|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
 Posted - 11/28/2008 : 16:51:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Mycroft
I think you're misunderstanding my point again. My objection to Halfmooner's suggestion was based on the stated motivations behind it. I don't think it's right to change the political system itself to favor one point of view over another. |
It still doesn't do that, it only favors certain mechanisms of expressing one's views over others. As soon as the act of a church advocating for a particular referendum is itself a "view," you will have a valid objection.
|
Let me repeat: My objection to Halfmooner's suggestion was based on the stated motivations behind it.
I don't believe it matters if the proposed change would really have the effect Halfmooner claimed it would.
|
 |
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2008 : 17:08:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Mycroft
I don't have a problem with that law. If the IRS catches up with Ray Comfort and applies some penalty , I won't lose any sleep over it. What I described as asshat behavior isn't being in favor of the law or enforcing the law, but being the one to call in the law on someone you disagree with.
|
A flasher isn't really harming anyone either, walking around flaunting what nature provided him with.
People who are calling the cops to arrest him would likewise be asshats for harming his ability to freely express himself. |
Sure. If the person calling the police would let the behavior slide in another person of different political beliefs, then yes, I believe it's asshat behavior.
In general I believe people who disagree should be able to express that disagreement through traditional means such as debate or political campaigning. Trying to find grounds to prosecute your ideological opponent is wrong. It was wrong when the Republicans did it to Clinton, and it's wrong when individuals do it on a smaller scale. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2008 : 23:22:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
Sure. If the person calling the police would let the behavior slide in another person of different political beliefs, then yes, I believe it's asshat behavior. |
And you still haven't acknowledged that some here would not let the behavior slide, no matter what the political beliefs.| In general I believe people who disagree should be able to express that disagreement through traditional means such as debate or political campaigning. |
Who is saying otherwise? Or are you including corporations as "people?" Has it ever been the case that a corporation advocated a different political position than its leadership? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2008 : 00:43:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
And you still haven't acknowledged that some here would not let the behavior slide, no matter what the political beliefs. |
Well, kudos to them, but is that important? Geez, Dave, all we're doing here is expressing opinions. I think the participants here are all adults who are capable of judging for themselves how closely their opinions correlate with mine and probably don't need or want positive affirmations from me.
Originally posted by Dave W.
Who is saying otherwise? Or are you including corporations as "people?" Has it ever been the case that a corporation advocated a different political position than its leadership?
|
Dave, I'm not saying anything at all about corporations, and am puzzled at your question. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2008 : 08:36:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
Originally posted by Dave W.
And you still haven't acknowledged that some here would not let the behavior slide, no matter what the political beliefs. |
Well, kudos to them, but is that important? |
You seem to think so, because if a person doesn't do that, you'll publicly call them an asshat. Geez, Mycroft, it's nothing less than the core of your objection, but you think it's unimportant?Originally posted by Dave W.
Who is saying otherwise? Or are you including corporations as "people?" Has it ever been the case that a corporation advocated a different political position than its leadership? |
Dave, I'm not saying anything at all about corporations, and am puzzled at your question. |
Well, in part I misspoke. A 501(c)3 organization can be "a corporation, a trust, or an unincorporated association," according to the IRS (not just a corporation), but the point is that they are legal entities separate from the people who run them. Strengthening the laws against such entities campaigning does nothing to prevent the people who run them, or their membership, from engaging in loud, vigorous political debate. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2008 : 18:23:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
You seem to think so... |
Despite my just having said not?
Originally posted by Dave W.
...because if a person doesn't do that, you'll publicly call them an asshat. |
No Dave. I didn't say anything like that.
[quote]Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, in part I misspoke. A 501(c)3 organization can be "a corporation, a trust, or an unincorporated association," according to the IRS (not just a corporation), but the point is that they are legal entities separate from the people who run them. Strengthening the laws against such entities campaigning does nothing to prevent the people who run them, or their membership, from engaging in loud, vigorous political debate.
|
Are you claiming it would be a good idea to strengthen the laws against 501(c) organizations campaigning?
If so, why? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2008 : 19:39:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
No Dave. I didn't say anything like that. |
No, you didn't say it, you did it. You assumed Ig had only ideological reasons for wondering whether Comfort stepped over the line, and you assumed a few people around here wouldn't enforce the law against people whose ideology they shared. You made it clear that such behavior warrants use of the term "asshat."| Are you claiming it would be a good idea to strengthen the laws against 501(c) organizations campaigning? |
That's what this whole discussion has been about. That's what Ig's question was about. That's what HalfMooner's suggestion was about.Because it's a misuse of donations. 501(c)3 organizations have to have a clearly stated mission. "Vote against Obama" doesn't help the down-trodden. "Vote for Proposition 8" doesn't spread the Gospel. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2008 : 22:02:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, you didn't say it, you did it. |
I expressed an opinion about a specific behavior. Nowhere did I say everyone must specifically disavow that behavior or face the same opinion.
Originally posted by Dave W.
You assumed Ig had only ideological reasons for wondering whether Comfort stepped over the line, and you assumed a few people around here wouldn't enforce the law against people whose ideology they shared. |
I think my conclusions about Ig's motivations are well founded given the context of the thread and a brief look into his posting history. As for other people, I asked them questions in the context of a discussion. They answered as they deemed appropriate, and I responded as I deemed appropriate. The only person who seems to have a complaint about it is you.
Originally posted by Dave W.
You made it clear that such behavior warrants use of the term "asshat." |
To be clear, I believe trying to prosecute someone because they disagree with you is asshat behavior. I gave one important example of this sort of behavior in the Republicans impeaching Bill Clinton. At the time there were a lot of Republican apologetics about how important “character” was and how dastardly Clinton was for lying, but the truth was they were just angry because of his political success.
Originally posted by Dave W.
That's what this whole discussion has been about. |
Sure. In the same way that impeaching Clinton was about the importance of “character”.
Originally posted by Dave W.
That's what Ig's question was about. That's what HalfMooner's suggestion was about. |
Halfmooner very specifically stated his motivation was to hinder the advancement of a conservative Christian agenda.
Originally posted by Dave W.
Because it's a misuse of donations. 501(c)3 organizations have to have a clearly stated mission. "Vote against Obama" doesn't help the down-trodden. "Vote for Proposition 8" doesn't spread the Gospel. |
That's your opinion. I think it's arguable, but more importantly it goes beyond the scope of anything I've been arguing.
|
| Edited by - Mycroft on 11/29/2008 22:06:49 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2008 : 23:15:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
Halfmooner very specifically stated his motivation was to hinder the advancement of a conservative Christian agenda. |
HalfMooner specifically said, "I think it is dangerous to allow any tax-exempt entity to sway a political issue." You will note the "any" in there. You've taken his single example and assumed that that was the only group he wanted to limit, ignoring what he actually said. Hey, wait: didn't you just object to me ignoring what you specifically said? It seems the pots and kettles are arguing again.Originally posted by Dave W.
Because it's a misuse of donations. 501(c)3 organizations have to have a clearly stated mission. "Vote against Obama" doesn't help the down-trodden. "Vote for Proposition 8" doesn't spread the Gospel. |
That's your opinion. I think it's arguable...[quote]But you won't argue it. Okay by me.[quote]...but more importantly it goes beyond the scope of anything I've been arguing. |
Well, it's what this thread has been about. Ig's question was in regards to 501(c)3 status. HalfMooner was talking about 501(c)3 groups.
I know you've wanted to turn it into something about "silencing dissent" of "people" (instead of limiting the campaigning of organizations), but your objections have largely been hyperbolic nonsense. And to drive that point home, I ask you to name three methods of legally committing assault and battery on a homosexual (per your ridiculous analogy). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2008 : 16:31:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
HalfMooner specifically said, "I think it is dangerous to allow any tax-exempt entity to sway a political issue." You will note the "any" in there. You've taken his single example and assumed that that was the only group he wanted to limit, ignoring what he actually said. Hey, wait: didn't you just object to me ignoring what you specifically said? It seems the pots and kettles are arguing again. |
The in the very next sentence he said, I think secularists should lobby to have the "no-politics" rule for churches and other tax-exempt entities extended to ballot propositions.
He also said, ”What's messed up are bigoted fundies who use their tax-exempt church to try to change the California Constitution in order to deny gays and lesbians the rights held by others… Otherwise, we will see more and more situations like the persecution of same-sex couples. ”
How many times are we going to quote the same passages back and forth to each other? You can always make it seem as though HalfMooner wasn't talking about disadvantaging the religious right by simply omitting the parts that refer to it in your quotes, but then I'll just remind you of those parts again and we're back to square one. I don't think denial makes a good debate tactic.
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, it's what this thread has been about. Ig's question was in regards to 501(c)3 status. HalfMooner was talking about 501(c)3 groups. |
That's not what your argument with me is about.
Originally posted by Dave W.
I know you've wanted to turn it into something about "silencing dissent" of "people" (instead of limiting the campaigning of organizations), but your objections have largely been hyperbolic nonsense.
|
I've addressed the silencing of dissent aspect, and that seems to be why you want to argue with me.
Originally posted by Dave W.
And to drive that point home, I ask you to name three methods of legally committing assault and battery on a homosexual (per your ridiculous analogy). |
What's ridiculous is to claim I need such examples to validate my analogy.
That analogy was a direct response to your statement, ”By a conservative estimate, there are tens of thousands of people who are advocating the same ideas that Ray was (in the questionable post). How is it damaging to a pluralistic society for a single one of those voices to be silenced, granting your fantasy-land premise?” which seems to indicate a belief that it's okay to silence one voice so long there are other voices advocating the same idea. I disagree with you strongly on that point.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2008 : 18:04:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
That's not what your argument with me is about. |
Well, you're going to have to tell me what I've been arguing, then, because if it wasn't precisely that, I don't know what it was.| That analogy was a direct response to your statement, ”By a conservative estimate, there are tens of thousands of people who are advocating the same ideas that Ray was (in the questionable post). How is it damaging to a pluralistic society for a single one of those voices to be silenced, granting your fantasy-land premise?” which seems to indicate a belief that it's okay to silence one voice so long there are other voices advocating the same idea. I disagree with you strongly on that point. |
My statement still hinged upon the fact that thousands of voices are engaged in legal dissent. As soon as you make the case that there is legal gay-bashing, yours will be a valid analogy. Otherwise, it is still "ridiculous hyperbole," as I said before. It wasn't intended to convince, but instead to hit emotional hot-buttons so as to demonize me. You didn't even answer the question I asked, you just swung a rhetorical bludgeon at me, instead. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2008 : 22:09:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, you're going to have to tell me what I've been arguing, then, because if it wasn't precisely that, I don't know what it was. |
Then you need only go back a half-dozen pages to read the first post that led to this disagreement.
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10587&whichpage=1#154663
Notice I'm not saying a word about supporting or being against the tax exempt status of charitable organizations. The *only* opinion I expressed is that it's bad form, “messed up” or “asshat behavior” to bring the law down on someone because you disagree with them. That's all.
Originally posted by Dave W.
My statement still hinged upon the fact that thousands of voices are engaged in legal dissent. |
My point is it doesn't matter how many hold an opinion, calling in the law to harass someone because they disagree with you is still wrong. You can cloak it in feigned concern on obedience to the law all you want, but the action still amounts to petty harassment.
You want to argue legalities? Sure. The law almost everywhere permits, even encourages, informing on your fellow citizens. Sometimes you can even get paid for doing it. That's different from it being the right thing to do.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2008 : 22:49:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
My point is it doesn't matter how many hold an opinion, calling in the law to harass someone because they disagree with you is still wrong. |
And you're still ignoring the many instances where the law is not being called, despite disagreement.
I would defend anyone's right to speak their mind. I will not defend someone's non-right to speak their mind on someone else's dime. If it were otherwise, I would be claiming that newspapers are obligated to print every letter sent to them. I would argue that TV stations have to find a way to put every nutcase with a speech in front of a camera. I would assert that I cannot ban anyone from my own website.
Misappropriation of funds donated to a ministry is no different. And it is my right to help enforce my country's laws. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
How do you report somone to the IRS?
