Quote:
|
Originally Posted by martinguerre
When one of "us" decides that their welfare is more important than the rest of the community, i think it becomes a proper defense to note the hypocrasy involved.
|
The hypocrisy isn't the damaging factor, though. And it generally isn't - usually it matters little whether someone is hypocritical and wrong or consistently wrong. The big problem would be bad policy and inflammatory rhetoric. You're using a part of his personal life against him, not his policies, and that strikes me as fighting sleazy politics with sleazy politics.
Quote:
|
But what i'm getting at here, is that there is a preceeding action in these cases that the community believes to be harmful enough to warrant retaliation. There's a reason, even if you disagree with it, for the rhetoric to be this heated.
|
Yeah. And sometimes there's a justification as well. My point is that when it comes to possibly gay marriage (you gave some good arguments I had to chew over) and surely (in my view) issues such as hate crime legislation or welfare reform or the cutting of city services, there may not be justification and I believe that the burden of proof should lie on the accuser. The accuser should be prepared to explain why the positions/rhetoric must necessarily be anti-thisgroup.