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

[Montrovant]

Yep. Tolerance ain't easy, it requires humility and patience, two things in very, very short supply in our culture.

.

The problem is that not everyone sees the examples given as oppression. So they are not choosing oppression over liberty from their point of view.

Which is the whole purpose of conciousness raising isn't it? Teaching something in hopes that the concept will catch on? As I see no way to accomplish tolerance for the beliefs of others through legal means, and I see blugeoning people to punish them for their beliefs as morally and ethically destructive and evil, my hope is to change the culture. One attitude at a time. I want it to be as culturally unacceptable in America to try to physically or materially hurt people for their beliefs as it is culturally unacceptable to serve cat meat for dinner.

Actually, I find the somewhat arbitrary choices about what is or is not culturally acceptable to eat fairly maddening.

But in seriousness, I've got no issues with trying to change the culture to your way of thinking. The problems I have had are when you mix in the legal or talk about people's rights or oppression. I think you both exaggerate the danger from the current incarnation of political correctness and don't really address how it's different from political correctness at any other time in our history. I just don't think this intolerance of intolerance issue is that big of an issue at the moment.

 

[Mac1958]

The problem is that not everyone sees the examples given as oppression. So they are not choosing oppression over liberty from their point of view.

Y'know, I wonder about that. I've spoken with people who communicated a clear desire for authoritarianism -- literally, not just inferring it. There are people who think that a society needs a heavy, centralized hand controlling it, and are therefore perfectly willing to give up what some people would call "liberties" in exchange. And they're just as passionate about that as you are in your beliefs.

They wouldn't refer to it as "oppression", of course, but they are comfy with it.

.

So then you are against the OP right?

Several points were made in the OP. To which are you referring?

.

 

[Nosmo King]

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!

What this mouthpiece for a think tank is doing is using specious logic. It's that apparant.

He claims to know the Liberal mind, but he dances around the truth to espouse his company's message of intolerance.

Do you want to know what this Liberal thinks? I think that injustice, repression, oppression, greed and larceny are the results of Conservative ideology and Conservatives are blind to them. Conservatives are willing to be left in the dark by those results in order to rationalize the gains that come to individuals ruthless enough to champion results that benefit themselves while screwing the other. And it's the intolerance of the other that allows them the latitude of ignorance and blindness to the results of their ideology.

 

[Nosmo King]

The difference in outlook between Liberals and Conservatives seem to me to be that Liberals see injustice and want to right it while Conservatives refuse to believe that their ideology could result in injustice.

While Conservatives are cheering about a nebulous value called "American Exceptionalism", which gives cover to crimes of the past like slavery and the repression and massacre of Native Americans, liberals are looking at the damage left in the wake of Conservatism and wondering why a real American could accept such carnage.

Liberals want to make the promise of America come true, Conservatives want to take the promise of Manifest Destiny and ignore the flotsome and jet some left after it is applied.

So there it is. Would you have results and ignore consequences or do your best to do right while achieving?

Remember that line from the movie Love Story? "love means never having to say you're sorry"?

American Exceptionalism means never having to say you're sorry. Liberals believe that if you do the right thing the first time, you should have no need to say you're sorry.

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem is that not everyone sees the examples given as oppression. So they are not choosing oppression over liberty from their point of view.

Which is the whole purpose of conciousness raising isn't it? Teaching something in hopes that the concept will catch on? As I see no way to accomplish tolerance for the beliefs of others through legal means, and I see blugeoning people to punish them for their beliefs as morally and ethically destructive and evil, my hope is to change the culture. One attitude at a time. I want it to be as culturally unacceptable in America to try to physically or materially hurt people for their beliefs as it is culturally unacceptable to serve cat meat for dinner.

Actually, I find the somewhat arbitrary choices about what is or is not culturally acceptable to eat fairly maddening.

But in seriousness, I've got no issues with trying to change the culture to your way of thinking. The problems I have had are when you mix in the legal or talk about people's rights or oppression. I think you both exaggerate the danger from the current incarnation of political correctness and don't really address how it's different from political correctness at any other time in our history. I just don't think this intolerance of intolerance issue is that big of an issue at the moment.

When I say that I would like to make physical or material attacks on the beliefs of people illegal but see no way to do that, how does that in any way muddy the waters? It is nothing more than an observation and suggests no action.

How is it NOT oppression when a bigger, stronger, well funded bully can impose physical and/or material damage on an American citizen purely because that citizen expresses an opinion that the bully doesn't like? How does that not make the bully an oppressive force? How does that in any way muddy the waters in a discussion of intolerance?

I have been clear that this is not a constitutional issue of rights, but rather a moral and ethical principle of what SHOULD BE. So long as a person is requiring no participation or contribution from anybody else, and is not violating any agreement he/she made with anybody else, that person should be able to be whoever or whatever he/she is and express whatever belief he holds without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will try to hurt him/her phyically and/or materially.

 

[Foxfyre]

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!

What this mouthpiece for a think tank is doing is using specious logic. It's that apparant.

He claims to know the Liberal mind, but he dances around the truth to espouse his company's message of intolerance.

Do you want to know what this Liberal thinks? I think that injustice, repression, oppression, greed and larceny are the results of Conservative ideology and Conservatives are blind to them. Conservatives are willing to be left in the dark by those results in order to rationalize the gains that come to individuals ruthless enough to champion results that benefit themselves while screwing the other. And it's the intolerance of the other that allows them the latitude of ignorance and blindness to the results of their ideology.

You are or should be entitled to your opinion about his conservatism or conservatism in general as he is entitled to his opinion. What makes his argument so compelling is that so far nobody has been able to refute it with anything other than it is partisan and he sucks because he is explaining what creates the intolerance of liberals. But so far nobody has been able to take any statement in his lecture and show how it is incorrect. It may all be incorrect, but so far nobody has tried to rebut it.

Is he suggesting that liberals be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed or harmed in any way? No he is not. He is expressing his reasoned opinion about liberals.

Are you suggesting that he or other conservatives be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed, or harmed in anyway? No you were not. I think you're wrong because if I include myself in your characterization I know you are dead wrong about me. But do you have the right to your opinion about me or other conservatives without fear that you will be punished by some mob, group, or organization? Yes, in my opinion you have that moral and ethical right. And nobody should presume the moral and ethical right to take that away from you.

 

[Nosmo King]

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!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIboXTpF6t4

What this mouthpiece for a think tank is doing is using specious logic. It's that apparant.

He claims to know the Liberal mind, but he dances around the truth to espouse his company's message of intolerance.

Do you want to know what this Liberal thinks? I think that injustice, repression, oppression, greed and larceny are the results of Conservative ideology and Conservatives are blind to them. Conservatives are willing to be left in the dark by those results in order to rationalize the gains that come to individuals ruthless enough to champion results that benefit themselves while screwing the other. And it's the intolerance of the other that allows them the latitude of ignorance and blindness to the results of their ideology.

You are or should be entitled to your opinion about his conservatism or conservatism in general as he is entitled to his opinion. What makes his argument so compelling is that so far nobody has been able to refute it with anything other than it is partisan and he sucks because he is explaining what creates the intolerance of liberals. But so far nobody has been able to take any statement in his lecture and show how it is incorrect. It may all be incorrect, but so far nobody has tried to rebut it.

Is he suggesting that liberals be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed or harmed in any way? No he is not. He is expressing his reasoned opinion about liberals.

Are you suggesting that he or other conservatives be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed, or harmed in anyway? No you were not. I think you're wrong because if I include myself in your characterization I know you are dead wrong about me. But do you have the right to your opinion about me or other conservatives without fear that you will be punished by some mob, group, or organization? Yes, in my opinion you have that moral and ethical right. And nobody should presume the moral and ethical right to take that away from you.

His point don't deserve a refutal because he is making outlandish statements. He shouts "Liberals hate America!" and everyone is supposed to believe that as a truth. It's as if I were to say, "The sky is green" and take it for granted that my audience, because they agree with me on most other things, will believe that, indeed, he sky is green.

I won't refute his outlandish ness because I don't believe his assumptions. Refuting those assumptions gives them credibility. I'm not here to give my imperamator to lies and false assumptions.

If he were honest, he'd say simply that Conservatives are result oriented while Liberals are consequence oriented.

 

[Montrovant]

Which is the whole purpose of conciousness raising isn't it? Teaching something in hopes that the concept will catch on? As I see no way to accomplish tolerance for the beliefs of others through legal means, and I see blugeoning people to punish them for their beliefs as morally and ethically destructive and evil, my hope is to change the culture. One attitude at a time. I want it to be as culturally unacceptable in America to try to physically or materially hurt people for their beliefs as it is culturally unacceptable to serve cat meat for dinner.

Actually, I find the somewhat arbitrary choices about what is or is not culturally acceptable to eat fairly maddening.

But in seriousness, I've got no issues with trying to change the culture to your way of thinking. The problems I have had are when you mix in the legal or talk about people's rights or oppression. I think you both exaggerate the danger from the current incarnation of political correctness and don't really address how it's different from political correctness at any other time in our history. I just don't think this intolerance of intolerance issue is that big of an issue at the moment.

When I say that I would like to make physical or material attacks on the beliefs of people illegal but see no way to do that, how does that in any way muddy the waters? It is nothing more than an observation and suggests no action.

How is it NOT oppression when a bigger, stronger, well funded bully can impose physical and/or material damage on an American citizen purely because that citizen expresses an opinion that the bully doesn't like? How does that not make the bully an oppressive force? How does that in any way muddy the waters in a discussion of intolerance?

I have been clear that this is not a constitutional issue of rights, but rather a moral and ethical principle of what SHOULD BE. So long as a person is requiring no participation or contribution from anybody else, and is not violating any agreement he/she made with anybody else, that person should be able to be whoever or whatever he/she is and express whatever belief he holds without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will try to hurt him/her phyically and/or materially.

1) Because when you say you'd like to see it be illegal, whether you can see a way to do it or not, it seems to me to indicate a desire to legislate a suppression of speech. I know you've said you can't think of a way to make a law like that which would not curtail someone's freedom of speech; have you considered the possibility that it is because such a law does nothing except curtail free speech? That, outside of already illegal actions, attempts to get someone fired through advertisement or boycott or public discussion or public screams of rage are all expressions of speech?

2) My problem is that you do not differentiate any kind of degree. I don't really like using the word oppression for minor issues like what we are mostly discussing here. It invites comparisons to far more terrible forms of oppression like slavery, child labor, sex trafficking, etc. I suppose it is a semantics issue, but I wouldn't say that Phil Robertson, to use the most prominent example, was oppressed. He was inconvenienced, maybe hurt financially, but not oppressed.

3) Yes, you have said this is not a legal issue or one of constitutional rights....but then you continue to talk about people having unalienable rights taken away. That phrase is one that is generally used in regards to legal and constitutional matters rather than purely moral ones.

So again, I take no issue with the idea you'd like to change American cultural norms. I just think some of the ways you have presented your points go beyond that into the realm of the legal or constitutional, and I think you make a bit of a mountain out of a mole hill with the entire issue.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIboXTpF6t4

What this mouthpiece for a think tank is doing is using specious logic. It's that apparant.

He claims to know the Liberal mind, but he dances around the truth to espouse his company's message of intolerance.

Do you want to know what this Liberal thinks? I think that injustice, repression, oppression, greed and larceny are the results of Conservative ideology and Conservatives are blind to them. Conservatives are willing to be left in the dark by those results in order to rationalize the gains that come to individuals ruthless enough to champion results that benefit themselves while screwing the other. And it's the intolerance of the other that allows them the latitude of ignorance and blindness to the results of their ideology.

You are or should be entitled to your opinion about his conservatism or conservatism in general as he is entitled to his opinion. What makes his argument so compelling is that so far nobody has been able to refute it with anything other than it is partisan and he sucks because he is explaining what creates the intolerance of liberals. But so far nobody has been able to take any statement in his lecture and show how it is incorrect. It may all be incorrect, but so far nobody has tried to rebut it.

Is he suggesting that liberals be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed or harmed in any way? No he is not. He is expressing his reasoned opinion about liberals.

Are you suggesting that he or other conservatives be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed, or harmed in anyway? No you were not. I think you're wrong because if I include myself in your characterization I know you are dead wrong about me. But do you have the right to your opinion about me or other conservatives without fear that you will be punished by some mob, group, or organization? Yes, in my opinion you have that moral and ethical right. And nobody should presume the moral and ethical right to take that away from you.

The bolded: I am tired right now from a long work week that went into the weekend, but I will DEFINITELY get back with you on this tomorrow. Definitely.

 

[Plasmaball]

Y'know, I wonder about that. I've spoken with people who communicated a clear desire for authoritarianism -- literally, not just inferring it. There are people who think that a society needs a heavy, centralized hand controlling it, and are therefore perfectly willing to give up what some people would call "liberties" in exchange. And they're just as passionate about that as you are in your beliefs.

They wouldn't refer to it as "oppression", of course, but they are comfy with it.

.

So then you are against the OP right?

Several points were made in the OP. To which are you referring?

.

Where she said what glaad did should be illegal..

 

[Nosmo King]

Conservatives are result oriented while Liberals are consequence oriented.

Let's look at two issues: the environment and civil rights.

Conservatives, being true to their unfettered love of Capitalism, would tend to make their money now and ignore the consequences after their efforts pump pollution into the air, water and soil. "Look at how many jobs were created! Look at our enhanced standard of living!" But the pollution is regarded as a necessary problem, or the result of "junk science".

Liberals believe things could have been done better because the consequences are so dire. It's not that the Liberals hate progress (although that's the argument made by Conservatives). It's that Liberals believe we are better than that and our resources could be used to both enhance our standard of living and protect ourselves from ourselves.

In civil rights, Conservatives seem to believe that expanding rights to all Americans results in diluting the rights of others. "They want 'special rights'!" Argue Conservatives. While Liberals believe that rights are rights and should not be excluded to anyone and extending those rights means everyone can enjoy them, not just the popular classes.

Results without accepting consequences is not only selfish, but it runs counter to the better angels of human nature. If the only way you can achieve is by stepping on someone else, or the world at large, what have you achieved at all?

 

[R.D.]

 

[Foxfyre]

What this mouthpiece for a think tank is doing is using specious logic. It's that apparant.

He claims to know the Liberal mind, but he dances around the truth to espouse his company's message of intolerance.

Do you want to know what this Liberal thinks? I think that injustice, repression, oppression, greed and larceny are the results of Conservative ideology and Conservatives are blind to them. Conservatives are willing to be left in the dark by those results in order to rationalize the gains that come to individuals ruthless enough to champion results that benefit themselves while screwing the other. And it's the intolerance of the other that allows them the latitude of ignorance and blindness to the results of their ideology.

You are or should be entitled to your opinion about his conservatism or conservatism in general as he is entitled to his opinion. What makes his argument so compelling is that so far nobody has been able to refute it with anything other than it is partisan and he sucks because he is explaining what creates the intolerance of liberals. But so far nobody has been able to take any statement in his lecture and show how it is incorrect. It may all be incorrect, but so far nobody has tried to rebut it.

Is he suggesting that liberals be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed or harmed in any way? No he is not. He is expressing his reasoned opinion about liberals.

Are you suggesting that he or other conservatives be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed, or harmed in anyway? No you were not. I think you're wrong because if I include myself in your characterization I know you are dead wrong about me. But do you have the right to your opinion about me or other conservatives without fear that you will be punished by some mob, group, or organization? Yes, in my opinion you have that moral and ethical right. And nobody should presume the moral and ethical right to take that away from you.

His point don't deserve a refutal because he is making outlandish statements. He shouts "Liberals hate America!" and everyone is supposed to believe that as a truth. It's as if I were to say, "The sky is green" and take it for granted that my audience, because they agree with me on most other things, will believe that, indeed, he sky is green.

I won't refute his outlandish ness because I don't believe his assumptions. Refuting those assumptions gives them credibility. I'm not here to give my imperamator to lies and false assumptions.

If he were honest, he'd say simply that Conservatives are result oriented while Liberals are consequence oriented.

No he would not simply say that because that is an erroneous statement no conservative would endorse. He was explicit that liberals are not consequence oriented or they would be more sensitive to the consequences of what they do. They are not. He says they justify their point of view because the Conservative point of view has not produced Utopia. Therefore Conservatives must be wrong and Liberals must therefore be right even though nothing they have come up with has created Utopia either.

And whether the speaker is right, you are right, or I am right, it is all opinion. Opiinions that harm nobody. Opinions that require no contribution or participation by anybody. And none of us should have to worry about some angry mob, group, or organization coming after us to physically and/or materially harm us if they can purely because they don't agree with or don't like the opinions that we express.

 

[Nosmo King]

He claims that Liberals hate America and would support Saddam Hussein. Because Liberlas opposed the war in Iraq? Is this the conclusion I'm supposed to refute?


Do you really believe that Liberals held that position? Do you really believe that opposing the war automatically means support for Hussein? Or that failure to support the war means a hatred of America?

Is nuance absent for the Conservative mind, or are such outlandish assumptions just too much red meat for Conservatives to ignore?

Could the Liberal position be more complex than that proffered by e Heritage Foundation? Could Liberals see the war as unnecessary, unwarranted and foolish? Could Liberals be looking at the consequences and Conservatives looking at results? The results of that war included 4000 American lives, untold maimed and wounded Americans, unfathomable Iraqi civilian loses, the ouster and death of Saddam Hussein and an uncalculatable cost of American treasure and international prestige.

Should we weigh the consequences, or make outlandish claims about Liberals?

The speaker's position showed absolutely no tolerance for the truth, only a ham handed rush to judgment and specious logic all to gain some cheap political points. Refute the video? It does not deserve to be refuted. It's a canard designed to appeal to shallow minds devoid of the power of reason.

 

[Plasmaball]

You are or should be entitled to your opinion about his conservatism or conservatism in general as he is entitled to his opinion. What makes his argument so compelling is that so far nobody has been able to refute it with anything other than it is partisan and he sucks because he is explaining what creates the intolerance of liberals. But so far nobody has been able to take any statement in his lecture and show how it is incorrect. It may all be incorrect, but so far nobody has tried to rebut it.

Is he suggesting that liberals be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed or harmed in any way? No he is not. He is expressing his reasoned opinion about liberals.

Are you suggesting that he or other conservatives be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed, or harmed in anyway? No you were not. I think you're wrong because if I include myself in your characterization I know you are dead wrong about me. But do you have the right to your opinion about me or other conservatives without fear that you will be punished by some mob, group, or organization? Yes, in my opinion you have that moral and ethical right. And nobody should presume the moral and ethical right to take that away from you.

His point don't deserve a refutal because he is making outlandish statements. He shouts "Liberals hate America!" and everyone is supposed to believe that as a truth. It's as if I were to say, "The sky is green" and take it for granted that my audience, because they agree with me on most other things, will believe that, indeed, he sky is green.

I won't refute his outlandish ness because I don't believe his assumptions. Refuting those assumptions gives them credibility. I'm not here to give my imperamator to lies and false assumptions.

If he were honest, he'd say simply that Conservatives are result oriented while Liberals are consequence oriented.

No he would not simply say that because that is an erroneous statement no conservative would endorse. He was explicit that liberals are not consequence oriented or they would be more sensitive to the consequences of what they do. They are not. He says they justify their point of view because the Conservative point of view has not produced Utopia. Therefore Conservatives must be wrong and Liberals must therefore be right even though nothing they have come up with has created Utopia either.

And whether the speaker is right, you are right, or I am right, it is all opinion. Opiinions that harm nobody. Opinions that require no contribution or participation by anybody. And none of us should have to worry about some angry mob, group, or organization coming after us to physically and/or materially harm us if they can purely because they don't agree with or don't like the opinions that we express.

you are kidding me right? holy shit you have to be kidding me! does nobody else see what she is doing here?

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually, I find the somewhat arbitrary choices about what is or is not culturally acceptable to eat fairly maddening.

But in seriousness, I've got no issues with trying to change the culture to your way of thinking. The problems I have had are when you mix in the legal or talk about people's rights or oppression. I think you both exaggerate the danger from the current incarnation of political correctness and don't really address how it's different from political correctness at any other time in our history. I just don't think this intolerance of intolerance issue is that big of an issue at the moment.

When I say that I would like to make physical or material attacks on the beliefs of people illegal but see no way to do that, how does that in any way muddy the waters? It is nothing more than an observation and suggests no action.

How is it NOT oppression when a bigger, stronger, well funded bully can impose physical and/or material damage on an American citizen purely because that citizen expresses an opinion that the bully doesn't like? How does that not make the bully an oppressive force? How does that in any way muddy the waters in a discussion of intolerance?

I have been clear that this is not a constitutional issue of rights, but rather a moral and ethical principle of what SHOULD BE. So long as a person is requiring no participation or contribution from anybody else, and is not violating any agreement he/she made with anybody else, that person should be able to be whoever or whatever he/she is and express whatever belief he holds without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will try to hurt him/her phyically and/or materially.

1) Because when you say you'd like to see it be illegal, whether you can see a way to do it or not, it seems to me to indicate a desire to legislate a suppression of speech. I know you've said you can't think of a way to make a law like that which would not curtail someone's freedom of speech; have you considered the possibility that it is because such a law does nothing except curtail free speech? That, outside of already illegal actions, attempts to get someone fired through advertisement or boycott or public discussion or public screams of rage are all expressions of speech?

2) My problem is that you do not differentiate any kind of degree. I don't really like using the word oppression for minor issues like what we are mostly discussing here. It invites comparisons to far more terrible forms of oppression like slavery, child labor, sex trafficking, etc. I suppose it is a semantics issue, but I wouldn't say that Phil Robertson, to use the most prominent example, was oppressed. He was inconvenienced, maybe hurt financially, but not oppressed.

3) Yes, you have said this is not a legal issue or one of constitutional rights....but then you continue to talk about people having unalienable rights taken away. That phrase is one that is generally used in regards to legal and constitutional matters rather than purely moral ones.

So again, I take no issue with the idea you'd like to change American cultural norms. I just think some of the ways you have presented your points go beyond that into the realm of the legal or constitutional, and I think you make a bit of a mountain out of a mole hill with the entire issue.

1. You are distorting what I said. I said I would like it to be illegal but I cannot word a law that would not have unintended negative consequences and therefore do not see that is feasible to have a law prohibiting actions like GLAADs or others who try to suppress opinion by phyical or material bullying tactics. Therefore I see it as a matter of doing what I can to change the culture and make such tactics socially unacceptable.

2. I have been consistent that going after people and trying to hurt them physically and/or materially for no offense other than they expressed an opinion that bullies don't like is a form of oppression. When you say 'a form of oppression', and clearly define what oppression is involved, a question of degree is unneccessary. Nobody should have to fear an angry mob, group, or organization coming after them to physically and/or materially hurt them purely for expressing an opinion.

3. Taking away a person's unalienable right to be who and what he or she so long as s/he requires contribution or participation from no other is valid at all times because such rights predated the Constitution so far as those who wrote, signed, and ratified the Constitution were concerned.

And I can't help what you think. I'm sure those who have been attacked by groups who intended to hurt them physically and/or materially didn't think it a molehill. But I'll fight to the death your right to think and express it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Conservatives are result oriented while Liberals are consequence oriented.

Let's look at two issues: the environment and civil rights.

Conservatives, being true to their unfettered love of Capitalism, would tend to make their money now and ignore the consequences after their efforts pump pollution into the air, water and soil. "Look at how many jobs were created! Look at our enhanced standard of living!" But the pollution is regarded as a necessary problem, or the result of "junk science".

Liberals believe things could have been done better because the consequences are so dire. It's not that the Liberals hate progress (although that's the argument made by Conservatives). It's that Liberals believe we are better than that and our resources could be used to both enhance our standard of living and protect ourselves from ourselves.

In civil rights, Conservatives seem to believe that expanding rights to all Americans results in diluting the rights of others. "They want 'special rights'!" Argue Conservatives. While Liberals believe that rights are rights and should not be excluded to anyone and extending those rights means everyone can enjoy them, not just the popular classes.

Results without accepting consequences is not only selfish, but it runs counter to the better angels of human nature. If they only way you can achieve is by stepping on someone else, or the world at large, what have you achieved at all?

Nosmo, you know you are one of my favorite people ever, but this thread is not about whether liberals or conservatives are consequence or result oriented. I would love to debate that with you in an appropriate thread. Why don't you start one, get me a @mention and I'll be happy to participate. The video you object to might be appropriate there too. It is appropriate here because it describes WHY liberals feel the need to suppress opinions they don't like. The only objection is that he would have been more balanced if he had pointed to conservative groups that also do that, but his lecture was about the liberal mind and motivations so oh well. . . .

This thread is a about an American citizen being able to express an opinion without some angry mob, group, or organization going after him and attempting to hurt him physically and/or materially because they don't like his opinion. And I would like to stay focused on that.

 

[Foxfyre]

So then you are against the OP right?

Several points were made in the OP. To which are you referring?

.

Where she said what glaad did should be illegal..

Please quote the OP and show where I said any such thing. And if you cannot do that, I will expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something I did not say.

 

[Mertex]

he and the OP want you to play by their rules, and if you dont, nobody is listening to what they are saying. Even though numerous people have taken on what they've said and had nice back and forth's with them. Yet they still feel nobody gets what they are saying.

The problem is people are blowing holes in their arguments as wide as the Atlantic ocean and they can handle it. thus this is the problem with the Clean debate zone, it legitimizes opinions that should have been put in their places long ago. It tolerates absurd opinions without consequences. Which i guess is perfect for the OP when i think about it.

I get what they are trying to say....why I pointed out that people from any political party do it. And, there is no way that anyone is going to stop it because everyone thinks that their position is the "good" one and the other person's is the "evil" one.

People can say whatever they want and if they are physically hurt for it, there are recourses that can be taken (why we have laws). Unfortunately, material hurt depends on what side the majority of the people fall on, and it doesn't always work to the advantage of the ones trying to inflict the hurt.....regardless of which party it is.

Yes. Asclepias, a few minutes ago, said that he has no problem with physically and materially hurting people for no other reason than they express an opinion that he doesn't agree with. While I think his opinion about that is potentially far more dangerous than the most offensive but non threatening remark anybody might make, I will respect his opinion about that. While I will give him room that he didn't quite intend it that way, his opinion can be taken as advocating hurting other people who express opinions he doesn't like. Phil Robertson's 'objectionable' opinion, on the other hand explicitly extended love to everybody.

What? You think that what Phil Robertson said about gays was extending love to them? Comparing them to people who participate in beastiality is not an extension of love. He is entitled to say whatever he wants, but that doesn't mean that people have to agree with him. Those that criticized him had every perfect right to do so. Nobody forced A&E to fire him, even if they made comments that they should, A&E chose to do so, then seeing that they were going to lose money decided to bring him back...that is their right, too. Those that disagree don't have to watch the show nor buy any of the merchandise they put out, neither do they have to patronize the stores that sell them....that's how people express their disagreement in a civilized way.

You, on the other hand, are not saying that it is okay to hurt people for their beliefs or you don't seem to be saying that.

I'm a Christian first, and nope, I wouldn't physically hurt anyone for anything they said no matter how stupid I thought they sounded, however, I would not support nor patronize a business that expressed hatred toward others, either, and if other people did the same and it hurts their business, well, that's par for the course.

Perhaps there is a recourse for those who are materially or physically attacked by an angry mob, group, or organization for no other reason than they expressed an 'unpopular' point of view, but the cost to do that would likely be prohibitive for many and the negative additional publicity it would generate would make it impractical in most cases.

Anyone that is physically hurt in a situation where all they did was say something that was unpopular, have the state to side with them, and probably will not cost them much if they decide to sue. For those that are materially hurt, if those that are on their side don't support them, then perhaps they need to keep their opinions to themselves. People that run businesses have to be careful not to voice their opinions publicly if they don't want to face the repercussions that come with doing that.

There have been some successful suits filed and won by those who were maliciously attacked but those are rare.

If they were physically attacked, and their claim was that they said something that was unpopular, and it went to court and they lost, then obviously there must be more to the story. Our judicial system is not always as astute as we think they should be, and many innocent people don't get justice, but for the most part, I trust our justice system to get it right most of the time.

Which is why I have not advocated for it to be made illegal to physically and/or materially attack people for their beliefs, but I wish it could be made illegal. Again I have not been able to come up with wording for such a law that could not be used to restrict all criticism of everything and everybody which I would see as violation of our First Amendment Rights.

We do have the Civil rights, but people sometimes are ableto get around them. I think physical attacks are covered, but as far as material attacks.....boycotting is not illegal and people have the right to voice their opinions when they believe some action is not right, and those that agree with them have the right to follow suit and participate in boycotting. It is effective, but like I said before, sometimes it backfires and the opposite occurs.

But I think if enough good people, both left and right, choose liberty over oppression, we can make the phenomenon of hurting people for their beliefs a rare thing instead of commonplace as it is now.

Hurting people "materially" for their beliefs is wrong, boycotting them for their hateful expressions is another thing, and those that voice these hurtful/hateful things are getting more vocal, and those that oppose them are striking back...I don't see an end to it any time soon.

 

[Plasmaball]

Several points were made in the OP. To which are you referring?

.

Where she said what glaad did should be illegal..

Please quote the OP and show where I said any such thing. And if you cannot do that, I will expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something I did not say.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-13.html#post8401365

Originally Posted by Foxfyre
I think was GLAAD did was evil. It SHOULD be criminal.

criminal would mean illegal...I owe you nothing.