So the NYU law professor of nose-straw fame is back and defending herself. She accuses those who deride her of being "moral imperliasts" saying that even Americans do not have a uniform opinon on Lawrence v. Texas (making anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional). Ummm, yeah, one small issue there. While I'm sure some wingnuts overreacted, most people were displeased and angered with her statement. However, THEY aren't the ones who want to make her actions or thoughts illegal. SHE is the one who wants to continue to criminalize actions which she disapproves of. So, we now need to add giant flaming hypocrite to her list of critiques.
This woman, who didn't get that by equating an illegal activity to a legal one you do not advance the argument the illegal one should remain illegal, also doesn't get that not approving of someone else's opinion is WAY worse than actually throwing someone in jail for something that you don't approve of. Remember, she supports criminalizing consensual behavior between 2 adults in the privacy of their own home. This is not the same as not approving of murder and criminalizing it because that effects other people. Criminalizing sodomy is just about morals...or as Dr. Thio would say moral imperialism. How in the world can Dr. Thio say this crap with a straight face? She honestly believes those who deride her opinion with the pen are worse than she who would throw others in jail if they acted immorally? What a joke. She has no comprehension of syllogistic reasoning whatsoever and they are going to let this idiot teach law at NYU? Well, NYU has just dropped quite a few spots in my estimation for hiring someone who clearly lacks any ability to form a coherent argument whatsoever.
Madison
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment