Is it Intolerant to be Intolerant of Intolerance? #2

[Kosh]

Sorry. Are you being sarcastic?

Last I checked, feminism and multiculturalism are far left ideas.

When I complain that conservatives aren't declaring a war on feminism and multiculturalism, how is that far left propaganda?

Last I checked, opposing objective morality is a far left idea.

When I complain that conservatives aren't upholding objective morality, how is that far left propaganda?

If this was far left propaganda, I would be going along with the limp noodle perspective that far leftists have towards simply forgiving criminals rather than confronting them.

If you wish to believe "intolerance of the intolerant is intolerant", then you're a far-leftist, not me. You're the one who believes in tolerating crime because criminals are intolerant.

That's what this issue about homosexuality is really about. Homosexuals are just one group among others that aren't tolerated because they live alternative lifestyles.

Well guess what?

There are lots of ordinary people who live alternative lifestyles, but emotivist relativism that denies objective morality is taken as an excuse to not be tolerant of them nor to uphold justice in their name when they're not tolerated.

Oh my even more far left propaganda!

 

[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?

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?

Eye witness accounts. Like most evidence comes from. Medical records.

Assaults aren't really difficult to prosecute. Person comes in says so and so assaulted them. Here are some pictures of what i looked like afterwards. Or police officer is called to confirm that the person was injured.

Now sexual assaults are a completely different beast all together. But just assaults? We over 760,000 agg assaults alone just last year. That doesnt even count lesser assaults. I really don't see how anyone has a problem accusing others of assaulting them.

I see much more of a problem where people come into court and want to drop the charges against the other person because they've worked it out amongst themselves and dont want the other person to get in trouble. Problem is proceedings have been initiated and police and prosecuters don't want to stop the ball from rolling.

 

[Daktoria]

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.

No. SOME people have no problem calling the police. Just because you experience something happening sometimes doesn't mean everyone doesn't have a problem.

Did you just forget what I said about malicious prosecution? How would you like it if you were assaulted, had no evidence, reported the assault, but then the person you accused COUNTER-ACCUSED you of being PROVOCATIVE.

Now, you're screwed...

...or how about the person just denies everything?

...or how about someone maliciously prosecutes you in the first place of assaulting them despite how you didn't assault them?

Likewise, just because something isn't happening in an across the board fashion doesn't mean you have a fair society.

You can also have a practically prejudiced society that disapproves of alternative lifestyles, but is anti-intellectually stuck in its ways. Anyone who lives alternatively gets dismissed as ridiculous.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

Im suggesting that if you want to make accusations you should probably back it up and show causation.

Please explain how we, who advocating kindness, though we disagree with homosexual behavior, are somehow responsible of for the actions of someone who engaged in violent assaults against homosexuals, that may or may not have occured, because they may or may not share our political viewpoints in some vague fashion.

 

[Daktoria]

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?

Eye witness accounts. Like most evidence comes from. Medical records.

Assaults aren't really difficult to prosecute. Person comes in says so and so assaulted them. Here are some pictures of what i looked like afterwards. Or police officer is called to confirm that the person was injured.

Now sexual assaults are a completely different beast all together. But just assaults? We over 760,000 agg assaults alone just last year. That doesnt even count lesser assaults. I really don't see how anyone has a problem accusing others of assaulting them.

I see much more of a problem where people come into court and want to drop the charges against the other person because they've worked it out amongst themselves and dont want the other person to get in trouble. Problem is proceedings have been initiated and police and prosecuters don't want to stop the ball from rolling.

Eyewitnesses don't necessarily exist, and you can exist in a community where people don't like you, so they won't give testimony.

Likewise, people can fake getting assaulted. For example, someone might not like you, so one has pictures before an event (you might attend), then hurts oneself such as by throwing oneself down a flight of stairs, and then reports you for assaulting them...

...or maybe an accident happens without intentional fraud, but the person still doesn't like you, so the person takes the opportunity to maliciously prosecute you anyway...

...but on top of that, people don't necessarily have pictures of themselves in the first place, so no reliable evidence would exist to compare against.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Daktoris, why don't you just bluntly say what you really mean.

like.

I hate conservatives because....

 

[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.

Im suggesting that if you want to make accusations you should probably back it up and show causation.

Please explain how we, who advocating kindness, though we disagree with homosexual behavior, are somehow responsible of for the actions of someone who engaged in violent assaults against homosexuals, that may or may not have occured, because they may or may not share our political viewpoints in some vague fashion.

I'm suggesting that you understand that causation can't always be shown, and that the matter of homosexuality is just a specific example of a general principle; intolerance against the intolerant being intolerant itself is not a valid excuse. Criminals are intolerant, so that excuse would tolerate crime.

Furthermore, if we depend on what's "shown", then it's permissible for criminals to get away with crime when hiding behind plausible deniability.

I thought this is what conservatives complained about anyway - the limits of scientific evidence.

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

Eye witness accounts. Like most evidence comes from. Medical records.

Assaults aren't really difficult to prosecute. Person comes in says so and so assaulted them. Here are some pictures of what i looked like afterwards. Or police officer is called to confirm that the person was injured.

Now sexual assaults are a completely different beast all together. But just assaults? We over 760,000 agg assaults alone just last year. That doesnt even count lesser assaults. I really don't see how anyone has a problem accusing others of assaulting them.

I see much more of a problem where people come into court and want to drop the charges against the other person because they've worked it out amongst themselves and dont want the other person to get in trouble. Problem is proceedings have been initiated and police and prosecuters don't want to stop the ball from rolling.

Eyewitnesses don't necessarily exist, and you can exist in a community where people don't like you, so they won't give testimony.

Likewise, people can fake getting assaulted. For example, someone might not like you, so one has pictures before an event (you might attend), then hurts oneself such as by throwing oneself down a flight of stairs, and then reports you for assaulting them...

...or maybe an accident happens without intentional fraud, but the person still doesn't like you, so the person takes the opportunity to maliciously prosecute you anyway...

...but on top of that, people don't necessarily have pictures of themselves in the first place, so no reliable evidence would exist to compare against.

Um the person who is assaulted is an eye witness.... So if someone is going to accuse someone else of assaulting them, there is ALWAYS an eye witness.

And yes, I know there are fake assaults. Why you think this matters just tells me you can't follow the conversation. Or all you suggesting that all the homosexual assaults you can't cite are just fake assaults?

I have no doubt that someone people are assaulted because they choose to have sex with people of the same gender. But I've seen little evidence that there is an epidemic of such assaults. Simply claiming many are assaulted solely based on their sexual preference, is not sufficient evidence when you are trying to condemn an entire political idealogy for those assaults. The mere fact that when such an assault occurs it gets national attention and outrage should tell us that this isn't as wide spread as some want to claim.

In fact, im willing to bet that the actual numbers of assaults against homosexuals are extremely low simply due to the fact that no one knows someone is a homosexual unless they are told.

If you want accuse others of intolerance, it's probably useful not to stereotype them.

 

[Daktoria]

Wow...

...can you drop the homosexual bit and just focus on the principle at hand?

What do you have to say to people who live alternative lifestyles, get assaulted, lack evidence, and live a community where people don't uphold justice in their name because they don't fit in?

Do you not remember how conservatives tend to complain about how liberals are soft on crime?

How could a conservative honestly take the excuse of "intolerance towards the intolerant is intolerant" while forgetting this? Is a conservative supposed to believe that criminals are tolerant?

 

[The Rabbi]

Wow...

...can you drop the homosexual bit and just focus on the principle at hand?

What do you have to say to people who live alternative lifestyles, get assaulted, lack evidence, and live a community where people don't uphold justice in their name because they don't fit in?

Can you present any evidence that this actually happens?
Oh yeah, you're a smelly troll. No evidence required.

 

[Daktoria]

Daktoris, why don't you just bluntly say what you really mean.

like.

I hate conservatives because....

Why do you have to behave like such a liberal in nit-picking what I'm saying to make a mockery of it?

 

[Daktoria]

Wow...

...can you drop the homosexual bit and just focus on the principle at hand?

What do you have to say to people who live alternative lifestyles, get assaulted, lack evidence, and live a community where people don't uphold justice in their name because they don't fit in?

Can you present any evidence that this actually happens?
Oh yeah, you're a smelly troll. No evidence required.

Can you explain how depending on evidence is reliable?

I thought conservatives were the ones who saw issues in epistemic closure.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wow...

...can you drop the homosexual bit and just focus on the principle at hand?

What do you have to say to people who live alternative lifestyles, get assaulted, lack evidence, and live a community where people don't uphold justice in their name because they don't fit in?

Can you present any evidence that this actually happens?
Oh yeah, you're a smelly troll. No evidence required.

Can you explain how depending on evidence is reliable?

I thought conservatives were the ones who saw issues in epistemic closure.

Wait, so you're saying everyone should believe your account that people are assaulted in communities and then dont report it or their reports are ignored? Seriously??

 

[Daktoria]

Can you present any evidence that this actually happens?
Oh yeah, you're a smelly troll. No evidence required.

Can you explain how depending on evidence is reliable?

I thought conservatives were the ones who saw issues in epistemic closure.

Wait, so you're saying everyone should believe your account that people are assaulted in communities and then dont report it or their reports are ignored? Seriously??

Do you understand what the word "reliable" means?

 

[The Rabbi]

Can you explain how depending on evidence is reliable?

I thought conservatives were the ones who saw issues in epistemic closure.

Wait, so you're saying everyone should believe your account that people are assaulted in communities and then dont report it or their reports are ignored? Seriously??

Do you understand what the word "reliable" means?

Do you understand what the word "bullshit"means?

 

[Daktoria]

You think reliability is nonsense?

Are you an anarchist who believes people should be forced to assume risks they don't consent to assume, and that we live in a state of nature where might makes right?

 

[The Rabbi]

You think reliability is nonsense?

Are you an anarchist who believes people should be forced to assume risks they don't consent to assume, and that we live in a state of nature where might makes right?

No, I think reliability is important. And you making statements without a shred of evidence shows you are unreliable.

 

[elektra]

another poor attempt at bashing conservatives, the author's numerous premises are all wrong.

I would go as far to say that the author is stereotyping people thus all of the authors assertions are false.

Where did I stereotype? I said "many conservatives" not "all conservatives".

So you stereotype "many conservatives", wrong is still wrong.

 

[Daktoria]

You think reliability is nonsense?

Are you an anarchist who believes people should be forced to assume risks they don't consent to assume, and that we live in a state of nature where might makes right?

No, I think reliability is important. And you making statements without a shred of evidence shows you are unreliable.

You're quantifying reliability in the present, not qualifying reliability over time.

Whether evidence exists or not doesn't matter. Yes, you might comes to a conclusion that a process is reliable if a result happens over and over, but not necessarily. All you're doing is playing number games there by gambling on probabilities.

If you're trying to necessitate reliability, then you need to abstractly ask, "Why does what's actual potentially happen?" Evidence only shows what's possibly actualized. It doesn't show why potential's necessary.

Otherwise, you'll confuse correlation with causation, and become ignorant from limited samples. Populations aren't always revealed in the moment, and even when they are revealed, they aren't always recorded.

Anyway, I'm assuming this is what you're doing because if you're not, then you're just being deliberately contrarian to get on my nerves: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/#EVR

 

[Lumpy 1]

Daktoris, why don't you just bluntly say what you really mean.

like.

I hate conservatives because....

Why do you have to behave like such a liberal in nit-picking what I'm saying to make a mockery of it?

Sheesh.. are you really feeling nit-picked and mocked by being asked to get to the point?

Maybe I should mock you for being an evasive butterfly.