Is it Intolerant to be Intolerant of Intolerance? #2

[Daktoria]

How about you stop psycho-analyzing me as if you think you're chosen by God to judge other people's performance of good works to reveal a predestined calling?

Care to discuss the principle and not the person?

 

[hunarcy]

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

No, I made my post before you shifted to "law enforcement" because you were getting your ass handed to you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let's take a different perspective on this.

Many conservatives have been arguing in the name of freedom of speech in light of the recent Duck Dynasty fiasco.

However, let's take this from another perspective - the notion of objective morality versus work ethic. Some conservatives believe they're entitled to subjectively judge others as lazy because others aren't doing what some conservatives want. Some conservatives focus on what others do rather than how they do it. They are intolerant of what other people do. If others are violated in the course of what they're doing, some conservatives say they're not going to prosecute criminals because some conservatives are intolerant of their victims.

On top of this, these same conservatives argue in the name of the free market. They believe that people should be entitled to do what they will without interference...

...so basically, on one hand, they want protection of their own efforts, but on the other, if they judge someone as lazy because of being incompatible, they don't believe others deserve protection of their efforts. On one hand, they oppose collectivized central planning, but on the other, they insist upon collectivized tradition.

In sum, those conservatives who are clamoring for how it's intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance and believe in work ethic should try living in a communist dystopia where they're not tolerated to make their own lifestyle decisions, but instead, have to conform to others who are intolerant of how they want the freedom to choose how they live their lives. Likewise, they should be victimized by criminals and realize what it's like to not have justice upheld in their name because law enforcers are intolerant of what said conservatives do.

Dak, I don't know who you are, but you made a bad move coming into the Politics forum trashing conservatives without any substantial evidence. People get real annoyed with trash talk, such as what you're passing for a civil assessment of conservatives..

1) The fact you're proposing an alternative view means you were intolerant of the original one.

2) Who cares if you're lazy? Oh, yeah, the taxpayers whose taxes go to subsidize such. Are they all conservatives? No.

3) Those who take government subsidized welfare and food stamps who could otherwise look for work, are lazy. That's not judgement, that's a fact. Nothing political about it whatsoever. Are there those who actually need it as an only recourse? Yes. Are there those who have it that don't need it? Yes.

4) After that, your post is incoherent partisan gibberish. Collectivized planning and collectivized tradition are completely unrelated to one another. And if you haven't noticed, Dak, we already live in a highly secularized society. Given what's happened to Phil Robertson, it shows some people are already intolerant of others intolerance (if you must call it that), namely A&E's of Phil Robertson's.

5) Wishing for someone to be victimized by a crime is out of line. Such an assertion can be viewed as an act of intolerance within itself. Oh and if I may ask: have you been to a "communist dystopia" lately? The fact that Phil Robinson was targeted by GLAAD shows that people on your side of the aisle are not letting people live their own lifestyles, all while forcing tolerance of their own on America.

6) Lastly, you speak of injustice. First, Obamacare is an injustice, having force millions of people off of their own insurance for the furtherance of a communist/socialist ideal (yeah, it is what it is) is an injustice. What A&E did was not an injustice purely because what they did was well within their rights. Such an act of intolerance is unjust, simply because the a man can't have a lifestyle that bucks the mainstream liberal trend of uniformity and conformity.

7) Perhaps you need to do more research on conservatives before you blatantly judge them without a second thought.

 

[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.

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: Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Are you stoned?

 

[Daktoria]

Let's take a different perspective on this.

Many conservatives have been arguing in the name of freedom of speech in light of the recent Duck Dynasty fiasco.

However, let's take this from another perspective - the notion of objective morality versus work ethic. Some conservatives believe they're entitled to subjectively judge others as lazy because others aren't doing what some conservatives want. Some conservatives focus on what others do rather than how they do it. They are intolerant of what other people do. If others are violated in the course of what they're doing, some conservatives say they're not going to prosecute criminals because some conservatives are intolerant of their victims.

On top of this, these same conservatives argue in the name of the free market. They believe that people should be entitled to do what they will without interference...

...so basically, on one hand, they want protection of their own efforts, but on the other, if they judge someone as lazy because of being incompatible, they don't believe others deserve protection of their efforts. On one hand, they oppose collectivized central planning, but on the other, they insist upon collectivized tradition.

In sum, those conservatives who are clamoring for how it's intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance and believe in work ethic should try living in a communist dystopia where they're not tolerated to make their own lifestyle decisions, but instead, have to conform to others who are intolerant of how they want the freedom to choose how they live their lives. Likewise, they should be victimized by criminals and realize what it's like to not have justice upheld in their name because law enforcers are intolerant of what said conservatives do.

Dak, I don't know who you are, but you made a bad move coming into the Politics forum trashing conservatives without any substantial evidence. People get real annoyed with trash talk, such as what you're passing for a civil assessment of conservatives..

1) The fact you're proposing an alternative view means you were intolerant of the original one.

2) Who cares if you're lazy? Oh, yeah, the taxpayers whose taxes go to subsidize such. Are they all conservatives? No.

3) Those who take government subsidized welfare and food stamps who could otherwise look for work, are lazy. That's not judgement, that's a fact. Nothing political about it whatsoever. Are there those who actually need it as an only recourse? Yes. Are there those who have it that don't need it? Yes.

4) After that, your post is incoherent partisan gibberish. Collectivized planning and collectivized tradition are completely unrelated to one another. And if you haven't noticed, Dak, we already live in a highly secularized society. Given what's happened to Phil Robertson, it shows some people are already intolerant of others intolerance (if you must call it that), namely A&E's of Phil Robertson's.

5) Wishing for someone to be victimized by a crime is out of line. Such an assertion can be viewed as an act of intolerance within itself. Oh and if I may ask: have you been to a "communist dystopia" lately? The fact that Phil Robinson was targeted by GLAAD shows that people on your side of the aisle are not letting people live their own lifestyles, all while forcing tolerance of their own on America.

6) Lastly, you speak of injustice. First, Obamacare is an injustice, having force millions of people off of their own insurance for the furtherance of a communist/socialist ideal (yeah, it is what it is) is an injustice. What A&E did was not an injustice purely because what they did was well within their rights. Such an act of intolerance is unjust, simply because the a man can't have a lifestyle that bucks the mainstream liberal trend of uniformity and conformity.

7) Perhaps you need to do more research on conservatives before you blatantly judge them without a second thought.

One, conservatives aren't evidentally based. They're ideologically based... unless they're rugged individualists who expect people to perform good works to represent work ethic, but that's liberal, not conservative. It denies the individuality of judgment as if people have to prove themselves in advance of being treated with respect. It ignores how good works are subjective, not objective. They depend on the lifestyle intending to be practiced. This is actually the basis of the free market as well in that people aren't obligated to endure being intervened with in their life because others don't approve of their performance of good works.

Two, if you believe laziness can be objectified, then you wouldn't have any problem with government centrally planning utility preferences through social programs, public goods, or redistributive justice. It could be said that those who are compensated too much for too little are lazy because people's work ethic can be handled by an objective benchmark.

Three, you're ignoring how the rule of law has to be afforded, and you haven't established the difference between collectivized planning and collectivized tradition. You haven't justified why conservatives would believe they're obligated to still contribute to policing despite the diversity of lifestyles in society. Do I believe a conservative justification exists, yes, but I don't believe all conservatives believe in that justification. Those who believe in work ethic and objectifying others' performance of good works can make an excuse not to pay for the policing of those in society who don't perform good works to their satisfaction.

Four, this doesn't have to do with wishing others to be victimized. It has to do with neglecting those who are. Many conservatives engage in this sort of passive-aggression by refusing to protect those who don't live their traditional lifestyles, arguing that it's communist to have to protect others they don't approve of. Again, this doesn't have to deal with being a punk or a rebel without a cause. It can just be slightly different ways of life in the way of creative thinking or problem solving.

I don't know why you believe I'm a left-winger. I'm not.

However, the situation at hand is being viewed in a short-sighted manner.

Your perspective on Obamacare and A&E are also short-sighted by the way.

One, when many conservatives judge other people's performance of good works as unsatisfying and therefore obligated to endure exposure to abuse (especially when it hides behind plausible deniability), they become socially alienated. In turn, they don't become successful members of society. This leads to an intrinsic income inequality which is being corrected through social programs. The original attitude of judging people's work ethic and good works needs to be stopped first.

Two, there are further reaching implications of "intolerance towards intolerance being intolerant", namely the idea of tolerating intolerant criminals. Conservatives have historically been critical of liberals who are soft on crime, yet the principle at hand would be soft on crime as well...

...such as what homosexuals endure while growing up in school: Gay Bullying Statistics - Bullying Statistics

Homosexuals aren't the only ones who endure this though. Anyone who lives an alternative lifestyle and doesn't fit in gets subject to ruggedly individualist standards. There is a universal principle at stake regardless of the particular practice at hand when it comes to intolerance towards the intolerant.

A&E was right in its move to ban such an intolerant person from their channel, and conservatives should acknowledge this. After all, they're the first to note consumerism's influence on destroying social cohesion in society through the media. A&E saw the hypocritical stance on intolerance that Phil Robertson took which is contradictory of being tough on crime, and didn't want him to destroy social cohesion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let's take a different perspective on this.

Many conservatives have been arguing in the name of freedom of speech in light of the recent Duck Dynasty fiasco.

However, let's take this from another perspective - the notion of objective morality versus work ethic. Some conservatives believe they're entitled to subjectively judge others as lazy because others aren't doing what some conservatives want. Some conservatives focus on what others do rather than how they do it. They are intolerant of what other people do. If others are violated in the course of what they're doing, some conservatives say they're not going to prosecute criminals because some conservatives are intolerant of their victims.

On top of this, these same conservatives argue in the name of the free market. They believe that people should be entitled to do what they will without interference...

...so basically, on one hand, they want protection of their own efforts, but on the other, if they judge someone as lazy because of being incompatible, they don't believe others deserve protection of their efforts. On one hand, they oppose collectivized central planning, but on the other, they insist upon collectivized tradition.

In sum, those conservatives who are clamoring for how it's intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance and believe in work ethic should try living in a communist dystopia where they're not tolerated to make their own lifestyle decisions, but instead, have to conform to others who are intolerant of how they want the freedom to choose how they live their lives. Likewise, they should be victimized by criminals and realize what it's like to not have justice upheld in their name because law enforcers are intolerant of what said conservatives do.

Dak, I don't know who you are, but you made a bad move coming into the Politics forum trashing conservatives without any substantial evidence. People get real annoyed with trash talk, such as what you're passing for a civil assessment of conservatives..

1) The fact you're proposing an alternative view means you were intolerant of the original one.

2) Who cares if you're lazy? Oh, yeah, the taxpayers whose taxes go to subsidize such. Are they all conservatives? No.

3) Those who take government subsidized welfare and food stamps who could otherwise look for work, are lazy. That's not judgement, that's a fact. Nothing political about it whatsoever. Are there those who actually need it as an only recourse? Yes. Are there those who have it that don't need it? Yes.

4) After that, your post is incoherent partisan gibberish. Collectivized planning and collectivized tradition are completely unrelated to one another. And if you haven't noticed, Dak, we already live in a highly secularized society. Given what's happened to Phil Robertson, it shows some people are already intolerant of others intolerance (if you must call it that), namely A&E's of Phil Robertson's.

5) Wishing for someone to be victimized by a crime is out of line. Such an assertion can be viewed as an act of intolerance within itself. Oh and if I may ask: have you been to a "communist dystopia" lately? The fact that Phil Robinson was targeted by GLAAD shows that people on your side of the aisle are not letting people live their own lifestyles, all while forcing tolerance of their own on America.

6) Lastly, you speak of injustice. First, Obamacare is an injustice, having force millions of people off of their own insurance for the furtherance of a communist/socialist ideal (yeah, it is what it is) is an injustice. What A&E did was not an injustice purely because what they did was well within their rights. Such an act of intolerance is unjust, simply because the a man can't have a lifestyle that bucks the mainstream liberal trend of uniformity and conformity.

7) Perhaps you need to do more research on conservatives before you blatantly judge them without a second thought.

One, conservatives aren't evidentally based. They're ideologically based... unless they're rugged individualists who expect people to perform good works to represent work ethic, but that's liberal, not conservative. It denies the individuality of judgment as if people have to prove themselves in advance of being treated with respect. It ignores how good works are subjective, not objective. They depend on the lifestyle intending to be practiced. This is actually the basis of the free market as well in that people aren't obligated to endure being intervened with in their life because others don't approve of their performance of good works.

Two, if you believe laziness can be objectified, then you wouldn't have any problem with government centrally planning utility preferences through social programs, public goods, or redistributive justice. It could be said that those who are compensated too much for too little are lazy because people's work ethic can be handled by an objective benchmark.

Three, you're ignoring how the rule of law has to be afforded, and you haven't established the difference between collectivized planning and collectivized tradition. You haven't justified why conservatives would believe they're obligated to still contribute to policing despite the diversity of lifestyles in society. Do I believe a conservative justification exists, yes, but I don't believe all conservatives believe in that justification. Those who believe in work ethic and objectifying others' performance of good works can make an excuse not to pay for the policing of those in society who don't perform good works to their satisfaction.

Four, this doesn't have to do with wishing others to be victimized. It has to do with neglecting those who are. Many conservatives engage in this sort of passive-aggression by refusing to protect those who don't live their traditional lifestyles, arguing that it's communist to have to protect others they don't approve of. Again, this doesn't have to deal with being a punk or a rebel without a cause. It can just be slightly different ways of life in the way of creative thinking or problem solving.

I don't know why you believe I'm a left-winger. I'm not.

However, the situation at hand is being viewed in a short-sighted manner.

Your perspective on Obamacare and A&E are also short-sighted by the way.

One, when many conservatives judge other people's performance of good works as unsatisfying and therefore obligated to endure exposure to abuse (especially when it hides behind plausible deniability), they become socially alienated. In turn, they don't become successful members of society. This leads to an intrinsic income inequality which is being corrected through social programs. The original attitude of judging people's work ethic and good works needs to be stopped first.

Two, there are further reaching implications of "intolerance towards intolerance being intolerant", namely the idea of tolerating intolerant criminals. Conservatives have historically been critical of liberals who are soft on crime, yet the principle at hand would be soft on crime as well...

...such as what homosexuals endure while growing up in school: Gay Bullying Statistics - Bullying Statistics

Homosexuals aren't the only ones who endure this though. Anyone who lives an alternative lifestyle and doesn't fit in gets subject to ruggedly individualist standards. There is a universal principle at stake regardless of the particular practice at hand when it comes to intolerance towards the intolerant.

A&E was right in its move to ban such an intolerant person from their channel, and conservatives should acknowledge this. After all, they're the first to note consumerism's influence on destroying social cohesion in society through the media. A&E saw the hypocritical stance on intolerance that Phil Robertson took which is contradictory of being tough on crime, and didn't want him to destroy social cohesion.

Spare me your partisanship. That's why your thread is dead. Your partisanship clouds your objectivity. Nobody can argue you with a straight face when you go on unmitigated tirades such as this.

 

[Sunshine]

Dak, I don't know who you are, but you made a bad move coming into the Politics forum trashing conservatives without any substantial evidence. People get real annoyed with trash talk, such as what you're passing for a civil assessment of conservatives..

1) The fact you're proposing an alternative view means you were intolerant of the original one.

2) Who cares if you're lazy? Oh, yeah, the taxpayers whose taxes go to subsidize such. Are they all conservatives? No.

3) Those who take government subsidized welfare and food stamps who could otherwise look for work, are lazy. That's not judgement, that's a fact. Nothing political about it whatsoever. Are there those who actually need it as an only recourse? Yes. Are there those who have it that don't need it? Yes.

4) After that, your post is incoherent partisan gibberish. Collectivized planning and collectivized tradition are completely unrelated to one another. And if you haven't noticed, Dak, we already live in a highly secularized society. Given what's happened to Phil Robertson, it shows some people are already intolerant of others intolerance (if you must call it that), namely A&E's of Phil Robertson's.

5) Wishing for someone to be victimized by a crime is out of line. Such an assertion can be viewed as an act of intolerance within itself. Oh and if I may ask: have you been to a "communist dystopia" lately? The fact that Phil Robinson was targeted by GLAAD shows that people on your side of the aisle are not letting people live their own lifestyles, all while forcing tolerance of their own on America.

6) Lastly, you speak of injustice. First, Obamacare is an injustice, having force millions of people off of their own insurance for the furtherance of a communist/socialist ideal (yeah, it is what it is) is an injustice. What A&E did was not an injustice purely because what they did was well within their rights. Such an act of intolerance is unjust, simply because the a man can't have a lifestyle that bucks the mainstream liberal trend of uniformity and conformity.

7) Perhaps you need to do more research on conservatives before you blatantly judge them without a second thought.

One, conservatives aren't evidentally based. They're ideologically based... unless they're rugged individualists who expect people to perform good works to represent work ethic, but that's liberal, not conservative. It denies the individuality of judgment as if people have to prove themselves in advance of being treated with respect. It ignores how good works are subjective, not objective. They depend on the lifestyle intending to be practiced. This is actually the basis of the free market as well in that people aren't obligated to endure being intervened with in their life because others don't approve of their performance of good works.

Two, if you believe laziness can be objectified, then you wouldn't have any problem with government centrally planning utility preferences through social programs, public goods, or redistributive justice. It could be said that those who are compensated too much for too little are lazy because people's work ethic can be handled by an objective benchmark.

Three, you're ignoring how the rule of law has to be afforded, and you haven't established the difference between collectivized planning and collectivized tradition. You haven't justified why conservatives would believe they're obligated to still contribute to policing despite the diversity of lifestyles in society. Do I believe a conservative justification exists, yes, but I don't believe all conservatives believe in that justification. Those who believe in work ethic and objectifying others' performance of good works can make an excuse not to pay for the policing of those in society who don't perform good works to their satisfaction.

Four, this doesn't have to do with wishing others to be victimized. It has to do with neglecting those who are. Many conservatives engage in this sort of passive-aggression by refusing to protect those who don't live their traditional lifestyles, arguing that it's communist to have to protect others they don't approve of. Again, this doesn't have to deal with being a punk or a rebel without a cause. It can just be slightly different ways of life in the way of creative thinking or problem solving.

I don't know why you believe I'm a left-winger. I'm not.

However, the situation at hand is being viewed in a short-sighted manner.

Your perspective on Obamacare and A&E are also short-sighted by the way.

One, when many conservatives judge other people's performance of good works as unsatisfying and therefore obligated to endure exposure to abuse (especially when it hides behind plausible deniability), they become socially alienated. In turn, they don't become successful members of society. This leads to an intrinsic income inequality which is being corrected through social programs. The original attitude of judging people's work ethic and good works needs to be stopped first.

Two, there are further reaching implications of "intolerance towards intolerance being intolerant", namely the idea of tolerating intolerant criminals. Conservatives have historically been critical of liberals who are soft on crime, yet the principle at hand would be soft on crime as well...

...such as what homosexuals endure while growing up in school: Gay Bullying Statistics - Bullying Statistics

Homosexuals aren't the only ones who endure this though. Anyone who lives an alternative lifestyle and doesn't fit in gets subject to ruggedly individualist standards. There is a universal principle at stake regardless of the particular practice at hand when it comes to intolerance towards the intolerant.

A&E was right in its move to ban such an intolerant person from their channel, and conservatives should acknowledge this. After all, they're the first to note consumerism's influence on destroying social cohesion in society through the media. A&E saw the hypocritical stance on intolerance that Phil Robertson took which is contradictory of being tough on crime, and didn't want him to destroy social cohesion.

Spare me your partisanship. That's why your thread is dead. Your partisanship clouds your objectivity. Nobody can argue you with a straight face when you go on unmitigated tirades such as this.

Well that and the fact that he couldn't even come up with an original thread, he had to steal Foxie's idea. Typical liberal.

 

[Daktoria]

You guys know that ideological discussion isn't partisanship, right?

Partisanship literally deals with political parties, not how you think.

Anyway, you guys aren't conservatives. A conservative acknowledges the value of law and order when it comes to being intolerant of the intolerant.

I guess you're being sarcastic in calling me a liberal. That's not something I'm aspiring towards.

 

[Daktoria]

Dak, I don't know who you are, but you made a bad move coming into the Politics forum trashing conservatives without any substantial evidence. People get real annoyed with trash talk, such as what you're passing for a civil assessment of conservatives..

1) The fact you're proposing an alternative view means you were intolerant of the original one.

2) Who cares if you're lazy? Oh, yeah, the taxpayers whose taxes go to subsidize such. Are they all conservatives? No.

3) Those who take government subsidized welfare and food stamps who could otherwise look for work, are lazy. That's not judgement, that's a fact. Nothing political about it whatsoever. Are there those who actually need it as an only recourse? Yes. Are there those who have it that don't need it? Yes.

4) After that, your post is incoherent partisan gibberish. Collectivized planning and collectivized tradition are completely unrelated to one another. And if you haven't noticed, Dak, we already live in a highly secularized society. Given what's happened to Phil Robertson, it shows some people are already intolerant of others intolerance (if you must call it that), namely A&E's of Phil Robertson's.

5) Wishing for someone to be victimized by a crime is out of line. Such an assertion can be viewed as an act of intolerance within itself. Oh and if I may ask: have you been to a "communist dystopia" lately? The fact that Phil Robinson was targeted by GLAAD shows that people on your side of the aisle are not letting people live their own lifestyles, all while forcing tolerance of their own on America.

6) Lastly, you speak of injustice. First, Obamacare is an injustice, having force millions of people off of their own insurance for the furtherance of a communist/socialist ideal (yeah, it is what it is) is an injustice. What A&E did was not an injustice purely because what they did was well within their rights. Such an act of intolerance is unjust, simply because the a man can't have a lifestyle that bucks the mainstream liberal trend of uniformity and conformity.

7) Perhaps you need to do more research on conservatives before you blatantly judge them without a second thought.

One, conservatives aren't evidentally based. They're ideologically based... unless they're rugged individualists who expect people to perform good works to represent work ethic, but that's liberal, not conservative. It denies the individuality of judgment as if people have to prove themselves in advance of being treated with respect. It ignores how good works are subjective, not objective. They depend on the lifestyle intending to be practiced. This is actually the basis of the free market as well in that people aren't obligated to endure being intervened with in their life because others don't approve of their performance of good works.

Two, if you believe laziness can be objectified, then you wouldn't have any problem with government centrally planning utility preferences through social programs, public goods, or redistributive justice. It could be said that those who are compensated too much for too little are lazy because people's work ethic can be handled by an objective benchmark.

Three, you're ignoring how the rule of law has to be afforded, and you haven't established the difference between collectivized planning and collectivized tradition. You haven't justified why conservatives would believe they're obligated to still contribute to policing despite the diversity of lifestyles in society. Do I believe a conservative justification exists, yes, but I don't believe all conservatives believe in that justification. Those who believe in work ethic and objectifying others' performance of good works can make an excuse not to pay for the policing of those in society who don't perform good works to their satisfaction.

Four, this doesn't have to do with wishing others to be victimized. It has to do with neglecting those who are. Many conservatives engage in this sort of passive-aggression by refusing to protect those who don't live their traditional lifestyles, arguing that it's communist to have to protect others they don't approve of. Again, this doesn't have to deal with being a punk or a rebel without a cause. It can just be slightly different ways of life in the way of creative thinking or problem solving.

I don't know why you believe I'm a left-winger. I'm not.

However, the situation at hand is being viewed in a short-sighted manner.

Your perspective on Obamacare and A&E are also short-sighted by the way.

One, when many conservatives judge other people's performance of good works as unsatisfying and therefore obligated to endure exposure to abuse (especially when it hides behind plausible deniability), they become socially alienated. In turn, they don't become successful members of society. This leads to an intrinsic income inequality which is being corrected through social programs. The original attitude of judging people's work ethic and good works needs to be stopped first.

Two, there are further reaching implications of "intolerance towards intolerance being intolerant", namely the idea of tolerating intolerant criminals. Conservatives have historically been critical of liberals who are soft on crime, yet the principle at hand would be soft on crime as well...

...such as what homosexuals endure while growing up in school: Gay Bullying Statistics - Bullying Statistics

Homosexuals aren't the only ones who endure this though. Anyone who lives an alternative lifestyle and doesn't fit in gets subject to ruggedly individualist standards. There is a universal principle at stake regardless of the particular practice at hand when it comes to intolerance towards the intolerant.

A&E was right in its move to ban such an intolerant person from their channel, and conservatives should acknowledge this. After all, they're the first to note consumerism's influence on destroying social cohesion in society through the media. A&E saw the hypocritical stance on intolerance that Phil Robertson took which is contradictory of being tough on crime, and didn't want him to destroy social cohesion.

Spare me your partisanship. That's why your thread is dead. Your partisanship clouds your objectivity. Nobody can argue you with a straight face when you go on unmitigated tirades such as this.

Well pardon me for other people being awkward, but their awkwardness isn't my problem.

Quality and quantity of argument aren't substitutes. They can be compliments. Merely saying a lot doesn't make it a tirade. Are you trying to deconstruct what I said like a left-winger would?

In any case, you come off like some liberal English teacher who tries to tell intellectual conservative students that their positions aren't practical, forcing them to endure a performative contradiction of anti-intellectualism since so many other conservatives are anti-intellectual.

For someone who advocates not stereotyping conservatives, you sure are being a hypocrite.

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

Which community doesnt uphold justice because someone doesn't fit in? Please name them. Provide examples.

No we see little evidence of liberals being tolerant or criminals being tolerant, but Im repeating myself.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

If we aren't supposed to rely on evidence, what exactly are we supposed to rely on? our hopes and desires? What we want to have occured? your political idealogy?

What is so wrong about expecting evidence? I thought progressives loved evidence or so you've always claimed, but its just us who are required to support our arguments. You are supposed to be listened to and believed without question.

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

So testimony from homosexuals is unreliable because they are homosexuals? Do you even hear what you are saying here?

 

[Avatar4321]

One, conservatives aren't evidentally based. They're ideologically based... unless they're rugged individualists who expect people to perform good works to represent work ethic, but that's liberal, not conservative. It denies the individuality of judgment as if people have to prove themselves in advance of being treated with respect. It ignores how good works are subjective, not objective. They depend on the lifestyle intending to be practiced. This is actually the basis of the free market as well in that people aren't obligated to endure being intervened with in their life because others don't approve of their performance of good works.

Which, of course, is why we have been asking you to provide evidence. Because we are idealogically based and not evidentially based.

And that's also why you've been repeatedly saying evidence is unreliable simply because it comes from a homosexual despite the fact that testimony evidence is good enough to prosecute just about everyone else in the country for assault cases.

Wouldn't it be easier just to admit you have no idea how many assault cases occur against homosexuals and that you're talking out your ass when you claim many conservatives support said assaults?

Is alittle honesty too much to ask for?

 

[Avatar4321]

You guys know that ideological discussion isn't partisanship, right?

Partisanship literally deals with political parties, not how you think.

Anyway, you guys aren't conservatives. A conservative acknowledges the value of law and order when it comes to being intolerant of the intolerant.

I guess you're being sarcastic in calling me a liberal. That's not something I'm aspiring towards.

When you start thinking and not stereotyping people, we can have a discussion on the way people think. Till then, I suggest you remove the beam from your eye before you go for the motes of others.

 

[Daktoria]

As a conservative who believes in objective morality and upholding law and order such that "intolerance against the intolerant is intolerant" is an invalid excuse, I can assure you that I'm not stereotyping.

Aside from myself though, I don't think all conservatives hold a ruggedly individualist attitude against alternative lifestyles. Many acknowledge the universal value of heritage instead, regardless of the particular form it takes.