Both sides have idiots...

[Calabrio]

But he WAS a black segregationist - he didn't remain one

And that's what matters,right?

Speaking of segregation... In a 1986 New York Times OP/ED piece, Buckley proposed that “Everyone detected with AIDS should be tattooed in the upper forearm, to protect common-needle users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals.”. Somewhat reminiscent of the Holocaust. Segregation doesn't just end with race, it includes religion, sexual preference, many other things.

It's not reminiscent of the holocaust at all.
You continually take comments completely out of their historic context and then drape them with really graphic and inappropriate imagery.

You're commenting on his work with the wonderful hindsight that two decades of technology and science provide. You're reviewing what he wrote without noting the genuine fear and lack of understanding that surrounded that disease back then.

In earlier times, people who were infected with infectious diseases were quarantined. They were removed from the population. Buckley's point was that quarantine was NOT the answer, and he proposed simply having a discreet tattoo placed on someone infected instead in an effort to control what was feared may turn into an epidemic. And given the primary methods of infection with the AIDS virus, Buckley simply said to put the tattoo on the butt.

"Abandon all hope ye who enter here." was a suggestion.

Again, you have misrepresented what he said, you've removed the context of the era, and you've used scary imagery to reinforce this misleading point.

I just wanted to make sure - that you think people can change - and to indicate that they have changed you just need to point to 'something' to indicate 'change'.

I'm not going to take your optimistic word for it, that's for certain.
If a person changes, it's demonstrable. There will be a pattern of actions. It's not assumed. It's not just "something"- but it's certainly can't be presumed based on "nothing." And it's certainly not assumed just because it's an election year.

 

[fossten]

Originally Posted by foxpaws
But he WAS a black segregationist - he didn't remain one

Al Gore was pro life at one time. Should we assume then that he still is?

 

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by foxpaws
But he WAS a black segregationist - he didn't remain one

Al Gore was pro life at one time. Should we assume then that he still is?

I don't 'assume' that Buckley was a black segregationist after the 60s - he WAS one in the 50s and early 60s.

He changed for the better.

I don't 'assume' that Gore is pro life now - he WAS earlier in his career.

He changed for the better.

 

[foxpaws]

And that's what matters,right?

Yes - people can change Cal. And then their past digressions can be forgiven, in fact, basically overlooked - right?

Mostly I was using his 'tattoo' quote to show a pattern with Buckley - he had a tendency to be fearful. Fearful of blacks, fearful of homosexuals. He then found ways to deal with that fear by being able to control or segregate what he was afraid of. He did grow, and become more comfortable with blacks (not gays however). But, I think that he was a man who allowed his fears to override his common sense sometimes. The tattoo quote is a pretty obvious example of someone's fear overriding their common sense. It also shows a little bit of the fact that the man maybe didn't change his tactics - just who he aimed them at.

I actually like a lot of what Buckley said, even agreeing (occasionally) with him. He was an excellent writer, Coulter can only wish she could write like Buckley, he was a master. And I really enjoyed Firing Line in the late 80s and 90s.

It's not just "something"- but it's certainly can't be presumed based on "nothing." And it's certainly not assumed just because it's an election year.

But that 'something' can be as simple as statement? That is what Buckley gave - supporting statements. In the segregation issue, it can be concluded that Buckley no longer supported segregation because of his (finally) positive statements regarding MLK. Right?

 

[Calabrio]

Yes - people can change Cal. And then their past digressions can be forgiven, in fact, basically overlooked - right?

You're speaking in generalities.
Being perceived to be on the wrong side of an issue, that's one thing.
And "digressions" can be forgiven, but that usually requires a repentance of some kind and the personal recognition.

Mostly I was using his 'tattoo' quote to show a pattern with Buckley - he had a tendency to be fearful. Fearful of blacks, fearful of homosexuals. He then found ways to deal with that fear by being able to control or segregate what he was afraid of.

No. The point of the tattoo idea was to AVOID any kind of segregation. You were around during the AIDS scare of the 80s. The fear and concern were very real and frankly, trumped up by the media, giving normal people the impression that 'anyone' could get it. There were lots of people who seriously recommended quarantining the infected population into prisons or leper colonies. Buckley didn't agree with this and educated by the media thought that a subtle mark would be the best way to move forth.

So, you are again misrepresenting him.

The tattoo quote is a pretty obvious example of someone's fear overriding their common sense. It also shows a little bit of the fact that the man maybe didn't change his tactics - just who he aimed them at.

I disagree with you on every level of your argument, you've built it on things that are simply untrue. The tattoo issue didn't represent a fear of homosexuality. It didn't represent segregation. And it wasn't simply a transference of how he felt about the black population in the South in 1950s. It resembled none of those things.

I actually like a lot of what Buckley said, even agreeing (occasionally) with him. He was an excellent writer, Coulter can only wish she could write like Buckley, he was a master. And I really enjoyed Firing Line in the late 80s and 90s.

Coulter is a talented writer but you can't compare the two. She has an entirely different style and goal when she writes.

But that 'something' can be as simple as statement? That is what Buckley gave - supporting statements. In the segregation issue, it can be concluded that Buckley no longer supported segregation because of his (finally) positive statements regarding MLK. Right?

I keep answering your questions, you keep ignoring them and reframing the question in an effort to set me up.

NO, I did not say that ONE statement demonstrates a significant change in someones convictions or ideals. One statement, or even a series of statements can be disingenuous.

But, since we both have acknowledged that Buckley was NOT a segregationist or a racist, it's not an issue of debate here. You were painting him with those words and misrepresenting his actions merely as a way of attacking him and undermining his legacy.

 

[foxpaws]

The point of the tattoo idea was to AVOID any kind of segregation. You were around during the AIDS scare of the 80s.

Segregate also means to set apart. By placing a tattoo on someone you certainly are setting those with the tattoo apart. It doesn't have to be a physical separation. Isn't there also perceived segregation? And it certainly is a means of control.

The fear and concern were very real and frankly, trumped up by the media, giving normal people the impression that 'anyone' could get it.

And, notice, he wanted to mark someone after The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded (in 1985) that AIDS was not transmitted by casual contact. CDC knew how you got AIDs at that point. The fear was somewhat abating by 1986, certainly Buckley was well read enough to have read the CDC results.

There were lots of people who seriously recommended quarantining the infected population into prisons or leper colonies.

I will give you that - heck even Huckabee wanted to quarantine people with AIDs as late as 1992. But, marking people is an appalling thing as well.

Coulter is a talented writer but you can't compare the two. She has an entirely different style and goal when she writes.

Well, she is much more hateful than Buckley ever was, and I believe that her diatribes and rants damage the rights' arguments. However, many people have said Buckley's baton is being passed to Coulter. Buckley was scholarly and thoughtful in his arguments. He left room for true debate, and enjoyed finding common ground. He, with wit and intellect, communicated what he thought the 'true' right represents. She shrill-y screams it, and while incredibly smart, ends up burying everything in sensationalism and in-your-face demagoguery. I would listen to Buckley for hours, I couldn't stomach Coulter for 20 minutes. I listened or read about Buckley's viewpoints many subjects, and indeed, ended up looking at some issues quite differently. If you can't even listen to the messenger (Coulter) how can you ever hope to change anyone's mind? She damages the right far more than helps it. He was a great ambassador, she is Patton. The right doesn't need Patton right now, it could use an ambassador or two.

But, perhaps we shouldn't talk about her - she has had her jaw wired shut and can't defend herself.

NO, I did not say that ONE statement demonstrates a significant change in someones convictions or ideals. One statement, or even a series of statements can be disingenuous.

I am just trying to find out Calabrio, what you believe it takes to demonstrate significant change. What constitutes "a pattern of actions." That is why I keep asking this question - I would like a criteria, what do you use to judge?

But, since we both have acknowledged that Buckley was NOT a segregationist or a racist, it's not an issue of debate here. You were painting him with those words and misrepresenting his actions merely as a way of attacking him and undermining his legacy.

No - i wasn't trying to attack him, or his legacy - I was trying to find out when that turning point happens - how long does it take before the past is forgiven. His past as a segregationist has been 'forgiven'. I was very interested in your take on this Cal. You seem to quite often cut off any argument regarding that people can change, grow. I found it 'enlightening' with whom you accept growth and change as a part of the human condition.