Is it Intolerant to be Intolerant of Intolerance? #2

[Daktoria]

Are you saying law enforcement is a subsidy because it has to be afforded?

Last I checked, law enforcement is a base of any civil society. It's not redistributive justice. It's retributive justice. Everyone contributes because everyone's automatically vulnerable to crime.

WTF are you talking about??

He's pulling shit outta his ass. He's got nothing but lies, spin and subject changes now

I guess you believe policing gets afforded for free?

 

[The Rabbi]

I never said all conservatives. Many conservatives make sense and care about upholding the rule of law objectively in that they care about how things are done rather than what is done.

All do not however. Many are pragmatists who judge others' lifestyles as useless in their opinion, so when they're victimized by criminals, they don't make the effort to uphold justice because it would be intolerant of intolerance.

Those conservatives who believe in objectively upholding the rule of law need to be separated from those who are pragmatists.

I didn't say all cons either.

The only useless lifestyle is living on welfare for years and years

"Many are pragmatists who judge others' lifestyles as useless in their opinion, so when they're victimized by criminals, they don't make the effort to uphold justice because it would be intolerant of intolerance."

Who doesn't want the law upheld when they are a victim of a crime? I've never heard of this except in abuse cases.

I mean many conservatives are very practically traditional, and if other people don't conform to their traditions, then they won't uphold justice in their name because they don't like them.
l.

That's actually a total lie. Every word of it.

 

[The Rabbi]

WTF are you talking about??

He's pulling shit outta his ass. He's got nothing but lies, spin and subject changes now

I guess you believe policing gets afforded for free?

Sir, is there a point you're trying to make here?

 

[Daktoria]

I mean many conservatives are very practically traditional, and if other people don't conform to their traditions, then they won't uphold justice in their name because they don't like them.

Many conservatives don't understand that the value of tradition is to uphold ideals that apply regardless of the particular practice at hand. They get stuck in their ways, and anti-intellectually refer to common sense as an excuse to be intolerant of creative thinkers or problem solvers who are trying to live alternative lifestyles.

When those creative thinkers or problem solvers become victimized, many conservatives don't uphold justice in their name because they didn't conform to the tradition they liked. They view having to afford justice in that way as communist and denying their rights to privacy or freedom of assembly because they're forced to afford justice for others they don't approve of.


To save time, I bolded your lies.

In the future, don't use your family, it's a disgusting shield to hide behind.

Some families are disgusting, but they're the only shield we have.

When practical conservatism exposes you by default to being abused by criminals and isn't there to defend you, there aren't any other shields to use.

 

[Avatar4321]

As for Duck Dynasty guy, I am only peripherally aware of the situation. Some guy I never heard of before all this broke said something about blacks and homosexuals that was outside his job description, and so he lost his job. His comments were only made known to the public because of the notoriety that comes with his job. Therefore, his comments are connected to his employer.

That makes it his employer's perogative to fire him, as far as I'm concerned.

It's still a free country. You can say what you want, but that does not mean your boss has to keep you on the payroll if it reflects badly on the company.

We had a similar article in the UCMJ. Do or say anthing that disgraces the uniform, and you will pay a price.

He disgraced his corporate uniform.

The real issue at hand has to deal with bullying.

Many homosexuals are physically assaulted and verbally duressed by intolerant conservatives. These conservatives are saying it's intolerant to be intolerant of their intolerance.

However, homosexuals aren't the only group that deals with this bullying. There are lots of ordinary people who get bullied by conservatives the same way for living alternative lifestyles, and they don't even have to be punks or rebels without a cause. There can just be little nuances, details, or intricacies of time and space that get judged as being impractical instead.

Therefore, those conservatives bully them because they're intolerant of alternative lifestyles despite how what's practical is subjective.

You'd think these conservatives would understand since subjective practicality is why they argue against central planning though, but nope.

How many homosexuals are physically assaulted? And who exactly supports them being assaulted?

Is saying sodomy is a sin somehow assaulting or abusive to homosexuals? Am I then bullying a majority of people for saying premarital sex is a sin? Am I bullying adulterers for saying adultery is a sin?

And why do you presume it's only conservatives who are opposing homosexuals? There is just as much opposition to homosexuality on the left, though that seems to be convenienty ignored and forgiven. Why selectively targeting conservatives? Most of all who wouldn't even be thinking of the sin if it wasnt asked about and pushed on all of us.

If you want to live in sin, it's your choice. But don't expect us to pretend it's not sin or pretend we somehow hate you for saying it is. Especially when we call for all people to be treated with kindness like Phil has.

 

[Daktoria]

As for Duck Dynasty guy, I am only peripherally aware of the situation. Some guy I never heard of before all this broke said something about blacks and homosexuals that was outside his job description, and so he lost his job. His comments were only made known to the public because of the notoriety that comes with his job. Therefore, his comments are connected to his employer.

That makes it his employer's perogative to fire him, as far as I'm concerned.

It's still a free country. You can say what you want, but that does not mean your boss has to keep you on the payroll if it reflects badly on the company.

We had a similar article in the UCMJ. Do or say anthing that disgraces the uniform, and you will pay a price.

He disgraced his corporate uniform.

The real issue at hand has to deal with bullying.

Many homosexuals are physically assaulted and verbally duressed by intolerant conservatives. These conservatives are saying it's intolerant to be intolerant of their intolerance.

However, homosexuals aren't the only group that deals with this bullying. There are lots of ordinary people who get bullied by conservatives the same way for living alternative lifestyles, and they don't even have to be punks or rebels without a cause. There can just be little nuances, details, or intricacies of time and space that get judged as being impractical instead.

Therefore, those conservatives bully them because they're intolerant of alternative lifestyles despite how what's practical is subjective.

You'd think these conservatives would understand since subjective practicality is why they argue against central planning though, but nope.

How many homosexuals are physically assaulted? And who exactly supports them being assaulted?

Is saying sodomy is a sin somehow assaulting or abusive to homosexuals? Am I then bullying a majority of people for saying premarital sex is a sin? Am I bullying adulterers for saying adultery is a sin?

And why do you presume it's only conservatives who are opposing homosexuals? There is just as much opposition to homosexuality on the left, though that seems to be convenienty ignored and forgiven. Why selectively targeting conservatives? Most of all who wouldn't even be thinking of the sin if it wasnt asked about and pushed on all of us.

If you want to live in sin, it's your choice. But don't expect us to pretend it's not sin or pretend we somehow hate you for saying it is. Especially when we call for all people to be treated with kindness like Phil has.

Why would you expect homosexuals who are assaulted to have a record of their assault? Do you believe people are born with video cameras out of their eyes or microphones out of their ears?

This doesn't just apply to homosexuals either.

For example, say boys are assaulted in school by intolerant girls and those girls are tolerated to do so because their teachers are female, unionized, feminists who work in public education.

Would you expect those boys to have a record of their physical assault either even if this happened tens of millions of times?

 

[Two Thumbs]

WTF are you talking about??

He's pulling shit outta his ass. He's got nothing but lies, spin and subject changes now

I guess you believe policing gets afforded for free?

On a scale of 1-10, your bullshitting skills rate a -.05

You might want to stop while you are way behind

 

[Two Thumbs]

I mean many conservatives are very practically traditional, and if other people don't conform to their traditions, then they won't uphold justice in their name because they don't like them.

Many conservatives don't understand that the value of tradition is to uphold ideals that apply regardless of the particular practice at hand. They get stuck in their ways, and anti-intellectually refer to common sense as an excuse to be intolerant of creative thinkers or problem solvers who are trying to live alternative lifestyles.

When those creative thinkers or problem solvers become victimized, many conservatives don't uphold justice in their name because they didn't conform to the tradition they liked. They view having to afford justice in that way as communist and denying their rights to privacy or freedom of assembly because they're forced to afford justice for others they don't approve of.


To save time, I bolded your lies.

In the future, don't use your family, it's a disgusting shield to hide behind.

Some families are disgusting, but they're the only shield we have.

When practical conservatism exposes you by default to being abused by criminals and isn't there to defend you, there aren't any other shields to use.

your abuse has nothing to do with politics

seek medical help

 

[Daktoria]

I don't know if you're saying that because you believe what I'm saying is farfetched, but just because something seems off the charts bizarre doesn't mean we shouldn't be openminded to it.

The same excuse is used by left-wingers to redistribute income FYI. Don't you remember the 99% movement? They believe anything outrageous should be normalized because it's too farfetched to tolerate.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The real issue at hand has to deal with bullying.

Many homosexuals are physically assaulted and verbally duressed by intolerant conservatives. These conservatives are saying it's intolerant to be intolerant of their intolerance.

However, homosexuals aren't the only group that deals with this bullying. There are lots of ordinary people who get bullied by conservatives the same way for living alternative lifestyles, and they don't even have to be punks or rebels without a cause. There can just be little nuances, details, or intricacies of time and space that get judged as being impractical instead.

Therefore, those conservatives bully them because they're intolerant of alternative lifestyles despite how what's practical is subjective.

You'd think these conservatives would understand since subjective practicality is why they argue against central planning though, but nope.

How many homosexuals are physically assaulted? And who exactly supports them being assaulted?

Is saying sodomy is a sin somehow assaulting or abusive to homosexuals? Am I then bullying a majority of people for saying premarital sex is a sin? Am I bullying adulterers for saying adultery is a sin?

And why do you presume it's only conservatives who are opposing homosexuals? There is just as much opposition to homosexuality on the left, though that seems to be convenienty ignored and forgiven. Why selectively targeting conservatives? Most of all who wouldn't even be thinking of the sin if it wasnt asked about and pushed on all of us.

If you want to live in sin, it's your choice. But don't expect us to pretend it's not sin or pretend we somehow hate you for saying it is. Especially when we call for all people to be treated with kindness like Phil has.

Why would you expect homosexuals who are assaulted to have a record of their assault? Do you believe people are born with video cameras out of their eyes or microphones out of their ears?

This doesn't just apply to homosexuals either.

For example, say boys are assaulted in school by intolerant girls and those girls are tolerated to do so because their teachers are female, unionized, feminists who work in public education.

Would you expect those boys to have a record of their physical assault either even if this happened tens of millions of times?

yes

it's called telling mom and dad. and mom calling the authorities before dad does something in person


and get off the chemicals

 

[The Rabbi]

The real issue at hand has to deal with bullying.

Many homosexuals are physically assaulted and verbally duressed by intolerant conservatives. These conservatives are saying it's intolerant to be intolerant of their intolerance.

However, homosexuals aren't the only group that deals with this bullying. There are lots of ordinary people who get bullied by conservatives the same way for living alternative lifestyles, and they don't even have to be punks or rebels without a cause. There can just be little nuances, details, or intricacies of time and space that get judged as being impractical instead.

Therefore, those conservatives bully them because they're intolerant of alternative lifestyles despite how what's practical is subjective.

You'd think these conservatives would understand since subjective practicality is why they argue against central planning though, but nope.

How many homosexuals are physically assaulted? And who exactly supports them being assaulted?

Is saying sodomy is a sin somehow assaulting or abusive to homosexuals? Am I then bullying a majority of people for saying premarital sex is a sin? Am I bullying adulterers for saying adultery is a sin?

And why do you presume it's only conservatives who are opposing homosexuals? There is just as much opposition to homosexuality on the left, though that seems to be convenienty ignored and forgiven. Why selectively targeting conservatives? Most of all who wouldn't even be thinking of the sin if it wasnt asked about and pushed on all of us.

If you want to live in sin, it's your choice. But don't expect us to pretend it's not sin or pretend we somehow hate you for saying it is. Especially when we call for all people to be treated with kindness like Phil has.

Why would you expect homosexuals who are assaulted to have a record of their assault? Do you believe people are born with video cameras out of their eyes or microphones out of their ears?

This doesn't just apply to homosexuals either.

For example, say boys are assaulted in school by intolerant girls and those girls are tolerated to do so because their teachers are female, unionized, feminists who work in public education.

Would you expect those boys to have a record of their physical assault either even if this happened tens of millions of times?

So we should believe this happens because you tell us?
That's not how things work around here, Skippy. You make a statement. be prepared to defend it. If you can't defend it everyone will call you on it. Then you end up looking like Jake Starkey. Adn no one wants to end up looking like Jake Starkey. Got it?

 

[Daktoria]

I mean many conservatives are very practically traditional, and if other people don't conform to their traditions, then they won't uphold justice in their name because they don't like them.

Many conservatives don't understand that the value of tradition is to uphold ideals that apply regardless of the particular practice at hand. They get stuck in their ways, and anti-intellectually refer to common sense as an excuse to be intolerant of creative thinkers or problem solvers who are trying to live alternative lifestyles.

When those creative thinkers or problem solvers become victimized, many conservatives don't uphold justice in their name because they didn't conform to the tradition they liked. They view having to afford justice in that way as communist and denying their rights to privacy or freedom of assembly because they're forced to afford justice for others they don't approve of.


To save time, I bolded your lies.

In the future, don't use your family, it's a disgusting shield to hide behind.

Some families are disgusting, but they're the only shield we have.

When practical conservatism exposes you by default to being abused by criminals and isn't there to defend you, there aren't any other shields to use.

your abuse has nothing to do with politics

seek medical help

Oh please. You don't want to focus on objective morality or moral emotivism or relativism either...

...and then you want to nit-pick while referring to psychology?

Who's the liberal now?

 

[Daktoria]

How many homosexuals are physically assaulted? And who exactly supports them being assaulted?

Is saying sodomy is a sin somehow assaulting or abusive to homosexuals? Am I then bullying a majority of people for saying premarital sex is a sin? Am I bullying adulterers for saying adultery is a sin?

And why do you presume it's only conservatives who are opposing homosexuals? There is just as much opposition to homosexuality on the left, though that seems to be convenienty ignored and forgiven. Why selectively targeting conservatives? Most of all who wouldn't even be thinking of the sin if it wasnt asked about and pushed on all of us.

If you want to live in sin, it's your choice. But don't expect us to pretend it's not sin or pretend we somehow hate you for saying it is. Especially when we call for all people to be treated with kindness like Phil has.

Why would you expect homosexuals who are assaulted to have a record of their assault? Do you believe people are born with video cameras out of their eyes or microphones out of their ears?

This doesn't just apply to homosexuals either.

For example, say boys are assaulted in school by intolerant girls and those girls are tolerated to do so because their teachers are female, unionized, feminists who work in public education.

Would you expect those boys to have a record of their physical assault either even if this happened tens of millions of times?

yes

it's called telling mom and dad. and mom calling the authorities before dad does something in person


and get off the chemicals

...and what happens when Mom and Dad don't care or have the courage to do something about it?

What happens when you're told to endure rugged individualism and stop whining?

What happens when you're too duressed to act out, and you live in a society that blames the victim of provocation instead of the agent provocateur?

 

[Daktoria]

How many homosexuals are physically assaulted? And who exactly supports them being assaulted?

Is saying sodomy is a sin somehow assaulting or abusive to homosexuals? Am I then bullying a majority of people for saying premarital sex is a sin? Am I bullying adulterers for saying adultery is a sin?

And why do you presume it's only conservatives who are opposing homosexuals? There is just as much opposition to homosexuality on the left, though that seems to be convenienty ignored and forgiven. Why selectively targeting conservatives? Most of all who wouldn't even be thinking of the sin if it wasnt asked about and pushed on all of us.

If you want to live in sin, it's your choice. But don't expect us to pretend it's not sin or pretend we somehow hate you for saying it is. Especially when we call for all people to be treated with kindness like Phil has.

Why would you expect homosexuals who are assaulted to have a record of their assault? Do you believe people are born with video cameras out of their eyes or microphones out of their ears?

This doesn't just apply to homosexuals either.

For example, say boys are assaulted in school by intolerant girls and those girls are tolerated to do so because their teachers are female, unionized, feminists who work in public education.

Would you expect those boys to have a record of their physical assault either even if this happened tens of millions of times?

So we should believe this happens because you tell us?
That's not how things work around here, Skippy. You make a statement. be prepared to defend it. If you can't defend it everyone will call you on it. Then you end up looking like Jake Starkey. Adn no one wants to end up looking like Jake Starkey. Got it?

See that's exactly the point.

People don't report when things happen because of what you just said:

"So we should believe this happens because you tell us?"

...so assaulted people tell you they're assaulted, and they have no evidence of the assault because they're not born with video cameras out of their eyes or microphones out of their ears, and the crime goes on unpunished.

Thanks a lot. You're being such a liberal who depends on scientific evidence for everything instead of actually analyzing the situation at hand with a priori reason.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why would you expect homosexuals who are assaulted to have a record of their assault? Do you believe people are born with video cameras out of their eyes or microphones out of their ears?

This doesn't just apply to homosexuals either.

For example, say boys are assaulted in school by intolerant girls and those girls are tolerated to do so because their teachers are female, unionized, feminists who work in public education.

Would you expect those boys to have a record of their physical assault either even if this happened tens of millions of times?

So we should believe this happens because you tell us?
That's not how things work around here, Skippy. You make a statement. be prepared to defend it. If you can't defend it everyone will call you on it. Then you end up looking like Jake Starkey. Adn no one wants to end up looking like Jake Starkey. Got it?

See that's exactly the point.

People don't report when things happen because of what you just said:

"So we should believe this happens because you tell us?"

...so assaulted people tell you they're assaulted, and they have no evidence of the assault because they're not born with video cameras out of their eyes or microphones out of their ears, and the crime goes on unpunished.

Thanks a lot.

Are you saying assaults are unreported in this country? Seriously? that's your argument?
No, you are channelling Jake Starkey. And no one should channel Jake Starkey.

 

[Daktoria]

So we should believe this happens because you tell us?
That's not how things work around here, Skippy. You make a statement. be prepared to defend it. If you can't defend it everyone will call you on it. Then you end up looking like Jake Starkey. Adn no one wants to end up looking like Jake Starkey. Got it?

See that's exactly the point.

People don't report when things happen because of what you just said:

"So we should believe this happens because you tell us?"

...so assaulted people tell you they're assaulted, and they have no evidence of the assault because they're not born with video cameras out of their eyes or microphones out of their ears, and the crime goes on unpunished.

Thanks a lot.

Are you saying assaults are unreported in this country? Seriously? that's your argument?
No, you are channelling Jake Starkey. And no one should channel Jake Starkey.

For starters, yea. Assault victims are afraid of looking like they're crazy because they can't prove what happened to them.

Likewise, they're afraid of being counter-accused by those who hide behind plausible deniability. They engage in malicious prosecution by the same standard since apparently anything goes when it comes to accusations.

The real problem is we live in a society of lazy administration that refuses to exercise the due diligence required to prevent what can't be cured. Criminals end up sympathizing with lazy administration, and victims get blamed.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why would you expect homosexuals who are assaulted to have a record of their assault? Do you believe people are born with video cameras out of their eyes or microphones out of their ears?

This doesn't just apply to homosexuals either.

For example, say boys are assaulted in school by intolerant girls and those girls are tolerated to do so because their teachers are female, unionized, feminists who work in public education.

Would you expect those boys to have a record of their physical assault either even if this happened tens of millions of times?

I would expect there to be some record of assaults, yes. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask how many assaults there have been when you are claiming there are many. Based on what exactly? There are many assaults on Christians. How do those numbers compare? or how do they compare to say assaults on blacks, hispanics, or an ethnic group?

You can't claim there are tens of millions of assaults and yet provide no evidence. And yes even one assault is one too many, but if intend to use assaults on homosexuals to condemn half the country based on politics, I think you probably want to prove better causation.

Why am I responsible for what other foolish people do just because they may or may not share my political ideas?

 

[Daktoria]

Why would you expect homosexuals who are assaulted to have a record of their assault? Do you believe people are born with video cameras out of their eyes or microphones out of their ears?

This doesn't just apply to homosexuals either.

For example, say boys are assaulted in school by intolerant girls and those girls are tolerated to do so because their teachers are female, unionized, feminists who work in public education.

Would you expect those boys to have a record of their physical assault either even if this happened tens of millions of times?

I would expect there to be some record of assaults, yes. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask how many assaults there have been when you are claiming there are many. Based on what exactly? There are many assaults on Christians. How do those numbers compare? or how do they compare to say assaults on blacks, hispanics, or an ethnic group?

You can't claim there are tens of millions of assaults and yet provide no evidence. And yes even one assault is one too many, but if intend to use assaults on homosexuals to condemn half the country based on politics, I think you probably want to prove better causation.

Why am I responsible for what other foolish people do just because they may or may not share my political ideas?

People aren't born with video cameras out of their eyes or microphones out of their ears.

Where do you expect that evidence to come from?

Are you saying victims of assault are only entitled to justice if someone else is unluckily similarly assaulted yet luckily recording of evidence...

...and why are you focusing on homosexuals? Whatever happened to boys assaulted in a feminist environment?

Why do the numbers matter either? Are you a socialist who believes that individuals only deserve to be treated with respect if there are enough other individuals around them who have a similar problem? Whatever happened to respecting the individual quality of who's on the inside that counts?

 

[The Rabbi]

See that's exactly the point.

People don't report when things happen because of what you just said:

"So we should believe this happens because you tell us?"

...so assaulted people tell you they're assaulted, and they have no evidence of the assault because they're not born with video cameras out of their eyes or microphones out of their ears, and the crime goes on unpunished.

Thanks a lot.

Are you saying assaults are unreported in this country? Seriously? that's your argument?
No, you are channelling Jake Starkey. And no one should channel Jake Starkey.

For starters, yea. Assault victims are afraid of looking like they're crazy because they can't prove what happened to them.

Likewise, they're afraid of being counter-accused by those who hide behind plausible deniability. They engage in malicious prosecution by the same standard since apparently anything goes when it comes to accusations.

The real problem is we live in a society of lazy administration that refuses to exercise the due diligence required to prevent what can't be cured. Criminals end up sympathizing with lazy administration, and victims get blamed.

Over 760,000 aggravated assaults last year, according to the FBI.
FBI ? Aggravated Assault

Looks like you've been Jaked.

 

[Avatar4321]

See that's exactly the point.

People don't report when things happen because of what you just said:

"So we should believe this happens because you tell us?"

...so assaulted people tell you they're assaulted, and they have no evidence of the assault because they're not born with video cameras out of their eyes or microphones out of their ears, and the crime goes on unpunished.

Thanks a lot.

Are you saying assaults are unreported in this country? Seriously? that's your argument?
No, you are channelling Jake Starkey. And no one should channel Jake Starkey.

For starters, yea. Assault victims are afraid of looking like they're crazy because they can't prove what happened to them.

Likewise, they're afraid of being counter-accused by those who hide behind plausible deniability. They engage in malicious prosecution by the same standard since apparently anything goes when it comes to accusations.

The real problem is we live in a society of lazy administration that refuses to exercise the due diligence required to prevent what can't be cured. Criminals end up sympathizing with lazy administration, and victims get blamed.

You are seriously going to argue that?

I represent one to two assault defendents a week. People have no freaking problem calling the police and accusing someone else of an assault. How much of those assaults actually happened or were merely products of self defense, I couldn't answer. But to claim that someone people are afraid to accuse someone of an assault is absolutely ludicious. If someone actually is afraid, it's clearly case specific and not at all occuring in an across the board fashion.