tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post1258476038314816632..comments2024-03-28T15:39:28.239-04:00Comments on Vital Remnants: Hypocritically accusing hypocrites of hypocrisyMartin Cothranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-21213666070694146522007-10-05T18:37:00.000-04:002007-10-05T18:37:00.000-04:00Martin - I applaud you for remaing so calm and res...Martin - I applaud you for remaing so calm and respectful in the face of such witless vitriol. <BR/><BR/>Bill - You're an embarassment to your own cause and perhaps a perfectly singular embodiment of hypocrisy. I hope one day you can re-read your comments and realise just how far off the mark you were.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15967775665555528858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-54555855612102811302007-08-24T13:41:00.000-04:002007-08-24T13:41:00.000-04:00Bill,That is a very well written defense of name c...Bill,<BR/><BR/>That is a very well written defense of name calling. Thank you.<BR/><BR/>So a bigot is someone who is intolerant of other people's opinions. Would you say that the tendency to engage in name-calling was an indication of the kind of intolerance you are discussing here that amounts to bigotry?<BR/><BR/>Also you put the term "undesirables" in quotations marks as if this is somethingMartin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-38328640000380846382007-08-23T11:59:00.000-04:002007-08-23T11:59:00.000-04:00Now, Martin - you have to stop being so sensitive....Now, Martin - you have to stop being so sensitive. <BR/><BR/>Definitions of Bigot on the Web:<BR/><BR/>A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own. <BR/><BR/>Person extremely intolerant of others and irrespective of reasoning. The Poor and welfare Beneficiaries are often targets of bigots. When alive John Keats was dismised by critics as a "Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-91733191793070428662007-08-22T23:30:00.000-04:002007-08-22T23:30:00.000-04:00Well, I think it's pretty clear what's going on he...Well, I think it's pretty clear what's going on here. You simply refuse to acknowledge that you made a mistake in saying that legislating morality is wrong, and you refuse to face the logic of your own position, which cuts you off from saying anything positive about civil rights laws, whether they include protections from homosexuals or not.<BR/><BR/>I don't mind people getting on my blog and Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-52460692138604112802007-08-22T19:34:00.000-04:002007-08-22T19:34:00.000-04:00No, no, no, Martin -- whjat I said was "The real i...No, no, no, Martin -- whjat I said was "The real issue, Martin, is your efforts to legislate morality for others." Your effort to re-frame my statement into a question of your choice fails. Perhaps I should have stated "The real issue, Martin, is your efforts to legislate your version of morality for others." See, you take away choice and you replace it with your intolerance. This, Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-55563376630696160692007-08-22T13:55:00.000-04:002007-08-22T13:55:00.000-04:00Bill,You say you think my reasoning is fishy, but ...Bill,<BR/><BR/>You say you think my reasoning is fishy, but I was simply asking you to follow your own reasoning. Let me spell it out for you as simply as I can. Here is the argument:<BR/><BR/>Legislating morality is wrong.<BR/>Civil rights laws legislate morality.<BR/>Therefore civil rights laws are wrong.<BR/><BR/>You explicitly affirmed the first premise in your first comment. The second Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-89977465417905067312007-08-22T13:24:00.000-04:002007-08-22T13:24:00.000-04:00Come now Martin, your reasoning is fishy - specifi...Come now Martin, your reasoning is fishy - specifically, it is a red herring. Your concern for civil rights is non-existent and really not applicable here. I mean, it's not as if you would be nor have you asserted here that you advocate/advocated civil rights legislation - how about your stance on gay rights? Now there, are you on the moral side? Or are you legislating morality? No, you use Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-11718045905518110492007-08-22T12:08:00.000-04:002007-08-22T12:08:00.000-04:00Bill,By your own logic YOU would be the one who wo...Bill,<BR/><BR/>By your own logic YOU would be the one who would have a problem with the Freedom Riders, since they were advocating civil rights laws. You (not me) believe we shouldn't legislate morality. Civil rights laws clearly legislate morality. <BR/><BR/>This principle of not legislating morality is clearly very important to you, since you opened up your first comment on this post saying Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-51905153693396498712007-08-22T08:43:00.000-04:002007-08-22T08:43:00.000-04:00"politics of demonization" is your method, martin,..."politics of demonization" is your method, martin, not mine. As to civil rights, it has a moral aspect, certainly, but you'll find it was also an application of constitutional principles of equality. Funny you mention it, though. I don't see your group as one who would align with the Freedom Riders. I think you would agree with the methods applied by Joe Arpaio -- and he's a latter day Bull Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-55567172478883082132007-08-21T17:24:00.000-04:002007-08-21T17:24:00.000-04:00Interesting. I'm sure you got that definition fro...Interesting. I'm sure you got that definition from a completely impartial source. It does seem to serve your purposes, however, by being so broad as to include anyone who disagrees with you. How convenient. I'm happy for you.<BR/><BR/>But, once again, this just goes to show how immersed you seem to be in the politics of demonization. You just can't seem to imagine how someone can disagree Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-8031805188639328992007-08-21T17:03:00.000-04:002007-08-21T17:03:00.000-04:00Darn!! Did I really just misspell my name?Darn!! Did I really just misspell my name?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-58928952399328767502007-08-21T17:02:00.000-04:002007-08-21T17:02:00.000-04:00Martin? Are you scolding me? That's funny. I don'...Martin? Are you scolding me? That's funny. I don't recall addressing civil rights legislation, but now that you bring it up, your opposition as to gays and their rights would be quite the accurate analogy as to the civil rights era. Which part do you play in this dispute? KKK or Freedom Rider? Anyway, I found this definition of hate groups and share it with you. <BR/><BR/>"A hate group is an Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-79760401425253589912007-08-21T13:42:00.000-04:002007-08-21T13:42:00.000-04:00Bill,You seem to have a problem with legislating m...Bill,<BR/><BR/>You seem to have a problem with legislating morality. I assume, therefore, that you would oppose civil rights laws, is that correct? They are, after all, the product of the legislation of morality.<BR/><BR/>And my congratulations: I have seldom seen such a short post so packed with pejoratives and hateful rhetoric. This is quite an accomplishment--even though it is somewhat Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-16516090557737009602007-08-21T13:34:00.000-04:002007-08-21T13:34:00.000-04:00To Bill Adkins -BTW, the link does work; I checked...To Bill Adkins -<BR/>BTW, the link does work; I checked it out and had no trouble<BR/><BR/>While I disagree plenty of times with all of the groups you mention, I believe your use of the word "hate" is unfair. Hate is a word used far too frequently in an attempt to discredit those with whom you disagree. I would be far more interested in reading a response that actually gives a logical reply David Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09359262950336900169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-67653946573721022962007-08-21T12:45:00.000-04:002007-08-21T12:45:00.000-04:00I have attended several events sponsored by the Fa...I have attended several events sponsored by the Family Foundation and I read their publication. I have never heard or read the word hate or any hateful statements made about anyone. They speak up for moral issues. The words hate, arrogance, bigotry and other name calling I have heard many times from those who do not agree with the issues supported by the Family Foundation. In the USA we all Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-37007858976334512562007-08-21T12:11:00.000-04:002007-08-21T12:11:00.000-04:00The real issue, Martin, is your efforts to legisla...The real issue, Martin, is your efforts to legislate morality for others. The cartoon as interpreted by both of us skewers your foundation for your arrogance, because you advocate hate, and because you use fear to promote your agenda. Coffman may not even have intended to illustrate your organization, but he did so very well. Now, I repost here what I've posted on the Courier's site:<BR/><BR/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com