[Vision2020] Boarding House information

[Michael]

Gary writes:

Hansen, there's nothing wrong with my reading skills and firearms have yet
to be brought to bear. I am simply curious about how the end result of some
peoples community betterment campaign always results in the same usual
suspects. I am curious how looking at a petition that circulated within the
last six months resulted in statistics that cover the last six years. I am
curious as to why all this concern for Moscow's zoning regs has netted
miscreants from outlying communities and the county. I am afraid that the
explanations so far seem a trifle contrived. Please don't take this the
wrong way but the answers to my questions are, perhaps, best left to someone
with a little more intellectual horsepower then you can muster. Nuff said?

 

Me:

Gary, I can sympathize with this way of stating your concern-and I applaud
your tone here, outside of insulting Tom's cognitive abilities.  However,
your one sided approach to these issues (which I assume you would grant)
still perplexes me.  For the sake of argument, let's say that you are right
here.  Wouldn't it still matter whether or not the underlying motivations
are guided by legitimate 'discriminatory' thoughts?  The extent to which
public discrimination is wrong would seem to be at least partly a function
of what is motivating the discrimination in the first place.  For an
intentionally exaggerated example: if you were in Nazi Germany before WWII,
would it be wrong to use existing laws or codes to weaken the moral of those
Germans affiliated with the anti-Jew sentiments? Wayne is right after all
about the de facto legitimacy of current, working law.  These codes are not
fossils from another age that need to be stricken by the state's Supreme
Court are they?  If the housing codes are bad and not in the best interest
for our public good, or if they are unjust, or infringe on our rights, then
we should be actively seeking to change the code, right?  I'm confronted
with the code as a home builder on a weekly basis, yet I understand both the
wisdom within the code (generally speaking) and also the need to apply it
indiscriminately, which in practice usually means enforcing it whenever a
complaint is raised.  Think of another example: What of the use of tax law
to finally take down the Cult law firm in the movie 'The Firm'?  Was this a
wrong use of tax law since it was the only lawful way of exposing more
serious sociological and legal problems?  

 

These are tricky questions; but I think they illuminate the problem in
taking such a simplistic critical stance.  There is a difference between
discrimination and 'religious persecution.'  The latter only reveals the
fact that CC is willing to create any kind of rhetorical smoke available to
them.  One of the important questions is that IF there is some kind of
discrimination, WHY would there be this kind of discrimination?  I just
don't see how a balanced criticism could get off the ground without
carefully seeking to answer this question.   If Wilson does hope to turn
Main street into New Oxford, which based on my own discussions with him, is
a strong likelihood, and if CC is uniquely marked by imposing violent
sociological categories, arrogance, and alignment with elitist ideology,
then it would seem you should temper your critiques of the 'intolerista's'
actions.  If all this is true, their ability to continue reasoning with
anyone from CC till the cows come home, stay off of Wilson's Blog, and not
do any sort of violence should be applauded.  It would seem that you owe
them some respect.  If on the other hand, CC is a humble, innocent
protestant lamb being led to the slaughter because of their preaching of
Christ crucified, then it seems you should be much more serious about your
criticism.  In other words, the truthfulness of the underlying concern that
would possibly motivate any discrimination, if there be any in the first
place, is something that should drastically effect your position and
approach in all of this.  Yes? No? 

 

Thank you

Michael Metzler  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060415/06cfc11d/attachment-0001.htm