Tolerance: Allowing people to be who and what they are.

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Foxfyre, Jan 1, 2014.

  1. Montrovant
    Offline

    Montrovant Fuzzy bears!

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    14,686
    Thanks Received:
    2,628
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Beyond the Veil
    Ratings:
    +5,881
    Sorry, I don't think anyone can say what the founders would think of today's issues.

    Even if they did, I seriously doubt the founders would all agree about these issues. They were not in agreement on a lot of things. ;)
     
  2. hunarcy
    Offline

    hunarcy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    3,509
    Thanks Received:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,380
    AND, that's why they advocated tolerance in speech so all ideas could be heard. :)
     
  3. R.D.
    Offline

    R.D. Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    8,445
    Thanks Received:
    2,372
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,374
    While you insist on trying to make it political you shoot yourself in the foot trying to do so
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,876
    Thanks Received:
    12,571
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +18,531
    The Founders left a wealth of information behind that fully informs us about their thought processes that went into every aspect of the Constitution. So I am very confident that the principles that guided them in their convictions and ultimately allowed them to achieve consensus would be just as applicable today. And I am quite confident that to a man, they would advocate for a Phil Robertson or Ellen Degeneres to be able to be who they are and state what they believe without fear that bullies would set upon them and try to hurt them.

    And though we wander there now and then--I have been guilty of that too and I apologize--again this has nothing to do with government or the Constitution and it is not a legal issue.

    It is an issue of right and wrong, morality and ethics. It is an issue of whether we will be a culture of liberty or a culture of bullies.
     
  5. TemplarKormac
    Offline

    TemplarKormac Classical Liberal Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2013
    Messages:
    39,117
    Thanks Received:
    6,177
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Planet Zebes
    Ratings:
    +14,390
    Then, why may I ask, did they leave behind the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers? Those document both sides of the field. One side for government, the other against. All of these opinions and observations later went into the creation of our Democratic Republic, taking in the best of both worlds.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Montrovant
    Offline

    Montrovant Fuzzy bears!

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    14,686
    Thanks Received:
    2,628
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Beyond the Veil
    Ratings:
    +5,881
    I'm not sure how that's an argument that we can know what the founders would think of modern issues.

    Look, it may be hard for us to understand, but just the concept of television is something so foreign to them that we can't know how they would react to it. :) I don't think that gays were much appreciated in the founders' time, either. And from everything I've read, the founders were very much of different minds about any number of fundamental issues.

    So the idea that we know they would all agree about threats of boycotts or lawsuits regarding a reality tv star and a gay tv talk show host is asinine. At best one can take a somewhat educated guess.
     
  7. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,876
    Thanks Received:
    12,571
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +18,531
    It is a very strong argument that we do know the principles the Founders used to form this republic. They left behind, as TK mentioned, the federalist and anti-federalist papers and a massive amount of their notes, diaries, transcripts of speeches, letters, and opinions written.

    This has been the problem we've had with this topic from the beginning. Everybody wants to talk about legalities, case law, ideology, partisanship, sins of others, sins from the past, sins in the present, and/or are trying to make it a free speech issue. It is none of those things. It is a PRINCIPLE that is applicable no matter what the circumstances, subject matter, or any history that exists.

    The principle is a concept of liberty that allows a person his her thoughts, beliefs, opinions, ideas and to be who or what he/she is with impunity so long as he/she does not infringe on the rights of others.

    And the Founders, to a man, strongly supported that principle.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,876
    Thanks Received:
    12,571
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +18,531
    DNA? Hmmm. Have to think about that. I've been usuing the metaphor that I think it is something in the water they drink that prevents some from being able to focus on a concept. :) But it sure does making open and honest discussions about ANYTHING at USMB extremely difficult if not nigh onto impossible at times.

    But yeah, as long as they want to make it about Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, religious, non-religious or whatever, or what contractual arrangements somebody has with somebody else, or our right to protest and boycott, we just spin our wheels or whistle in the wind.

    So long as he/she does not tread on the rights of others, each person should be able to express his her beliefs, opinions, thoughts, ideas, or convictions without fear that an angry mob, group, or organization will descend on him/her to inflict physical and/or material punishment.

    That is the principle that many are doing everything but stand on their heads to avoid discussing as is. There seems to be some unexplainable compulsion to make that principle into something else. But you are right. It should apply without exception to: the:
    --Democrat
    --Republican
    --Libertarian
    --classical liberal
    --tea partier
    --Moveon.org
    --NRA
    --GLAAD
    --out-of-the-mainstream social or political or think tank group
    --educator
    --advocate
    --religious
    --political activist
    --racist
    --bigot
    --anti-semitic
    --mysogynist
    --humanitarian
    --poet, writer, artist
    --visionary
    --and/or fill in the blank with any other designation

    We don't have to like what any of these say. There should be nothing to prevent any of us from disliking or disassociating ourselves with anybody. Nothing to prevent any of us to express our own opinions about what they say, rebut them, condemn them, or applaud them and we should also be able to do so without fear that the angry mob, group, or organization will descend upon us to punish us physically and/or materially.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2014
  9. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,876
    Thanks Received:
    12,571
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +18,531
    This is another way of saying what I have been arguing on this from the beginning. There is no liberty at all unless we each have the right to make wrong choices as well as right choices; unless we have the right to be wrong about something as much as we have the right to be right about something.

    What I have been arguing in this thread is a culture that respects the unalienable right of each of us to say what we think, even if it is wrong, if it is ugly, if it is stupid, if it is ignorant, or if it is as right as rain. If our culture does not respect that unalienable right, then there is no freedom.
     
  10. BlackSand
    Offline

    BlackSand Nobody Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    12,101
    Thanks Received:
    3,803
    Trophy Points:
    380
    Location:
    Wherever I May Roam
    Ratings:
    +14,135
    What you are talking about is when "ugly" became wrong, stupid and ignorant.
    Some people don't respond to anything other than ugly ... And think that their ideas are worthwhile, correct and brilliant ... Until someone else tells them to take a flying leap.

    They still don't think they are wrong, stupid, intrusive, immoral, unethical or disrespecting when they are told to take a flying leap ... But they may understand how much of their crap we are going to tolerate.

    .
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2014

Share This Page