If yes, then gay marriage is positive.
If no, then freedom is not positive.

I'll grant that you may not have intended it to have that interpretation, but that's one way that it can be read, and how yes/no questions can lead to the perception of a false choice. I'll also note that your claim that his worldview is "inconsistent" boils down to you characterizing his viewpoint as a false choice, which adds to why I read your question this way.

Well, I'm somewhat jumping in w/out having followed the discussion entirely, but the way I understood him, the highlighted is indeed "framing it" in a certain way. There is a difference between "... positive that comes from..." and "... positive that lies in/is represented by ..."

Your wording asks, put bluntly, about the positive effects that allowing gay marriage has on the world. He's interested in the Positive (not necessarily a real-world effect) of allowing/providing that freedom.

I would go a step further and say that no, this interpretation isn't all that possible in light of the clarifications I have made (though grant that it may have been initially) I also don't see how my calling him inconsistent makes it read that way. The question was, and always has been if there was a positive in giving gays freedom to marry. If the answer is no, then I don't see how that makes his vote anything other than an inconsistency.

Did you read Fret's objection? There are still two senses of "positive" that you're trying to force into one. Your conclusion confirms this.

I'm sure you disagree but this just seems like irrelevant semantics. The positive that 'comes from' allowing gays to marry could well be that people are granted their individual freedoms.That positive 'comes from' this insofar as no allowing gays to marry would be a denial of those personal freedoms.

I guess I'm just not seeing a relevant distinction between 'comes from' and 'lies in' in this context.

Okay, lets clarify then. Read 'positive' as 'anything advantageous at all'

Then you are forcing the position that one should vote in the manner that is "most advantageous" or something like that. That's still a bad reading of the position.

?

I don't see where I'm assigning degrees to anything here. In fact, I said almost the antithesis. It's pretty simple IMO.

If dog views personal freedoms that result from this as advantageous, then he should say yes, that is one advantageous thing that that comes from (or lies in) allowing gays to marry... and now heres everything else that makes it wrong. If he sees absolutely nothing advantageous in it, then his vote is inconsistent.

How are you saying something other than "advantageous" is the measure which one should use to vote? It wouldn't be inconsistent if you used some other measure.

(Edit: Obviously, once you accept the premise that "advantageous" is the measure one should use to vote, one should vote for the "most advantageous" option.)

Do people often vote for things they find absolutely no good in? What other standard could we use?

I guess that's because you frame the "comes from" part in a way that's very similar to the "lies in" part. Like, I'd argue the positive that "comes from" gam marriage is not granting people their freedom, but rather it's granting people that love each other the ability to be united in a legally equal way, awarding them equal protection under the law, making them NOT feel like 2nd class citizens etc. The positive that "lies in" voting for gay marriage can be something much more ideal and non-material, such as "not infringing on peoples liberties" or "keeping the govt. out of peoples private business" or w/e.

Conversely, I'd argue that the Positive of, say, not infringing on personal liberties or keeping the govt. out of peoples busniess is not a positive that "comes from" legalizing gay marriage.

Go back to the cigarette example: Sure they do. Perhaps not often, but "often" isn't really the relevant metric.

I have to run, but just very quickly: but they do see good in that. The good that comes from allowing people individual freedoms. This may be the semantic issue again...

Often is irrelevant.

Have you ever voted in an election where you didn't like either candidate and felt neither one would do a good job?

There are plenty of standards. People vote along party lines because they're lazy. People vote for names because they look familiar. Some people vote for the lesser of two evils.

What you're doing is trying to force an interpretation, as if there's only one way to see it. And as long as you keep doing that, you will fail to see it from another way.

This is revealing. It shows very clearly how you've set up your blinders. I'll repeat the initial quote again:

You want to take the bolded as Doggg saying (quoting your characterization) "no good, none whatsoever, can come from this." But then you want to ignore the underlined, which communicates value in having "more freedoms" and insist that there's some inherent contradiction. What prevents you from allowing him to "see good in that" in the same way that I can say that I can say "I don't believe smoking is good for anyone" and still vote not to ban smoking?

Yupp. The good that "comes from" allowing people to smoke is lung cancer, HC costs being passed on to society and very brownish curtains. The Good that lies in allowing them to smoke is that they get to exercise their freedoms.

I am not ignoring that, I am simply saying I see no value communicated there. When I asked him to expressly communicate this, you seemed to have a problem with that.

Look at what he says there: "I have always voted in line with" Surely we all know people who simply do things because they always have, and have thought no more deeply about it. Interestingly, he also identifies "not abandoning libertarian commitments" Who knows why he carries this commitment? This is exactly what I was trying to get at with my question

Okay. It's hard to see why you would think this if you are perfectly able to accept the analogous smoking statement.

You asked a false choice yes/no question. We've been over that already. The framing was unfair and inappropriate to the situation.

It's certainly possible, but uncharitable given the situation. Surely we know people who have always voted in line with their core principles. Does that immediately suggest that they've never thought about their voting patterns?

Your question doesn't get there. If you want to find out about libertarian commitments, ask about libertarian commitments.

I accepted the smoking analogy under the exact same conditions as I am setting here:
Yes, we've been over it. I thought it was pretty clear I disagreed though, I'm at a loss then for the proper way to ask that question following your line. Suggestions?
No, but I see no reason to give such charity given the posters attitude to the subject in question.

In other words, you're NOT actually accepting the analogy under the same conditions that I stated. Your refusal to relent from this viewpoint demonstrates quite clearly that you are unwilling to listen.

Are you interested in seeking answers or are you interested in making an accusation? If you're seeking answers, then you need to change your approach and be willing to listen. If you're interested in making an accusation, you can consider your work here done.

You're demonstrating more about yourself than you are about the subject in question.

Vintage Aaron imo.

Where have I stated I was unwilling to listen? If you remember, I would accept whatever answer he gave, and further stated that I would not press him further, lest it seemed like a 'gotcha' question. Not quite sure how this jumped so suddenly into attacking my character, but so be it I guess.

What makes this especially curious to me is that this is a new reaction to an old post. Why is my 'refusal' to relent indicative of anything but being consistent in my view? All I said was that in accepting that you don't think cigarettes should be banned you are accepting that this individual freedom is important. I have already explained why I don't extend this charity to Doggg, and if I saw you go on numerous in print tirades about the evils of smoking, without ever before stating your belief that this freedom was important, I probably wouldn't extend it to you either. . I am legitimately unclear as to why this has spawned such a hissy fit.

I have shown you how to interpret his statement in a meaningful way. You have rejected that on the basis of refusing to grant charity.

...

Have you not realized why "not pressing further" is not what makes it seem like a 'gotcha' question? What would make it seem like a 'gotcha' question is if the question seems like a 'gotcha' question.

If all you care about is consistency, you're done. Is your goal to force the false choice?

I think you were wrong in your initial approach, and your ongoing refusal to change your approach has kept it going.

And I have given a justification for not doing so which you have failed to comment on. I think its valid, you obviously don't.
I accept that that was kind of a shallow answer, what I was trying to communicate was that just because I genuinely dislike him doesn't mean that I am not genuinely interested in a response to this question, because I think it's an important one.
I didn't say anything like 'all i care about is consistency' What I did ask you was how my refusal to yield my position was anything other than that. RE: false choice- obviously not. If it was I would not have legitimately asked you how you would phrase the question to alleviate (what you see as) the problem. You chose to give me a jab instead.
Has it occurred to you that your initial characterization of me (before we even started the discussion) as having 'blinders on' is coloring how you are viewing the whole exchange?

Really not sure what point you're making here.

Yes of course. I don't do that as much and I feel guilty when I knowingly do it now. That's a big change.

You skipped a bit - "and they use this tactic" - otherwise, yes, what I said would have been irrelevant. I'm saying that they're relevant to a discussion on Western Christianity, I thought I'd clarified that. If you think that I'm using Fox as an umbrella confirmation of my impression then that's not what is happening here. They're guilty of the very specific tactic that I'm talking about.

If you someday want to have a discussion where I need to " supply arguments that show that and how Fox's general sentiments/tictacs/arguments are applicable to Christianity at large", that could be kind of fun but it's not necessary here.

+1