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

[Foxfyre]

This is another way of saying what I have been arguing on this from the beginning. There is no liberty at all unless we each have the right to make wrong choices as well as right choices; unless we have the right to be wrong about something as much as we have the right to be right about something.

What I have been arguing in this thread is a culture that respects the unalienable right of each of us to say what we think, even if it is wrong, if it is ugly, if it is stupid, if it is ignorant, or if it is as right as rain. If our culture does not respect that unalienable right, then there is no freedom.

What you are talking about is when "ugly" became wrong, stupid and ignorant.
Some people don't respond to anything other than ugly ... And think that their ideas are worthwhile, correct and brilliant ... Until someone else tells them to take a flying leap.

They still don't think they are wrong, stupid, intrusive, immoral, unethical or disrespecting when they are told to take a flying leap ... But they may understand how much of their crap we are going to tolerate.

.

Ah but here we are smack dab into the very heart of the thesis of the OP.

Several on this thread have made posts that, in my opinion, are ugly as well as wrong, stupid, and ignorant and that were intended to be insulting. Many were off topic and I have been trying to ignore those as much as possible. But if they had persisted and continued to the point that they were seriously derailing the thread, I would report them as bad ACTS. Not bad opinions.

As Mac pointed out, we can never have an honest discussion about anything if everybody's opinions are not included in the mix. But we can set the parameters of what the discussion will be and not allow unrelated issues or concepts to interfere with the focus on a specific subject to be discussed.

It is the difference between a 'bad' opinion and a 'bad' act.

Some seem to think it is fair game to punish a 'bad' opinion just as much as it is to punish a 'bad' act. And only a few of us seem to want to focus on discussing that in relation to unalienable rights and promoting liberty.

Tolerance in the context of the OP is not about appreciating or condemning the 'bad' opinions of others. We all should be able to do that as appropriate. Tolerance, in the context of the OP, however, is allowing people to have 'bad' opinions without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after them to physically and/or materially punish them.

 

[Montrovant]

Then, why may I ask, did they leave behind the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers? Those document both sides of the field. One side for government, the other against. All of these opinions and observations later went into the creation of our Democratic Republic, taking in the best of both worlds.

I'm not sure how that's an argument that we can know what the founders would think of modern issues.

Look, it may be hard for us to understand, but just the concept of television is something so foreign to them that we can't know how they would react to it. I don't think that gays were much appreciated in the founders' time, either. And from everything I've read, the founders were very much of different minds about any number of fundamental issues.

So the idea that we know they would all agree about threats of boycotts or lawsuits regarding a reality tv star and a gay tv talk show host is asinine. At best one can take a somewhat educated guess.

It is a very strong argument that we do know the principles the Founders used to form this republic. They left behind, as TK mentioned, the federalist and anti-federalist papers and a massive amount of their notes, diaries, transcripts of speeches, letters, and opinions written.

This has been the problem we've had with this topic from the beginning. Everybody wants to talk about legalities, case law, ideology, partisanship, sins of others, sins from the past, sins in the present, and/or are trying to make it a free speech issue. It is none of those things. It is a PRINCIPLE that is applicable no matter what the circumstances, subject matter, or any history that exists.

The principle is a concept of liberty that allows a person his her thoughts, beliefs, opinions, ideas and to be who or what he/she is with impunity so long as he/she does not infringe on the rights of others.

And the Founders, to a man, strongly supported that principle.

I disagree that the founders all agreed with that principle. I think the treatment of minorities, women, and non-landowners in that time makes it a difficult argument to make that ALL of the founders agreed.

When you add in the differences in technology and communication between then and now, the principles and ways of living we take for granted that they were unfamiliar with, again, I think assuming we know that the founders would all agree on just about anything is silly.

I doubt they would all agree on just who would be included in 'all men' from the phrase all men are created equal, myself.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not sure how that's an argument that we can know what the founders would think of modern issues.

Look, it may be hard for us to understand, but just the concept of television is something so foreign to them that we can't know how they would react to it. I don't think that gays were much appreciated in the founders' time, either. And from everything I've read, the founders were very much of different minds about any number of fundamental issues.

So the idea that we know they would all agree about threats of boycotts or lawsuits regarding a reality tv star and a gay tv talk show host is asinine. At best one can take a somewhat educated guess.

It is a very strong argument that we do know the principles the Founders used to form this republic. They left behind, as TK mentioned, the federalist and anti-federalist papers and a massive amount of their notes, diaries, transcripts of speeches, letters, and opinions written.

This has been the problem we've had with this topic from the beginning. Everybody wants to talk about legalities, case law, ideology, partisanship, sins of others, sins from the past, sins in the present, and/or are trying to make it a free speech issue. It is none of those things. It is a PRINCIPLE that is applicable no matter what the circumstances, subject matter, or any history that exists.

The principle is a concept of liberty that allows a person his her thoughts, beliefs, opinions, ideas and to be who or what he/she is with impunity so long as he/she does not infringe on the rights of others.

And the Founders, to a man, strongly supported that principle.

I disagree that the founders all agreed with that principle. I think the treatment of minorities, women, and non-landowners in that time makes it a difficult argument to make that ALL of the founders agreed.

When you add in the differences in technology and communication between then and now, the principles and ways of living we take for granted that they were unfamiliar with, again, I think assuming we know that the founders would all agree on just about anything is silly.

I doubt they would all agree on just who would be included in 'all men' from the phrase all men are created equal, myself.

But don't you see? What they saw as the norm of their culture, what they adopted as policy as the most reasonable and practical way to form a government in their culture, had ZERO to do with the principle of freedom of thought, ideas, concepts, ideas, values, convictions. They DIDN"T all agree on the policy--it took them eleven long years of often heated debate, argument, give and take, and compromise from the signing of the Declaration of Independence that provided the PRINCIPLE behind the Constitution and the signing of the Constitution. Even then only 38 of the 41 representatives present at the signing actually signed the final document.

But they were, to a man, even those who didn't ultimately sign the final document, agreed on the principle of unalienable rights that the Constitution was intended to recognize and protect. And they were of one mind that no federal potentate would ever again have the power or ability to dictate what the people would think or believe or express about anything. And they were of one mind that the existing societies that did dictate what people must think, believe, or express would be allowed to exist, but would not be allowed to force those on others.

And it is that principle that we seem to have abandoned in our modern culture. Too many not only claim the right to their own opinions, but presume to force them on everybody else to the point that those who don't share them will be physically and/or materially punished.

I think that is wrong. And it should be culturally unacceptable in America.

 

[Montrovant]

It is a very strong argument that we do know the principles the Founders used to form this republic. They left behind, as TK mentioned, the federalist and anti-federalist papers and a massive amount of their notes, diaries, transcripts of speeches, letters, and opinions written.

This has been the problem we've had with this topic from the beginning. Everybody wants to talk about legalities, case law, ideology, partisanship, sins of others, sins from the past, sins in the present, and/or are trying to make it a free speech issue. It is none of those things. It is a PRINCIPLE that is applicable no matter what the circumstances, subject matter, or any history that exists.

The principle is a concept of liberty that allows a person his her thoughts, beliefs, opinions, ideas and to be who or what he/she is with impunity so long as he/she does not infringe on the rights of others.

And the Founders, to a man, strongly supported that principle.

I disagree that the founders all agreed with that principle. I think the treatment of minorities, women, and non-landowners in that time makes it a difficult argument to make that ALL of the founders agreed.

When you add in the differences in technology and communication between then and now, the principles and ways of living we take for granted that they were unfamiliar with, again, I think assuming we know that the founders would all agree on just about anything is silly.

I doubt they would all agree on just who would be included in 'all men' from the phrase all men are created equal, myself.

But don't you see? What they saw as the norm of their culture, what they adopted as policy as the most reasonable and practical way to form a government in their culture, had ZERO to do with the principle of freedom of thought, ideas, concepts, ideas, values, convictions. They DIDN"T all agree on the policy--it took them eleven long years of often heated debate, argument, give and take, and compromise from the signing of the Declaration of Independence that provided the PRINCIPLE behind the Constitution and the signing of the Constitution. Even then only 38 of the 41 representatives present at the signing actually signed the final document.

But they were, to a man, even those who didn't ultimately sign the final document, agreed on the principle of unalienable rights that the Constitution was intended to recognize and protect. And they were of one mind that no federal potentate would ever again have the power or ability to dictate what the people would think or believe or express about anything. And they were of one mind that the existing societies that did dictate what people must think, believe, or express would be allowed to exist, but would not be allowed to force those on others.

And it is that principle that we seem to have abandoned in our modern culture. Too many not only claim the right to their own opinions, but presume to force them on everybody else to the point that those who don't share them will be physically and/or materially punished.

I think that is wrong. And it should be culturally unacceptable in America.

That's just it, I don't think they were of one mind about it. I don't think they would have all agreed about who had the rights you are talking about. I think some might have considered gays to be unnatural abominations, or something of the sort, and not men deserving the unalienable rights we are talking about. Some might have felt that women were not deserving. Some might have felt minorities of various types were not. They may have all agreed that there are unalienable rights, but I think there would have been plenty of disagreement about just what that meant.

Move ahead to today's situations and I don't see how you can know if they would consider the situations we are describing as violations of those unalienable rights. Would the founders have considered it a violation of someone's rights to have their job as a television personality ended because of their expressed opinions, or because of their homosexuality? As far as I'm concerned, a definitive answer is impossible.

 

[BlackSand]

Ah but here we are smack dab into the very heart of the thesis of the OP.

Several on this thread have made posts that, in my opinion, are ugly as well as wrong, stupid, and ignorant and that were intended to be insulting. Many were off topic and I have been trying to ignore those as much as possible. But if they had persisted and continued to the point that they were seriously derailing the thread, I would report them as bad ACTS. Not bad opinions.

As Mac pointed out, we can never have an honest discussion about anything if everybody's opinions are not included in the mix. But we can set the parameters of what the discussion will be and not allow unrelated issues or concepts to interfere with the focus on a specific subject to be discussed.

It is the difference between a 'bad' opinion and a 'bad' act.

Some seem to think it is fair game to punish a 'bad' opinion just as much as it is to punish a 'bad' act. And only a few of us seem to want to focus on discussing that in relation to unalienable rights and promoting liberty.

Tolerance in the context of the OP is not about appreciating or condemning the 'bad' opinions of others. We all should be able to do that as appropriate. Tolerance, in the context of the OP, however, is allowing people to have 'bad' opinions without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after them to physically and/or materially punish them.

Yeah … But then you have to determine the difference in an act and an opinion in accordance to results … Because an opinion means absolutely nothing until it results in an action.
I mentioned earlier about tolerance in regards to the necessity to interact with others through contribution, acceptance or participation.
If we need to fool ourselves into thinking that because someone has expressed their opinion it means that we are all more dedicated to act appropriately … Then I think that is a fool's errand.

A simple analogy that won't be worth arguing with ...

When fire ants build a nest in my yard … I don't give a crap what there needs are, what their opinions are or whether they have the right to be there.
Just because I understand that they bite me as a defense weapon because I am a giant, they feel threatened and it is the only way they can do anything … Doesn't change my opinion of them.
I am still going to garage … Getting a container of poison … And killing as many of the bastards as I can.

Do I not think the fire ants have a reason to fear me … Nope.
Do I fail to understand that their fear is both justified and worthy of recognition … Nope.
Do I care if they decide to build their nest in the woods behind my house and not in my yard … Nope.
Do I think that fire ants are not an important part of our eco-system … Nope.
Do you think I will ever tolerate them building a nest in my yard and biting the crap out of me … Nope.

That is the difference in understanding another person's opinions, justification and reasoning … Then the ability for it to affect change in any manner as far as tolerance is concerned.
I understand that humans are not fire ants before some fool thinks that is worthy of discussion … It was an analogy to make the premise more malleable without involving politics.

.

 

[BlackSand]

That's just it, I don't think they were of one mind about it. I don't think they would have all agreed about who had the rights you are talking about. I think some might have considered gays to be unnatural abominations, or something of the sort, and not men deserving the unalienable rights we are talking about. Some might have felt that women were not deserving. Some might have felt minorities of various types were not. They may have all agreed that there are unalienable rights, but I think there would have been plenty of disagreement about just what that meant.

Move ahead to today's situations and I don't see how you can know if they would consider the situations we are describing as violations of those unalienable rights. Would the founders have considered it a violation of someone's rights to have their job as a television personality ended because of their expressed opinions, or because of their homosexuality? As far as I'm concerned, a definitive answer is impossible.

I am pretty sure they all had opinions on gays, women and minorities ... Luckily, they were smart enough to understand it was none of the Federal Government's business.
They also felt that some issues could be handled better and with more accurate or appropriate legislation at the Local or State Level than the Federal Level.

You can try to use a paintbrush as a hammer all day long ... But it is not going to be worthwhile or productive in any case.

Edit:
They also left us the tools necessary to make appropriate changes ... We have bastardized the extent as to what is appropriate.
Left to our own devices ... The government has changed in regards to basic rights for minorities ... And states have progressed further as far as rights for gays than the Federal Government has ... Get a clue folks.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ah but here we are smack dab into the very heart of the thesis of the OP.

Several on this thread have made posts that, in my opinion, are ugly as well as wrong, stupid, and ignorant and that were intended to be insulting. Many were off topic and I have been trying to ignore those as much as possible. But if they had persisted and continued to the point that they were seriously derailing the thread, I would report them as bad ACTS. Not bad opinions.

As Mac pointed out, we can never have an honest discussion about anything if everybody's opinions are not included in the mix. But we can set the parameters of what the discussion will be and not allow unrelated issues or concepts to interfere with the focus on a specific subject to be discussed.

It is the difference between a 'bad' opinion and a 'bad' act.

Some seem to think it is fair game to punish a 'bad' opinion just as much as it is to punish a 'bad' act. And only a few of us seem to want to focus on discussing that in relation to unalienable rights and promoting liberty.

Tolerance in the context of the OP is not about appreciating or condemning the 'bad' opinions of others. We all should be able to do that as appropriate. Tolerance, in the context of the OP, however, is allowing people to have 'bad' opinions without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after them to physically and/or materially punish them.

Yeah … But then you have to determine the difference in an act and an opinion in accordance to results … Because an opinion means absolutely nothing until it results in an action.
I mentioned earlier about tolerance in regards to the necessity to interact with others through contribution, acceptance or participation.
If we need to fool ourselves into thinking that because someone has expressed their opinion it means that we are all more dedicated to act appropriately … Then I think that is a fool's errand.

A simple analogy that won't be worth arguing with ...

When fire ants build a nest in my yard … I don't give a crap what there needs are, what their opinions are or whether they have the right to be there.
Just because I understand that they bite me as a defense weapon because I am a giant, they feel threatened and it is the only way they can do anything … Doesn't change my opinion of them.
I am still going to garage … Getting a container of poison … And killing as many of the bastards as I can.

Do I not think the fire ants have a reason to fear me … Nope.
Do I fail to understand that their fear is both justified and worthy of recognition … Nope.
Do I care if they decide to build their nest in the woods behind my house and not in my yard … Nope.
Do I think that fire ants are not an important part of our eco-system … Nope.
Do you think I will ever tolerate them building a nest in my yard and biting the crap out of me … Nope.

That is the difference in understanding another person's opinions, justification and reasoning … Then the ability for it to affect change in any manner as far as tolerance is concerned.
I understand that humans are not fire ants before some fool thinks that is worthy of discussion … It was an analogy to make the premise more malleable without involving politics.

.

Actually it is a pretty good analogy.

Let's take another example that involves people. If GLAAD gets in my face and tries to demand that I do something or don't do something they think I should do, and threaten me with physical and/or material harm if I don't do it, I will resist that with every legal weapon at my disposal. And I will fight back with ANY means necessary if my physical person, or that of my loved ones, is threatened.

Does that mean I hate gay people? Nope.
Does it mean that I condone discrimination against gay people because they are gay? Nope.
Does it mean I am homophobic? Nope.
Does it mean that I am unsympathetic to the discomfort of some people as to how others will see them if they 'come out'? Nope.
Does it mean that I am unaware of wrong bad acts committed by people toward gay people? Nope.
Does it mean that I am unaware of bigoted or prejudiced views of gays? Nope.
Does it mean that I wish any harm or discomfort to any gay person? Nope.
Does it mean that I can't embrace the gay people among my friends, family, neighbors, associates? Nope.

Just as you are unwilling to have fire ants invade your space and reduce your unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, so am I unwilling to have GLAAD (or any other organization doing bad ACTS) invade mine.

Now likewise, let's say that I believe the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. (I don't believe it says that, but that's a matter for another thread.) Let's just pretend I do:

Does that mean I hate gay people? Nope.
Does it mean that I condone discrimination against gay people because they are gay? Nope.
Does it mean I am homophobic? Nope.
Does it mean that I am unsympathetic to the discomfort of some people as to how others will see them if they 'come out'? Nope.
Does it mean that I am unaware of wrong bad acts committed by people toward gay people? Nope.
Does it mean that I am unaware of bigoted or prejudiced views of gays? Nope.
Does it mean that I wish any harm or discomfort to any gay person? Nope.
Does it mean that I can't embrace the gay people among my friends, family, neighbors, associates? Nope.

My opinion about what the Bible says or teaches is an opinion. Nothing more. And I should be able to express it without fear that GLAAD or any other angry mob, group, or organization will come after me and try to punish me physically and/or materially.

EDIT: And as an aside, even if I DID hold all that list of views, it would still be my opinion to have. Might make me a really unappealing or intolerable person to most of you. But so long as it is expressed as opinion and I do not act on it, I still should not have any angry mob, group, or organizating coming after me to hurt me.

 

[Montrovant]

As far as I'm aware, GLAAD didn't punish anyone physically or materially.

What they did was try and get A&E to punish Phil Robertson. That A&E capitulated with that doesn't mean that GLAAD actually did the punishing.

What you are actually saying is that you don't think people should organize to have someone punished rather than to do the actual punishing.

I think that is likely the important distinction and difference of opinion for most of this argument. Some people are accepting of a demand to have someone punished, others are not. I don't think anyone is arguing that it would be ok for GLAAD to actually have punished Phil Robertson themselves.

Minutae pointed out; back to regularly scheduled programming.

 

[BillyZane]

This is another way of saying what I have been arguing on this from the beginning. There is no liberty at all unless we each have the right to make wrong choices as well as right choices; unless we have the right to be wrong about something as much as we have the right to be right about something.

What I have been arguing in this thread is a culture that respects the unalienable right of each of us to say what we think, even if it is wrong, if it is ugly, if it is stupid, if it is ignorant, or if it is as right as rain. If our culture does not respect that unalienable right, then there is no freedom.

What you are talking about is when "ugly" became wrong, stupid and ignorant.
Some people don't respond to anything other than ugly ... And think that their ideas are worthwhile, correct and brilliant ... Until someone else tells them to take a flying leap.

They still don't think they are wrong, stupid, intrusive, immoral, unethical or disrespecting when they are told to take a flying leap ... But they may understand how much of their crap we are going to tolerate.

.

Unfortunately , Americans have every right to be as wrong, stupid, and ignorant as they wish. Personally I wish someone wouldn't exercise that right so freely, but I don't advocate making it illegal for them to do so.

However, I wouldn't have a problem with limiting certain privileges and such from those who continually do so. For example, if you are an idiot out on the road, don't be surprised when the state tells you you can't drive etc etc.

 

[hunarcy]

As far as I'm aware, GLAAD didn't punish anyone physically or materially.

What they did was try and get A&E to punish Phil Robertson. That A&E capitulated with that doesn't mean that GLAAD actually did the punishing.

What you are actually saying is that you don't think people should organize to have someone punished rather than to do the actual punishing.

I think that is likely the important distinction and difference of opinion for most of this argument. Some people are accepting of a demand to have someone punished, others are not. I don't think anyone is arguing that it would be ok for GLAAD to actually have punished Phil Robertson themselves.

Minutae pointed out; back to regularly scheduled programming.

As I have said over and over, GLAAD had a right to be offended if they felt offended. GLAAD had a right to complain. GLAAD had a right to even boycott. Where they went wrong, in my humble opinion, was when they went beyond all that to "researching" him in order to "black list" him in the future.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is another way of saying what I have been arguing on this from the beginning. There is no liberty at all unless we each have the right to make wrong choices as well as right choices; unless we have the right to be wrong about something as much as we have the right to be right about something.

What I have been arguing in this thread is a culture that respects the unalienable right of each of us to say what we think, even if it is wrong, if it is ugly, if it is stupid, if it is ignorant, or if it is as right as rain. If our culture does not respect that unalienable right, then there is no freedom.

What you are talking about is when "ugly" became wrong, stupid and ignorant.
Some people don't respond to anything other than ugly ... And think that their ideas are worthwhile, correct and brilliant ... Until someone else tells them to take a flying leap.

They still don't think they are wrong, stupid, intrusive, immoral, unethical or disrespecting when they are told to take a flying leap ... But they may understand how much of their crap we are going to tolerate.

.

Unfortunately , Americans have every right to be as wrong, stupid, and ignorant as they wish. Personally I wish someone wouldn't exercise that right so freely, but I don't advocate making it illegal for them to do so.

However, I wouldn't have a problem with limiting certain privileges and such from those who continually do so. For example, if you are an idiot out on the road, don't be surprised when the state tells you you can't drive etc etc.

Driving on the road, however, is not an opinion. It is an act. And when done irresponsibly to the point that it impedes the ability of others to use the road or if it endangers others, it is a bad ACT. Those should be physically and/or materially punished.

But those who think there should be no speed limits, traffic lseat belt laws, or other traffic laws are not forcing anything on anybody. They are expressing an opinion. It might be an ignorant or foolish opinion to some of us, but that is all it is. An opinion. We should be able to agree or disagree with it at will. But a tolerant society would not try to physically and/or materially hurt somebody for no other reason than he or she expressed it.

 

[Foxfyre]

As far as I'm aware, GLAAD didn't punish anyone physically or materially.

What they did was try and get A&E to punish Phil Robertson. That A&E capitulated with that doesn't mean that GLAAD actually did the punishing.

What you are actually saying is that you don't think people should organize to have someone punished rather than to do the actual punishing.

I think that is likely the important distinction and difference of opinion for most of this argument. Some people are accepting of a demand to have someone punished, others are not. I don't think anyone is arguing that it would be ok for GLAAD to actually have punished Phil Robertson themselves.

Minutae pointed out; back to regularly scheduled programming.

As I have said over and over, GLAAD had a right to be offended if they felt offended. GLAAD had a right to complain. GLAAD had a right to even boycott. Where they went wrong, in my humble opinion, was when they went beyond all that to "researching" him in order to "black list" him in the future.

Agreed. GLAAD had every right to be offended, to rebut anything Robertson said, and to choose, as an organization, to boycott A&E or any of Robertson's advertisers and to inform A&E and the advertisers that they were doing so and why. But in my opinion, that is as far as they can go without becoming far more intolerant than Robertson has ever been about anything. To try to materially and physically harm Robertson was a bad ACT because Robertson committed no bad ACT. To try to demand that others materially and/or physically harm Robertson is a bad ACT. And to do bad ACTS should not be socially acceptable to any of us.

I want to change our culture so that we all will choose tolerance over bad ACTS.

And it is also my opinion that if GLAAD did choose to be offended, issue a rebuttal, and choose as an organization to boycott A&E etc., that makes them rather immature, thin skinned, hateful. intolerant, mean spirited, and hypocritical, most especially since they demand tolerance for who and what they are. And it should also be my right to express that opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after me to hurt me.

 

[Foxfyre]

I disagree that the founders all agreed with that principle. I think the treatment of minorities, women, and non-landowners in that time makes it a difficult argument to make that ALL of the founders agreed.

When you add in the differences in technology and communication between then and now, the principles and ways of living we take for granted that they were unfamiliar with, again, I think assuming we know that the founders would all agree on just about anything is silly.

I doubt they would all agree on just who would be included in 'all men' from the phrase all men are created equal, myself.

But don't you see? What they saw as the norm of their culture, what they adopted as policy as the most reasonable and practical way to form a government in their culture, had ZERO to do with the principle of freedom of thought, ideas, concepts, ideas, values, convictions. They DIDN"T all agree on the policy--it took them eleven long years of often heated debate, argument, give and take, and compromise from the signing of the Declaration of Independence that provided the PRINCIPLE behind the Constitution and the signing of the Constitution. Even then only 38 of the 41 representatives present at the signing actually signed the final document.

But they were, to a man, even those who didn't ultimately sign the final document, agreed on the principle of unalienable rights that the Constitution was intended to recognize and protect. And they were of one mind that no federal potentate would ever again have the power or ability to dictate what the people would think or believe or express about anything. And they were of one mind that the existing societies that did dictate what people must think, believe, or express would be allowed to exist, but would not be allowed to force those on others.

And it is that principle that we seem to have abandoned in our modern culture. Too many not only claim the right to their own opinions, but presume to force them on everybody else to the point that those who don't share them will be physically and/or materially punished.

I think that is wrong. And it should be culturally unacceptable in America.

That's just it, I don't think they were of one mind about it. I don't think they would have all agreed about who had the rights you are talking about. I think some might have considered gays to be unnatural abominations, or something of the sort, and not men deserving the unalienable rights we are talking about. Some might have felt that women were not deserving. Some might have felt minorities of various types were not. They may have all agreed that there are unalienable rights, but I think there would have been plenty of disagreement about just what that meant.

Move ahead to today's situations and I don't see how you can know if they would consider the situations we are describing as violations of those unalienable rights. Would the founders have considered it a violation of someone's rights to have their job as a television personality ended because of their expressed opinions, or because of their homosexuality? As far as I'm concerned, a definitive answer is impossible.

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree on that Montro. You obviously do not want to agree with it--obviously' DON'T agree with it--but I have studied the founding documents sufficiently to be pretty secure that I'm on solid footing with my opinions about that. But rest assured, I will not be organizing an angry mob, group, or gearing up an organization to come after you to punish you or silence you just because I think you've got that wrong. And I would still enjoy having a cup of coffee with you.

 

[BillyZane]

What you are talking about is when "ugly" became wrong, stupid and ignorant.
Some people don't respond to anything other than ugly ... And think that their ideas are worthwhile, correct and brilliant ... Until someone else tells them to take a flying leap.

They still don't think they are wrong, stupid, intrusive, immoral, unethical or disrespecting when they are told to take a flying leap ... But they may understand how much of their crap we are going to tolerate.

.

Unfortunately , Americans have every right to be as wrong, stupid, and ignorant as they wish. Personally I wish someone wouldn't exercise that right so freely, but I don't advocate making it illegal for them to do so.

However, I wouldn't have a problem with limiting certain privileges and such from those who continually do so. For example, if you are an idiot out on the road, don't be surprised when the state tells you you can't drive etc etc.

Driving on the road, however, is not an opinion. It is an act. And when done irresponsibly to the point that it impedes the ability of others to use the road or if it endangers others, it is a bad ACT. Those should be physically and/or materially punished.

But those who think there should be no speed limits, traffic lseat belt laws, or other traffic laws are not forcing anything on anybody. They are expressing an opinion. It might be an ignorant or foolish opinion to some of us, but that is all it is. An opinion. We should be able to agree or disagree with it at will. But a tolerant society would not try to physically and/or materially hurt somebody for no other reason than he or she expressed it.

I agree 100% we should differentiate between voicing an opinion and acting on that opinion.

For instance, if I were to opine that all blacks are stupid and thus unworthy of humane treatment, hey I have that right, but if I ACT on that opinion, then I've crossed the line.

I don't opine that all blacks are stupid

 

[Foxfyre]

Unfortunately , Americans have every right to be as wrong, stupid, and ignorant as they wish. Personally I wish someone wouldn't exercise that right so freely, but I don't advocate making it illegal for them to do so.

However, I wouldn't have a problem with limiting certain privileges and such from those who continually do so. For example, if you are an idiot out on the road, don't be surprised when the state tells you you can't drive etc etc.

Driving on the road, however, is not an opinion. It is an act. And when done irresponsibly to the point that it impedes the ability of others to use the road or if it endangers others, it is a bad ACT. Those should be physically and/or materially punished.

But those who think there should be no speed limits, traffic lseat belt laws, or other traffic laws are not forcing anything on anybody. They are expressing an opinion. It might be an ignorant or foolish opinion to some of us, but that is all it is. An opinion. We should be able to agree or disagree with it at will. But a tolerant society would not try to physically and/or materially hurt somebody for no other reason than he or she expressed it.

I agree 100% we should differentiate between voicing an opinion and acting on that opinion.

For instance, if I were to opine that all blacks are stupid and thus unworthy of humane treatment, hey I have that right, but if I ACT on that opinion, then I've crossed the line.

I don't opine that all blacks are stupid

That's a good example. I don't know how many people here at USMB say they can't stand and won't tolerate racists. But do they really think they'll change the heart and mind of that racist by neg repping him, putting him on ignore, reporting him, yadda yadda for nothing worse than stating a racist opinion? Or do they increase the toxic environment at USMB and foster more food fights and flaming and just feed the justification that the racist uses for his/her racism?

My mother, rest her soul, would never be discourteous, unkind, or unpleasant to any person just because that person was of a different race. She worked for Don Perkins in the State of New Mexico government and worked side by side with and supervised black employees who she treated like family. She would be absolutely livid if anybody accused her or suggested that she was prejudiced or racist in any way. She honestly believed she was not. But she was a product of her culture--the depression era and the WWII generation--and every once in awhile she would come with a incredible one liner like: "Have you noticed that as the 'nigras'--that's as politically correct as she ever got --. . .that as the 'nigras' get more education, their skin is getting lighter?" And she wouldn't notice me slinking silently into the floor. She honestly could not see anything wrong with that.

But there are some here who, instead of just shaking their heads, smiling, and moving on, would be outraged and immediately brand my mother as a hateful, bigoted, stupid racist. And, if she was a nationally known personality, would organize a campaign to hurt her.

Tolerance--real, freedom loving, freeing tolerance--allows people to be wrong when they are hurting absolutely nobody.

 

[hunarcy]

Driving on the road, however, is not an opinion. It is an act. And when done irresponsibly to the point that it impedes the ability of others to use the road or if it endangers others, it is a bad ACT. Those should be physically and/or materially punished.

But those who think there should be no speed limits, traffic lseat belt laws, or other traffic laws are not forcing anything on anybody. They are expressing an opinion. It might be an ignorant or foolish opinion to some of us, but that is all it is. An opinion. We should be able to agree or disagree with it at will. But a tolerant society would not try to physically and/or materially hurt somebody for no other reason than he or she expressed it.

I agree 100% we should differentiate between voicing an opinion and acting on that opinion.

For instance, if I were to opine that all blacks are stupid and thus unworthy of humane treatment, hey I have that right, but if I ACT on that opinion, then I've crossed the line.

I don't opine that all blacks are stupid

That's a good example. I don't know how many people here at USMB say they can't stand and won't tolerate racists. But do they really think they'll change the heart and mind of that racist by neg repping him, putting him on ignore, reporting him, yadda yadda for nothing worse than stating a racist opinion?

My mother, rest her soul, would never be discourteous, unkind, or unpleasant to any person just because that person was of a different race. She worked for Don Perkins in the State of New Mexico government and worked side by side with and supervised black employees who she treated like family. She would be absolutely livid if anybody accused her or suggested that she was prejudiced or racist in any way. She honestly believed she was not. But she was a product of her culture--the depression era and the WWII generation--and every once in awhile she would come with a incredible one liner like: "Have you noticed that as the 'nigras'--that's as politically correct as she ever got --. . .that as the 'nigras' get more education, their skin is getting lighter?" And she wouldn't notice me slinking silently into the floor. She honestly could not see anything wrong with that.

But there are some here who, instead of just shaking their heads, smiling, and moving on, would be outraged and immediately brand my mother as a hateful, bigoted, stupid racist. And, if she was a nationally known personality, would organize a campaign to hurt her.

Tolerance--real, freedom loving, freeing tolerance--allows people to be wrong when they are hurting absolutely nobody.

We have freedom of association for a reason. We don't have to associate with those who we don't approve or agree. We merely have to tolerate them and do no harm.

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree 100% we should differentiate between voicing an opinion and acting on that opinion.

For instance, if I were to opine that all blacks are stupid and thus unworthy of humane treatment, hey I have that right, but if I ACT on that opinion, then I've crossed the line.

I don't opine that all blacks are stupid

That's a good example. I don't know how many people here at USMB say they can't stand and won't tolerate racists. But do they really think they'll change the heart and mind of that racist by neg repping him, putting him on ignore, reporting him, yadda yadda for nothing worse than stating a racist opinion?

My mother, rest her soul, would never be discourteous, unkind, or unpleasant to any person just because that person was of a different race. She worked for Don Perkins in the State of New Mexico government and worked side by side with and supervised black employees who she treated like family. She would be absolutely livid if anybody accused her or suggested that she was prejudiced or racist in any way. She honestly believed she was not. But she was a product of her culture--the depression era and the WWII generation--and every once in awhile she would come with a incredible one liner like: "Have you noticed that as the 'nigras'--that's as politically correct as she ever got --. . .that as the 'nigras' get more education, their skin is getting lighter?" And she wouldn't notice me slinking silently into the floor. She honestly could not see anything wrong with that.

But there are some here who, instead of just shaking their heads, smiling, and moving on, would be outraged and immediately brand my mother as a hateful, bigoted, stupid racist. And, if she was a nationally known personality, would organize a campaign to hurt her.

Tolerance--real, freedom loving, freeing tolerance--allows people to be wrong when they are hurting absolutely nobody.

We have freedom of association for a reason. We don't have to associate with those who we don't approve or agree. We merely have to tolerate them and do no harm.

Exactly. We don't even have to be quiet about it if we don't approve or agree with their opinions. But when there are no bad ACTS involved, I want America to be a culture that respects a person's right to be wrong and does not seek to punish him/her for no other reason than a crappy opinion.

 

[BlackSand]

Exactly. We don't even have to be quiet about it if we don't approve or agree with their opinions. But when there are no bad ACTS involved, I want America to be a culture that respects a person's right to be wrong and does not seek to punish him/her for no other reason than a crappy opinion.

True Respect can never be expected or demanded, only desired and earned ... Honor is a gift you give yourself.
Never try to be better than someone else ... Always try to be better than yourself.

.

 

[hunarcy]

That's a good example. I don't know how many people here at USMB say they can't stand and won't tolerate racists. But do they really think they'll change the heart and mind of that racist by neg repping him, putting him on ignore, reporting him, yadda yadda for nothing worse than stating a racist opinion?

My mother, rest her soul, would never be discourteous, unkind, or unpleasant to any person just because that person was of a different race. She worked for Don Perkins in the State of New Mexico government and worked side by side with and supervised black employees who she treated like family. She would be absolutely livid if anybody accused her or suggested that she was prejudiced or racist in any way. She honestly believed she was not. But she was a product of her culture--the depression era and the WWII generation--and every once in awhile she would come with a incredible one liner like: "Have you noticed that as the 'nigras'--that's as politically correct as she ever got --. . .that as the 'nigras' get more education, their skin is getting lighter?" And she wouldn't notice me slinking silently into the floor. She honestly could not see anything wrong with that.

But there are some here who, instead of just shaking their heads, smiling, and moving on, would be outraged and immediately brand my mother as a hateful, bigoted, stupid racist. And, if she was a nationally known personality, would organize a campaign to hurt her.

Tolerance--real, freedom loving, freeing tolerance--allows people to be wrong when they are hurting absolutely nobody.

We have freedom of association for a reason. We don't have to associate with those who we don't approve or agree. We merely have to tolerate them and do no harm.

Exactly. We don't even have to be quiet about it if we don't approve or agree with their opinions. But when there are no bad ACTS involved, I want America to be a culture that respects a person's right to be wrong and does not seek to punish him/her for no other reason than a crappy opinion.

Well said.