Bull Ring emilynghiem to TheOldSchool: Show me ONE example (and I'll correct it!)

Discussion in 'The Bull Ring' started by emilynghiem, Dec 23, 2014.

  1. emilynghiem

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Jan 21, 2010
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Dear TheOldSchool;
    Please show me ONE example where I believe in imposing beliefs on other people,
    and I'll gladly correct it.
    If you need help, I also call out Luddly Neddite and Political Junky
    who seemed to agree with your post below that totally misrepresents my beliefs as the opposite!

    I believe in consensus that includes respects and protects the consent and beliefs of all people.
    Thus I am constantly imposed upon by people imposing on each other, which I do not believe in doing.

    I apologize if I gave you or LN or PJ the wrong impression, but what you said
    is INSULTING to all the sacrifices and burdens and debts I have born because I did not believe
    in imposing on others, but they believed in imposing on me and I had to accept that as their belief
    even though they did not respect mine.

    The people who have suffered with me, because I have been put upon this way,
    have been imposed upon indirectly, and I do owe them an apology because they did not agree to that.

    If I have imposed on you, or anywhere implied that I believe in passing or enforcing any law without CONSENT of the people affected by it, please point this out and I am happy to correct it. Thank you!


    REFERENCE Thread:

      • [​IMG] Thank You! x 2 Thanked by Luddly Neddite and Political Junky who I also call out to help TheOldSchool find an example of where I seek to impose, establish or enforce ANY law or policy without the consent of the people affected by it, since this goes AGAINST my beliefs in forming laws/contracts by conflict resolution, mediation and consensus as I have stated all over this forum

      FALSE: I believe in supporting each person's prochoice or prolife views as equal beliefs protected under the Constitution. I do not believe in any laws, coercion, abuse or imposition that discriminates against either belief by any person. So I believe in consensus on laws to prevent religious or political imposition, exclusion or discrimination on any side.

      Please do not misrepresent my views.
      I am one of the few people I know who RIGOROUSLY defends both prochoice and prolife views equally as a Constitutionalist, and does not believe in imposing on either belief, especially not by laws or govt that are supposed to be neutral, equally protective and inclusive.

      * "I don't believe in separation of church and state, and I believe that when God allows us to be sick only some should be able to heal; because he wants it that way"
      FALSE: Again, I believe that both the people who either HAVE belief in separation, or do NOT believe in separation, should be respected equally, and neither impose on others or be imposed upon. the First Amendment goes bogth ways. The main point is NOT to impose beliefs on others, so again I believe in consensus point by point, issue by issue, so there is no discrimination, or bullying by coercion or exclusion.

      I am one of the FEW people here who even RECOGNIZES political beliefs on the same level as religious beliefs. I've tried to point this out, and have gotten only a few responses from people objective enough to see that all people's views should be treated equally as beliefs.

      As for healing and health care: I believe most ills can be healed or corrected, and that the knowledge and access to spiritual healing should be made available to all, in order to reduced costs of health care and crime prevention so more resources can be saved to serve more of the population. Over time, all people can be covered by cutting the costs of crime and sickness.

      I have done nothing but promote free spiritual healing, so I don't understand why you would say the opposite! I keep running across people who want to deny, block, obstruct or dismiss the healing process instead of using science and medical research to prove it is natural and more cost-effective than not providing this assistance.

      Where are you getting that I don't believe people should have full access?

      I even argue for reforming the prison system to focus on medical treatment so the BILLIONS saved from cutting and preventing crime would pay for health care and prevention!

      Do you even know what my views are? They are all over this forum!
      I believe health care can be made practically FREE if it is combined with medical education and internships in public health services.

      What are you talking about, and where are you getting this? This is the OPPOSITE of what I stand for.

      TOS SAID:
      * "I believe in showing Crosses or Christian references that might offend people of other beliefs, yet condemn the right of others to do the same"
      Where did you get this? I believe in religious freedom and free speech and free press for EVERYONE, even to the point that most people would censor it and consider it breaking the law. As long as it is done within the spirit of consent, respecting equal peace and freedom of others, that's within the law.

      I even believe people who believe in killing people have the freedom to kill themselves or each other *if they share this same belief,* as long as they are FULLY informed by consent (including knowledge of spiritual healing for any criminal sickness that may skew their judgment and will).

      My standard is consent of the governed. So the only thing I oppose is abusing laws to make it MANDATORY for others to support or pay for your beliefs if they believe otherwise; the key is people taking responsibility for their own beliefs and not imposing the responsibility, cost or consequences on others.

      EXAMPLE/ Worst Case Scenario where I would want to impose:
      One of the worst biases I have is against drug use; and even I understand that until it is proven scientifically that spiritual healing cures addictions and abuses for free, this cannot be expected for people to believe that is better than continuing to use drugs. After it is proven, more people will have fully informed choice, but EVEN AFTER it is scientifically proven, it STILL remains a question of faith or belief, and cannot be imposed by public policy. Only in the case of proven criminal imposition can liberty be taken away, so this would have to be proven case by case.
      I understand this, and even though I disagree, I go by principle by which people must freely choose, and anything faith based must be proven to THAT person where they AGREE FREELY; it cannot be imposed by law as long as it is faith based and not proven to be a criminal abuse harming someone else.

      In the meantime I am against the cost and burden imposed by drug use and drug laws on the public, because the problems and cure to drug addictions has not been proven and established as fact; people still believe it should be a free choice. Since that is a BELIEF, and is not proven otherwise, then I understand that BELIEF is protected by law even though the consequences are imposing costs on others until proven otherwise. It is still causing a burden, but since it isn't proven, then I understand by religious freedom, laws cannot be imposed based on BELIEF that drugs are bad and impose added health costs until this is proven so it isn't faith-based.

      Now TheOldSchool: I've given you this example where I totally disagree, and believe it can be proven that drug use costs more to the public and imposes on people who believe against it.
      Yet I still believe it must be proven and chosen freely in order to make laws constitutionally.

      Can you give me ONE example where I seek to impose on others by law my beliefs
      instead of promoting conflict resolution and consensus by freely chosen consensus?

      TOS SAID:
      * "I oppose hypocrites, yet don't mind contradicting my own principles if they get in the way of political agenda (needs no changing)"
      FALSE: I believe in consensus to include all people's views, and to hold each to their own. So if they believe in bullying, they have the right to be under that, but if they don't, and they believe their views are violated they have the right to have their views protected.

      The reason I cannot impose my views on consensus on people is that this would contradict consensus.
      The only stable change is when people choose to correct or expand their policies or views, based on their own choices and beliefs and principles in order to be more consistent with their own goals. So I go by informed consent and free choice of each person. This takes forever to build consensus, based on free choice and informed consent by each person,
      but that is the only ethical way to respect consent of the governed. If whole groups influence themselves to change collectively, that's fine, but it still should be by free and fully informed consent, and not by political bullying or coercion.

      So in the meantime the OPPOSITE is happening.
      I am constantly imposed upon by people who DON'T believe in consensus or consent of each other.
      So they force decisions on each other by majority rule, or political, legal or legislative force, which is against my beliefs.

      And yet I have to tolerate this, because that is what they BELIEVE.
      And I cannot "impose" my belief on theirs because I believe in Consent, where they would freely choose to change how they make and enforce decisions.

      So because I respect the beliefs and consent of others, even when they contradict themselves,
      I have to tolerate that until they agree to correct or change to be more consistent by their own free will.

      I do NOT believe in abusing laws, govt or political force to go against people's free will, beliefs or consent
      but believe in forming contracts, decisions, laws and reforms, and solutions by collaboration and consensus
      among all parties involved and affected.

      * "I believe in freedom of religion, especially when it comes to imposing my political beliefs on others by law"

      See above. NO, I am not allowed to "impose consensus" on others because that is contradictory an ddoesn't work anyway.

      The only true consensus is formed by free choice, and I believe the right ideas and solutions are by definition what people will freely choose BECAUSE they work and HAVE been proven or explained where people agree they are the best way.

      What you describe above is why I am constantly imposed upon because I don't believe in imposing
      any beliefs on anyone else. I believe in consent of the governed, where contracts and laws are made by agreement.

      I believe in including respecting and protecting all views/beliefs equally under the Constitution,
      yet because other people do not believe in this standard, they violate each other's beliefs by
      forcing laws and decisions against the will or beliefs of others, and I cannot stop it because
      they believe in doing this. and I have to respect their beliefs equally as my own.

      Since I believe in consensus, until people freely choose to make this the standard,
      I cannot impose it without violating my own beliefs. It would not work anyway.
      consensus is formed freely by consent of the people, so that is why I believe
      in mediation and conflict resolution. And yes, when people DON'T agree to this,
      but agree to go to war, or outvote or campaign against each other, I have to respect
      their beliefs and cannot force them to change them. That is why I am stuck getting
      imposed upon because very few people can accommodate my beliefs which I cannot force on anyone.

      The most I can do is defend my own right to practice it, and even that gets censored by everyone's political bullying.
  2. TheOldSchool

    TheOldSchool BANNED

    Sep 21, 2012
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    last stop for sanity before reaching the south
    Uh... this thread from years ago was brought up by a douchebag loser named American_Jihad in another thread tonight. I had never seen it before. Do you care to open it up again Emily? I don't even know what you're talking about, and you've probably forgotten anyways. Sorry to bug you about it but a dick-riding weasel (American_Jihad) brought it up. So I thought I'd ask.

Share This Page