This post follows on from the post Logic Trap and Harkonnendog's rebuttal attempt in the comments there.
Hi Hark,
It's a good try, I will give you that. Let's analyse the whole thing and see if it is an escape.
You lose points for using the word "islamofascist" as Saddam was neither...he was secular and communist. Still, striking this emotive null-term doesn't effect your argument any. The phrase "greatest purveyor of freedom and justice in the history of the world" is also an argument from opinion and is not in any way proven as fact. A reasonable argument could be assembled for calling the British Empire by that title - first to abolish slavery of all major powers, basis of much of Internatiuonal law especially Maritime Law, set every conquered province free eventually in the main without uprisings, founder of world trade, spread the concepts of democracy and liberty throughout the Commonwealth etc. Let's substitute the factual term "American democracy" and leave the agrument as to whether it truly is the greatest purveyor etc. on the sidelines, as that doesn't really effect the argument either.
I deny that I ever said "totalitarian thugs" were morally equivalent to "American democracy". In fact, I claim the reverse. The logic trap claims that since "American democracy" is in some way quantifiably more moral than "totalitarian thugs", it must, of neccesity, follow all the rules by which we judge "totalitarian thugs" and more. In other words, the rules we applied to the reasons for invading Iraq should be applied even more stringently to the US, as it sets itself up as having a higher standard. The logic is not inherently flawed and no amount of saying so will make it be.
"we have an established rule of law that protects the rights of our citizens. minor shadings within that framework are not the same as the lack of existence of such a thing. apples and bullets"
Same as the above I am afraid, just diferently stated. The same rebuttal applies.
So...sorry, that one won't fly.
The only way out is to deny the premises, either by bluntly saying that that a state can do whatever it wants with its own citizens, in which case goodbye justifying invading Iraq to "liberate the people", or by denying that "we believe in human dignity and human rights", in which case welcome to Guantanamo Bay.
Many on the right deny the second premise. Remember this post about John's excellent shaming of the right on torture and the comments made on some rightwing blogs about "just shoot them" in response to the proposed American gulag? You told me to keep you to the mark on this one, so no complaining.
Regards, Cernig
6 comments:
The only way out is to deny the premises, either by bluntly saying that that a state can do whatever it wants with its own citizens, in which case goodbye justifying invading Iraq to "liberate the people", or by denying that "we believe in human dignity and human rights", in which case welcome to Guantanamo Bay.Well, there are shades and gradients before landing in Guantanamo. For instance, I live in a democracy, a free society that promises liberty and justice for all, where the 14th Amendment requires due process and equal protection for all citizens, and I would really like to marry the person I love. She would really like to marry me. And rather than the state--which is not a religious entity--welcoming us and our responsible monogamous relationship into the family of responsible monogamous relationships, cynical politicians put a constitutional amendment on my state's ballot and encouraged the people come out and vote to permanently ban my equality under the law.
It's not Guantanamo and I'm not being tortured or deprived of my liberty, but if marriage and family are the cornerstone of our society then I am being denied membership in a fundamental institution of which I am willing and equipped to join. More importantly, two consenting, loving adults want to join it. In a free society, that should be enough.
Within certain narrow and poorly considered constraints, Americans do believe in human dignity and human rights. Just not, at the moment, for homosexuals.
Cernig,
We agree on this.
"The logic trap claims that since "American democracy" is in some way quantifiably more moral than "totalitarian thugs", it must, of neccesity, follow all the rules by which we judge "totalitarian thugs" and more. In other words, the rules we applied to the reasons for invading Iraq should be applied even more stringently to the US, as it sets itself up as having a higher standard. The logic is not inherently flawed and no amount of saying so will make it be."
Except why MORE stringently? The point of your post is that IF there is a baseline of human rights, and no country, including the US is allowed to infringe on them, then who is to say the US's set of inherent rights are better than Europe's? You undermine your own point by saying different countries should be weighed on different scales.
Given that, this: "we have an established rule of law that protects the rights of our citizens. minor shadings within that framework are not the same as the lack of existence of such a thing" ends the argument.
it can be translated as: as long as there is a basic framework in which individual inherent rights are recognized, the details of those rights are not very important.
I find this reasonable and, if you don't, then we'll have to agree to disagree... (not for the first or last time, I'm sure)
Sham,
gays have EXACTLY the same right to marry people of the opposite sex as heteros do... and heteros, like gays, do NOT have the right to marry people of the same sex.
Gays are asking society, not for equal rights, but for different rights.
I think gays should have their own form of civil union, with all of marriage's rights and priveleges, (in fact I would vote to make same sex marriage legal) but I don't think they are being denied rights that others have, any more than people who wish to marry more than one person are.
Cheers!
Hark
Except why MORE stringently?Because we're the good guys. We walk onto the world stage time and again as the paragons of human rights virtue. We shame other nations for abuses and levy sanctions and other punishments for extreme outrages.
We believe ourselves to be better on this topic than other nations, and as a consequence we must hold ourselves not to the bare minimum of standards, but to higher standards than we expect of others.
gays have EXACTLY the same right to marry people of the opposite sex as heteros doThe first time I heard someone making this argument, I really thought they were joking. I've now seen it a number of times from people who otherwise seem quite intelligent and well spoken.
If you are unwilling to see the qualitative difference between marrying someone you love and marrying someone you don't love, then we have fundamentally different understandings of marriage and there is nothing I can say to make you understand why I would want to marry the woman I love.
I think gays should have their own form of civil union, with all of marriage's rights and privelegesHere's a thought: how about we call it marriage? The reason being is that it is not very American to create a civil institution that isn't open to all. If you're suggesting that there be civil unions that are only open to same-sex applicants, you are asking the state to discriminate against opposite sex couples who may wish to have a civil union instead of a marriage.
But then we get right back into the problem of equal access. If civil unions have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage by another name and are open to all, marriage should be as well.
any more than people who wish to marry more than one person areI know people who've been married over and over again. Plenty of people marry more than one person over the course of their lives. Gay people, except in one state, don't get the shot to marry a person they love even once. And unlike heterosexual marriage, gay couples in that state can't move to another state and expect equal protection under the law.
America is failing gay and lesbian Americans in the freedom and equality department. You can make jokes all you like, but if we're a nation that stands for anything, we have to make that stand at home, first and foremost.
Sham,
"Except why MORE stringently?Because we're the good guys. We walk onto the world stage time and again as the paragons of human rights virtue. We shame other nations for abuses and levy sanctions and other punishments for extreme outrages."
But this is NOT what C's trap was about. It was about whether there is a qualitative difference between the US vs. Iraq and the EU vs. US when it comes to imposing universal human rights recognition upon sovereign nations.
The escape I offered states that countries that do recognize universal human rights, generally, can disagree when it comes to details.
"gays have EXACTLY the same right to marry people of the opposite sex as heteros do"
"If you are unwilling to see the qualitative difference between marrying someone you love and marrying someone you don't love, then we have fundamentally different understandings of marriage and there is nothing I can say to make you understand why I would want to marry the woman I love."
I understand why you would want to marry the woman you love- for the same reasons I wanted to marry the woman I love. But marriage is not defined that way. Otherwise brothers could marry sisters, sons mothers, and you could be married to 5 different people at the same time. Again, I am for same sex marriage, not only because "why not?" but because such marriages would benefit society. My calabash bro is gay, and I've wished many times not only that he could, but that he WOULD get married, (just to settle him down, the slut). But I do not believe gays are denied rights available to heteros. Heteros cannot marry upon the basis of love, alone, either.
btw, I laughed the 1st time I heard that argument, too, but it is correct. Gays are not asking for equal rights, but for a re-definition of marriage. Framing it as a rights issue is a way to get activist judges to make a NEW law. this issue should be decided in the legislature, not the judiciary.
Cheers!
Hark
Harky,
I agree with you. "The escape I offered states that countries that do recognize universal human rights, generally, can disagree when it comes to details." Yup, absolutely.
I wasn't really suggesting differently, but was suggesting that as a believer in human rights it is OK for the US to listen to other likewise believing states. No problems, no "ceading of sovereignty".
No-one is suggesting giving away any degree of sovereignity, merely that "foreign opinion should have an effect on how the US conducts itself" i.e. that law-makers in the US are logically correct, given US actions as a legal precedent, to include acknowledgement of international opinion in determining US law. Once they have done so, they need not actually follow international opinion. However in such a case they cannot complain of international censure.
Regards, C
this issue should be decided in the legislature, not the judiciary.That's true of most issues. However, when a couple goes to get a marriage license and is told that one can't be issued for them, they have possibly suffered a grievance.
Should they begin petitioning the state legislature in, say, Alabama, knowing that as Americans who recognize freedom and equality, the good people running that state are sure to redress their grievance promptly?
You live in Hawaii. In the early 1990s, the courts in Hawaii found that there was no compelling state interest in forbidding same sex couples to wed and ordered that without a change to the state constitution, same sex marriages would have to be recognized by the state.
The legislature was notified of this ruling and changed the state constitution (with a vote from the people, if memory serves). In Vermont and Massachusetts, they chose to let the rulings stand.
In all cases, the legislature had final say. In the latter cases, the populace is more than welcome to throw the bums out for choosing to do nothing to counter these activist judges. What happened? Howard Dean was reelected governor in Vermont. The state house in Massachusetts didn't become a Republican stronghold in November, to the best of my knowledge.
You make it sound as though the judiciary makes pronouncements that the legislatures can do nothing about, and that's not the case here.
There were people with grievances. They used the legal system for redress of those grievances. In three cases, the courts found that the constitutions of the controlling states did not forbid gay marriage. The legislatures decided how to proceed from there.
Is our democracy somehow less profound when there are more sources of input?
Post a Comment