Hate speech

Quote: s2dbaker

The mission is given to them by a commander. It's very easy to be able to support the troops and oppose the war. It's not the troops fault that they are in a war zone. I help run a charity that sends care packages to the troops in Afghanistan and I would like nothing more, all of us on the board, all of our volunteers, all of our financial supporters would like nothing more than to see our troops come home.

We all want them to come home. I still don't see how one can say, "I hate what you are doing but good job!" "You are killing innocent people but I support you!" "You are a tool of the greedy oil companies but I support you!" "Be careful you do not kill yourself cleaning your rifle, but I support you!"

Quote: AZDuffman

We all want them to come home. I still don't see how one can say, "I hate what you are doing but good job!" "You are killing innocent people but I support you!" "You are a tool of the greedy oil companies but I support you!" "Be careful you do not kill yourself cleaning your rifle, but I support you!"

I'd be happy to explain it yet again but in all likelihood, you will never understand.

Quote: s2dbaker

I'd be happy to explain it yet again but in all likelihood, you will never understand.

I said right off I do not understand and never will understand how one can have such a position. To me to support someone means you hope they succeed. What you are doing sounds more like feeling sorry for them than support.

Quote: AZDuffman

I said right off I do not understand and never will understand how one can have such a position. To me to support someone means you hope they succeed. What you are doing sounds more like feeling sorry for them than support.

I can hope they succeed and still wish they had never been sent.

Not that I think the situation in Afghanistan is wrong, to take a particular example.

But take the Iraq war. I disagreed that troops should ever have been sent. But once they were, I wanted them to win the fight and get out again. It would be a particularly senseless waste to have them sent and the mission to fail. Still doesn't mean I agreed with them being sent in the first place, that the UK prime minster lied or distorted the truth to start a war that had nothing to do with any of the 'reasons' we were given.

Quote: rxwine

Like I said, I'm really focusing on basic liberty for all, not just day to day disagreements.

Another good argument, and I have to say, I totally get it. Not only get it, but I think we're on the same page with most things.

But let's now use one of Paco's examples - marriage of first cousins. Now, since we can't "single out" a certain subset, we can't limit said marriages only to those of non breeding age, nor declare that said pairs must remain non breeders. As a result, these marriages can produce offspring, which is scientifically proven to result in some bad things. This example has existed far back in history, it exists today.

Putting aside social taboos, I have an idea that you're a caring individual who wouldn't like to see children born into this world with debilitating health issues. If one were to perform acts that would greatly increase the chance that they are, I'd imagine you, or any other rational person, would like to prevent that activity.

Personally, I have no religious dogma to influence my decisions. I don't care if gays get married (they'll regret it anyways =p), I don't care if people get married after divorce (they'll regret it. too), don't care if a German shacks up with a Jamaican, don't care that I live with a woman who is not my wife, etc, etc, etc. I don't even care if you fancy shagging your cousin; there are worse things in the world (like being a Patriots fan). But in the case of inter-family breeding, I can with clear conscience say I'm against it, simply because of the results. I mean no hate, it is not my intention to judge. But just as I think a pregnant woman shouldn't snoot an 8 ball and drink a fifth a week, I also think family shouldn't interbreed because of the risk.

Now, if that makes sense and one can agree, then we have to think of all the other beliefs people hold. While my belief is based on science and may be easily understood, a religious person believes just as much. Whether or not you agree with them, there are tens of millions of folks who think just like that.

So, while I can agree with your premise that a certain group or subset shouldn't be singled out, I must maintain that one cannot hold a belief, any belief, without doing just that.

Quote: AZDuffman

I said right off I do not understand and never will understand how one can have such a position. To me to support someone means you hope they succeed. What you are doing sounds more like feeling sorry for them than support.

?

So if President Obama sent troops to invade Israel because he wanted to settle the Palestinian issue once and for all and you opposed that mission, you would no longer support the troops.

I think I understand now but I would continue to support the troops.

Quote: Face

But let's now use one of Paco's examples - marriage of first cousins. Now, since we can't "single out" a certain subset, we can't limit said marriages only to those of non breeding age, nor declare that said pairs must remain non breeders. As a result, these marriages can produce offspring, which is scientifically proven to result in some bad things. This example has existed far back in history, it exists today.

Putting aside social taboos, I have an idea that you're a caring individual who wouldn't like to see children born into this world with debilitating health issues. If one were to perform acts that would greatly increase the chance that they are, I'd imagine you, or any other rational person, would like to prevent that activity.

Actually Arizona and Minnesota do permit first cousin marriages if and only if one of the two adults cannot reproduce.

But Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia all permit first cousin marriages.

I don't think it was widely understood about the hereditary disease among cousin marriages until the 20th century, although the Catholic church had a long history with such prohibitions. First and second cousin marriages were then banned at the Council of Agde in AD 506, though dispensations sometimes continued to be granted. By the 11th century, with the adoption of the so-called canon-law method of computing consanguinity, these proscriptions had been extended even to sixth cousins, including by marriage. But due to the many resulting difficulties in reckoning who was related to whom, they were relaxed back to third cousins at the Fourth Lateran Council in AD 1215.

Mayor Giuliani got an annulment in the Catholic church in 1983 on the grounds that his wife were 2nd cousins and did not have a dispensation to marry.

Although some immigrants are turning away from first cousin marriage when they are educated about it's dangers, some people

Prophet Muhammad himself married cousins. Muhammad also allowed the marriage of his daughter, Fatimah, to his cousin, Ali ibn Abi Talib, who would later go on to become the fourth Caliph of Islam. In most traditional Islamic societies, first cousin marriage is encouraged.

In cases like this it is difficult for many Westerners to hate the sin and not the sinner. The fact that people would risk a terrible genetic disease on their children (even if the probabilities are relatively low) is horrific to most people.

Quote: s2dbaker

?

So if President Obama sent troops to invade Israel because he wanted to settle the Palestinian issue once and for all and you opposed that mission, you would no longer support the troops.

I think I understand now but I would continue to support the troops.

I would state that I was against the mission and leave it at that. Same as I was against action in Kosovo. I wold not keep
Qualifying my statement. Difference is I would not do like liberals do and sit on gun turrets of the enemy, claim my troops committed war crimes, throw medals over the whitehouse fence, or claim they were tourturing people for the world to see. I would not go to tel aviv to be a human shield. In other words my actions would not be such that I would need to constantly justify myself.

Put a simpler way I would put a spin on joe pistone's wise guy rule that wiseguys are expected to defend against outsiders even if the other wiseguy is wrong. You defend your country against outsiders even if you think it is wrong. You can correct what is wrong later.

Quote: AZDuffman

I would state that I was against the mission and leave it at that.

Still a little unclear here. You would say that you're against the mission and be silent about not supporting the troops?