize me is immoral because it means I'll be going to hell, and that my continued non-conversion to any religion is immoral, but I simply haven't found any religion with a strong enough argument to make me convert.

I don't stand to gain anything directly from the acceptance of gay-marriage, other than the good feeling of congruence between my personal beliefs and how people are being treated in reality. I happen to be friends with several gay people, and I see no reason they should be denied the right to marry each other. No one has said you have to accept gay-marriage into your personal belief system, or quietly, protest as much as you want! Just don't take away the same rights from others. And on that note, no more noise from me, I've already talked way more than I'd like.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FiftyOneMPG @ Jul 26 2007, 09:40 AM) [snapback]485489[/snapback]</div>

A friend had the same situation - neighbor's dog barking all night. The neighbor was a night worker and said in no uncertain words that he "didn't give a s***."

The friend is a studio musician and had the ability, through trial and error, to record a reel to reel tape of some very high frequency squeaking noises which annoyed the hell out of the neighbor's dog (and several other neighborhood dogs). When played at high volume the sounds could be heard by humans, but it was highly dependent on which way you were facing . . . but it never seemed all that loud. When the neighbor tired to sleep during the day, my friend would play his "music" out the windows and pointed the speakers at the neighbor's bedroom window. The neighbor's dog was also inside trying to sleep with its master, but it started barking and howling, so the neighbor kicked the dog outside . . . which only made the dog bark more and scratch at the door to get inside.

When the neighbor complained about the noise, my friend told him it was music, and if his dog didn't like it, too bad. My friend jokingly said to the neighbor (in a "you're an a**h***" kind of way), "ever since your dog has been keeping me up all night with its non-stop barking, the quality of my music has suffered. If you want me to produce music which is more in keeping with your dog's preferences, I'd suggest you stop your dog from preventing me from getting a good night sleep."

Starting that night, the neighbor kept the dog inside. Problem solved.

[How that can be applied to obnoxious political barkings, I DON'T KNOW. But it is a funny story.]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jul 26 2007, 11:28 AM) [snapback]485475[/snapback]</div>

That is false.

While true in criminal matters, most civil legal systems reach verdicts based upon "a preponderance of the evidence". In other words, whomever is 51% likely to be right.

I can certainly sympathize with his intent. He is conservative, and on social matters the battle between progressives & conservatives is often about maintaining or undoing those norms which have existed for some time. He's trying to use time as an advantage.

But if a progressive said "Roe v. Wade" has been the law of the land for 1/3 of a century, therefore conservatives need more than a 5-4 SCOTUS majority or more than 3/4 of the states to approve a constitutional amendment to overturn", you'd look at that progressive like he was an idiot. As you should.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Loail @ Jul 26 2007, 10:03 AM) [snapback]485518[/snapback]</div>

As a lifestyle choice (or is it a religious choice? :huh: ), I demand that alcohol, tobacco, and firearms be supplied, free of charge, to all children in kindergarten.

It's never too early to teach children about all of life's possibilities.

Who the hell are you to restrict my civil and God given rights!

The onus is on you to prove that these kindergarteners wouldn't grow up to be more accepting of the lifestyle of chain smoking, alcoholic, NRA members.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FiftyOneMPG @ Jul 26 2007, 12:27 PM) [snapback]485544[/snapback]</div>

What is to be gained by a homogenized society? Progress often arises out of our differences, freedom of thought and freedom of expression. Surely you are a minority in thought or behavior on at least one issue. Are you to be an outcast and your rights infringed upon?