Reposting a recent exchange I had on Facebook. Minor edits:
Hays
It will be interesting to see if this is the beginning of the end for virtue-signalers like Russell Moore. It's one thing when they just talk, but if they handed the election to the Democrat, then that's different.
Matthew
It's a blow for trump because him and moore are both sexual predators.. Simple as that
Hays
Different issue.
Matthew
Different issues how? Both carry the mantra of 'fake news' in order to discredit their accusers. Both are pervy old men
Hays
You're changing the subject from whether Russ Moore, David French, Al Mohler may be harmed by this to your own hobbyhorse. And whether the allegations of sexual misconduct against Roy Moore were true is hotly contested.
Trump was a known quantity long before he ran, so that doesn't change his image one way or the other.
Matthew
"We knew trump was a pervert before he ran, but we voted for him anyway "- the 'christian' party ... The cognitive dissonance needed to vote for men like trump and moore is astounding .. Not surprising though, unfortunately.
Hays
Once again, you've changed the subject. Are you just unable to maintain the train of thought?
Moreover, you simply parrot a popular trope rather than bothering to engage the argument of the opposing side. That may make you feel good, but it's unpersuasive to someone who doesn't already agree with you.
Matthew
You disagree with me. So you think its ok to vote for sexual predators ?
Hays
i) You keep imputing your own viewpoint to another people. Try learning a modicum of critical detachment. People who supported Moore over the Democrat don't grant the assumption that he was a sexual predator. There were allegations based on inconclusive evidence.
ii) In addition, elections aren't about just considering one candidate in isolation, but a comparison between a given candidate and his/her opponent. The moral assessment isn't compartmentalized.
It's a question of balancing what are sometimes competing concerns. Comparing the policies of rival candidates.
Matthew
I guess to some, being democrat is worse than pedophilia.
Hays
i) Dating teenagers isn't pedophilia. Get a grip.
ii) In addition, smart voters elect a candidate based on what he will do, not what he is. Voting for a Democrat is voting for a package which nearly all Democrat politicians will promote, including abortion, after-birth abortion, euthanasia, the transgender agenda (e.g. chemical castration of adolescents, puberty blocks that do irreparable damage–not to mention sex-change operations), homosexual adoption, the war on boys, fining/firing anyone who doesn't cooperate with the social agenda of the secular progressives, repudiation of parental rights, denial of school choice, repudiating the Bill of Rights (esp. 1st, 2nd, 4th amendments), &c.
Matthew
I'm sorry, but it sounds to me like you are OK with him dating teenagers .
Hays
No, I'm not okay with him dating teenagers, although a 19-year-old is psychologically quite different from a 13-year-old. But the immediate issue is your rubbery use of the word "pedophile".
Matthew
Steve , I understand you may not trust Democrats , the same way I don't trust Republicans (and Democrats to a lesser degree ) , but I think a politicians morality should be important , especially in regards to something as serious as the allegations.
Hays
Oh, I do trust Democrats. That's the problem. I trust Democrats to aggressively execute the agenda of the secular progressives. Democrats have been doing that quite consistently.
A politician's personal morality is less important than his policies. The policies of secular progressives, empowered by the Democrat party, is already doing great harm, and will do immensely greater harm, to tens of millions of innocent Americans. That's why prudent voters vote strategically.
BTW, why makes you think the morality of Moore's opponent is any better than Moore's? One way of judging a politician's morality is by their policies.
Matthew
Can we at least all agree that we should try not grant political power to sexual predators, regardless of party?
Hays
What about granting political power to secular progressives? What makes Moore worse than that?
Matthew
What's so bad about secular progressives ?
Hays
That question tips your hand. And I listed some examples of the secular progressive agenda.
Matthew
I'd rather secular progressives run this country rather than evangelical Christians who refuse to recognize the separation of church and state
We are not a theocracy , Steve. A theocracy is a bad idea
Hays
There is no Constitutional separation of church and state.
Matthew
Wow what about the first ammendment ?
Hays
First Amendment doesn't mandate separate of church and state. Learn some Constitutional history.
Matthew
Read the first amendment!
Hays
Since you're historically challenged on this issue, here's a quick explanation: the first amendment forbids the establishment of a national church. That's it. The First Congress appropriated funds for Christian missionaries in Indian territories. For some basic background:
Matthew
Many of the examples you offered are ridiculous. The "war on boys" don't make me laugh.
Hays
Matthew
Although I do agree that gays should be allowed to adopt because a stable home is much better for a child than an orphanage/ foster care .. But I'm sure you're homophic so debating that topic would be a lost cause
Hays
Gay relationships are notoriously unstable.
You should be more concerned with paedophobia than homophobia. Kids are entitled to good role models. Not something they get when immersed in the homosexual culture.
Matthew
Republicans tried to impeach Clinton over a CONSENSUAL blowjob, but are perfectly fine with roy moore, who pursued and ASSAULTED underage girls, just because he claims to be Christian and is Republican. This kind of hypocrisy is the biggest reason why I mistrust right wing christians. The republican party is Christian in name only , they do not actually practice the teachings of Christ. The hypocrisy is disgusting.
You evangelicals can rationolize your hypocrisy all you want, good luck defending your support for trump when you get to the pearly gates
Hays
If you're going to hurl charges of hypocrisy, you need to master the concept. Hypocrisy involves people acting contrary to their own standards, and not to your standards. You keep imputing your interpretation of the facts of Moore supporters, then accuse them of hypocrisy. That's hopelessly confused.
You need to explain how strategic voting is hypocritical. You need to explain how opposing the vastly greater threat posed by secular progressive policies is hypocritical.
Matthew
You are a hypocrit if you support a sexual predator , and claim Christianity
Hays
Try turning your assertions into something resembling a reasoned argument.
Matthew
Reasoned argument :
1. Sexual assault is agaisnt Christianity
2. Roy Moore and donald trump have both likely committed sexual assault
3. You support both becuase they are Republican
Conclusion : you are a hypocrit
Hays
Bad argument. This seems to be your implicit argument: if a candidate did something wrong, then it's wrong to vote for him.
But that transference doesn't work. To take a comparison: suppose an ER physician is an adulterer. That's wrong. Is it therefore wrong for me to let him save my son's life? What kind of logic is that?
1. You've cast the issue in terms of hypocrisy. I don't even grant that that's the best way to cast the argument. After all, hypocrites can do the right thing from time to time.
It would be hypocritical for Jephthah to make an exception for his daughter. But murdering his daughter is worse than breaking his vow.
2. But even if I grant your framework for discussion purposes, by casting the issue in terms of hypocrisy, you're assuming a burden of proof. Indeed, a threefold burden of proof.
3. As a preliminary, I remind you that the benchmark for hypocrisy isn't the criterion of the accuser, but the criterion of the accused.
i) You need to demonstrate that Christian supporters of Moore think he's a sexual predator. Whether you think he's a sexual predator is irrelevant, since the yardstick for hypocrisy isn't the viewpoint of the accuser, but the viewpoint of the accused. You're accusing Christian. But do Christian supporters of Moore share your assessment of Moore?
ii) Even assuming they think Moore was a sexual predator 40 years ago, you need to demonstrate that it's hypocritical for them to vote for him given their own criteria.
For instance, they may think that's justifiable based on the lesser-evil principle. To show that they're hypocritical, it's incumbent on you to demonstrate that the lesser-evil principle is incompatible with their belief-system.
iii) To put it more concretely, they may believe that the harm of voting for the Democrat outweighs the harm of voting for Moore. It's irrelevant whether you think the Democrat is worse than Moore, or vice versa, since your opinion is not the standard of comparison. Rather, you have to show that by their own standards, voting for Moore does greater harm than the net effect of voting for his opponent.
Matthew
I know that's a loaded question, but basically what I mean is this... If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't get one. there's no need to organize politically in attempt to outlaw it. If you don't believe in recreational marijuana, don't smoke it, but why not let your neighbor smoke? just a couple examples off the top of the head
Hays
Funny how secular progressives don't have the same libertarian attitude about other things: if you don't like trophy-hunting, don't do it. If you don't want health insurance, opt out. If you don't believe in transgenderism, don't use transgender pronouns, &c.
That's the selling-point that gay marriage was just a private arrangement between consenting adults. Wouldn't impact anyone else. But the reality is using that as a foot in the door to destroy dissent.
Matthew
It's really not like that at all.. most of us just really think gays should be allowed to married... simple as that. I am truly baffled by so many Christians who really believe their religious liberties are being impeded on. You guys just have to accept that you are sharing this country with non Christians. This country does not belong to Christians
Those are entirely different issues. Most of us see the gay rights issue as a civil rights issue. Trophy hunting is an environmental issue. Nobody is trying to make the pronoun thing a law, at least to my knowledge. I explain the pronoun thing like this: you don't have to use a transgender persons preferred pronouns. nobody is forcing you too. However, they are likely not gonna want to be your friend and probably think you're an a hole if you don't.
Hays
In California law, people can now be imprisoned for the crime of using the "wrong" pronoun.
Matthew
i did some research.. nobody in california is going to jail for using the wrong pronoun
Hays
Likewise, take the Oxford teacher who faces formal discipline for "misgendering" a student.
It's about the first amendment in general. Freedom of speech, religion, and association. Not just a Christian thing. Businesses being shut down by gov't. For instance:
Looks like you were arguing with one peers of Roy Moore's dates. ;)
ReplyDelete