So, ER continues his discussion of hate-crimes legislation - about which he admits he knows little (I know this sounds snarky, but arguments like this are like knife fights, with the same rules).
I've weighed in a couple times today, and I will only add that I am glad for the opportunity to sharpen my position on this issue in a good, old-fashioned heated discussion with someone I respect, and consider a friend. What use would it be if we all agreed about everything? The internet would cease to exist!
The issue is important, and this only shows that reasonable people can disagree, be disagreeable (on occasion), yet still remain friends. Why we should pretend these issues, and the disagreements they engender, aren't important, is beyond me. Nor should we pretend that the friendships that exist between people who hold the opposite position on such issues is also real, and important, play a factor in how these things move forward. Did I not respect ER, I would simply laugh at him, make fun of him, and dismiss his arguments. Instead, I engage them, never once seeking to attack him personally (well, perhaps once, obliquely).
Maybe we should use this as a template for how people should interact when they disagree.
Anyway, feel free to add your two-cents on this particular issue. Some already have, and I encourage this kind of thing.