Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Why I'm Voting NO on BOTH referenda this November

I know it's only August, but we need to be talking about this:

I recorded this straight off my laptop with zero editing; I'd love to encourage other people-- especially artists and double-especially artists with bigger fanbases than mine-- to copy me. Post your own video about why you're voting "no." It only takes a few minutes. We can also be talking about these referenda at our shows, ESPECIALLY shows outside of the Twin Cities. If anyone is touring in-state and wants some "vote no" flyers, stickers or information, get at me.

For more information on getting involved (organizations always need phone-bankers, canvassers, etc.), here are some links:

MN United for All Families (fighting the marriage amendment)

Take Action MN (fighting photo ID)

ACLU Photo ID Talking Points (very good review/overview)

10 comments:

Andrea said...

Just wanted to let you know that you give me hope for humanity.

David said...

Just wanted you to know that a class in logic and reasoning would help

Guante said...

David- that is a POWERFUL argument.

David said...

There's the problem: mine was a comment, not an argument. Arguments require reasoning, and your arguments were circular, strawman, and red herring. I might use the video in my philosophy class. Seriously.

Guante said...

David- that is a POWERFUL comment.

TM said...

David, since arguments require reasoning, please enlighten us and explain why you believe Guante's arguments "were circular, strawman, and red herring." You can consider it practice for your philosophy class.

David said...

On the Marriage amendment: this “would carve discrimination, fear, and hate into our constitution,” so “if you care about justice, love, and goodness in the world, vote no.” This is classical circular reasoning, like “God exists, because the Bible says so. And the Bible is true, because God wrote it.” Is that convincing? Absolutely not, because the premise, God’s existence, is what you’re trying to prove. Here the rhetorical premise of inducing discrimination, fear, and hate, smuggles in the conclusion of what is just, loving, and good. Define your opposition as evil (which is also a strawman, they’re easy to beat up), and you are de facto a super hero. Reason through this one: what is marriage? After settling on a definition, try to work out the unintended effects of changing the old definition. That would be interesting.

Next, that “voter fraud isn’t a real problem” has nothing to do with whether requiring an ID is just or not. It’s asinine to bring in UFOs and shark attacks; classic red herring. If you were arguing about auto safety, does it matter if the car was made in Japan? Absolutely not, to make that an issue is a red herring. Is it just to require an ID of all voters? That’s an interesting question that has to do with basic rights and the duty of the state in protecting those rights. To take that issue to demographics is insulting to the disadvantaged, the poor, and people of color.

There’s an appeal to justice throughout this video, but what is meant by that word “just,” is merely “Guante’s desire.” How does society look when we all have our own parochial view of justice? Not pretty. Recognition of what is just in either matter is far from clear and requires some serious debate. I was hoping to find that here.

Guante said...

Cool-- thanks for responding.

While I certainly disagree with your deconstruction of my arguments, I don't want to get into the "can't see the forest for the trees" kind of back-and-forth that characterizes so many internet political debates. So let me put it as plainly as possible (after all, I'm not a philosopher):

In November, voters will not be deciding whether or not these two amendments are JUST; they'll be deciding whether or not they are NECESSARY. They will be asked to decide whether or not the pros outweigh the cons, right now, right here.

And proponents of both amendments have simply not made that case. I've yet to hear a rational, logical case made for either that doesn't rely on the same logical fallacies you accuse me of making here. If you're up to the challenge, by all means, record your own video. I'd love to see it.

Cannibal Fuckface said...

"Reason through this one: what is marriage? After settling on a definition, try to work out the unintended effects of changing the old definition..."

By "old definition" do you mean the definition that favors polygamy, the forced marriage of human slave property, prisoners of war, or a male rapist and female victim? They all have that "Olde Tyme" classic flavor we now abhor as horrid behaviors. The changes that our western society have made to "old" marriage have not imploded our society like the second act of a Michael Bay movie.

Keeping it "Olde Tyme": when Jesus speaks about marriage in the Gospels, he largely warns against it, presenting family life as a distracting waste of time from faith. The apostle Paul follows suit, teaching that celibacy is the best choice for Jesus' followers, which has worked out awesome for the modern Catholic church.

Tacy said...

David, I would love to hear your argument on why one should vote "yes" on the marriage amendment. How about addind to the discussion instead of merely tearing down the blog post?