OSNews

"They" are reasoned with. Constantly. And for quite some time - I actually pointed this out in the post you just replied to.
...though it's really great (in context) how you sort of managed to demonstrate, in reply, smth close to the first thing you're vocally resentful about, in the very same sentence; I like that - while overall making it essentially a classic straw-man:

Let me remind you (since you apparently already pushed this aside): we're talking about somebody who builds his political persona largely also around this one "issue" echoing Lavender Scare, who constantly demonstrates it (with many opposing voices, all the friggin' time), who builds important part of his identity on "immoral means such as a campaign of innuendo and character association to destroy those you fear - you know, like Mr. Turing's enemies did to him."
Who doesn't care that some people even die because of it (and plenty get hurt, are violated into living in fear), pushed by the actions of those receptive to Santorum-like rhetoric.

(which has nothing to do with who Turing was; you associating in turn, with him, the "side" & sentiments which caused what happened to him, which destroyed him, is disgusting)

So I can't really blame Savage & co. if they, apparently, got tired of being victims of such bashing (though I do understand how blaming such victims isn't at all uncommon in ~sexual matters, it's in fact quite traditional...).
I can't really fault a fairly classic case of blow-back at actions of a public figure by his own(?) choice (and those who can't deal with dirty politics shouldn't rejoice in it by themselves), one which also chooses(?) to be an ass and has mild consequences from it, in comparison to what his views inspire. Yeah, presumably "too stupid to reason with" and/or with "evil motives" ...whatever those two would mean; you said it.[1]


You're the one presenting this polarization of sorts in such general terms - oh, and it's really curious how eagerly you jump on "evil motives" / "us vs. them" ...I bet that'll cure political landscape.

"Immoral innuendo and character association" (or assassination) ...remind me, what was that deal about the birth place & religion of your current president? Such mess is all around you place, clean up; easier to start with "your" side, I'd guess.


And you know, this could even be seen as bringing some... balance.
I mean, remind me again - what are the chances of a homosexual or atheist becoming the president of the US? (lets assume she/he is somehow verifiably at least 2x better in every way which makes a politician good in real qualifications)
...
Don't you think that is a major distortion?[2]
Well, then no wonder you're bound to see similar mechanisms making things harder for somebody who goes "too far" the other way... (I certainly don't see it as surprising, or as intrinsically bad given the circumstances)


Who knows, perhaps tangling people like Santorum into game of polarized views is the primary way to mostly contain them - I know it largely worked with ~such parties at my place, after they fully revealed themselves and subsequently mostly sank into irrelevance.
They made themselves into clowns (or inviting clowns, same effect) who mostly just make their opponents look better, in grander scale.



Second section of your post, second major logical fallacy - this time false dichotomy (though, again, I understand this is quite popular in ~traditionalist arguments)

But it's even better, how you thought bringing Dr Martin Luther King into the mix is a good idea ...unless, of course, you forgot what happened to him in the end.


(and FYI, I had my formative decades utterly squashed by persistently striving for what you present as the King Way(tm); for different - but also somewhat related at least to overall message from Santorum - petty reasons, by "good people & place, heavy on traditional values" which gave me hell; your "just a thought" is a worthless feel-good myth, the threat of social disorder & disobedience - political violence, essentially - brings changes)


1. I'd just say it's his "position" and that's it, he won't change his mind no matter what, I guarantee you that (OK, more accurately: there's an exceedingly low probability of Rick Santorum being open to any kind of possibility of him changing mind on the issue - so it's better to dedicate energy on things with higher return/effort ratio, better benefit to society ...like, say, beer party).
In this case it's even mostly irrelevant "why?" - NVM if, say, he was just formed like that, or if he's a hypocrite of the highest order, just fishing for awkward voter demographic (hm, though we do know he spreads scientific conspiracy theories; or prefers populist rhetoric - one held dear by that awkward voter demographic - over solid scientific conclusions ...even if his particular (extra-major) religious sect is one of the relatively few with no problems whatsoever in accepting vast majority of those conclusions)

2. What, can't happen anywhere? Let me give you an example of Icelandic PM, or my inside experience from one 90+% Catholic place, the homeland of John Paul II ...and able to be level-headed enough about such things to choose an openly atheist president, for two terms.
That is reasonable (or "not stupid", whatever) - trying to make choices of such importance (NVM when we're talking about a nuclear superpower meddling around the world, like all such tend to do...) on the basis of qualifications.
(FYI, I voted in most elections in ways which I didn't consider most "mine" but most optimal; even on "opponents" - in such extreme example, wishing to influence a particular parliamentary coalition or parliament-president balance of power)

Edited 2012-01-15 12:19 UTC