Tolerance: Allowing people to be who and what they are.

[Iceweasel]

No, I didn't contradict myself at all. If you offer the housing to the public for rent, then anyone who is part of the public should be allowed to rent it, unless there's some reasonable reason (bad credit or a history of trashing rental properties) to say no. Being a same sex couple is not a reasonable reason.

Landlords aren't offering services to the public. They are offering the service to an individual(s). Landlords pick and choose until the next time. It isn't like a public swimming pool. And you are not qualified to dictate what is reasonable for everyone else. In fact, that's very unreasonable. Liberals seem to always feel that society as a whole owns the business. Except when paying the bills comes along.

 

[Asclepias]

And I've never seen a liberal say they are not tolerant. They say they are but what they mean is they tolerate opinions like their own.

I think they mean they are tolerant of everyone except those that are intolerant. I pointed this out earlier in the thread. Its against human nature to patiently listen to something that you see as backwards thinking because you see no benefit from listening to it other than reinforcing your conviction that you are right and the backwards speaker is wrong.

But, perhaps as you listen to the "backwards" thinking, you'll be able to point out the flaw in the argument and sway people away from that sort of thinking. The only people I put on ignore are those who are so dogmatic that they can't listen to an opposing viewpoint and those I'm sure are trolling to disrupt a conversation. I tolerate everyone else's opinions and try to discuss things.

I do. I stated earlier I listened to Rush for a while. The problem is that people would rather go on being intolerant instead of admitting they could be wrong.

Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.

John Kenneth Galbraith

 

[BillyZane]

Because denying someone quality housing based on their sexual preference is vile and reprehensible. You aren't "contributing to sodomy" by treating people fairly. You contribute to making this world a better place. It's not up to you to judge.

You just contradicted yourself. If someone truly finds homosexuality disgusting why should your morality fore them to rent to a same sex couple? You are saying your definition of vile is superior to theirs.

I would agree with you if you are talking about a government job or housing since gays pay taxes as well. But you didn't buy the property so you shouldn't decide if a guy wants to rent to a young black heterosexual couple instead of two white lesbians.

No, I didn't contradict myself at all. If you offer the housing to the public for rent, then anyone who is part of the public should be allowed to rent it, unless there's some reasonable reason (bad credit or a history of trashing rental properties) to say no. Being a same sex couple is not a reasonable reason.

Why? If I own something I damned well should be able to sell it to whomever I like, including my labor

I concede this was good law back in the 60s when for the most part minorities were being turned down from nearly every business, but even at that its UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as the federal government is given NO authority to demand such things..

 

[Asclepias]

Suspended, not fired. My bad

He has already been reinstated, so much for that load of silly 'black eye' defense.

It wasn't silly, it was a preemptive move on the part of A&E. Once they realized the only people that watched the show were like minded ignorant people they unsuspended him. Money speaks more than morals.

Is calling people names to marginalize and belittle them intolerant and bigoted?

Yes

 

[hunarcy]

No, I didn't contradict myself at all. If you offer the housing to the public for rent, then anyone who is part of the public should be allowed to rent it, unless there's some reasonable reason (bad credit or a history of trashing rental properties) to say no. Being a same sex couple is not a reasonable reason.

Landlords aren't offering services to the public. They are offering the service to an individual(s). Landlords pick and choose until the next time. It isn't like a public swimming pool. And you are not qualified to dictate what is reasonable for everyone else. In fact, that's very unreasonable. Liberals seem to always feel that society as a whole owns the business. Except when paying the bills comes along.

Good grief. When the landlord advertises a property, he offers it to the public. If you can't be serious in your argument, there's no point in continuing. And, don't think you're more conservative than I am.

 

[hunarcy]

I think they mean they are tolerant of everyone except those that are intolerant. I pointed this out earlier in the thread. Its against human nature to patiently listen to something that you see as backwards thinking because you see no benefit from listening to it other than reinforcing your conviction that you are right and the backwards speaker is wrong.

But, perhaps as you listen to the "backwards" thinking, you'll be able to point out the flaw in the argument and sway people away from that sort of thinking. The only people I put on ignore are those who are so dogmatic that they can't listen to an opposing viewpoint and those I'm sure are trolling to disrupt a conversation. I tolerate everyone else's opinions and try to discuss things.

I do. I stated earlier I listened to Rush for a while. The problem is that people would rather go on being intolerant instead of admitting they could be wrong.

Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.

John Kenneth Galbraith

And yet, now we have integrated schools, fair housing laws and a black president. Seems there's tolerance after all.

 

[hunarcy]

It wasn't silly, it was a preemptive move on the part of A&E. Once they realized the only people that watched the show were like minded ignorant people they unsuspended him. Money speaks more than morals.

Is calling people names to marginalize and belittle them intolerant and bigoted?

Yes

I agree. So, let's stop calling people names like "ignorant". I know you'll say that it was just a description, but it stifles discussion.

 

[R.D.]

Someone pointed out that was not applicable on another thread due to his contractual obligation to not give A&E a black eye.

Suspended, not fired. My bad

He has already been reinstated, so much for that load of silly 'black eye' defense.

It wasn't silly, it was a preemptive move on the part of A&E. Once they realized the only people that watched the show were like minded ignorant people they unsuspended him. Money speaks more than morals.

Nonsense.

You see it exactly for what it was but prefer to ignore it at the same time. None so blind than those who refuse to see

 

[Asclepias]

But, perhaps as you listen to the "backwards" thinking, you'll be able to point out the flaw in the argument and sway people away from that sort of thinking. The only people I put on ignore are those who are so dogmatic that they can't listen to an opposing viewpoint and those I'm sure are trolling to disrupt a conversation. I tolerate everyone else's opinions and try to discuss things.

I do. I stated earlier I listened to Rush for a while. The problem is that people would rather go on being intolerant instead of admitting they could be wrong.

Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.

John Kenneth Galbraith

And yet, now we have integrated schools, fair housing laws and a black president. Seems there's tolerance after all.

Do you think thats a result of giving intolerant people a voice or inspite of? it was forced tolerance which again points out that being intolerant of intolerance is not a vice.

 

[hunarcy]

Why? If I own something I damned well should be able to sell it to whomever I like, including my labor

I concede this was good law back in the 60s when for the most part minorities were being turned down from nearly every business, but even at that its UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as the federal government is given NO authority to demand such things..

True. But, if you offer it publically, everyone should have an equal chance to buy it. And, the criteria for selling should be best price, not who sleeps with who.

 

[Asclepias]

Is calling people names to marginalize and belittle them intolerant and bigoted?

Yes

I agree. So, let's stop calling people names like "ignorant". I know you'll say that it was just a description, but it stifles discussion.

Ignorant simply means you do not know. I'm not being derogatory. There are plenty of things I am ignorant about.

 

[R.D.]

It wasn't silly, it was a preemptive move on the part of A&E. Once they realized the only people that watched the show were like minded ignorant people they unsuspended him. Money speaks more than morals.

Is calling people names to marginalize and belittle them intolerant and bigoted?

Yes

 

[Asclepias]

Suspended, not fired. My bad

He has already been reinstated, so much for that load of silly 'black eye' defense.

It wasn't silly, it was a preemptive move on the part of A&E. Once they realized the only people that watched the show were like minded ignorant people they unsuspended him. Money speaks more than morals.

Nonsense.

You see it exactly for what it was but prefer to ignore it at the same time. None so blind than those who refuse to see

What is it that I am ignoring?

 

[hunarcy]

I do. I stated earlier I listened to Rush for a while. The problem is that people would rather go on being intolerant instead of admitting they could be wrong.

And yet, now we have integrated schools, fair housing laws and a black president. Seems there's tolerance after all.

Do you think thats a result of giving intolerant people a voice or inspite of? it was forced tolerance which again points out that being intolerant of intolerance is not a vice.

No, it shows why we should allow tolerance to all ideas. For, if society had not been tolerant to the idea of integration, people would never have been able to push the change through.

 

[Asclepias]

And yet, now we have integrated schools, fair housing laws and a black president. Seems there's tolerance after all.

Do you think thats a result of giving intolerant people a voice or inspite of? it was forced tolerance which again points out that being intolerant of intolerance is not a vice.

No, it shows why we should allow tolerance to all ideas. For, if society had not been tolerant to the idea of integration, people would never have been able to push the change through.

Are you trying to be funny here? Society was not tolerant. In your on words it had to be pushed through after a lot of people died.

 

[Iceweasel]

Good grief. When the landlord advertises a property, he offers it to the public. If you can't be serious in your argument, there's no point in continuing. And, don't think you're more conservative than I am.

An insult is a poor excuse for an argument. Landlord do screen, the "public" is only a candidate, he or she has no right to be served. Even so, it should not be up to the state to tell the landlord who to rent to.

 

[hunarcy]

Do you think thats a result of giving intolerant people a voice or inspite of? it was forced tolerance which again points out that being intolerant of intolerance is not a vice.

No, it shows why we should allow tolerance to all ideas. For, if society had not been tolerant to the idea of integration, people would never have been able to push the change through.

Are you trying to be funny here? Society was not tolerant. In your on words it had to be pushed through after a lot of people died.

No, I'm not trying to be funny. If society had been as intolerant as you perceive it, the idea of integration would never have been allowed to be proposed. However, the idea WAS tolerated and enough people were convinced by the argument that court cases were brought forward and change began. As people learned, more and more reforms were accepted. Yet, you would censor people who have ideas that are different than yours, which is the same position that Bull Connor would have taken back in Alabama.

 

[Iceweasel]

Are you trying to be funny here? Society was not tolerant. In your on words it had to be pushed through after a lot of people died.

Exactly. I lived in the segregated south and can tell you that integration wasn't popular. In fact, they were intergrating schools as slowly as possible and only up to the fourth grade at the time I was in high school.

It had more to do with the Constitution than tolerance.

 

[hunarcy]

Good grief. When the landlord advertises a property, he offers it to the public. If you can't be serious in your argument, there's no point in continuing. And, don't think you're more conservative than I am.

An insult is a poor excuse for an argument. Landlord do screen, the "public" is only a candidate, he or she has no right to be served. Even so, it should not be up to the state to tell the landlord who to rent to.

I wasn't trying to insult you, I merely want you to be serious in your argument. I can agree that no one has the right to tell you who to choose, but it is wrong headed to base the choice on who sleeps with who. It should be based on who will pay the price while taking the best care of the property.

And, the State doesn't tell you who to rent to...it tells you what criteria you may NOT use to make your choice, but it never says you must rent to a specific person or group of people.

 

[hunarcy]

Are you trying to be funny here? Society was not tolerant. In your on words it had to be pushed through after a lot of people died.

Exactly. I lived in the segregated south and can tell you that integration wasn't popular. In fact, they were intergrating schools as slowly as possible and only up to the fourth grade at the time I was in high school.

It had more to do with the Constitution than tolerance.

I agree integration came slowly. And it came slower in the North than it did in the South. But, as integration showed that society could continue without collapse, tolerance began to grow.

Where did the Constitution get its tolerance?