Texas Taleban?

Remove all ads!

It's easy to confuse social liberals with political liberals, since at times they are the same thing, and I think that's what is happening here. But I think you have this backwards, at least to me: Socially the country is fairly liberal and more accepting of social liberal ideas, while social conservatives tend to be the minority. An excellent example of this is couples living together, which of course is "fornication," but lots of couples do it anyway, and nobody, except social conservatives really care, and life goes on. Another example of this is gay marriage. Most people don't really care if gays live together, keep to themselves and don't bother anyone. But talk about legal rights, or government policy changes, and that's a whole other matter. So poltically gays are having a much tougher time, than they are socially.

I agree that politically liberals are very much in the minority, and liberal political views on the issues are not as popular as conservatives ones with most Americans. You are right, it takes a lot of time and a lot of effort for liberals to move the needle on just about any issue that is important them politically, if that is what you mean, NOG.

 

Ragusa, re-read my posts, and the whole thing this time. I'm not excusing their actions or saying it's legitimate in any way. I'm just explaining why they could threaten to reveal things where a liberal group really couldn't (practically speaking).

Ok, just out of curiosity, what if the company has a morality clause that the subject violated? Would 'outing' them on that be considered irrelevant or relevant given the morality clause? Seriously, I want to make sure I understand this.

I probably am confusing the social and political sides. My point with them opposing societal norms is that this is why they're called 'liberal'. They want to break the societal norms that restrict us. Look at what they've done over the past 100 years: Blacks were oppressed so they fought for equal rights, breaking a societal norm. Women had no rights so they fought for equal rights, breaking a societal norm. Sexual expression was repressed so they fought for sexual freedom and liberation, breaking a societal norm. Homosexuality was forbidden so they fought (and are still fighting) for acceptance, breaking a societal norm. Animals are treated like property so they fight for animal rights, breaking a societal norm. Contrast that with the conservatives and you see that while the liberals fight to change society, the conservatives fight to keep it the way it is. Of course, which one is right and good entirely depends on what society you're talking about. I agree 100% with equality for blacks and women, but not societal acceptance of homosexuality. I'll likely object to the next thing the liberals seek to change, too, but I won't know until they try it. If they try to make bestiality acceptable I will. If they try to change us to a savings-based economy instead of a debt-based one, count me in.

 

Nothing you mentioned makes them "liberal." And who "decries" them? Corporatists? Big deal. And what tactics? Can you give me specifics?

That's a pretty meaningless comment. It would be like me saying because "of a few" comments by Westborough Baptist Church that it was representative of Baptists. Which it certainly is not. Quite frankly it was just strange of you to post that comment unless you can show me where that is a standard policy and where Peta has actually done those things. You didn't even bother to post the link. So what?

And even if it did, none of that makes them liberal anyway. As I commented, conservatives like animals too I don't see this as a Left/right issue, as much as you imagine it is.

And that comments still makes no sense. Liberal groups expose corporate and government wrong-doing all the time. Like I commented, they just don't care about other people's sex lives. Again, so what?

Morality clause? What would exactly be in this "moratlity" clause and who would construct it?

Not political liberals; social liberals yes, but not political liberals. The two can overlap and sometimes do, but they are still not the same thing.

Are you for real? That is poltical, the social part has come later, much later, and mostly blacks accomplished much of that on their own, with their own abilities and talents. Once they were able to get some political rights, they could finally gain some social acceptance because they could do the same things anyone else could. Those political beliefs were laid down in the framework of the DoI and took time to accomplish politically, even after we fought a civil war over it.

Again, "equal rights" is a political term, not social. For instance, women gaining the right to vote is political, but wearing pants is a social acceptance.

That's mostly social. But some of it is political, such as pssing laws banning sex shops from around schools. But the government pretty much stays out of the bedroom anyway. Politicians don't want the government in their bedrooms either, and in fact, we have almost insane situation with them. Look at Sanford in SC; Is he a liberal?

A lot of liberals don't like this one. Many of them will be for political rights for gays, but many of them don't like this issue. A lot of them are like moderate conservatives, social acceptance is OK to a point, but there are still certain boundries that they don't like them to cross: Gays in the military, in the church and openly as teachers. However, many political liberals are also social liberals and will have no problem with those issues, just as some conservatives don't either. Beleive it or not, there are gay conservative groups.

I still don't get how this is liberal issue. I know conservatives who are strong for animal rights, including hardcore, AM listening, conservative members in my family.

That is true of social conservatives. They attempt to "conserve" traditions within the important institutions such as family, church, schools, and even the media. However, many political conservatives may have a different take on some of those issues than social conservatives.

I know you are trying to be insulting in your snide way, but you can save that kind of talk, since it really has no place in a serious public forum.

What is a "savings-based" economy? I take it you mean the government. It is not supposed to be a for profit instution, since it is public.

 

To simplify my perspective, I'll try to be short:

In a country of laws, it is a common tactic for people to learn the details of the laws and then stand just outside them, dancing on the razor's edge. When hauled into court, their lawyersargue against the spirit of the law and focus on the letter of the law. In such a situation, you're going to get people of all stripes testing the boundaries. To a degree, we want this as we don't want fuzzy laws that are interpreted by whims. But we also must accept that people whose positions we find morally reprehensible will sometimes manipulate the letter of the law and pull stupid stunts like what we see in Amarillo.

 

Really, Chandos ... are you serious? Snide? "Derogatory in a malicious, superior way?" Presuming to label someone "snide" seems to embody the very definition itself, so you may want to re-evaluate just who's being snide here. (And yes, maybe I'm being snide too. You and I can share that honor together.) NOG seems to have let numerous insults go by without comment in this thread and others, and pretty much in general as near as I can tell, like T2's unnecessary "I think I'll pass on the NOG School of Posting and Debating on Internet Forums" remark in the CPAC thread. I can't recall NOG very often being deliberately insulting since I've been around here, unless you consider him having the audacity to disagree with your opinions and arguing against them in a spirited fashion insulting.

On the other hand, in addition to the above quote, in recent days you have said:

All of which may be technically 'fair' within the context in which they were delivered, but which nonetheless are saturated with the very superiority and sarcasm you seem to decry in NOG but which I rarely see in him. (You could, for example, say that you think he's wrong about something instead of implying or stating outright that you think he's lying in an intentional and malicious way. e.g., "Cut the bull.") And yes, I am a neutral observer. I do agree with NOG on some things, but not all, just as I agree with you on some things but not all.

Seriously, do yourself a favor and give it a rest. I find it difficult to take your agruments seriously when I can't see through the smug condescension to even consider them in the first place.

 

Yeah, really. His comment stands on its own, depite your bleating. And you aren't being as much "snide," as you are ignorant if you believe that liberals would promote bestiality.

I don't share much of anything with you, as far as I can tell.

No need to play games; it's obvious that you are the one who doesn't like being disagreed with.

Do yourself a "favor" and don't bother. Have a nice day.

 

What was the topic? -- I kinda got derailed by bestiality being put on the ballot in Idaho to get some of sheep farmers to the polls ... or something like that.

And come on ... the internet debate comment was funny (at least I got credit for it here).

 

Sorry - if that was meant in jest then I take it back.

 

I'm waiting for the post that takes up an entire page and is completely off topic...

 

Don't say that, Blades. You tempted me!

 

As if it needed Blades ...

 

Ohio Taleban

Hey, I just read that there are Ohio Taleban as well .... who got paid back: Dancers from Ohio strip club protest at church who usually pickets them.

Strikingly, the same conduct as with those loons from Amarillo.

​

 

Wow, I hope those two aren't the featured dancers at the "Foxhole". If so, I can see why people picket the place, they are looking for the place to upscale the talent.

 

One note of difference, the pastor in this church has repeatedly offered to help take care of any strippers who want to stop, and durring the protests at the church, one of the church goers stopped and prayed with one of the strippers. I'm a little disappointed it was only one, but at least that one did it.

 

There is this thing about people resenting uninvited (i.e. imposed) 'help'. That's coincidentally and unsurprisingly the apparent view of the other girls and the owner.

The picketers will probably say that they hate 'sin but not the sinners'. The owner will then tell them that that's a pious excuse for being a sanctimonious a**hole, and that they are hurting his business and threaten to drive him into bankruptcy, and generally make his life miserable - to which they will reply that misery and bankruptcy beat eternal hell fire any day. It's all tough love, they will continue, and invite him to church on Sunday Argue with that.

The conduct, with video cams, bullhorns and picketing (i.e. public shaming) has nothing to do with free exercise of religion, or witnessing if we count that in. It is about intimidation and harassment and about imposing values on others. The impact is not trivial either: It has the potential to ruin the establishment and the owner; indeed, it must be a primary goal of the picketers to shut that den of sin down.

And then there is this: The priest said it very well in the short clip - that pestering his fellow citizens at the 'Foxhole' (for four years!) has helped to unite his congregation, against the sinners - like strip club patrons, strippers, the owner. How handy. Nothing like an outside enemy to fight against to give you a noble cause. Gays or an abortion clinic might do just fine as well. This is about self-exhalation, vanity and pride. The price for the benefit of unity and the feel good effect of having a noble cause? Paid for by someone else! Like the owner of the 'Foxhole'. Which serves him just right, being the sinner that he is. How handy!

*sarcasm*

 

While that is a difference between this and the Texas example, I don't see it as a noteworthy difference. Presumably, the employees of the Foxhole work there willingly. As such, they do not see their employment as a problem that they need help to fix.

Moreover, who the frick does this pastor think he is that he can tell other people what types of businesses that they can open, and what kind of clientelle they can offer their services to? It would be one thing if the strip club was across the street, next door to, or in the general neighborhood of the church (although that still wouldn't make it illegal if there area was zoned for that type of activity), but that's not the case. According to the article, the strip club is "in a nearby town". He doesn't have to go there, he doesn't have to accept the actions of those that work there, and unless he needs to drive by the place on his way to work, he doesn't even have to look at the place.

Not everyone has the same values as you, pal, and nobody there is asking for your "help".

 

I'd stop and pray with one of the strippers ... I'd even let her sit on my lap during the prayer.

 

I don't believe in picketing and such nonsense -- you'd not catch me dead picketing anything. And I agree that the Pastor in question is a colossal douche. They are doing more damage to their cause than good.

But sadly, what they are doing is not illegal. In the US (and likely in most other modern democracies) people have the right to picket and protest to their hearts content as long as they follow some rules about spacing and such. I would argue that the government is loathe to limit protests much further for fear of being seen as repressive.

As for the cameras and such, there are also laws that allow anyone to film a public place -- that's how the paparazzi make their living. If celebreties don't want their pictures taken, their only option is to stay home (and even then it can be dicey) but once they enter the public sphere, their right to privacy is non-existent. The same can be said for everyone, I suppose. It sucks and it's annoying. I suppose a valid argument could be made for harassment and maybe an injunction handed down by the courts, but such injunctions usually include a barrier distance (300m is what I hear bandied about) and so the protestors just stay 300.5m away from their targets and they can just keep going. It's annoying and immoral and vicious but dealing with it through the courts is an extremely difficult matter.

 

LKD - Well, you never know who will show up at your protest. Even a celebrity "politician" could greet you:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/vp/38637981#38637981

Maybe once you explained you are a teacher you can get the same from Ms Palin as well.