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

[Bfgrn]

I still say who among us has the righteous authority to dictate what somebody else must think, believe, or say? And who should have the righteous authority to organize an angry mob, group, or organization to go after and physically and/or materially punish somebody if they say something that offends us? How does anybody equate that with a tolerant society?

Coming from the group of people who believe they have the righteous authority to dictate who someone can fall in love with, and what a woman is allowed to do with her uterus.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
Barry Goldwater

This is not a thread about Republicans or Democxrats or social issues of any kind. This thread has to do with freedom of thought, belief, conviction without fear. Try to concentrate on that please.

Of course it is about "Republicans or Democrats or social issues". It is about how one group of people will even go as far as defending a man who advocates pedophilia because of their fear of gays. Then those same people try to control what someone can say.

You keep trying to equate physical punishment with material consequences. They are not even close to being the same. The gay community suffers physical punishment (hate crimes like beatings and murders) and people like Phil Robertson add fuel to the people who carry out those beatings and murders.

I have news for you FF, those people who beat and murder gays, fire bomb abortion clinics and execute doctors who perform those legal procedures are NOT liberals. They are conservatives.

 

[Mac1958]

This is not a thread about Republicans or Democxrats or social issues of any kind. This thread has to do with freedom of thought, belief, conviction without fear.

As we've seen on this thread and many others, those who want to intimidate and punish others for their opinions will usually either (a) try to justify their behavior, and/or (b) deflect to another topic. Their narcissism and intolerance run deep, and they will protect this strategy with great energy because it has been so effective for them.

The only way this changes is if -- and this is a huge "if" -- society makes it clear to these people that the ability to express our opinions without fear is fundamental and critical to a free society, and that we refuse to be intimidated. It will be at that point that honest discussion and debate can begin on the issues with an eye toward truly fixing our problems. Not until then.

Here's the problem, FF: These are, by and large, people who literally WANT to live under a more authoritarian existence. They WANT heavier rules and restrictions on the behavior of citizens. So trying to appeal to them with words like "freedom" and "liberty" is literally a waste of time, it goes in precisely the wrong direction. "Freedom" and "liberty" to them means less control over the populace, a bad thing.

That's why I think the only way to get them to engage in honest discourse is through society, through the culture.

.

 

[Mac1958]

.
[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], come to think of it, here's another thing:

They even practice their behavior within the context of a discussion about that behavior.

There have been multiple instances here in which I've been called a racist for saying that a racist should be able to speak in public about his views. So they play the "guilt by association" game in an effort to intimidate me and put me on the defensive as we are discussing how they try to intimidate people and put them on the defensive!

Meanwhile, of course, they are avoiding an open and honest discussion about racism.

Here's what I don't know yet: I wonder if they consciously realize they're doing this, or if it's just become implanted in their DNA. Maybe it's both, depending on the situation.

Either way, the bottom line remains this: We cannot solve or fix problems unless and until we can have open and honest discussions about them, and I'd love to know why these people don't want to see that happen.

.

 

[Bfgrn]

This is not a thread about Republicans or Democxrats or social issues of any kind. This thread has to do with freedom of thought, belief, conviction without fear.

As we've seen on this thread and many others, those who want to intimidate and punish others for their opinions will usually either (a) try to justify their behavior, and/or (b) deflect to another topic. Their narcissism and intolerance run deep, and they will protect this strategy with great energy because it has been so effective for them.

The only way this changes is if -- and this is a huge "if" -- society makes it clear to these people that the ability to express our opinions without fear is fundamental and critical to a free society, and that we refuse to be intimidated. It will be at that point that honest discussion and debate can begin on the issues with an eye toward truly fixing our problems. Not until then.

Here's the problem, FF: These are, by and large, people who literally WANT to live under a more authoritarian existence. They WANT heavier rules and restrictions on the behavior of citizens. So trying to appeal to them with words like "freedom" and "liberty" is literally a waste of time, it goes in precisely the wrong direction. "Freedom" and "liberty" to them means less control over the populace, a bad thing.

That's why I think the only way to get them to engage in honest discourse is through society, through the culture.

.

That is nonsense.

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

The homophobes, racists and bigots don't reside on the left.

What you folks on the right are unwilling to admit is that you AGREE with what Phil Robertson said. THAT is what all these threads have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And you are totally wrong on authoritarianism. It has been proven beyond any doubt to be a right wing trait.

FF is having angst over Phil Roberson being materially punished...a man whose net worth is 15 million dollars...

Oh, the humanity!

 

[Bfgrn]

.
[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], come to think of it, here's another thing:

They even practice their behavior within the context of a discussion about that behavior.

There have been multiple instances here in which I've been called a racist for saying that a racist should be able to speak in public about his views. So they play the "guilt by association" game in an effort to intimidate me and put me on the defensive as we are discussing how they try to intimidate people and put them on the defensive!

Meanwhile, of course, they are avoiding an open and honest discussion about racism.

Here's what I don't know yet: I wonder if they consciously realize they're doing this, or if it's just become implanted in their DNA. Maybe it's both, depending on the situation.

Either way, the bottom line remains this: We cannot solve or fix problems unless and until we can have open and honest discussions about them, and I'd love to know why these people don't want to see that happen.

.

A racist IS able to speak in public about his views. But he is not able to demand SILENCE in response.

 

[Mac1958]

What you folks on the right...

Funny thing is, if we were to make a list of the issues and where we stand on them, the number of issues with which I agree with the Left would be longer.

The problem for me is that my higher priority is actually fixing our problems, whether it is done my way or not. And I know that -- as I've said a zillion times here -- we can't even begin to fix our problems until we can have open and honest communication about them. My ego is not such that problems have to be fixed my way, as long as they're fixed.

And intimating & punishing people for their opinion in what is supposed to be a free society can not lead to open and honest communication.

.

 

[Papawx3]

I still say who among us has the righteous authority to dictate what somebody else must think, believe, or say? And who should have the righteous authority to organize an angry mob, group, or organization to go after and physically and/or materially punish somebody if they say something that offends us? How does anybody equate that with a tolerant society?

I agree. That's been my personal 'motto' for a very long time. As an American, I think I should have the right to think, believe and say what I want without someone else vilifying me for it.
At the same time, I leave others to their own thoughts and speech. Their business is their own, just as is mine. If they leave me alone, I'll do the same for them. Self-righteous indignation at other folk's thoughts and speech is for fools.

 

[Bfgrn]

What you folks on the right...

Funny thing is, if we were to make a list of the issues and where we stand on them, the number of issues with which I agree with the Left would be longer.

The problem for me is that my higher priority is actually fixing our problems, whether it is done my way or not. And I know that -- as I've said a zillion times here -- we can't even begin to fix our problems until we can have open and honest communication about them. My ego is not such that problems have to be fixed my way, as long as they're fixed.

And intimating & punishing people for their opinion in what is supposed to be a free society can not lead to open and honest communication.

.

I'd also like to solve our problems, but maybe you need to look at who is obstructing that path.

If the antics of the tea party doesn't open your eyes, then you are not being honest with yourself.

FF always 'claims' she and fellow conservatives are "classical liberals". They are not liberals under any prefix. They are conservatives. Here is a true classic liberal who was a Nobel Prize winner. See if anything he says rings true about the tea partiers.

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are
recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to
be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. - F. A. Hayek

What horseshit.

 

[protectionist]

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?

As with most things in life, tolerance has its limits, and moderation is an important concept. Egyptians found out recently how their illustrious Arab Spring tolerance could result, with the Muslim Brotherhood gaining power, and then imposing the highest degrees of INtolerance anyone could ever remember. Same thing happened with Neville Chamberlain of England when he showed tolerance toward Adolph Hitler in 1938.

A lot of how tolerance may be conducted has a lot to do with whom and what you are tolerating. I don't think too many people want to tolerate rape, wife-beating, murder, and pedophilia, yet they call for the tolerance of Islam which advocates these things in the Koran (if not commands them)

 

[Mac1958]

What you folks on the right...

Funny thing is, if we were to make a list of the issues and where we stand on them, the number of issues with which I agree with the Left would be longer.

The problem for me is that my higher priority is actually fixing our problems, whether it is done my way or not. And I know that -- as I've said a zillion times here -- we can't even begin to fix our problems until we can have open and honest communication about them. My ego is not such that problems have to be fixed my way, as long as they're fixed.

And intimating & punishing people for their opinion in what is supposed to be a free society can not lead to open and honest communication.

.

I'd also like to solve our problems, but maybe you need to look at who is obstructing that path.

If the antics of the tea party doesn't open your eyes, then you are not being honest with yourself.

FF always 'claims' she and fellow conservatives are "classical liberals". They are not liberals under any prefix. They are conservatives. Here is a true classic liberal who was a Nobel Prize winner. See if anything he says rings true about the tea partiers.

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

Oh, I don't have much use for the Tea Party. They did have my attention for (literally) about two weeks there, when they were talking about limited, responsible, efficient government. But then the Palin/Beck/Bachmann brigade co-opted the movement and that was it for me, immedately. Now, the Cruz types and their absolutist rhetoric (although it may not just be rhetoric, I'm not quite sure) have pushed me further away.

But I think you and I are talking about two different things otherwise. On the topics with which I disagree with conservatives, I think they're wrong, same as you. That's how opinions work. They think they're right on those issues, I think they're wrong. But they are more willing, at least in my observation and experience, to debate the issue head on, as wrong as I think they are. But when I'm debating an issue and the other person is constantly deflecting and trying to put me on the defensive by calling me a "this" or a "that", I'm just wasting my time. And that happens far less to me with conservatives.

But far more than that is my original point: Playing word games, using intimidation and punishment to control the conversation -- meh, that hurts the debate more than helps it. And I have to deal with that crap much more with lefties.

Abortion is a perfect example: I'm pro-choice, but I can certainly understand the pro-lifers feeling that it's murder. I admit that it's an innocent human life -- something I've tried many times to get lefties here to admit -- but they keep diverting from that so that they don't have to take it head-on. How can we have a conversation about it if we can't even agree on facts?

Look, I'm a freedom of expression psycho, a pure lunatic and nutcase on the topic. But my motives are constructive.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

Coming from the group of people who believe they have the righteous authority to dictate who someone can fall in love with, and what a woman is allowed to do with her uterus.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
Barry Goldwater

This is not a thread about Republicans or Democxrats or social issues of any kind. This thread has to do with freedom of thought, belief, conviction without fear. Try to concentrate on that please.

Of course it is about "Republicans or Democrats or social issues". It is about how one group of people will even go as far as defending a man who advocates pedophilia because of their fear of gays. Then those same people try to control what someone can say.

You keep trying to equate physical punishment with material consequences. They are not even close to being the same. The gay community suffers physical punishment (hate crimes like beatings and murders) and people like Phil Robertson add fuel to the people who carry out those beatings and murders.

I have news for you FF, those people who beat and murder gays, fire bomb abortion clinics and execute doctors who perform those legal procedures are NOT liberals. They are conservatives.

Phil Robertson has never beaten or murdered gays, has never fire bombed an abortion clinic, nor harmed any doctor and he, nor any conservative, have done that. There isn't a single person, left or right, who has posted in this thread or elsewhere who advocates that. Don't confuse evil ACTS, left or right, with an ideology. Again we are not speaking of social issues or ideology here. I have used examples from both left and right leaning groups to emphasize that.

Phil Robertson, on the other hand, did say that he includes himself as a sinner among the list of sins in the Bible, and that he loves his gay brothers and sisters and he wishes them all well. He was clear he does not see it as his or anybody else's prerogative to pass judgment on anybody--that is God's job to sort out.

So what was his inexcusable sin so far as GLAAD was concerned? He believes the Bible says homosexuality, among a whole lot of other things, is a sin. And they went after him to punish him physically (get him fired) and materially (destroy his income) for just expressing an opinion about what he thinks the Bible teaches.

That is intolerance, pure and simple, and of the most evil variety short of physical assault. And it is THAT kind of intolerance that this thread is intended to address. I don't CARE in this thread what any other social issues are, who is for what, or what is or is not legal to do. I want us to become a culture that embraces tolerance for what people think, believe, hold dear, and focuses our anger on bad ACTS of people whether in the private sector or government.

 

[Iceweasel]

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

Now there's an unbiased opinion! Cato is a Libertarian think tank and probably bitter that they can't win shit.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions.

Horse manure. Notice he doesn't bother defining what a 'typical' conservative is. Anytime you start trying to build on an opinionated assumption you are no longer aiming for accuracy or fairmindedness.

Reagan was a conservative who said if you agree with him 70% you were an ally. Conservatives often make deals with the left, the left has had more power for much longer thatn the right in the last 50 years.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

This guy is a flaming idiot. Disagree with a liberal and they are shocked, then outraged. Libs don't believe in coercion? You mean like passing laws because you don't like something so no one should have it, or you support something so everyone should support it. Jail time isn't coercion?

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

...and the steamy pile grows higher. Liberals are elitists and are often caught not following the laws they imposed on others. Do you even watch the news? I think even CNN can't sweep it all under the rug. I personally know liberals (yes I'll admit it) and just about every one of them are willing to bend the rules o suit themselves. They'll pay someone under the table and scream about the greed in others. They'll build what they want on their property but demand everyone else follow building codes. And on and on....

Most Libertarians disagree with social consevativism but they don't throw the hissy fit this Bozo does.

 

[Montrovant]

This is not a thread about Republicans or Democxrats or social issues of any kind. This thread has to do with freedom of thought, belief, conviction without fear.

As we've seen on this thread and many others, those who want to intimidate and punish others for their opinions will usually either (a) try to justify their behavior, and/or (b) deflect to another topic. Their narcissism and intolerance run deep, and they will protect this strategy with great energy because it has been so effective for them.

The only way this changes is if -- and this is a huge "if" -- society makes it clear to these people that the ability to express our opinions without fear is fundamental and critical to a free society, and that we refuse to be intimidated. It will be at that point that honest discussion and debate can begin on the issues with an eye toward truly fixing our problems. Not until then.

Here's the problem, FF: These are, by and large, people who literally WANT to live under a more authoritarian existence. They WANT heavier rules and restrictions on the behavior of citizens. So trying to appeal to them with words like "freedom" and "liberty" is literally a waste of time, it goes in precisely the wrong direction. "Freedom" and "liberty" to them means less control over the populace, a bad thing.

That's why I think the only way to get them to engage in honest discourse is through society, through the culture.

.

That is nonsense.

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

The homophobes, racists and bigots don't reside on the left.

What you folks on the right are unwilling to admit is that you AGREE with what Phil Robertson said. THAT is what all these threads have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And you are totally wrong on authoritarianism. It has been proven beyond any doubt to be a right wing trait.

FF is having angst over Phil Roberson being materially punished...a man whose net worth is 15 million dollars...

Oh, the humanity!

This kind of partisan ridiculousness is maddening.

There are no homophobes, racists, or bigots that are politically left? Really?

The people who fight for more freedoms are always liberals, and those who fight to restrict freedoms are always conservatives?

Authoritarianism is a 'proven' right wing trait?

Your world appears to be not only black and white, but everything in it seems based on political ideology, as though that is the only defining characteristic of a person.

And I think it good to mention that we are in the CDZ.

 

[hunarcy]

As we've seen on this thread and many others, those who want to intimidate and punish others for their opinions will usually either (a) try to justify their behavior, and/or (b) deflect to another topic. Their narcissism and intolerance run deep, and they will protect this strategy with great energy because it has been so effective for them.

The only way this changes is if -- and this is a huge "if" -- society makes it clear to these people that the ability to express our opinions without fear is fundamental and critical to a free society, and that we refuse to be intimidated. It will be at that point that honest discussion and debate can begin on the issues with an eye toward truly fixing our problems. Not until then.

Here's the problem, FF: These are, by and large, people who literally WANT to live under a more authoritarian existence. They WANT heavier rules and restrictions on the behavior of citizens. So trying to appeal to them with words like "freedom" and "liberty" is literally a waste of time, it goes in precisely the wrong direction. "Freedom" and "liberty" to them means less control over the populace, a bad thing.

That's why I think the only way to get them to engage in honest discourse is through society, through the culture.

.

That is nonsense.

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

The homophobes, racists and bigots don't reside on the left.

What you folks on the right are unwilling to admit is that you AGREE with what Phil Robertson said. THAT is what all these threads have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And you are totally wrong on authoritarianism. It has been proven beyond any doubt to be a right wing trait.

FF is having angst over Phil Roberson being materially punished...a man whose net worth is 15 million dollars...

Oh, the humanity!

This kind of partisan ridiculousness is maddening.

There are no homophobes, racists, or bigots that are politically left? Really?

The people who fight for more freedoms are always liberals, and those who fight to restrict freedoms are always conservatives?

Authoritarianism is a 'proven' right wing trait?

Your world appears to be not only black and white, but everything in it seems based on political ideology, as though that is the only defining characteristic of a person.

And I think it good to mention that we are in the CDZ.

"The homophobes, racists and bigots don't reside on the left. " Stupidity like that is why I had to move that guy to the ignore list. He's so "black/white" that he can't see that he's mostly what he accuses the Right of being.

 

[Bfgrn]

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

Now there's an unbiased opinion! Cato is a Libertarian think tank and probably bitter that they can't win shit.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions.

Horse manure. Notice he doesn't bother defining what a 'typical' conservative is. Anytime you start trying to build on an opinionated assumption you are no longer aiming for accuracy or fairmindedness.

Reagan was a conservative who said if you agree with him 70% you were an ally. Conservatives often make deals with the left, the left has had more power for much longer thatn the right in the last 50 years.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

This guy is a flaming idiot. Disagree with a liberal and they are shocked, then outraged. Libs don't believe in coercion? You mean like passing laws because you don't like something so no one should have it, or you support something so everyone should support it. Jail time isn't coercion?

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

...and the steamy pile grows higher. Liberals are elitists and are often caught not following the laws they imposed on others. Do you even watch the news? I think even CNN can't sweep it all under the rug. I personally know liberals (yes I'll admit it) and just about every one of them are willing to bend the rules o suit themselves. They'll pay someone under the table and scream about the greed in others. They'll build what they want on their property but demand everyone else follow building codes. And on and on....

Most Libertarians disagree with social consevativism but they don't throw the hissy fit this Bozo does.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

 

[Bfgrn]

As we've seen on this thread and many others, those who want to intimidate and punish others for their opinions will usually either (a) try to justify their behavior, and/or (b) deflect to another topic. Their narcissism and intolerance run deep, and they will protect this strategy with great energy because it has been so effective for them.

The only way this changes is if -- and this is a huge "if" -- society makes it clear to these people that the ability to express our opinions without fear is fundamental and critical to a free society, and that we refuse to be intimidated. It will be at that point that honest discussion and debate can begin on the issues with an eye toward truly fixing our problems. Not until then.

Here's the problem, FF: These are, by and large, people who literally WANT to live under a more authoritarian existence. They WANT heavier rules and restrictions on the behavior of citizens. So trying to appeal to them with words like "freedom" and "liberty" is literally a waste of time, it goes in precisely the wrong direction. "Freedom" and "liberty" to them means less control over the populace, a bad thing.

That's why I think the only way to get them to engage in honest discourse is through society, through the culture.

.

That is nonsense.

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

The homophobes, racists and bigots don't reside on the left.

What you folks on the right are unwilling to admit is that you AGREE with what Phil Robertson said. THAT is what all these threads have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And you are totally wrong on authoritarianism. It has been proven beyond any doubt to be a right wing trait.

FF is having angst over Phil Roberson being materially punished...a man whose net worth is 15 million dollars...

Oh, the humanity!

This kind of partisan ridiculousness is maddening.

There are no homophobes, racists, or bigots that are politically left? Really?

The people who fight for more freedoms are always liberals, and those who fight to restrict freedoms are always conservatives?

Authoritarianism is a 'proven' right wing trait?

Your world appears to be not only black and white, but everything in it seems based on political ideology, as though that is the only defining characteristic of a person.

And I think it good to mention that we are in the CDZ.

Those are the facts Montrovant. Are they 'absolute', no. Are they highly accurate, yes.

Name ONE conservative who was an advocate for the rights on ANY minority? There aren't any.

 

[Plasmaball]

This is not a thread about Republicans or Democxrats or social issues of any kind. This thread has to do with freedom of thought, belief, conviction without fear.

As we've seen on this thread and many others, those who want to intimidate and punish others for their opinions will usually either (a) try to justify their behavior, and/or (b) deflect to another topic. Their narcissism and intolerance run deep, and they will protect this strategy with great energy because it has been so effective for them.

The only way this changes is if -- and this is a huge "if" -- society makes it clear to these people that the ability to express our opinions without fear is fundamental and critical to a free society, and that we refuse to be intimidated. It will be at that point that honest discussion and debate can begin on the issues with an eye toward truly fixing our problems. Not until then.

Here's the problem, FF: These are, by and large, people who literally WANT to live under a more authoritarian existence. They WANT heavier rules and restrictions on the behavior of citizens. So trying to appeal to them with words like "freedom" and "liberty" is literally a waste of time, it goes in precisely the wrong direction. "Freedom" and "liberty" to them means less control over the populace, a bad thing.

That's why I think the only way to get them to engage in honest discourse is through society, through the culture.

.

holy crap you are still repeating the same stuff over and over again still? Wow...thats just sad.

 

[Iceweasel]

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

There is no such thing as a classical liberal any more, I guess Jimmy didn't get the memo. Today they are called 'Libertarians'. Of course there is a natural heirachy as far as wealth and power goes. And yes, liberals believe in it too. Many of the uber wealthy are liberal and many are in government dictating away for all of us. Have you ever heard of Obamacare, for example?

Reality sucks when it differs from your political-religious views.

 

[Foxfyre]

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

There is no such thing as a classical liberal any more, I guess Jimmy didn't get the memo. Today they are called 'Libertarians'. Of course there is a natural heirachy as far as wealth and power goes. And yes, liberals believe in it too. Many of the uber wealthy are liberal and many are in government dictating away for all of us. Have you ever heard of Obamacare, for example?

Reality sucks when it differs from your political-religious views.

I will remind the members posting here that the topic for this thread is very specific. And ideology and/or religion is not part of it. The topic is tolerance for the point of view, opinions, beliefs, and convictions of others regardless of their political affiliations or leanings.

But there ARE still classical liberals i.e. libertarian (little "L" to distinguish it from the Libertarian (large L) party. CATO doesn't try to win sh*t--they are strongly libertarian (small "L") however. Our Founders were classical liberals and they intended for us to have a constitution that promoted the kind of tolerance that I speak of in the OP. A culture in which the biggest, baddest, and strongest cannot force the others to toe the line in what is acceptable or not acceptable to believe or speak. A culture in which no monarch, dictator, pope, or other potentate would have the power to dictate to the people what they must believe, think, or express or else there would be consequences imposed.