Debate Now Tolerance - Political Correctness - Liberty & Constitutional Law

[Sun Devil 92]

Again, no idea what you're talking about. We have a loooooooooong way to go to ensure the American Dream for all of her citizens. This is why I'm a values voter; Hillary will (hopefully) pick Scalia's replacement and we will have some breathing room on the court to ensure privacy, expand worker's rights, voter's rights, and ensure fairness is the case more often than not.

And how has the SCOTUS failed you on this so far ?

They are going to ensure workers rights ?

They are going to ensure fairness ?

This is tooooooo funny.

 

[eagle1462010]

Tolerance - Political Correctness - Liberty & Constitutional Law

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.​

--

Part of the US Constitution is the Bill of Rights: Bill of Rights Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Rules in effect:
"Zone 1": Clean Debate Zone (CDZ) / Introduce Yourself (Welcome Threads): Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics.

THE TOPICS TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree:

(1) Tolerance is a one-way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace.

(2) Political Correctness exists only in the politically correct worlds of extremists on all sides

(3) Liberty is thrown around these days like a wet noodle at a Vegetarian restaurant. It is losing it's meaning and value in our society because of those who have abused and misused the term. Think calling every sexual encounter that is clumsy or that unfortunately ends badly, rape; every battle between people a holocaust; every Republican a right winger; every Democrat...you get the idea.

(4) Constitution law is a subject most people know little about, and those who know more than a little are usually proven wrong time and time again.​

What is tolerance? The word is linked to gays and aliens nowadays. Occupied. Coming alongside "tolerance" is the term "political correctness". What the heck is this? Who the heck has the right to tell me what is correct? Whose moral weights more than mine?
Back then, under Hitler, it was "political correct" to demonize Jews.
Heck, those are the fuck not tolerant, that tell us what we have to tolerate. .

Huh? How do you tolerate the noise in your own head?

You are violating your own rules
LOL

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It has been my observation that those who are the most intolerant are also the most easily offended by any legitimate criticism of their intolerance. .

Yeah...like when they call Libertarianism unAmerican and then do little to back up the claim ?

I would so agree.

 

[eagle1462010]

The poster who equaled tolerance with PC culture was spot on.

If you want a world of the Demolition Man, then push the PC junk.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Tolerance - Political Correctness - Liberty & Constitutional Law

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.​

--

Part of the US Constitution is the Bill of Rights: Bill of Rights Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Rules in effect:
"Zone 1": Clean Debate Zone (CDZ) / Introduce Yourself (Welcome Threads): Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics.

THE TOPICS TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree:

(1) Tolerance is a one-way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace.

(2) Political Correctness exists only in the politically correct worlds of extremists on all sides

(3) Liberty is thrown around these days like a wet noodle at a Vegetarian restaurant. It is losing it's meaning and value in our society because of those who have abused and misused the term. Think calling every sexual encounter that is clumsy or that unfortunately ends badly, rape; every battle between people a holocaust; every Republican a right winger; every Democrat...you get the idea.

(4) Constitution law is a subject most people know little about, and those who know more than a little are usually proven wrong time and time again.​

Generally the Theory of Human rights has it about right.

You can do whatever you like as long as it doesn't harm other people or hurt other people.

If you're a Muslim I have to tolerate you because you're not harming people. If you do harm people, if you do support people who harm other people then you are not protected by certain rights. I don't have to be tolerant of your views because, quite frankly, you've stepped over the line.

Political Correctness is the same. If you come out and say all women are "b*tches" then you are hurting other people. Same as libel, treason and other such laws where such speech is NOT protected by any rights.

Liberty is no different. Liberty is basically the ability to do what you like as long as it doesn't harm others. Govt should stay out of the way and allow people to do this stuff, more or less.

There isn't much difference here.

 

[candycorn]

You don't read to well.

It's "too" well, not "to" well. I apparently read well enough.

I said I could care less one way or the other.........
Or you just make up stuff to argue against.

Which is why you alone keep bringing it up.

Me...I think we have bigger issues to worry about.

When basic rights and customs that all other Americans enjoy are denied to others for no reason, there is no larger issue in one sense.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

To the OP's post on item #4, I am always interested to learn more about peoples take on things.

As I've mentioned....Roe does not mean the same thing it once did.

Here is one CLAIM (yes, it's a rub your nose in it kind of thing.....) and not that I am pro-life...I am more interested in the way "Constitutional Law" gets thrown around by some.

Roe v. Wade is almost entirely dead Half of Texas abortion clinics could close after big ruling News LifeSite

Even if Roe is almost dead....a new case could completely change the landscape. That is the nature of having a SCOTUS.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You don't read to well.

It's "too" well, not "to" well. I apparently read well enough.

I said I could care less one way or the other.........
Or you just make up stuff to argue against.

Which is why you alone keep bringing it up.

Me...I think we have bigger issues to worry about.

When basic rights and customs that all other Americans enjoy are denied to others for no reason, there is no larger issue in one sense.

Please stop making me laugh......

You are the one who has brought it up repeatedly.

Another far left term "basic rights and customs".....it's not a liberal term.

And thinking the SCOTUS will somehow protect them is even more laughable and left wing.

Liberals know the difference.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Tolerance, to me, is a silly word.

If someone tolerates me because they have to.....it seems to me that it implies they'd do something different if they knew they would not get in trouble.

At the same time you can't educate people not to be bigoted.

Stamping out bigotry is a long long process.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Tolerance - Political Correctness - Liberty & Constitutional Law

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.​

--

Part of the US Constitution is the Bill of Rights: Bill of Rights Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Rules in effect:
"Zone 1": Clean Debate Zone (CDZ) / Introduce Yourself (Welcome Threads): Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics.

THE TOPICS TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree:

(1) Tolerance is a one-way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace.

(2) Political Correctness exists only in the politically correct worlds of extremists on all sides

(3) Liberty is thrown around these days like a wet noodle at a Vegetarian restaurant. It is losing it's meaning and value in our society because of those who have abused and misused the term. Think calling every sexual encounter that is clumsy or that unfortunately ends badly, rape; every battle between people a holocaust; every Republican a right winger; every Democrat...you get the idea.

(4) Constitution law is a subject most people know little about, and those who know more than a little are usually proven wrong time and time again.​

Generally the Theory of Human rights has it about right.

You can do whatever you like as long as it doesn't harm other people or hurt other people.

If you're a Muslim I have to tolerate you because you're not harming people. If you do harm people, if you do support people who harm other people then you are not protected by certain rights. I don't have to be tolerant of your views because, quite frankly, you've stepped over the line.

Political Correctness is the same. If you come out and say all women are "b*tches" then you are hurting other people. Same as libel, treason and other such laws where such speech is NOT protected by any rights.

Liberty is no different. Liberty is basically the ability to do what you like as long as it doesn't harm others. Govt should stay out of the way and allow people to do this stuff, more or less.

There isn't much difference here.

does harm others = cost others, as in having to later pick up the tab?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

PC is no more then the rape of true English to please a crowd that wants bigotry hidden not destroyed. Case in point.

"African American" is a term that is thought to be PC yet is in fact racist. They do this by putting the lesser group BEFORE the greater. Not all are African but all are American.

Mexico which I travel to often says Mexican African or Mexican Asian thus putting the greater group first.

Greater according to what

The vast majority of “African-Americans” have never set foot on the African continent, and neither have their parents, grandparents, or great grandparents. They are no more African than I am European. Nobody that I know of thinks that it is necessary or appropriate to describe me as a “European-American”. I think that “American” suffices just fine.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Tolerance - Political Correctness - Liberty & Constitutional Law

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.​

--

Part of the US Constitution is the Bill of Rights: Bill of Rights Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Rules in effect:
"Zone 1": Clean Debate Zone (CDZ) / Introduce Yourself (Welcome Threads): Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics.

THE TOPICS TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree:

(1) Tolerance is a one-way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace.

(2) Political Correctness exists only in the politically correct worlds of extremists on all sides

(3) Liberty is thrown around these days like a wet noodle at a Vegetarian restaurant. It is losing it's meaning and value in our society because of those who have abused and misused the term. Think calling every sexual encounter that is clumsy or that unfortunately ends badly, rape; every battle between people a holocaust; every Republican a right winger; every Democrat...you get the idea.

(4) Constitution law is a subject most people know little about, and those who know more than a little are usually proven wrong time and time again.​

Generally the Theory of Human rights has it about right.

You can do whatever you like as long as it doesn't harm other people or hurt other people.

If you're a Muslim I have to tolerate you because you're not harming people. If you do harm people, if you do support people who harm other people then you are not protected by certain rights. I don't have to be tolerant of your views because, quite frankly, you've stepped over the line.

Political Correctness is the same. If you come out and say all women are "b*tches" then you are hurting other people. Same as libel, treason and other such laws where such speech is NOT protected by any rights.

Liberty is no different. Liberty is basically the ability to do what you like as long as it doesn't harm others. Govt should stay out of the way and allow people to do this stuff, more or less.

There isn't much difference here.

does harm others = cost others, as in having to later pick up the tab?

What?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Tolerance, to me, is a silly word.

If someone tolerates me because they have to.....it seems to me that it implies they'd do something different if they knew they would not get in trouble.

At the same time you can't educate people not to be bigoted.

Stamping out bigotry is a long long process.

One big problem with even trying, right now, is that the wrong-wing movement has hijacked the word “bigotry” and related terms, to cover points of view that are at lest as legitimate and rational as their own opposing views, if not much more so. To many on the wrong, it is “bigoted” to think that our government should be acting to oppose the invasion of our nation by foreign criminals, rather than treasonously taking the side of these invaders. It's called “bigoted” to recognize that Bruce Jenner is male, and that as a matter of hard science, he never has been, never will be, and never can be female. It's “bigoted” to understand that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that the sick homosexual mockeries thereof that it is now being demanded that we accept are just plain wrong. It's “bigoted” to say that this creepy, perverted young man should stay the Hell out of the girls' locker room.

As long as “bigotry” and related terms are so heavily applied to these legitimate points of view, lumping them together with any genuine bigotry that might be extant, no progress is ever going to be made toward reducing or eliminating any genuine bigotry.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Tolerance, to me, is a silly word.

If someone tolerates me because they have to.....it seems to me that it implies they'd do something different if they knew they would not get in trouble.

At the same time you can't educate people not to be bigoted.

Stamping out bigotry is a long long process.

One big problem with even trying, right now, is that the wrong-wing movement has hijacked the word “bigotry” and related terms, to cover points of view that are at lest as legitimate and rational as their own opposing views, if not much more so. To many on the wrong, it is “bigoted” to think that our government should be acting to oppose the invasion of our nation by foreign criminals, rather than treasonously taking the side of these invaders. It's called “bigoted” to recognize that Bruce Jenner is male, and that as a matter of hard science, he never has been, never will be, and never can be female. It's “bigoted” to understand that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that the sick homosexual mockeries thereof that it is now being demanded that we accept are just plain wrong. It's “bigoted” to say that this creepy, perverted young man should stay the Hell out of the girls' locker room.

As long as “bigotry” and related terms are so heavily applied to these legitimate points of view, lumping them together with any genuine bigotry that might be extant, no progress is ever going to be made toward reducing or eliminating any genuine bigotry.

The solution to no longer needing the term bigotry is for people to stop being bigots.

It really isn't that difficult to understand that irrespective of what someone looks like, their gender, their preferences, where they were born, etc underneath they are still just people like ourselves.

Once we accept that we are the same there is need for bigotry.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

frigidweirdo

What?

Let's make this as simple as can be: One of your main silly argumments is "You can do whatever you like as long as it doesn't harm other people or hurt other people."

does harm others = cost others, as in having to later pick up the tab?

Think ... don't hurt yourself, but think ...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The solution to no longer needing the term bigotry is for people to stop being bigots.

Wow!

Dante keeper post

Seriously, wtf?

 

[Meathead]

Free expression is always paramount. If I wished to refer to myself as an American or Arizonan or Basque-American it's my right. Why do others care?

No one does. No one cares what you call yourself. The problem is when you whine about the words others use.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Tolerance, to me, is a silly word.

If someone tolerates me because they have to.....it seems to me that it implies they'd do something different if they knew they would not get in trouble.

At the same time you can't educate people not to be bigoted.

Stamping out bigotry is a long long process.

One big problem with even trying, right now, is that the wrong-wing movement has hijacked the word “bigotry” and related terms, to cover points of view that are at lest as legitimate and rational as their own opposing views, if not much more so. To many on the wrong, it is “bigoted” to think that our government should be acting to oppose the invasion of our nation by foreign criminals, rather than treasonously taking the side of these invaders. It's called “bigoted” to recognize that Bruce Jenner is male, and that as a matter of hard science, he never has been, never will be, and never can be female. It's “bigoted” to understand that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that the sick homosexual mockeries thereof that it is now being demanded that we accept are just plain wrong. It's “bigoted” to say that this creepy, perverted young man should stay the Hell out of the girls' locker room.

As long as “bigotry” and related terms are so heavily applied to these legitimate points of view, lumping them together with any genuine bigotry that might be extant, no progress is ever going to be made toward reducing or eliminating any genuine bigotry.

The solution to no longer needing the term bigotry is for people to stop being bigots.

It really isn't that difficult to understand that irrespective of what someone looks like, their gender, their preferences, where they were born, etc underneath they are still just people like ourselves.

Once we accept that we are the same there is need for bigotry.

From memory....you don't stop being a bigot. You can not act bigoted...but still have bigoted attitudes.

What I recall reading is that eliminating bigotry takes several generations.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The solution to no longer needing the term bigotry is for people to stop being bigots.

Wow!

Dante keeper post

Seriously, wtf?

I was being facetious.

I would have expected someone like you to pick up on that.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The solution to no longer needing the term bigotry is for people to stop being bigots.

It is clear enough, of course, that what you mean by “stop being bigots” is to throw reason and decency aside, and to adopt and embrace the madness and evil which you wish us to adopt—to join you in praising the spectacular new outfit that the Emperor is wearing, even though we can all clearly see that His Majesty is standing before us stark naked.