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

[Plasmaball]

Everyone? Huh? I went back a few pages and one leftwinger predictably thought your 1774 thing was delightful. Should I have kept going? Could you provide the posts in which everyone was getting what you're saying?

Or could you just re-phrase?

This diversionary stuff just gets old.

.

i agree so can you stay on topic please.

im for the free market to decide what happens. I really dont give a shit what you say out in public, just dont come crying like a little baby when the reaction is negative.

thus proving you wrong...

when you going to admit you are a crown lover mac?

I guess this means you're not going to clarify your question, as I have now asked multiple times in multiple ways. Okay, I tried.

Yet another example of why it's essentially impossible to have an honest conversation with a partisan ideologue.

.

so you have resorted to just making things up in order to i guess win the argument.

I've left you with rather good responses to your simple questions and thus this is what i get. Hack games i would expect from Rabbi or Stephanie.

Ive lost all respect i had for you mac. Good job!

 

[R.D.]

nope but then he didnt have his violated.

Right. They backed off.

but you dont know the reason why. His civil rights.....why am i repeating this to you? I know why because you want to be right.

Neither do you, but you still pretend to have that answer.

"Wanting" to be right is the wrong side clawing desperately at the facts for a lifeline. Reality is they DID cave, so all the pretending they woulda coulda shoulda is meaningless feel good garbage.

 

[Plasmaball]

Right. They backed off.

but you dont know the reason why. His civil rights.....why am i repeating this to you? I know why because you want to be right.

Neither do you, but you still pretend to have that answer.

"Wanting" to be right is the wrong side clawing desperately at the facts for a lifeline. Reality is they DID cave, so all the pretending they woulda coulda shoulda is meaningless feel good garbage.

but i already stated I didnt......WTF is this....Do you not read?

 

[R.D.]

He was interviewed by GQ because he was employed by A&E. If he had been self employed there would have been no issue but he was an active employee of A&E at the time.

The only red herring is this deflection of yours into utter irrelevancy;

That's just pure silliness.

Because he was employed by A&E is why they cannot fire him for his religious beliefs. That his association with the channel made him fodder is of no consequence where the law applies. A&E's attempt to stifle him backfired. Big time. Again

Only silliness is on your part by pretending that he was free to harm his employer.

 

[Mertex]

The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.

This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.

I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.

I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.

That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not. There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.

We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share. And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.

I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.

What do you think?

I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.

The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.

Here is a link to it.

Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.

Really.

It's THAT good!

that anyone could actually swallow that kind of partisan drivel!

Heritage Foundation - as if Heritage Foundation is going to offer anything that is not right-wing biased.....made me laugh the dude was so outrageously out in left field.....I didn't bother to hear the entire diabribe, right at first you can tell it's nothing but partisan dribble.

 

[Mertex]

Is it even possible to be tolerant of intolerant people?

Yes!

I ignore them right here in the USMB.

They can spout off as much as they like and I have no problem with it whatsoever. In fact I support their right to do so. I tolerate their intolerance because their freedom and mine are indivisible.

How would you feel if someone on here influenced a person to kill a school full of say Asians because you were tolerant of their view and ignored them? What if your voice in opposition was the lone reason that person decided not to do it?

But, but, the voice of opposition is sometimes so annoying and rings so much more hateful that tis best to just ignore it too......your scenario could also go the other way....you have no statistics to prove that hateful opposition deters evil doings.

 

[R.D.]

but you dont know the reason why. His civil rights.....why am i repeating this to you? I know why because you want to be right.

Neither do you, but you still pretend to have that answer.

"Wanting" to be right is the wrong side clawing desperately at the facts for a lifeline. Reality is they DID cave, so all the pretending they woulda coulda shoulda is meaningless feel good garbage.

but i already stated I didnt......WTF is this....Do you not read?

I do. And I tend to reply to inane accusations.

Since you don't know, why not stop pretending you have the answers?

Possible violations of his civil rights,as you now clearly state you know nothing of, were wisely avoided after a stupid move by A&E

 

[Plasmaball]

Neither do you, but you still pretend to have that answer.

"Wanting" to be right is the wrong side clawing desperately at the facts for a lifeline. Reality is they DID cave, so all the pretending they woulda coulda shoulda is meaningless feel good garbage.

but i already stated I didnt......WTF is this....Do you not read?

I do. And I tend to reply to inane accusations.

Since you don't know, why not stop pretending you have the answers?

Possible violations of his civil rights,as you now clearly state you know nothing of, were wisely avoided after a stupid move by A&E

and its possible it was all for ratings and their was a clause saying he could do what he did or A&E had the right to suspend him.

YAY!

 

[Mertex]

If someone walks up to me on the street and tells me that he hates black people, is it "intolerant" of me to say "You're a racist"?

If someone goes on television and says he hates black people, would it be "intolerant" of me to go on TV and say "That guy is a racist"?

If someone builds a following of hundreds of people who support his hatred of black people, is it "intolerant" if I were to build a following of people to call him a racist?

In my opinion, yes, because I want to know what other people thinking whether I agree with it or not. Frankly, I want to know who the REAL racists are so that I know not to associate with them. But that's just me, I know, many (most) would disagree.

Frankly, you will know who the real racists are because they will sooner or later make a comment that will identify them as such. And his comment about calling them racists isn't going to change their stance, anyway.

Here's what I'm curious about: Using your example, when you call someone a racist, what precisely are you trying to accomplish? Do you think that by yelling "racist" at him, you're going to somehow change his mind? What do you want to have happen by calling him a racist?

The same question can be applied to you. What do you accomplish by making the comment that you "hate blacks"? Do you think that by stating that you hate blacks that everyone is going to agree that we need to ship them somewhere else, because you hate them? Who gives a crap, anyway, that you do? You want the freedom to make a nasty remark about someone but don't want them to have the freedom to call you a name back.

Sincere question, I'd like to know.

There you have it.

 

[R.D.]

but i already stated I didnt......WTF is this....Do you not read?

I do. And I tend to reply to inane accusations.

Since you don't know, why not stop pretending you have the answers?

Possible violations of his civil rights,as you now clearly state you know nothing of, were wisely avoided after a stupid move by A&E

and its possible it was all for ratings and their was a clause saying he could do what he did or A&E had the right to suspend him.

YAY!

And maybe humans can breathe on the moon and sometimes bleed purple. Whoo-hoo ! Nothing from nothing means nothing ....

 

[Derideo_Te]

'Cause you say so?

Fact is they backed off, so you are actually right now.

Onus is on you to prove relevancy. So far you haven't.

Wrong.

They caved. There is nothing more to prove. The simple fact of the matter is they tried to play hard ball and lost. Big time.

Thank you for conceding that your allegation about rights is utterly baseless. Have a nice day.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Something is fishy about this thread.

My scales and fins are all tired of this intolerance of my intolerance of intolerance.

Time to swim back upstream.

Now, if that made absolutely no sense to you, that is exactly my point about the twists and turns of this thread.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Something is fishy about this thread.

My scales and fins are all tired of this intolerance of my intolerance of intolerance.

Time to swim back upstream.

Now, if that made absolutely no sense to you, that is exactly my point about the twists and turns of this thread.

Commencing with a conundrum continues to confound with consequential convolutions.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Something is fishy about this thread.

My scales and fins are all tired of this intolerance of my intolerance of intolerance.

Time to swim back upstream.

Now, if that made absolutely no sense to you, that is exactly my point about the twists and turns of this thread.

Commencing with a conundrum continues to confound with consequential convolutions.

The convolutability of canonical conundrums can be enhanced by the confoundaton of also consuming cannibis as core component of ingestion of said canonical conundrum as well.





(Now, if that doesn't earn me a greenie, nothing will!!!)

 

[Mac1958]

If someone walks up to me on the street and tells me that he hates black people, is it "intolerant" of me to say "You're a racist"?

If someone goes on television and says he hates black people, would it be "intolerant" of me to go on TV and say "That guy is a racist"?

If someone builds a following of hundreds of people who support his hatred of black people, is it "intolerant" if I were to build a following of people to call him a racist?

In my opinion, yes, because I want to know what other people thinking whether I agree with it or not. Frankly, I want to know who the REAL racists are so that I know not to associate with them. But that's just me, I know, many (most) would disagree.

Frankly, you will know who the real racists are because they will sooner or later make a comment that will identify them as such. And his comment about calling them racists isn't going to change their stance, anyway.

Here's what I'm curious about: Using your example, when you call someone a racist, what precisely are you trying to accomplish? Do you think that by yelling "racist" at him, you're going to somehow change his mind? What do you want to have happen by calling him a racist?

The same question can be applied to you. What do you accomplish by making the comment that you "hate blacks"? Do you think that by stating that you hate blacks that everyone is going to agree that we need to ship them somewhere else, because you hate them? Who gives a crap, anyway, that you do? You want the freedom to make a nasty remark about someone but don't want them to have the freedom to call you a name back.

Sincere question, I'd like to know.

There you have it.

That, of course, doesn't answer my question at all (you went directly and transparently into deflect mode, I'm used to that), so I'll try again.

Let's say (using your nasty example) that you say that you hate blacks. You even have a big ol' butt tattoo that says that you hate blacks.

I scream "racist!" and try to get you fired. I immediately "feel" good about myself, because I've "done something", and that's all I care about.

As for you, has this experience decreased your hatred of blacks in any way? Have I helped to change your mind, heal wounds, build bridges?

Since I don't get straight answers here (yours was just another vivid example), I'll help: No, you still hate blacks, probably even more, sadly.


.

 

[R.D.]

Onus is on you to prove relevancy. So far you haven't.

Wrong.

They caved. There is nothing more to prove. The simple fact of the matter is they tried to play hard ball and lost. Big time.

Thank you for conceding that your allegation about rights is utterly baseless. Have a nice day.

No such thing. You're hard core need to ignore a simple fact is awe inspiring.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Wrong.

They caved. There is nothing more to prove. The simple fact of the matter is they tried to play hard ball and lost. Big time.

Thank you for conceding that your allegation about rights is utterly baseless. Have a nice day.

No such thing. You're hard core need to ignore a simple fact is awe inspiring.

You don't get to play by your own set of rules.

Failure to substantiate your allegation when called upon to do so is a de facto concession of your position.

 

[Iceweasel]

A corporation is a legal contract with the state and as such must abide by state regulations. Simply because you own your own business does not give you the right to violate the Rule of Law. Landlords who are renting out their property for profit are corporations just like all others. Individuals who don't incorporate but instead make private rental arrangements for profit are also subject to the Rule of Law although it applies slightly differently.

Most landlords aren't incorporated. Words mean things. Which states list sexual preferences as a protected class? If it isn't universal nationally (Constitutional), it isn't a right but a state, city or town ordinance. Which is next to impossible to prove unless the landowner is dumb as a brick.

 

[Derideo_Te]

A corporation is a legal contract with the state and as such must abide by state regulations. Simply because you own your own business does not give you the right to violate the Rule of Law. Landlords who are renting out their property for profit are corporations just like all others. Individuals who don't incorporate but instead make private rental arrangements for profit are also subject to the Rule of Law although it applies slightly differently.

Most landlords aren't incorporated. Words mean things. Which states list sexual preferences as a protected class? If it isn't universal nationally (Constitutional), it isn't a right but a state, city or town ordinance. Which is next to impossible to prove unless the landowner is dumb as a brick.

When DOMA was overturned the SCOTUS de facto made it illegal to discriminate against gays at the Federal level. It is only a matter of time before it will be enforced at the state level given the rate at which gay marriage is being enacted nationwide.

So you are on the losing side if you expect that will hold up in court.

 

[Iceweasel]

When DOMA was overturned the SCOTUS de facto made it illegal to discriminate against gays at the Federal level. It is only a matter of time before it will be enforced at the state level given the rate at which gay marriage is being enacted nationwide.

So you are on the losing side if you expect that will hold up in court.

If it was a Constitution matter you wouldn't be saying "in a matter of time". Which has nothing to do with the defense of marriage act anyway.