On Principle

[rowyn]

'Zine editor rejects ad calling for LGBQT submissionsAnd what I really want to say is "He said it well

Comments

[pyat]

Does that make any sense at all?

It makes perfect sense. I disagree with the guy, but he expressed himself clearly and consistently within his own worldview, and didn't demonize the other person. That's always been the ideal for debate, and rarely is.

And I won't say the Internet changed things, because people have always like shouting at each other. :)

[rowyn]

Hee, yes, they have. At least it's been many decades since our congressmen have come to blows on the House floor. Progress! O:)

[level_head]

And that was over one of the issues you mentioned before.

===|==============/ Level Head

[rowyn]

Progress has been made on multiple fronts! There's a correlation there, I'm sure.

[terrycloth]

*giggle* I'm pretty sure I already wrote stories with a subtext doing both of those things. q:3

[rowyn]

Well ... yes. Although not the additional subtext of "and look how much better off everyone is this way!" >:)

[wildcard_47]

I think pyat said it best: I disagree with the guy, but he expressed himself clearly and consistently within his own worldview, and didn't demonize the other person.

Personally, if a person can articulate their position without coming off as a complete and utter tool, I can at least respect them for calmly standing up for their beliefs. I may not like what he says, but I don't have to despise the air he breathes because I know he made an effor to construct as objective an argument as possible, and didn't throw around personal slurs to prove his point.

[rowyn]

Yeah ... the lack of personal slurs was good. It's kind of unusual these days, I think. The gap between "you're wrong" and "you're evil" seems to be pretty narrow for a lot of people.

[jurann]

Principles are fine by me, until they start impeding on other people's rights to pursue happiness, justice and liberty... And that is to also include equality. Whether or not some book or non-humane code instructs someone to believe someone else's freedom somehow violates theirs, does not make it right, upstanding or respectable, let alone reasonable as an excuse to deny others their (non-infringing) freedoms. Do they have a right to represent their viewpoint? Certainly. But I also believe that their viewpoint is unsubstantiated and any decent Egalitarian government has a responsibility to hold SOME measures of equality above a vote and above being attacked. What's been happening against the gay rights movement is completely uncivilized, uncalled-for and VERY much not like Christ and his eminent graciousness...

[rowyn]

I've got no argument with any of that. :)