Wednesday, November 01, 2017

Random tweet-length thought of the day

Why is it that when a Muslim kills 8 people it's the Democrats' fault for supporting diversity visas, but when a white man kills 59 people it's not the Republicans' fault for opposing gun control?

10 comments:

Publius said...

Bearing arms is a right.

Immigration is a privilege

Ron said...

A distinction without a difference in this case. We The People ultimately decide what are rights and what are privileges. The only difference between a right and a privilege is the number of votes required to take it away.

Publius said...

>The only difference between a right and a privilege is the number of votes required to take it away.


The difference between a right and a privilege is that if you try to take a right away, you spark a civil war.

Ron said...

> if you try to take a right away, you spark a civil war.

You conservatives are awfully selective about which rights you hold dear. You seem to have no qualms about taking away a woman's right to reproductive freedom, or a gay person's right to marry whom they choose.

Publius said...

@Ron
> taking away a woman's right to reproductive freedom

Oh, you mean your euphemism for a woman murdering her child?
Yeah, we want to take that "right" away from her.

>a gay person's right to marry whom they choose.

Homosexuals can't get "married" because "marriage" is an institution between a man and a woman (and also a sacriment). Similar to how you can't redefine "blue" to be "yellow."

Homosexuals could enter into civil unions, which have exactly the same privileges and responsibilities of marriage, but is called a "civil union" instead.

Even better, get government out of marriage. Everyone gets a civil union from the government.
Couples get married somewhere else (say, church).

Ron said...

> Oh, you mean your euphemism for a woman murdering her child?

An embryo is not a child.

> Homosexuals can't get "married" because "marriage" is an institution between a man and a woman (and also a sacriment).

That will be news to the hundreds of thousands of married gay couples around the world.

> Even better, get government out of marriage. Everyone gets a civil union from the government.

Even better that that: just pretend that the word "marriage" means "civil union" in the context of anything the government does. That would achieve the exact same result without the expensive and painful legal battle it would take to actually change the law.

Honestly, why do you conservatives get so hung up over terminology?

Publius said...


>Even better that that: just pretend that the word "marriage" means "civil union" in the context of anything the government does.

Pretend? That's useful for public policy.

It's also useful everywhere. Why don't you pretend that God exists?

Ron said...


> Why don't you pretend that God exists?

Pretending that God exists involves more than just redefining a term. Changing "marriage" to "civil union" is *just* a matter of redefining a term because, in your own words, civil unions "have exactly the same privileges and responsibilities of marriage." They are, by your own definition, the exact same thing called by a different name.

Seriously: what difference does it make if it's called "marriage" or "civil union"?

Publius said...


>Changing "marriage" to "civil union" is *just* a matter of redefining a term because, in your own words, civil unions "have exactly the same privileges and responsibilities of marriage." They are, by your own definition, the exact same thing called by a different name.

In the context of governmnent provided privileges and government enforced responsibilities.
Other contexts are social and religious.

>Seriously: what difference does it make if it's called "marriage" or "civil union"?

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, by which they make their relationship public, official, and permanent. It is also a sacriment, an intimite community of life and love which has been established by God.

Ron said...

> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman

You can keep saying that until you're blue in the face, but you will still not have answered my question.

There are many English words with multiple meanings. Why not just stipulate that when you use the word "marriage" in a church it means something different than when you say it in a civil context? How does that not solve the problem?

You've already conceded that using a *different* word ("civil union") would solve the problem. Why not just let one word do double-duty, as so many other English words already do?