ISIS Threatens Iraq’s Largest Air Base http://t.co/0926PFT9X5 (http://t.co/0926PFT9X5) via @elilake (https://twitter.com/EliLake), @joshrogin (https://twitter.com/joshrogin)
— Eli Lake (@EliLake) June 25, 2014 (https://twitter.com/EliLake/statuses/481738648384057345)
Iran hasn't invaded anyone for centuries pic.twitter.com/ydO0XXHeCD (http://t.co/ydO0XXHeCD) but Neocons are gagging to smash it up like Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Afgh.
— Charles Edward Frith (@charlesfrith) June 25, 2014 (https://twitter.com/charlesfrith/statuses/481818283113324544)
Dick Cheney insists ‘we did the right thing’ by invading Iraq http://t.co/WyyVtlClLS (http://t.co/WyyVtlClLS) #UniteBlue (https://twitter.com/hashtag/UniteBlue?src=hash) #tcot (https://twitter.com/hashtag/tcot?src=hash) pic.twitter.com/0UJE0EYQvx (http://t.co/0UJE0EYQvx)
— R.Saddler (@Politics_PR) June 25, 2014 (https://twitter.com/Politics_PR/statuses/481815422610997248)
It's infuriating that intellectual arguments are started but then suddenly stopped.
Perry counters the idea we should enact laws protecting homosexuality by comparing it to the idea that we should enact laws protecting alcoholism. But the question is harm. The harms of alcoholism are not in dispute. There is no argument (aside from certain religious ones) that homosexuality is harmful that holds up under scrutiny. It's a bad comparison. It's a fine argument type he is using (noteworthy because so often the arguments from the right are entirely nonsensical) but the content is wrong.
The analogy doesn't fit.
But I don't think the title is right. What was the second offensive comment he used? That he didn't know something? He plead (or had real) ignorance of the psychological consensus on homosexuality. That's hardly offensive. It's just effortless denial. Standard boilerplate. What's the second offensive comment that he used to justify the first (ie, alcoholism and homosexuality)?
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-06-25 02:33 pm (UTC)was not really our puppet. Maybe he was a puppet
of Iran's government, but not ours.
no subject
Date: 2014-06-25 03:16 pm (UTC)Well said. This hornets nest wont kick itself!
no subject
Date: 2014-06-25 03:36 pm (UTC)Since we broke it in World War One,
our destinies are interlinked.
no subject
Date: 2014-06-25 03:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-25 04:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-25 04:41 pm (UTC)blowing up together to become one big hell hole.
no subject
Date: 2014-06-25 03:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-25 03:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-25 03:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-25 04:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-25 04:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-25 04:50 pm (UTC)Rick Perry tries to explain his offensive remarks with offensive remarks (http://bluenationreview.com/rick-perry-explain-gay-away/)
no subject
Date: 2014-06-26 03:34 am (UTC)Perry counters the idea we should enact laws protecting homosexuality by comparing it to the idea that we should enact laws protecting alcoholism. But the question is harm. The harms of alcoholism are not in dispute. There is no argument (aside from certain religious ones) that homosexuality is harmful that holds up under scrutiny. It's a bad comparison. It's a fine argument type he is using (noteworthy because so often the arguments from the right are entirely nonsensical) but the content is wrong.
The analogy doesn't fit.
But I don't think the title is right. What was the second offensive comment he used?
That he didn't know something? He plead (or had real) ignorance of the psychological consensus on homosexuality. That's hardly offensive. It's just effortless denial. Standard boilerplate. What's the second offensive comment that he used to justify the first (ie, alcoholism and homosexuality)?