I'm going to take a break from my semi-masochistic browsing of Conservapedia tonight. Instead, I'd like to take this opportunity to highlight some much more malignant views.
There have been two separate incidents of hateful speech and behavior, involving two separate Colorado State Senators, in the past week.
The first incident took place on Monday. Republican Scott Renfroe took to the floor of the State Senate to speak in opposition to a bill that would (OH NOES!) give some benefits to same-sex partners of state employees. Renfroe apparently started off by informing the crowd that Eve was created to be Adam's "helper". He followed this up by quoting from Leviticus, and then declaring that government shouldn't be "taking sins and making them to be legally OK."
He went on to very helpfully clear up the sort of things that he was talking about:
I'm not saying (homosexuality) is the only sin that is out there. Obviously we have sin -- we have murder, we have, we have all sorts of sin, we have adultery, and we don't make laws making those legal, and we would never think to make murder legal. But what I'm saying that for is that all sin is equal.
As offensive as that was, it pales next to what Republican State Senator Dave Schultheis said today on the State Senate Floor:
I'm going to be a no vote on this. I'm trying to think through what the role of government is here. And I am not convinced that part of the role of government should be to protect individuals from the negative consequences of their actions.
Sexual promiscuity, we know, causes a lot of problems in our state, one of which, obviously, is the contraction of HIV. And we have other programs that deal with the negative consequences -- we put up part of our high schools where we allow students maybe 13 years old who put their child in a small daycare center there.
We do things continually to remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior, quite frankly, and I don't think that's the role of this body.
As a result of that I finally came to the conclusion I would have to be a no vote on this because this stems from sexual promiscuity for the most part, and I just can't vote on this bill and I wanted to explain to this body why I was going to be a no vote on this.
The bill that he was voting no on? It will require HIV testing for pregnant women.
That's right. This twisted excuse for a human being is not only against letting 13 year olds who have kids finish school, he's also in favor of letting the children of HIV-positive mothers get sick and die, because the HIV testing would "remove the negative consequences".
The Senator apparently believes that knowing one is both pregnant and HIV-positive is a positive consequence of promiscuity.
- Log in to post comments
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you been all "right and left are equally decent and both want what they perceive as best for the Nation"?? And haven't you disagreed with me when I have argued that the hard-core of the far-right-wing that is all that is left of the Republican Party are a bunch of depraved morally and pragmatically bankrupt scumbags??
Wow. That's just appalling. I'm at a loss for words. Normally, I disagree when people claim that at a lot of the right-wing attitude towards sex is about trying to punish people but that's such a clear cut example there's nothing I can say in response. I'm not sure that the level of profanity exists in the English language to describe my opinion of Schultheis at this moment.
Physioprof, there's no contradiction between what Mike has said to you before and what Mike says here. Note that Mike is in this case illustrating two examples of malignant idiocy. He is not asserting that this is the entire Republican party or that it is a representative sample. I suspect that Mike would say that this sort of junk is more common in the Republican party than the Democrats currently or might say that this sort of junk gets far more prominence in the current Republican party. But neither of those are at all the same claim as the claims that Mike has repeatedly called you out for.
@PP:
I do think that politicians - including these two schmucks - want what they think is best for the country. I don't think they're right, and I don't think their motives make what they're saying any less reprehensible.
The main point that I was trying to make before - repeatedly - was just that I think that it would be a really really good idea to draw a line somewhere if we're going to preserve anything that's even remotely similar to civil discourse in this country, and not questioning other people's commitment to what *they see as* the best interests of the country is a good place to start.
You *really* think those despicable hateful scuzbuckets have a commitment to anything other than their own deranged misogynist theocratic fantasies? Seriously? You think they would give a shit if every non-theocratic Christian American were instantly killed and all the women under the control of the theocratic Christians were stripped of all of their civil rights?
Saying that those motherfuckers have a "commitment to what *they see as* the best interests of the country" is like saying that a dude who murders his wife and children and then commits suicide because she is threatening to leave him and take the kids had a "commitment to what *he sees as* the best interests of his family".
"Deranged misogynist theocratic fantasies" .. I'll have to remember that phrase! There have been times when it would have been useful...
Your analogy's pretty good. Regardless of their intent, the effect is hideous. They might have the best of intentions (if only in their own minds), but we know what road that paves.
But here's the thing: why the hell would I want to get into a fight with them over what their intentions are? Their intentions don't make a damn bit of difference; the effects do.
Refraining from calling them anti-American doesn't cost me a damn thing - especially when there are so many other things to call them (deranged misogynist scuzbuckets has a poetic ring). Getting into an argument over their intent solves nothing, will inevitably (and rapidly) deteriorate into "are not/are too", and sucks attention away from the effects. Why on earth would I want to go there?
Phisioprof, even if I bought into your analogy (which I don't) if anything it helps Mike's point. If you've ever interacted even minimally with a mentally ill person you need to know precisely where they are coming from and understand how they are acting rationally from their perspective. If you can't get past contempt, you'll never get anywhere with them.
The analogy is in any event wretched. If you want an example of someone who would fit your hypothetical try someone like Timothy McVeigh. Extreme disagreement acted out through peaceful means is not at all the same thing.
It's a perfect analogy. Delusional assholes like those two want to destroy the entire fucking nation so that it can't fall into the hands of commie heathen homo terrorist jew college professors. That'll be just dandy for them, because then jeebus is gonna come and take them up to motherfucking heaven.
Seriously, if you can't call out sick bastards like those two on their bad faith lying anti-American intentions, then who can you call out? We just agree that everyone is operating in good faith and just politely disagrees on some of the details? Give me a fucking break.
Their intentions make a *huge* difference when you consider the effect that it has on people whose minds have been poisoned by 40 years of sick-fuck right-wing propaganda. It is very important to make it clear that when misogynist theocratic assholes say things like "I am not convinced that part of the role of government should be to protect individuals from the negative consequences of their actions", what they are really talking about is hating women with a passion and wanting to use government power to ensure that women suffer as much as possible and are stripped of their civil rights, including their right to bodily autonomy.
Physioprof, you should be able to effectively explain to someone why wanting to punish children for their mother's misdeeds is a bad idea that likely demonstrates serious gaps in the thinking process of whoever asserts that. You can even do that politely. And guess what, the people who have been "whose minds have been poisoned by 40 years of sick-fuck right-wing propaganda" are probably more likely to listen to you then if you start throwing out claims like the assertion that the "all that is left of the Republican Party are a bunch of depraved morally and pragmatically bankrupt scumbags."
Whatever, dude. You politeness fetishists are a fucking joke.
I know this must be hard for you to understand, but sometimes politeness is *counterproductive* and just feeds into the idea that what these theocratic shitbags are peddling is just "an alternative view", and not the deranged shrieking of fucking lunatics who would like to destroy everything that is decent and good about this nation and replace it with their fevered hateful visions.
Physio, I agree that there may be circumstances where politeness isn't warranted but you haven't convinced me that this is one of those occasions. (I think there may also simply be an issue here of what we think of profanity given that you are the person who wished everyone a "Happy Motherfucking Valentineâs Day!" (just clicked over to make sure I remembered it correctly). One nice thing about using profanity sparingly is that it has more force when you do then use it.
"He followed this up by quoting from Leviticus, and then declaring that government shouldn't be "taking sins and making them to be legally OK." "
How true !
So why doesn't he call for an immediate ban of all seafood and mixed-fabric clothes ?
Joshua Zelinsky | February 25, 2009 11:57 PM:
I must disagree. People are most comfortable with the habits of speech and thought they are accustomed to hearing. People who have listening to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk for 10 years will be comfortable with abusive language and strong moral condemnation. Comrade Physioprof disagrees with them, but he speaks their language.
Wow. There's some serious two-dimensional tunnel thinking going on here by some.
For example, "I am not convinced that part of the role of government should be to protect individuals from the negative consequences of their actions" is interpreted by CPP as misogynist.
In the context of the speaker and the subject, CPP is likely right. No doubt the jerk is a scumbag.
However, the idea is not automatically bad just because a scumbag used it prop up his stupidity. Consider bankruptcy. An individual makes one or more (more likely more and more) bad financial decisions. Is bankruptcy a punishment or a way out? What would be the alternative to bankruptcy? But, bankruptcy carries fairly hefty negative consequences too.
I'm using bankruptcy as an example of something where the government intervenes, allows a positive outcome and still punishes. Would we really want it any other way?
As a social liberal (much more socially liberal than our current president) and a fiscal conservative, there is little room in either party for me. The libertarian party is not an option, nor are any of the one issue parties.
Maybe if we could find some common ground that doesn't involve sex and gender, we could make some headway.
I agree with PhysioProf, 100%. These people are fucking animals. They're below that. At least animals have somekind of morality. They're monsters of the worst quality. They're every bit as bad as... I don't know. Not Al Qaeda. They're worse than terrorists. Schultehis would kill the number of people each year from HIV/AIDs that died in the WTC that morning each year because of his fucking idiocy. It makes me so angry; it makes me sick to my stomach; I want to cry. You can't respond to this with "civil dialogue." This sick motherfucker right here... there can be no excuse for this. I have never felt so much hate towards one human being in my life. Never. The sheer amount of cognitive dissonance I'm experiencing from hating him is upsetting. I... I cannot fathom, nor do I want to fathom, what is going on in that sick fuck's mind.
I don't believe in miracles. But if he died from a heart attack tomorrow, I would freely exclaim it as being one.
Enigma