Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate the great
You called him a traitor, but he does not say that violent rebellion _should_ occur, nor does he tell the reader to start one. A better summary would be that he thinks one might happen. This is not the same thing.
|
""You took his words out of context. They're bad enough in context; there is no need to twist them."
My lack of context is certainly not responsible for me calling him a traitor. In fact, the *lack* of context fails to support him being called a traitor compared to a reading of the entire article. I certainly can't see any way in which failing to include wonderful quotes like the following did anything other than *weaken* a case that his position is traitorous:
"Why should married people feel the slightest loyalty to a government or society that are conspiring to encourage reproductive and/or marital dysfunction in their children?
Why should married people tolerate the interference of such a government or society in their family life?
If America becomes a place where our children are taken from us by law and forced to attend schools where they are taught that cohabitation is as good as marriage, that motherhood doesn't require a husband or father, and that homosexuality is as valid a choice as heterosexuality for their future lives, then why in the world should married people continue to accept the authority of such a government?"
"Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die."
That would be the material immediately preceding and following what I posted earlier. Material which provides arguments for *why* we might/should reject the government's authority.
Now, you might read his diatribe and conclude he's not a traitor, rather that he's saying that someone else (who, oddly, has the exact same world view and motivations as him) might rebel. I'd find that an odd interpretation, but whatever. But to accuse me of intentionally omitting context that *supports* seeing him as a traitor in order to twist the text into painting him as a traitor is just plain ridicuous and insulting.