» News

It Hasn’t Sunk In for The Hill writer, Justin Sink

Home - by - December 11, 2012 - 18:45 America/New_York - 15 Comments

Sink writes:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia compared homosexuality and murder on Monday as he argued at a Princeton seminar that elected bodies should be allowed to regulate actions they see as immoral.

“If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”¬†Scalia said,¬†according to The Associated Press.

“It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the ‘reduction to the absurd,’ ” Scalia said.

Scalia said he did not equate homosexuality morally with murder, but was making a point about the state’s ability to regulate them.

“I’m surprised you aren’t persuaded,” he deadpanned to the audience member who asked him about his views.

!snip!

If you read Sink’s article it is clear that he can’t follow Scalia’s point.

He writes: Scalia said he did not equate homosexuality morally with murder, but was making a point about the state’s ability to regulate them.

But his opening paragraph states this: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia compared homosexuality and murder on Monday

I’m surprised Sink isn’t persuaded, I deadpan.

» 15 Comments

  1. grayscape

    December 11th, 2012

    Sink can’t think. Thinking is hard and RAAAACIST.

    Thumb up +1

     
  2. Diann

    December 11th, 2012

    Drone. Drone. Drone.

    Thumb up +4

     
  3. Sarthurk

    December 11th, 2012

    Breaking News Sorry! Mall shooting! Portland, Oregon. Clackamas Town Center. The Media is already throwing around the “assault rifle” term supposedly from an eyewitness. shooters not aprehended yet by latest accounts. It’s in lockdown now.

    Oh Joy!

    Thumb up +1

     
  4. norman einstein

    December 11th, 2012

    “It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the ‘reduction to the absurd,’ ” Scalia said.

    This comment made by Justice Scalia was in response to a question posed by Princeton freshman, Duncan Hosie (honest).
    And of course it went over his head, along with Mr. Sink’s.

    Thumb up +4

     
  5. Pickled Liver

    December 11th, 2012

    You can fix stupid !

    Wasn’t this obvious after seeing the election results?

    Thumb up +1

     
  6. Menderman

    December 11th, 2012

    I have to agree with Sink. Scalia should not have equated homosexuality with murder. That is a pretty big step. It would have more appropiate to equate homosexuality with pedophilia.

    Thumb up +4

     
  7. Xavier

    December 11th, 2012

    When did SCOTUS get the power to determine what is moral?

    Thumb up +3

     
  8. AvgDude

    December 11th, 2012

    The problem with Scalia’s argument:

    If someone murders me, I’m dead.

    If two queers bone each other in the privacy of their own home, then it’s no skin off my nose and therefore I don’t give a shit.

    The former should definitely be illegal because it has a negative affect on non-consenting parties. The later doesn’t have to be illegal provided it’s not rape or done in public, which grosses everybody out.

    Thumb up +1

     
  9. J Frank Parnell

    December 11th, 2012

    Rationality and libtards are immiscible. Oil and water.

    That is because liberalism is a mental disorder.

    Thumb up +2

     
  10. Nutjob

    December 11th, 2012

    Once again the left are trying to intimidate the justices like they did with Roberts.
    All they need is for Obama to chime in again to condone their extremism and the circle will be complete.

    Thumb up +3

     
  11. Kairn

    December 11th, 2012

    A person committed to immorality hears what they want to hear. They discard or distort the rest. Justin Sink is a prime example.

    And is that a legitimate same? Just in Sync?

    Thumb up +4

     
  12. Name Redacted

    December 11th, 2012

    Justce Scalia needs to remember he’s speaking at an American university. He’s asking way too much from them, expecting the audience to grasp an abstract concept by using an analogy. They get stuck on detail one and two, and by the time he got to the point, their feelings are hurt by detail one and they are already texting their moms.

    He needs to make a commercial, or preferably a cartoon, voiced by a popular actress, explaining this whole thing with emotion-driven hyperbole and some really thumpy music, and then hand out colored condoms at the end. That’s a language they understand.

    Thumb up +5

     
  13. Xavier

    December 11th, 2012

    If I’m on the wrong track here, someone correct me. Just use single syllable words please.

    2 things bother me and maybe I’m misunderstanding them. First, it sounds like Scalia has chosen two issues that he sees as polar opposites – homosexuality and murder – to use as examples of his reductio ad absurdum point. To me, it sounds like he’s trying to demonstrate the broad range of morality that exists, and that presumably puts homosexuality on Scalia’s “good” side of the pile and murder on the “bad” side.

    Second this “regulate immorality” bit troubles me. Regulating immorality is the same as regulating morality, and who gave SCOTUS that power? Are they going to decide homosexuality isn’t immoral? What about drugs? What about marrying a 6 year old girl? What about double standards for different races and ethnicities?

    Yes I know Scalia is regarded as the Conservative leader in the Court. So what? The entire GOP is moving toward the center and SCOTUS is too.

    Thumb up +1

     
  14. thirdtwin

    December 11th, 2012

    Scalia might have been more persuasive if he had compared murderer to cooking for a man.

    Thumb up +2

     
  15. Name Redacted

    December 11th, 2012

    Xavier – I believe the point is that all legislation is moral legislation. I read the fuller quote from him earlier, and he was implying that he is allowed to believe that homosexuality is immoral, just as we are all allowed to believe that murder is immoral, and we all have standards by which we determine morality. For someone to say he can’t believe that homosexuality is immoral because it doesn’t match THEIR view of morality doesn’t make him wrong, and, as a judge, he has to use his sense of morality to judge things when the letter of the law doesn’t already spell out which way to judge.

    Thumb up +6