I was going to rebut this Time piece, but instead I will draw attention to an excellent and broadly applicable point raised by RJWinUK in the comments. A perfectly valid way to demonstrate the falsehood of a piece of rhetoric is to simply substitute the word "Jew" for some word that the speaker/writer actually used, and then see how it sounds.
For instance, one might argue thus: "Bestiality is, all other things being equal, a bad thing, since it risks spreading anthrax while lacking many of the virtues of more conventional sex acts".*
Not to advocate bestiality, but to demonstrate the rhetorical efficacy of this approach, suppose that a person who considered the first speaker a class traitor or other enemy of the People were to respond thusly: "If we were to substitute the word 'Jew' for 'bestiality', what would your statements sound like?"
Here is what it would sound like: "Jews are, all other things being equal, a bad thing, as they risk spreading anthrax while lacking many of the virtues of conventional sex acts". That actually sounds pretty bigoted, doesn't it? Therefore, the first speaker's statement is bigoted (regardless of intent, context, or the actual words that he said) and he should be forced to eat poop.
* I deeply regret equating homosexuality to bestiality in the above illustration. There is literally no other way a hypothetical example like that can be taken, since to mention two things in the same essay or speech is necessarily to equate them, QED. Although it now occurs to me that this axiomatic absolute applies only to world class idiots, class traitors, and other enemies of the People, so never mind.
What do you have against bestiality anyway? It's an obvious corollary to animal rights. Clearly, if a man and a horse deeply love each other there should be no legal impediment to their marriage.ReplyDelete
I got a comment! I should give you some kind of firsty prize. Looks like I accidentally knocked you off the blogroll last time I messed around with it, I'll fix that tomorrow.ReplyDelete