Debate Now Tolerance - Political Correctness - Liberty & Constitutional Law

[Derideo_Te]

to throw reason and decency aside

There is no reason or decency in denying your fellow Americans their equal rights.

You obviously fail to appreciate that this is a secular nation where the freedom to be who you are outweighs the zealotry that bigots use to try and deny those rights.

If anyone here is stark naked it is those bigoted zealots who are pretending to clothe themselves in "reason and decency" when in fact they are wearing their bigotry proudly on their sleeves with nothing else to hide their shame.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

to throw reason and decency aside

There is no reason or decency in denying your fellow Americans their equal rights.

There is certainly no reason or decency in corrupting the power of government to give its blessing and recognition to sick, immoral perversions; nor in characterizing people as “bigots” for wanting no part in these perversions.

 

[Derideo_Te]

to throw reason and decency aside

There is no reason or decency in denying your fellow Americans their equal rights.

There is certainly no reason or decency in corrupting the power of government to give its blessing and recognition to sick, immoral perversions; nor in characterizing people as “bigots” for wanting no part in these perversions.

Interracial marriage was once considered a "perversion" by bigots like yourself.

The government of We the People recognized that was a violation of the Constitutional rights of Americans and did the right thing.

We the People have recognized another such violation and remediated it.

That you want to persist in denying your fellow Americans their Constitutional rights is your problem.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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 ...

Harm can come in many ways.

Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater can cause harm because it causes panic, which can lead to a stampede to get out.

Writing an article in a newspaper about someone which isn't true could potentially cause harm, this harm could be financial or it could just be damaging to their personal life etc. This is called Libel.

What you're writing seems to be specific towards something. However I'm not sure how you expect me to respond to something that is so vague.

For example.

Does shouting "fire" in a theater constitute harm? No, the theater might be empty. It might be part of the play that's going on. You might have told everyone that this is what you're going to do, and ask them to remain seated as there won't be a fire. None of these cause harm, therefore they are still protected.

Does writing an article in a newspaper which isn't true constitute harm? Not necessarily.

So.... you want me to think about something vague, well, I can't. So be more specific.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

the rest of that post took away from it (if you are telling truths)

you need to practice more

 

[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 ...

Harm can come in many ways.

Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater can cause harm because it causes panic, which can lead to a stampede to get out.

Writing an article in a newspaper about someone which isn't true could potentially cause harm, this harm could be financial or it could just be damaging to their personal life etc. This is called Libel.

What you're writing seems to be specific towards something. However I'm not sure how you expect me to respond to something that is so vague.

For example.

Does shouting "fire" in a theater constitute harm? No, the theater might be empty. It might be part of the play that's going on. You might have told everyone that this is what you're going to do, and ask them to remain seated as there won't be a fire. None of these cause harm, therefore they are still protected.

Does writing an article in a newspaper which isn't true constitute harm? Not necessarily.

So.... you want me to think about something vague, well, I can't. So be more specific.

people doing what they want. what if what they desire to do causes others to pay for them?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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 ...

Harm can come in many ways.

Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater can cause harm because it causes panic, which can lead to a stampede to get out.

Writing an article in a newspaper about someone which isn't true could potentially cause harm, this harm could be financial or it could just be damaging to their personal life etc. This is called Libel.

What you're writing seems to be specific towards something. However I'm not sure how you expect me to respond to something that is so vague.

For example.

Does shouting "fire" in a theater constitute harm? No, the theater might be empty. It might be part of the play that's going on. You might have told everyone that this is what you're going to do, and ask them to remain seated as there won't be a fire. None of these cause harm, therefore they are still protected.

Does writing an article in a newspaper which isn't true constitute harm? Not necessarily.

So.... you want me to think about something vague, well, I can't. So be more specific.

people doing what they want. what if what they desire to do causes others to pay for them?

For example....?

Within libel, if you reputation is harmed and you lose business because of it, then you are not protected.

However there is definitely an example you want to give me, so just give it.

 

[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.

the rest of that post took away from it (if you are telling truths)

you need to practice more

I have no motivation to lie.

The opening was facetious and I then elaborated on the point.

Your opinion is duly noted.

 

[Programmer]

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.

Even though in spanish you'd regularly find adjectives after the noun, Afro-mestizo or something is the term for African Mexicans. In english we'd put the modifier before the subject or object. The alternative is the highly pc Americans of xxxxxx descent.

Have you considered that political correctness is about using the 'right' semantics in the first place? The pursuit of a 'true' English?

 

[Kobie]

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.

"Wrong" according to whom?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Agrees. Progressives will not tolerate a dissenting opinion

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

Disagree. PC is a Leftist concept to crush dissent. See 1 above

(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.

Liberty is what we used to have in some slight measure pre-Patriot Act. Now, it's just gone

(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.

The current occupant of the WH, supposedly "President" of his Law Review had no familiarity with Judicial Review. I don't know what the rest of your post refers to 00 it's just jibberish​

 

[320 Years of History]

Tolerance - Political Correctness - Liberty & Constitutional Law
...

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.

Topic 1: Disagree
Tolerance has multiple dimensions -- tolerance for words, tolerance for ideas, and tolerance for actions. We know that intolerable acts occur, and when they do, they and their causes must be addressed. We know too that some beliefs and aims, no matter how much one may want to endure them, they simply cannot be allowed to grow or persist. For example, if one group (person) were to assert that their existence depends on the extinction of another, no matter how much one group wants to tolerate the other, self preservation mandates that they cannot. Quite simply, the irresistible force cannot tolerate the immovable object; one must prevail.

Topic 2: Disagree
Political correctness (PC) is a behavior pattern that is adopted not only by extremists, but also by all manners of temperate yet pusillanimous individuals, and for a host of reasons. Surely you have encountered moderate folks who are effect PC ways of doing things because they are either afraid of offending someone or because they try to be all things to all people they encounter, or worse, both at the same time.

Topic 4: Disagree
Though I agree most people are not scholars of Constitutional law, I cannot agree that those people who are are repeatedly and consistently proven wrong. They are not for at least two reasons:

• No person who argues any position re: Constitutional law is right or wrong all the time. That necessarily means the "winning" and "losing" is spread around.
• The Constitution is a set of laws that is meant to flex, albeit slowly, with the attitudes of the people who accept it as their primary legal set of guidelines. Constitutional law experts who were "right," say, in 1835 could very well be "wrong" today. Similarly, today's experts who are considered "right" could very easily have been deemed "wrong" in 1835.

Topic 3: Abstain
I cannot now posit a definitive assertion of my opinion on this topic because I've neither studied it nor heard the word bandied about by enough folks to know what the majority of folks mean or in what context they use the word.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

Wow!

Dante keeper post

Seriously, wtf?

Wow!

Dante keeper post

Seriously, wtf? keeper thread too

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Tolerance - Political Correctness - Liberty & Constitutional Law
...

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.

Topic 1: Disagree
Tolerance has multiple dimensions -- tolerance for words, tolerance for ideas, and tolerance for actions. We know that intolerable acts occur, and when they do, they and their causes must be addressed. We know too that some beliefs and aims, no matter how much one may want to endure them, they simply cannot be allowed to grow or persist. For example, if one group (person) were to assert that their existence depends on the extinction of another, no matter how much one group wants to tolerate the other, self preservation mandates that they cannot. Quite simply, the irresistible force cannot tolerate the immovable object; one must prevail.

Topic 2: Disagree
Political correctness (PC) is a behavior pattern that is adopted not only by extremists, but also by all manners of temperate yet pusillanimous individuals, and for a host of reasons. Surely you have encountered moderate folks who are effect PC ways of doing things because they are either afraid of offending someone or because they try to be all things to all people they encounter, or worse, both at the same time.

Topic 4: Disagree
Though I agree most people are not scholars of Constitutional law, I cannot agree that those people who are are repeatedly and consistently proven wrong. They are not for at least two reasons:

• No person who argues any position re: Constitutional law is right or wrong all the time. That necessarily means the "winning" and "losing" is spread around.
• The Constitution is a set of laws that is meant to flex, albeit slowly, with the attitudes of the people who accept it as their primary legal set of guidelines. Constitutional law experts who were "right," say, in 1835 could very well be "wrong" today. Similarly, today's experts who are considered "right" could very easily have been deemed "wrong" in 1835.

Topic 3: Abstain
I cannot now posit a definitive assertion of my opinion on this topic because I've neither studied it nor heard the word bandied about by enough folks to know what the majority of folks mean or in what context they use the word.

Topic 1, 2, 3, 4: are meant to be about issues in the context of Speech and the bill of rights. Sorry for the confusion

 

[320 Years of History]

Tolerance - Political Correctness - Liberty & Constitutional Law
...

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.

Topic 1: Disagree
Tolerance has multiple dimensions -- tolerance for words, tolerance for ideas, and tolerance for actions. We know that intolerable acts occur, and when they do, they and their causes must be addressed. We know too that some beliefs and aims, no matter how much one may want to endure them, they simply cannot be allowed to grow or persist. For example, if one group (person) were to assert that their existence depends on the extinction of another, no matter how much one group wants to tolerate the other, self preservation mandates that they cannot. Quite simply, the irresistible force cannot tolerate the immovable object; one must prevail.

Topic 2: Disagree
Political correctness (PC) is a behavior pattern that is adopted not only by extremists, but also by all manners of temperate yet pusillanimous individuals, and for a host of reasons. Surely you have encountered moderate folks who are effect PC ways of doing things because they are either afraid of offending someone or because they try to be all things to all people they encounter, or worse, both at the same time.

Topic 4: Disagree
Though I agree most people are not scholars of Constitutional law, I cannot agree that those people who are are repeatedly and consistently proven wrong. They are not for at least two reasons:

• No person who argues any position re: Constitutional law is right or wrong all the time. That necessarily means the "winning" and "losing" is spread around.
• The Constitution is a set of laws that is meant to flex, albeit slowly, with the attitudes of the people who accept it as their primary legal set of guidelines. Constitutional law experts who were "right," say, in 1835 could very well be "wrong" today. Similarly, today's experts who are considered "right" could very easily have been deemed "wrong" in 1835.

Topic 3: Abstain
I cannot now posit a definitive assertion of my opinion on this topic because I've neither studied it nor heard the word bandied about by enough folks to know what the majority of folks mean or in what context they use the word.

Topic 1, 2, 3, 4: are meant to be about issues in the context of Speech and the bill of rights. Sorry for the confusion

With the contextual clarification you've provided, I change my position to "agree" with regard to Topic 1. No change re: the other three.

Out of curiosity, would you mind giving me an example of political correctness as it applies to left wing and as it applies to right wing extremists, please? I'm asking because as I see it, and whenever it's used re: expressing thoughts, political correctness strikes me as a deliberate effort to be vague and/or ambiguous. I don't see that such timidity, or need to create "wiggle room," is something limited to extremists.