In case anyone actually needed the proof, Rachel Maddow does a masterful job here and here giving Rand Paul enough racist rope to hang himself. Paul prattles on about how he's not a racist and hates discrimination, and then waffles and dances like a madman to avoid answering the simple question of whether his view would allow businesses to refuse to serve blacks, or gays, or women, or whoever they want. Of course it would, and Paul should have been less of a pussy and just flat said that it did. He should have said that as a libertarian, he would rather suffer the negative repercussions of private business discrimination than suffer from government interference in that part of life, however big talk it'd be from a white male who wouldn't be the one suffering, rather than try to pawn it off as some sort of hypothetical, abstract discussion. That made him come off as a dishonest, patronizing sleazebag.
But I'm really waiting for all the Tea Baggers to come forward and denounce Paul's de facto support of racial discrimination (you can't say you're for dike breaches but against floods), and an effective social return to 1960. Come on guys, you SAY you aren't a bunch of racists - now put up or shut up.
We all know its the only time they'll be quiet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
By your logic you are a born again Christian. Since the implications of your using a moral argument - racism is wrong, evil is that there is some objective basis for calling Racism wrong. If there is an objective basis for calling Racism wrong, there must be a real Character that stands behind that basis. This Character must stand outside of creation to be objective. It must be a moral and good Person and be able to influence this world otherwise we would not be able to apply the morality. The God who created the world is the only candidate for such a Character and since you acknowledge that he exists you must be a follower of His Son Jesus Christ. I.e. Glad you hear that you are an evangelical Christian!
Extending something to it's logical conclusion is a good way to expose the weakness of the position but it is not the same thing as describing the character of a person. Saying that his position leads to racism logically is fair. Saying that he is a racist.. Well are you a born again Christian?
This is a very common CS Lewisesque piece of sophistry, looking very logical but merely being a long string of unsupported, and often easily-disproven-by-observation, assertions. It's the old atheists-can't-be-moral argument, which I've demolished previously here. Further responses on this topic should be addressed there. I look forward to it.
As for Paul, you are off-base from the very start, since my argument has little to do with whether or not racism is morally wrong. I'm simply saying the result of Paul's position is segregation, and he seems desperate to not let that be known. That merits some questions as to why? Racism, and appealing to racists, seems the leading candidate to me.
Here is a more direct link to my demolition.
Well not wanting to be tagged with the label of Racism, which is the last vestige of disapproval in our society is also a fair motivation. Your delight in pointing out that he and the tea party are racist would seem to me to evidence why a person would not want to be labeled that way, especially, if they are NOT racist but want to make a point about the limits of government and private property.
Post a Comment