Gay marriage more important than law in Mass.

[nt250]

Uh…Okay. Thanks for tolerating free speech…I guess.

Matts, as a liberal you are operating under the mistaken notion that everyone has to "tolerate" anything. We don't. The United States Constitution protects citizens from the government. Not from each other. Also, like many liberals, you don't seem to even grasp the concept of what "free speech" means. The concept of freedom of speech means that the government can't throw you in jail for something you say. It doesn't mean that I can't punch you in the nose.

You can say whatever you want. But that doesn't mean anybody has to like it.

Try reading your sig line a few times, maybe it'll make sense to you some day.

 

[MtnBiker]

What if your wife was suffering from a painful and nearly terminal condition but a chemist invented a cure. The drug is too expensive for you to but and the chemist will not negotiate. Would you steal it or let your wife suffer and die?

What if the chemist was never compensated for his work, lived his life and died in debt. Then the no other chemist wanted to suffer the same result therefore no new drugs where developed? What if.

 

[mattskramer]

ahhh yes, always the liberals firm defense of free speech, how admirable, well, unless we want to mention God in school.

I am not a liberal. I am not a conservative. I am not a Republican. I am not a Democrat. I don’t like labels. No group speaks for me and I don’t speak for any group. They are too constricting and limiting. If you had to categorize me, the closest socio-political label would be an “independent moderate”. Anyway, I have no objection to the mention of “God” in an academic setting in the context of history or philosophy. I would object to it being used as a means to proselytize.

Besides, I already gave my view on the issue of education. In order to avoid spending so such time and resources on contentious arguments (To what degree should evolution / creationism be taught? How much information should be given about sex?), the education system should be privatized and school choice should be promoted.

 

[mattskramer]

What if the chemist was never compensated for his work, lived his life and died in debt. Then the no other chemist wanted to suffer the same result therefore no new drugs where developed? What if.

I like that. You seem to be a thinking person. Yes. There are many things to consider in life. We are often faced with many dilemmas. The drug that would cure the wife in my example is probably one of many drugs that the chemist had invented for different purposes. He has other, cheaper, drugs that wealthy people buy and manage to keep him in business. Anyway, people can come up with many scenarios. There are examples that would make the most devout Kantian reconsider his stand on nearly any poorly constructed presumed categorical imperative.

I can come up with situations that would make the most rigid fundamentalist “Bible Thunmping Christian” literalist reconsider some of his Bible passages. It is a shame that so many people don’t like to take the time and trouble to think through things. “Give me a book with simple pat instructions to lead me through life so that I don’t have to do any critical thinking for myself.”

No. The above statement is not meant to be anti-Christian. It can be applied to anything. (Bosses who don’t take time to explain why they want things to be done a certain way, Spouces who tell their partners to do things “because they said so”.) The list goes on and on. Anyway, I like to reason things out and know the concrete and specific reasons why. As you can probably tell, aside from my position on civil unions for gay couples, I have a strong interest in the philosophy of ethics.

 

[dilloduck]

I like that. You seem to be a thinking person. Yes. There are many things to consider in life. We are often faced with many dilemmas. The drug that would cure the wife in my example is probably one of many drugs that the chemist had invented for different purposes. He has other, cheaper, drugs that wealthy people buy and manage to keep him in business. Anyway, people can come up with many scenarios. There are examples that would make the most devout Kantian reconsider his stand on nearly any poorly constructed presumed categorical imperative.

I can come up with situations that would make the most rigid fundamentalist “Bible Thunmping Christian” literalist reconsider some of his Bible passages. It is a shame that so many people don’t like to take the time and trouble to think through things. “Give me a book with simple pat instructions to lead me through life so that I don’t have to do any critical thinking for myself.”

No. The above statement is not meant to be anti-Christian. It can be applied to anything. (Bosses who don’t take time to explain why they want things to be done a certain way, Spouces who tell their partners to do things “because they said so”.) The list goes on and on. Anyway, I like to reason things out and know the concrete and specific reasons why. As you can probably tell, aside from my position on civil unions for gay couples, I have a strong interest in the philosophy of ethics.

The Bible is FAR from being a book with "simple pat instructions". Scholars have studied and debated it for years. Just reading it will in no way give you all the knowledge you need to understand it.

 

[mattskramer]

Matts, as a liberal you are operating under the mistaken notion that everyone has to "tolerate" anything.

What gave you that idea? It is not true that everyone has to tolerate anything. There are limites. You stated that you were actually considering asking the admins (which may serve as government in comparison) if you can complain about someone's sig line. Apparently, you don’t like my use of that sig line. I merely thanked you for being tolerant of it (I could have stated it another way – Thanks for not crying to an admin to demand that I remove the line or be banned from this board– exiled, tossed in jail).

The United States Constitution protects citizens from the government. Not from each other.

Gee. You really seem to go going out on a tangent. I did not mention the constitution in reply to your message. I was just thanking you for not trying to force me to remove my sig line.

Also, like many liberals, you don't seem to even grasp the concept of what "free speech" means. The concept of freedom of speech means that the government can't throw you in jail for something you say. It doesn't mean that I can't punch you in the nose.

You can say whatever you want. But that doesn't mean anybody has to like it.

Okay. I think that we have a misunderstanding. We are talking about two realms with respect to free speech. I understand that, with respect to free speech, Lincoln and the Constitution was arguing that government couldn’t throw you in jail for something that you say. I agree. I was extending the principle of free speech to include the notion that people should, to some extent, be free to speak as they please without other people calling on authorities to shut them up when they don’t like what is being said. Anyway, both (free speech not liked by private citizens and free speech not liked by government) have its limits. I think that we are prohibited from seriously advocating the assassination of the president. Isn’t it also illegal to call for the violent overthrow of the United States?

Similarly, you can’t scream racial slurs in Harlem at three o’clock in the morning or falsely scram “Fire” in a crowded theatre without people trying to shut you up (for they don’t like what was said) or calling on authorities to do the same.

 

[Gunny]

I am not a liberal. I am not a conservative. I am not a Republican. I am not a Democrat. I don’t like labels. No group speaks for me and I don’t speak for any group. They are too constricting and limiting. If you had to categorize me, the closest socio-political label would be an “independent moderate”. Anyway, I have no objection to the mention of “God” in an academic setting in the context of history or philosophy. I would object to it being used as a means to proselytize.

Besides, I already gave my view on the issue of education. In order to avoid spending so such time and resources on contentious arguments (To what degree should evolution / creationism be taught? How much information should be given about sex?), the education system should be privatized and school choice should be promoted.

independent moron is more like it. What you are is an immoral piece of trash. But don't sell yourself short ..... you are liberalism gone wrong, and the perfect example of everything wrong with that ideology taken to extreme.