• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rick Santorum is an idiot, a bigot, and morally inconsistent...

JoeTheJuggler said:
That rational people can't stomach a "God Fearing Conservative" is irrelevant to the claim that Santorum is racist. Our motives are irrelevant. Our arguments and the evidence stand on their own merits.

That you choose to re-define "racism" such that it can't possibly apply to Santorum is the sticking point.
Click to expand...

All I ask for is an example, and you guys go nuts with ad hominems.
 
Last edited:
CORed said:
It seems to me that when trying to determine what someone actually said, what it "sounded like" is a pretty important piece of information.
Click to expand...
Try again, other evidence was presented as well as some logical arguments why, "sounded like", is an inadequate excuse.
 
Robert Prey said:
JoeTheJuggler said:
That rational people can't stomach a "God Fearing Conservative" is irrelevant to the claim that Santorum is racist. Our motives are irrelevant. Our arguments and the evidence stand on their own merits.

That you choose to re-define "racism" such that it can't possibly apply to Santorum is the sticking point.
Click to expand...

All I ask for is an example, and you guys go nuts with ad hominems.
Click to expand...

First, my observation of the logical fallacy you committed is not an ad hominem.

Second, you were given examples. You just reject them. I suspect it's because you have redefined racism in an unconventional way.

ETA: By the way, you will notice that I substituted "rational people" for your bit of name-calling. Do you even know what ad hominem means? You quoted my post. Tell me which sentence contains an ad hominem attack? Failing that, I ask that you retract the accusation.
 
Last edited:
He perceived an insult, which is a big stretch. Then he demonstrates that he doesn't understand that an insult is different from an ad hominem argument.....
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
First, my observation of the logical fallacy you committed is not an ad hominem.

Second, you were given examples. You just reject them. I suspect it's because you have redefined racism in an unconventional way.

ETA: By the way, you will notice that I substituted "rational people" for your bit of name-calling. Do you even know what ad hominem means? You quoted my post. Tell me which sentence contains an ad hominem attack? Failing that, I ask that you retract the accusation.
Click to expand...

Your post:'


"That rational people can't stomach a "God Fearing Conservative" is irrelevant to the claim that Santorum is racist. Our motives are irrelevant. Our arguments and the evidence stand on their own merits."

Your claim that RS is a racist with zero evidence is an ad hominem attack.
 
Robert Prey said:
Your post:'


"That rational people can't stomach a "God Fearing Conservative" is irrelevant to the claim that Santorum is racist. Our motives are irrelevant. Our arguments and the evidence stand on their own merits."

Your claim that RS is a racist with zero evidence is an ad hominem attack.
Click to expand...

Well, if we're going all pendantic on this, Joe was merely referencing the claim that Santorum is a racist, rather than making the claim himself. At least, that is the case in the bit you quoted. (There is a block quote button in the editor, if you don't want to write it out.)

Further, the claim itself is not necessarily an ad hom, if it is factual. Calling someone a Nazi, for example, is not an ad hom if they are, in fact, a Nazi. Of course, in the case of Santorum being racist, that's part of what we're discussing.

I take it there is no question that he is prejudiced against homosexuals? We can agree on that?
 
bikerdruid said:
santorum would legislate against birth control, let alone abortion.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's factually inaccurate.
Santorum disagrees that there is a Constitutional right to privacy preventing local and state governments from regulating birth control. He would not want any legislation about birth control at the federal level, believing it to be a state issue.
This has been clarified many times, most recently in the New Hampshire debate a few days ago.
There's plenty to dislike about Santorum without misrepresenting his views.
 
tomasF said:
isnt't condeming someone because of his sexual orientation a form of racism as well?
Click to expand...

I sort of doubt that RS ever "condemned" anyone for anything, but "sexual orientation" hardly has anything to do with racism. But I gather that no one on this board can even find a scintilla of evidence for RS "racism".
 
Upchurch said:
Well, if we're going all pendantic on this, Joe was merely referencing the claim that Santorum is a racist, rather than making the claim himself. At least, that is the case in the bit you quoted. (There is a block quote button in the editor, if you don't want to write it out.)

Further, the claim itself is not necessarily an ad hom, if it is factual. Calling someone a Nazi, for example, is not an ad hom if they are, in fact, a Nazi. Of course, in the case of Santorum being racist, that's part of what we're discussing.

I take it there is no question that he is prejudiced against homosexuals? We can agree on that?
Click to expand...

I think we can agree that you'd like to change the subject from racism to something else. But I doubt if you can find any evidence of "prejudice" against homosexuals either.
 
Robert Prey said:
I sort of doubt that RS ever "condemned" anyone for anything, but "sexual orientation" hardly has anything to do with racism. But I gather that no one on this board can even find a scintilla of evidence for RS "racism".
Click to expand...

Can you explain how this is NOT racist?

“The question is — and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer — is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says ‘no,’” Santorum said in a televised interview. “Well if that person — human life is not a person — then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, ‘we're going to decide who are people and who are not people.’"
Click to expand...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...a-abortion-stance-remarkable-for-a-black-man/
 
Robert Prey said:
I think we can agree that you'd like to change the subject from racism to something else. But I doubt if you can find any evidence of "prejudice" against homosexuals either.
Click to expand...

Too easy:
AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?

SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don't agree with it?

SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in
Click to expand...
So, he has no problem with homosexuals so long as they never act like homosexuals and believes that it would be proper for society to make it illegal for homosexuals to act homosexual. How is that not prejudice against homosexuals?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom