Is it Intolerant to be Intolerant of Intolerance? #2

[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.

 

[g5000]

If you choose to be lazy, go right ahead. It's a free country. But when you start demanding the government steal my money to support your choice, then you are violating my liberties.

Got it?

 

[g5000]

One third of the involuntarily uninsured are high school dropouts. They made a choice, and now the Democrats are stealing from the rest of us to support that choice.

See how that works?

 

[g5000]

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. Every media figure has a clause in their contract which covers this kind of thing.

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.

Now he's free to tour with Sarah Palin.

 

[Daktoria]

If you choose to be lazy, go right ahead. It's a free country. But when you start demanding the government to steal my money to support your choice, then you are violating my liberties.

Got it?

I never said anything about that.

Many conservatives interpret others who are lazy who really aren't. They just live differently.

 

[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.

 

[Kosh]

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

So could you show more partisan "hackery" in that one sentence?

Freedom of speech does not protect popular speech it protects unpopular speech.

However in this case all he did was say what he believes and the far left came unhinged and wanted him silenced and his freedom of speech revoked.

The far left is ok with freedom of speech as long as it is approved by the far left.

 

[Kosh]

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.

WOW look at al the far left propaganda in that post.

 

[hunarcy]

If you choose to be lazy, go right ahead. It's a free country. But when you start demanding the government to steal my money to support your choice, then you are violating my liberties.

Got it?

I never said anything about that.

Many conservatives interpret others who are lazy who really aren't. They just live differently.

If they live differently, isn't that their choice? Why should I subsidize what is a choice for them? Will you give me part of your savings so I can have a broader choice of vacation spots?

 

[g5000]

If you choose to be lazy, go right ahead. It's a free country. But when you start demanding the government to steal my money to support your choice, then you are violating my liberties.

Got it?

I never said anything about that.

Many conservatives interpret others who are lazy who really aren't. They just live differently.

Does the definition of "live differently" include collecting government money in one form or another?

If so, they are receiving my money, and I am entitled to demand rigorous due diligence. If they are perfectly capable of working, and are choosing not to, then I have a serious problem with that. They are not free to "live differently" at my expense.

On the flip side, I have seen people here who are profoundly retarded who actually believe there is no poverty in America. There are others who appear to believe the majority of people on food stamps are just being lazy.

I am not one of those people, though I do believe there is a great deal of seriously unhealthy dependence on government. But that dependence is not restricted to Black Panthers and ObamaPhone black welfare queens and whatever other non-Aryan mud people roam the fearful imaginations of the retards. No, we are ALL dependent on government. We are all receiving milk from Big Sister's tit, whether it be in the form of a mortgage interest deduction, or a tax exempt employer health insurance benefit, a tax credit of one kind or another, or a bailout of our bank, or food stamps.

 

[Kosh]

If you choose to be lazy, go right ahead. It's a free country. But when you start demanding the government to steal my money to support your choice, then you are violating my liberties.

Got it?

I never said anything about that.

Many conservatives interpret others who are lazy who really aren't. They just live differently.

If they live differently, isn't that their choice? Why should I subsidize what is a choice for them? Will you give me part of your savings so I can have a broader choice of vacation spots?

Despite the far left claims no one that I have seen on this board has wanted to away with safety nets, but they believe that we should have more jobs and get many back to work and not be so lazy on the big government that the far left is now creating.

It is not the role of government to subsidize anyone's lifestyle choices, that is exactly what the far left wants and is doing.

 

[Daktoria]

If you choose to be lazy, go right ahead. It's a free country. But when you start demanding the government to steal my money to support your choice, then you are violating my liberties.

Got it?

I never said anything about that.

Many conservatives interpret others who are lazy who really aren't. They just live differently.

Does the definition of "live differently" include collecting government money in one form or another?

If so, they are receiving my money, and I am entitled to demand rigorous due diligence. If they are perfectly capable of working, and are choosing not to, then I have a serious problem with that. They are not free to "live differently" at my expense.

On the flip side, I have seen people here who are profoundly retarded who actually believe there is no poverty in America. There are others who appear to believe the majority of people on food stamps are just being lazy.

I am not one of those people, though I do believe there is a great deal of seriously unhealthy dependence on government. But that dependence is not restricted to Black Panthers and ObamaPhone black welfare queens and whatever other non-Aryan mud people roam the fearful imaginations of the retards. No, we are ALL dependent on government. We are all receiving milk from Big Sister's tit, whether it be in the form of a mortgage interest deduction, or a tax exempt employer health insurance benefit, a tax credit of one kind or another, or a bailout of our bank, or food stamps.

I'm talking primarily about law enforcement here. Redistributive justice is secondary and shows how those conservatives are hypocrites.

The question has to do with how some conservatives don't want to afford law enforcement for those they're intolerant of because they don't like what they do in living their lives despite how they live their lives is still respectful.

For example, I'm not talking about multicultural affirmative action. That's an entirely different story.

 

[Daktoria]

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

So could you show more partisan "hackery" in that one sentence?

Freedom of speech does not protect popular speech it protects unpopular speech.

However in this case all he did was say what he believes and the far left came unhinged and wanted him silenced and his freedom of speech revoked.

The far left is ok with freedom of speech as long as it is approved by the far left.

That's not entirely true.

Freedom of speech protects popular speech against individuals who are being harassed by the masses.

For example, if a homosexual lived in a homophobic community, the homosexual wouldn't be entitled to tell the homophobes to shut up despite how they're harassing.

However, homophobia isn't the only form of intolerance which freedom of speech protects. Ordinary individuals who just live alternative lifestyles can be harassed the same way.

 

[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.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you choose to be lazy, go right ahead. It's a free country. But when you start demanding the government to steal my money to support your choice, then you are violating my liberties.

Got it?

I never said anything about that.

Many conservatives interpret others who are lazy who really aren't. They just live differently.

As said, you want to live "differently"? No problem. You want the rest of us to support your lifestyle? Big problem.

 

[Daktoria]

If you choose to be lazy, go right ahead. It's a free country. But when you start demanding the government to steal my money to support your choice, then you are violating my liberties.

Got it?

I never said anything about that.

Many conservatives interpret others who are lazy who really aren't. They just live differently.

If they live differently, isn't that their choice? Why should I subsidize what is a choice for them? Will you give me part of your savings so I can have a broader choice of vacation spots?

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.

 

[bendog]

If you choose to be lazy, go right ahead. It's a free country. But when you start demanding the government steal my money to support your choice, then you are violating my liberties.

Got it?

Ah, the basic problem of the social contract. And, the flip side is we have no way of really knowing which of the 1/3 had a undiagnosed/untreated learing disability like dyslexia, or who came from a home where he/she was sexually or emotionally abused, causing them to run away to the streets, or who are just lazy malingerers.

 

[Sunshine]

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. Every media figure has a clause in their contract which covers this kind of thing.

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.

Now he's free to tour with Sarah Palin.

[MENTION=34052]g5000[/MENTION]

Please post his job description so we can all read it too.

 

[Daktoria]

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".

 

[Kosh]

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".

Using far left talking points does not help your point as you (the far left) see only conservatives of such things.