Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Derideo_Te]

Several of your questions involve language.
Freedom of speech. We have it or not. Which?

Doesn't matter whether we have it or not so far as the OP is concerned. But make your argument for why somebody should be able to speak their mind, even if it is politically incorrect or offensive, without fear of some organized mob trying to punish him/her materially or physically. Or why those organized mobs are justified in shutting down politically incorrect speech if that is what you believe.

You should be able to say what you want with no fear.
Mobs should be controlled and punished at all costs.

Even when the mob is trying to save a fetus?

 

[Bonzi]

Several of your questions involve language.
Freedom of speech. We have it or not. Which?

Doesn't matter whether we have it or not so far as the OP is concerned. But make your argument for why somebody should be able to speak their mind, even if it is politically incorrect or offensive, without fear of some organized mob trying to punish him/her materially or physically. Or why those organized mobs are justified in shutting down politically incorrect speech if that is what you believe.

You should be able to say what you want with no fear.
Mobs should be controlled and punished at all costs.

Even when the mob is trying to save a fetus?

Even then. The mob has a right to say and picket, but if I turns violent or unlawful, it needs to be enforced.

Freedom of speech needs to be protected, and, not limited based on any type of "perceived" discrimination.

Words hurt, but, too bad.

 

[Foxfyre]

Several of your questions involve language.
Freedom of speech. We have it or not. Which?

Doesn't matter whether we have it or not so far as the OP is concerned. But make your argument for why somebody should be able to speak their mind, even if it is politically incorrect or offensive, without fear of some organized mob trying to punish him/her materially or physically. Or why those organized mobs are justified in shutting down politically incorrect speech if that is what you believe.

You should be able to say what you want with no fear.
Mobs should be controlled and punished at all costs.

We are pretty much on the same page re that, but in the spirit of the OP, can we hear a different point of view expressed and, though we believe the other person is wrong, we don't believe he is evil and/or should be silenced?

 

[BULLDOG]

Sorry, but most of the questions are not answerable with yes or no answers. If you asked if they were generally true or false, that's easy, but a hard answer just doesn't work in every case.

That's fine. The poll is NOT the OP. It just offers some examples of things that society in general often holds opposing views about and hopefully helps us think about whether we are or are not tolerant in allowing opposing points of views on things. The premise of the OP is whether we as a society are tolerant enough to allow people to think and believe differently than we do, or if we think one group should be able to force everybody to conform to what that group thinks and believes. The difference between liberty/tolerance and political correctness.

Doesn't a society mutually decide the rules that everyone must abide by for the society to exist? That requires that some people just aren't allowed to do everything they want. Conformity to those rules is the basis for all societies. The only way a person could have total liberty would be to live alone with no contact with others. With interaction, rules are a must.

But does everybody in the country have to abide by the same legal or implied rules? If that was the rule when slavery was legal in some states, the entire country would be expected to endorse, allow, and approve of slavery. In the 20th Century, my home town at the time would not have been able to desegregate on its own without pressure or orders from anywhere else--we did it just because it was the right thing to do even as other places thought we were terrible.

In the early years of our nation, some communities were little theocracies with rigid religious rules and punitive disciplines for the members of those societies because that is the way the people wanted it. At the same time there were communities like Deadwood with no rules or law at all and where anarchy prevailed because that is the way the people wanted it. In time, the people of both those groups chose something different--the little theocracies dissolved and much more tolerance was initiated. The people in the wide open lawless places saw that as an unpleasant way to live and adopted rules and laws to curb the violence and antisocial behavior.

It is possible for such opposing societies to co-exist in our vast nation that is among the world's very largest land masses. Why do you think it is so threatening for some when other American societies choose something different?

Our society is made up of countless sub societies, each adhering to their own specific rules. This one might smoke. That one might hate the idea of even growing tobacco. They are all free to behave as they like within their own circle, but must conform to wider rules if interacting with someone outside their specific circle. It's the price paid to be part of the larger group. Fortunately, we have laws and a system of government to sort out the continuing conflicts between opposing groups. The majority has decided that you must abide by those laws if you are to remain a member of the larger society, even if you disagree with them.

 

[BULLDOG]

Several of your questions involve language.
Freedom of speech. We have it or not. Which?

Doesn't matter whether we have it or not so far as the OP is concerned. But make your argument for why somebody should be able to speak their mind, even if it is politically incorrect or offensive, without fear of some organized mob trying to punish him/her materially or physically. Or why those organized mobs are justified in shutting down politically incorrect speech if that is what you believe.

You should be able to say what you want with no fear.
Mobs should be controlled and punished at all costs.

I want to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre. You OK with that?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Several of your questions involve language.
Freedom of speech. We have it or not. Which?

Doesn't matter whether we have it or not so far as the OP is concerned. But make your argument for why somebody should be able to speak their mind, even if it is politically incorrect or offensive, without fear of some organized mob trying to punish him/her materially or physically. Or why those organized mobs are justified in shutting down politically incorrect speech if that is what you believe.

You should be able to say what you want with no fear.
Mobs should be controlled and punished at all costs.

Even when the mob is trying to save a fetus?

Even then. The mob has a right to say and picket, but if I turns violent or unlawful, it needs to be enforced.

Freedom of speech needs to be protected, and, not limited based on any type of "perceived" discrimination.

Words hurt, but, too bad.

Agreed, words can hurt and freedom of expression gives individuals the right to express those words up to the point where they infringe upon the rights of others.

As Bulldog put it everyone still needs to obey the rules of the society formed by We the People. If those rules say that you cannot use terminology that discriminates then that is neither "political correctness" nor "intolerance" per the OP. There is no "two way street" that allows anyone to create a hostile environment against anyone because of their race, creed, gender, etc.

Our society recognizes that under the law we are all equal and therefore no one can choose to use their religion, or any other excuse, as the basis for not treating everyone equally.

I am at a loss as to how any "new law" could ever be structured that would allow that to happen.

Can you see a way for it to work legally?

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry, but most of the questions are not answerable with yes or no answers. If you asked if they were generally true or false, that's easy, but a hard answer just doesn't work in every case.

That's fine. The poll is NOT the OP. It just offers some examples of things that society in general often holds opposing views about and hopefully helps us think about whether we are or are not tolerant in allowing opposing points of views on things. The premise of the OP is whether we as a society are tolerant enough to allow people to think and believe differently than we do, or if we think one group should be able to force everybody to conform to what that group thinks and believes. The difference between liberty/tolerance and political correctness.

Doesn't a society mutually decide the rules that everyone must abide by for the society to exist? That requires that some people just aren't allowed to do everything they want. Conformity to those rules is the basis for all societies. The only way a person could have total liberty would be to live alone with no contact with others. With interaction, rules are a must.

But does everybody in the country have to abide by the same legal or implied rules? If that was the rule when slavery was legal in some states, the entire country would be expected to endorse, allow, and approve of slavery. In the 20th Century, my home town at the time would not have been able to desegregate on its own without pressure or orders from anywhere else--we did it just because it was the right thing to do even as other places thought we were terrible.

In the early years of our nation, some communities were little theocracies with rigid religious rules and punitive disciplines for the members of those societies because that is the way the people wanted it. At the same time there were communities like Deadwood with no rules or law at all and where anarchy prevailed because that is the way the people wanted it. In time, the people of both those groups chose something different--the little theocracies dissolved and much more tolerance was initiated. The people in the wide open lawless places saw that as an unpleasant way to live and adopted rules and laws to curb the violence and antisocial behavior.

It is possible for such opposing societies to co-exist in our vast nation that is among the world's very largest land masses. Why do you think it is so threatening for some when other American societies choose something different?

Our society is made up of countless sub societies, each adhering to their own specific rules. This one might smoke. That one might hate the idea of even growing tobacco. They are all free to behave as they like within their own circle, but must conform to wider rules if interacting with someone outside their specific circle. It's the price paid to be part of the larger group. Fortunately, we have laws and a system of government to sort out the continuing conflicts between opposing groups. The majority has decided that you must abide by those laws if you are to remain a member of the larger society, even if you disagree with them.

But what justification do you have for say Philadelphia who chooses unrestricted abortion laws demanding that Muleshoe TX also have unrestricted abortion laws. And filing suit against Muleshoe if the people there vote to restrict abortion? Why cannot Muleshoe allow Philadelphia people to be who and what they are and organize their society as they choose and while Muleswhoe people expect to live their own lives and organize their own society as they choose?

Why should an organized mob go after the advertisers and livelihood of a Phil Robertson who, in a setting totally unrelated to his occupations, truthfully answered direct questions put to him in an interview and expressed his religious views in opposition to homosexuality. Was he right? Most of us don't think so. But should he be entitled to his views in peace even as he tolerates and allows others their own different point of view?

This is the concept I think we have lost in America today--the true spirit of live and let live i.e. You do your thing and live your life and, so long as you don't impose that on me or interfere with my life, we'll all get along just fine.

 

[Foxfyre]

Several of your questions involve language.
Freedom of speech. We have it or not. Which?

Doesn't matter whether we have it or not so far as the OP is concerned. But make your argument for why somebody should be able to speak their mind, even if it is politically incorrect or offensive, without fear of some organized mob trying to punish him/her materially or physically. Or why those organized mobs are justified in shutting down politically incorrect speech if that is what you believe.

You should be able to say what you want with no fear.
Mobs should be controlled and punished at all costs.

I want to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre. You OK with that?

Not unless there is actually a fire. Shouting 'fire' when there isn't one can put my physical self and everybody else in that theater in danger of physical harm. That is doing something, not just believing or thinking something.

It is that distinction that I think the PC crowd doesn't get. They equate thought and beliefs with action. And punish it in the same way. Thought and belief is not action, however, and that should become the understanding throughout the nation.

 

[Derideo_Te]

But what justification do you have for say Philadelphia who chooses unrestricted abortion laws demanding that Muleshoe TX also have unrestricted abortion laws. And filing suit against Muleshoe if the people there vote to restrict abortion? Why cannot Muleshoe allow Philadelphia people to be who and what they are and organize their society as they choose and expect to live their own lives and organize their own society as they choose?

Because to do as the OP suggests makes a mockery of the concept of equality under the law. Citizens in Muleshoe, TX are no different to citizens in Philadelphia, PA.

The goal of the Constitution was for We the People to form a more perfect union.

If the people of Muleshoe, TX don't want to be part of that union there is nothing stopping them from leaving and finding someplace else more suited to their own mindset.

Alternatively they can try to impose their own version of the law on everyone else. The Constitution has a means for that to happen.

The OP opened the door for discussion on this "new law" so this example begs the question as to how this "new law" of "tolerance" would work by not treating everyone equally under the law.

Would We the People accept being treated unequally under the "new law"?

How does the definition of "tolerance" equate to not treating everyone equally?

 

[Esmeralda]

There is no such thing as 'political correctness,' it's a contrivance of the right, the consequence of disdain for free and open debate in our free and democratic society.

Indeed, the lie of 'political correctness' represents an effort by most on the right to stifle that free and open debate, by attempting to vilify those who denounce hate, bigotry, and racism.

Bigots, racists, and those who seek to propagate hate are at complete liberty to express their views and opinions; in fact, hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul), where no one desires to subject bigots or racists to punitive measures or in any way use the authority of the state to silence their views.

Likewise, those who oppose bigotry, racism, and hate are at liberty to express their opinions, to denounce racism and bigotry, where that denunciation in no way constitutes 'political correctness,' nor 'prohibits' bigots and racists from exhibiting their ignorance and hate.

Well said. I agree completely and couldn't say it any better.

 

[Esmeralda]

There is no such thing as 'political correctness,' it's a contrivance of the right, the consequence of disdain for free and open debate in our free and democratic society.

Indeed, the lie of 'political correctness' represents an effort by most on the right to stifle that free and open debate, by attempting to vilify those who denounce hate, bigotry, and racism.

Bigots, racists, and those who seek to propagate hate are at complete liberty to express their views and opinions; in fact, hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul), where no one desires to subject bigots or racists to punitive measures or in any way use the authority of the state to silence their views.

Likewise, those who oppose bigotry, racism, and hate are at liberty to express their opinions, to denounce racism and bigotry, where that denunciation in no way constitutes 'political correctness,' nor 'prohibits' bigots and racists from exhibiting their ignorance and hate.

We're not going to debate semantics friend. As OP I define political correctness as the social phenomenon that requires people to use or avoid certain words or language and/or requires people to accept certain concepts and/or reject others. The phenomenon does exist, I have defined the term used to describe it, and it is not up for discussion or challenge per the thread rules. You however are okay if you choose a different term to describe the phenomenon, but the thread topic is not whether there is or is not political correctness.

The question is not whether racists or bigots are able to express their views. The question is whether they are allowed to hold such views as their right to hold and can do so without expectations that some will attempt to punish or harm them because they hold such views. The issue is what tolerance is. If those who believe racist and bigoted language is inappropriate and therefore is prohibited on their own turf do not then allow others a different point of view on the others' own turf, how can there be tolerance?

The concept of 'political correctness' is not semantics, and if you define it as such based only on your perception of this concept, then your entire thread is defunct based on a complete lack of the rules of logic. There is no point in discussing an illogical proposition. For theOP to define abstract terms from a personal perspective means that an open and unbaised discussion is not possible.

Ironically, you want to discuss 'tolerance,' but I have a pretty strong expectation that you are not going to tolerate this post.

 

[BULLDOG]

Sorry, but most of the questions are not answerable with yes or no answers. If you asked if they were generally true or false, that's easy, but a hard answer just doesn't work in every case.

That's fine. The poll is NOT the OP. It just offers some examples of things that society in general often holds opposing views about and hopefully helps us think about whether we are or are not tolerant in allowing opposing points of views on things. The premise of the OP is whether we as a society are tolerant enough to allow people to think and believe differently than we do, or if we think one group should be able to force everybody to conform to what that group thinks and believes. The difference between liberty/tolerance and political correctness.

Doesn't a society mutually decide the rules that everyone must abide by for the society to exist? That requires that some people just aren't allowed to do everything they want. Conformity to those rules is the basis for all societies. The only way a person could have total liberty would be to live alone with no contact with others. With interaction, rules are a must.

But does everybody in the country have to abide by the same legal or implied rules? If that was the rule when slavery was legal in some states, the entire country would be expected to endorse, allow, and approve of slavery. In the 20th Century, my home town at the time would not have been able to desegregate on its own without pressure or orders from anywhere else--we did it just because it was the right thing to do even as other places thought we were terrible.

In the early years of our nation, some communities were little theocracies with rigid religious rules and punitive disciplines for the members of those societies because that is the way the people wanted it. At the same time there were communities like Deadwood with no rules or law at all and where anarchy prevailed because that is the way the people wanted it. In time, the people of both those groups chose something different--the little theocracies dissolved and much more tolerance was initiated. The people in the wide open lawless places saw that as an unpleasant way to live and adopted rules and laws to curb the violence and antisocial behavior.

It is possible for such opposing societies to co-exist in our vast nation that is among the world's very largest land masses. Why do you think it is so threatening for some when other American societies choose something different?

Our society is made up of countless sub societies, each adhering to their own specific rules. This one might smoke. That one might hate the idea of even growing tobacco. They are all free to behave as they like within their own circle, but must conform to wider rules if interacting with someone outside their specific circle. It's the price paid to be part of the larger group. Fortunately, we have laws and a system of government to sort out the continuing conflicts between opposing groups. The majority has decided that you must abide by those laws if you are to remain a member of the larger society, even if you disagree with them.

But what justification do you have for say Philadelphia who chooses unrestricted abortion laws demanding that Muleshoe TX also have unrestricted abortion laws. And filing suit against Muleshoe if the people there vote to restrict abortion? Why cannot Muleshoe allow Philadelphia people to be who and what they are and organize their society as they choose and expect to live their own lives and organize their own society as they choose?

Why should an organized mob go after the advertisers and livelihood of a Phil Robertson who, in a setting totally unrelated to his occupations, truthfully answered direct questions put to him in an interview and expressed his religious views in opposition to homosexuality. Was he right? Most of us don't think so. But should he be entitled to his views in peace even as he tolerates and allows others their own different point of view?

This is the concept I think we have lost in America today--the true spirit of live and let live i.e. You do your thing and live your life and, so long as you don't impose that on me or interfere with my life, we'll all get along just fine.

Again, the only way you can truly "live and let live" is to live alone with no outside interaction. Muleshoe freely agreed to be governed by the same federal laws everybody else agreed to. Our society has determined that some laws apply equally for everybody. As I said before, it's the price of enjoying the advantages of our society. Philadelphia didn't make that decision. They didn't have the authority to do that. We all made that decision. If you disagree with it, there is a wonderful way of changing it. We set up courts to take care of all those things.

People who don't care for Roberts opinions hardly meet the definition of a mob, and they are certainly free to express their opinions to anybody they like, just like he is. That is a perfect example of how free speech works. He is free to continue believing anything he wants, but he will have to realize that others have that same right. It's up to him if he wants that kind of pissing match.

Again, the only way you will find total freedom to do what ever you want is to live alone with no outside contact. God gave us the ability to live together without all this conflict. Too bad so many of his followers aren't willing to use that ability.

 

[BULLDOG]

Several of your questions involve language.
Freedom of speech. We have it or not. Which?

Doesn't matter whether we have it or not so far as the OP is concerned. But make your argument for why somebody should be able to speak their mind, even if it is politically incorrect or offensive, without fear of some organized mob trying to punish him/her materially or physically. Or why those organized mobs are justified in shutting down politically incorrect speech if that is what you believe.

You should be able to say what you want with no fear.
Mobs should be controlled and punished at all costs.

I want to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre. You OK with that?

Not unless there is actually a fire. Shouting 'fire' when there isn't one can put my physical self and everybody else in that theater in danger of physical harm. That is doing something, not just believing or thinking something.

It is that distinction that I think the PC crowd doesn't get. They equate thought and beliefs with action. And punish it in the same way. Thought and belief is not action, however, and that should become the understanding throughout the nation.

Yelling FIRE is certainly an action. Hating gays is a protected right. Denying them their rights is not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The OP has been decided by We the People who accepted the Constitution on behalf of all of us and our descendants and new citizens.

I would encourage all to take the time to learn and study the terms "liberty" and "freedom", then study the Constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is no such thing as 'political correctness,' it's a contrivance of the right, the consequence of disdain for free and open debate in our free and democratic society.

Indeed, the lie of 'political correctness' represents an effort by most on the right to stifle that free and open debate, by attempting to vilify those who denounce hate, bigotry, and racism.

Bigots, racists, and those who seek to propagate hate are at complete liberty to express their views and opinions; in fact, hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul), where no one desires to subject bigots or racists to punitive measures or in any way use the authority of the state to silence their views.

Likewise, those who oppose bigotry, racism, and hate are at liberty to express their opinions, to denounce racism and bigotry, where that denunciation in no way constitutes 'political correctness,' nor 'prohibits' bigots and racists from exhibiting their ignorance and hate.

We're not going to debate semantics friend. As OP I define political correctness as the social phenomenon that requires people to use or avoid certain words or language and/or requires people to accept certain concepts and/or reject others. The phenomenon does exist, I have defined the term used to describe it, and it is not up for discussion or challenge per the thread rules. You however are okay if you choose a different term to describe the phenomenon, but the thread topic is not whether there is or is not political correctness.

The question is not whether racists or bigots are able to express their views. The question is whether they are allowed to hold such views as their right to hold and can do so without expectations that some will attempt to punish or harm them because they hold such views. The issue is what tolerance is. If those who believe racist and bigoted language is inappropriate and therefore is prohibited on their own turf do not then allow others a different point of view on the others' own turf, how can there be tolerance?

The concept of 'political correctness' is not semantics, and if you define it as such based only on your perception of this concept, then your entire thread is defunct based on a complete lack of the rules of logic. There is no point in discussing an illogical proposition. For theOP to define abstract terms from a personal perspective means that an open and unbaised discussion is not possible.

Ironically, you want to discuss 'tolerance,' but I have a pretty strong expectation that you are not going to tolerate this post.

I tolerate it just fine but this forum allows the OP to set the rules for discussion. You don't like my rules and don't like the premise of the thread that is your prerogative and I accept it. But I will continue to insist that we focus on the OP and the abide by the rules for this thread, and I suggest your best bet is to be tolerant and allow me to organize my thread as I see fit and you should enjoy one of the many hundreds of active threads out there that are surely more to your liking. Do have a great day though.

 

[Foxfyre]

Several of your questions involve language.
Freedom of speech. We have it or not. Which?

Doesn't matter whether we have it or not so far as the OP is concerned. But make your argument for why somebody should be able to speak their mind, even if it is politically incorrect or offensive, without fear of some organized mob trying to punish him/her materially or physically. Or why those organized mobs are justified in shutting down politically incorrect speech if that is what you believe.

You should be able to say what you want with no fear.
Mobs should be controlled and punished at all costs.

I want to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre. You OK with that?

Not unless there is actually a fire. Shouting 'fire' when there isn't one can put my physical self and everybody else in that theater in danger of physical harm. That is doing something, not just believing or thinking something.

It is that distinction that I think the PC crowd doesn't get. They equate thought and beliefs with action. And punish it in the same way. Thought and belief is not action, however, and that should become the understanding throughout the nation.

Yelling FIRE is certainly an action. Hating gays is a protected right. Denying them their rights is not.

Agreed. But refusing to participate in an event that one considers wrong or immoral or offensive or just because they aren't in the mood to deal with it on a given day denies nobody any rights whatsoever. The other person(s) has every right to have their legal event. But if tolerance is in effect, they do not have the right to insist that somebody else participate in it or contribute to it.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's fine. The poll is NOT the OP. It just offers some examples of things that society in general often holds opposing views about and hopefully helps us think about whether we are or are not tolerant in allowing opposing points of views on things. The premise of the OP is whether we as a society are tolerant enough to allow people to think and believe differently than we do, or if we think one group should be able to force everybody to conform to what that group thinks and believes. The difference between liberty/tolerance and political correctness.

Doesn't a society mutually decide the rules that everyone must abide by for the society to exist? That requires that some people just aren't allowed to do everything they want. Conformity to those rules is the basis for all societies. The only way a person could have total liberty would be to live alone with no contact with others. With interaction, rules are a must.

But does everybody in the country have to abide by the same legal or implied rules? If that was the rule when slavery was legal in some states, the entire country would be expected to endorse, allow, and approve of slavery. In the 20th Century, my home town at the time would not have been able to desegregate on its own without pressure or orders from anywhere else--we did it just because it was the right thing to do even as other places thought we were terrible.

In the early years of our nation, some communities were little theocracies with rigid religious rules and punitive disciplines for the members of those societies because that is the way the people wanted it. At the same time there were communities like Deadwood with no rules or law at all and where anarchy prevailed because that is the way the people wanted it. In time, the people of both those groups chose something different--the little theocracies dissolved and much more tolerance was initiated. The people in the wide open lawless places saw that as an unpleasant way to live and adopted rules and laws to curb the violence and antisocial behavior.

It is possible for such opposing societies to co-exist in our vast nation that is among the world's very largest land masses. Why do you think it is so threatening for some when other American societies choose something different?

Our society is made up of countless sub societies, each adhering to their own specific rules. This one might smoke. That one might hate the idea of even growing tobacco. They are all free to behave as they like within their own circle, but must conform to wider rules if interacting with someone outside their specific circle. It's the price paid to be part of the larger group. Fortunately, we have laws and a system of government to sort out the continuing conflicts between opposing groups. The majority has decided that you must abide by those laws if you are to remain a member of the larger society, even if you disagree with them.

But what justification do you have for say Philadelphia who chooses unrestricted abortion laws demanding that Muleshoe TX also have unrestricted abortion laws. And filing suit against Muleshoe if the people there vote to restrict abortion? Why cannot Muleshoe allow Philadelphia people to be who and what they are and organize their society as they choose and expect to live their own lives and organize their own society as they choose?

Why should an organized mob go after the advertisers and livelihood of a Phil Robertson who, in a setting totally unrelated to his occupations, truthfully answered direct questions put to him in an interview and expressed his religious views in opposition to homosexuality. Was he right? Most of us don't think so. But should he be entitled to his views in peace even as he tolerates and allows others their own different point of view?

This is the concept I think we have lost in America today--the true spirit of live and let live i.e. You do your thing and live your life and, so long as you don't impose that on me or interfere with my life, we'll all get along just fine.

Again, the only way you can truly "live and let live" is to live alone with no outside interaction. Muleshoe freely agreed to be governed by the same federal laws everybody else agreed to. Our society has determined that some laws apply equally for everybody. As I said before, it's the price of enjoying the advantages of our society. Philadelphia didn't make that decision. They didn't have the authority to do that. We all made that decision. If you disagree with it, there is a wonderful way of changing it. We set up courts to take care of all those things.

People who don't care for Roberts opinions hardly meet the definition of a mob, and they are certainly free to express their opinions to anybody they like, just like he is. That is a perfect example of how free speech works. He is free to continue believing anything he wants, but he will have to realize that others have that same right. It's up to him if he wants that kind of pissing match.

Again, the only way you will find total freedom to do what ever you want is to live alone with no outside contact. God gave us the ability to live together without all this conflict. Too bad so many of his followers aren't willing to use that ability.

On what basis of the Constitution does or should give the federal government authority to dictate to the people of Muleshoe TX what values and moral principles must guide their common lives together?

 

[Foxfyre]

That's fine. The poll is NOT the OP. It just offers some examples of things that society in general often holds opposing views about and hopefully helps us think about whether we are or are not tolerant in allowing opposing points of views on things. The premise of the OP is whether we as a society are tolerant enough to allow people to think and believe differently than we do, or if we think one group should be able to force everybody to conform to what that group thinks and believes. The difference between liberty/tolerance and political correctness.

Doesn't a society mutually decide the rules that everyone must abide by for the society to exist? That requires that some people just aren't allowed to do everything they want. Conformity to those rules is the basis for all societies. The only way a person could have total liberty would be to live alone with no contact with others. With interaction, rules are a must.

But does everybody in the country have to abide by the same legal or implied rules? If that was the rule when slavery was legal in some states, the entire country would be expected to endorse, allow, and approve of slavery. In the 20th Century, my home town at the time would not have been able to desegregate on its own without pressure or orders from anywhere else--we did it just because it was the right thing to do even as other places thought we were terrible.

In the early years of our nation, some communities were little theocracies with rigid religious rules and punitive disciplines for the members of those societies because that is the way the people wanted it. At the same time there were communities like Deadwood with no rules or law at all and where anarchy prevailed because that is the way the people wanted it. In time, the people of both those groups chose something different--the little theocracies dissolved and much more tolerance was initiated. The people in the wide open lawless places saw that as an unpleasant way to live and adopted rules and laws to curb the violence and antisocial behavior.

It is possible for such opposing societies to co-exist in our vast nation that is among the world's very largest land masses. Why do you think it is so threatening for some when other American societies choose something different?

Our society is made up of countless sub societies, each adhering to their own specific rules. This one might smoke. That one might hate the idea of even growing tobacco. They are all free to behave as they like within their own circle, but must conform to wider rules if interacting with someone outside their specific circle. It's the price paid to be part of the larger group. Fortunately, we have laws and a system of government to sort out the continuing conflicts between opposing groups. The majority has decided that you must abide by those laws if you are to remain a member of the larger society, even if you disagree with them.

But what justification do you have for say Philadelphia who chooses unrestricted abortion laws demanding that Muleshoe TX also have unrestricted abortion laws. And filing suit against Muleshoe if the people there vote to restrict abortion? Why cannot Muleshoe allow Philadelphia people to be who and what they are and organize their society as they choose and expect to live their own lives and organize their own society as they choose?

Why should an organized mob go after the advertisers and livelihood of a Phil Robertson who, in a setting totally unrelated to his occupations, truthfully answered direct questions put to him in an interview and expressed his religious views in opposition to homosexuality. Was he right? Most of us don't think so. But should he be entitled to his views in peace even as he tolerates and allows others their own different point of view?

This is the concept I think we have lost in America today--the true spirit of live and let live i.e. You do your thing and live your life and, so long as you don't impose that on me or interfere with my life, we'll all get along just fine.

Again, the only way you can truly "live and let live" is to live alone with no outside interaction. Muleshoe freely agreed to be governed by the same federal laws everybody else agreed to. Our society has determined that some laws apply equally for everybody. As I said before, it's the price of enjoying the advantages of our society. Philadelphia didn't make that decision. They didn't have the authority to do that. We all made that decision. If you disagree with it, there is a wonderful way of changing it. We set up courts to take care of all those things.

People who don't care for Roberts opinions hardly meet the definition of a mob, and they are certainly free to express their opinions to anybody they like, just like he is. That is a perfect example of how free speech works. He is free to continue believing anything he wants, but he will have to realize that others have that same right. It's up to him if he wants that kind of pissing match.

Again, the only way you will find total freedom to do what ever you want is to live alone with no outside contact. God gave us the ability to live together without all this conflict. Too bad so many of his followers aren't willing to use that ability.

In the case of Robertson though, people weren't content to just express their opinions. They instead organized a group to threaten A & E and threatened its advertisers and demand that Roberts not be allowed to participate in A & E programming--a proactive effort to destroy his reputation and livelihood for his opinions expressed in a totally unrelated setting and that had nothing to do with his program on A&E.

This is okay with you? What tolerance do you see expressed in this scenario? Or should tolerance not be allowed a Phil Robertson who says things you don't believe or agree with?

 

[Esmeralda]

There is no such thing as 'political correctness,' it's a contrivance of the right, the consequence of disdain for free and open debate in our free and democratic society.

Indeed, the lie of 'political correctness' represents an effort by most on the right to stifle that free and open debate, by attempting to vilify those who denounce hate, bigotry, and racism.

Bigots, racists, and those who seek to propagate hate are at complete liberty to express their views and opinions; in fact, hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul), where no one desires to subject bigots or racists to punitive measures or in any way use the authority of the state to silence their views.

Likewise, those who oppose bigotry, racism, and hate are at liberty to express their opinions, to denounce racism and bigotry, where that denunciation in no way constitutes 'political correctness,' nor 'prohibits' bigots and racists from exhibiting their ignorance and hate.

We're not going to debate semantics friend. As OP I define political correctness as the social phenomenon that requires people to use or avoid certain words or language and/or requires people to accept certain concepts and/or reject others. The phenomenon does exist, I have defined the term used to describe it, and it is not up for discussion or challenge per the thread rules. You however are okay if you choose a different term to describe the phenomenon, but the thread topic is not whether there is or is not political correctness.

The question is not whether racists or bigots are able to express their views. The question is whether they are allowed to hold such views as their right to hold and can do so without expectations that some will attempt to punish or harm them because they hold such views. The issue is what tolerance is. If those who believe racist and bigoted language is inappropriate and therefore is prohibited on their own turf do not then allow others a different point of view on the others' own turf, how can there be tolerance?

The concept of 'political correctness' is not semantics, and if you define it as such based only on your perception of this concept, then your entire thread is defunct based on a complete lack of the rules of logic. There is no point in discussing an illogical proposition. For theOP to define abstract terms from a personal perspective means that an open and unbaised discussion is not possible.

Ironically, you want to discuss 'tolerance,' but I have a pretty strong expectation that you are not going to tolerate this post.

I tolerate it just fine but this forum allows the OP to set the rules for discussion. You don't like my rules and don't like the premise of the thread that is your prerogative and I accept it. But I will continue to insist that we focus on the OP and the abide by the rules for this thread, and I suggest your best bet is to be tolerant and allow me to organize my thread as I see fit and you should enjoy one of the many hundreds of active threads out there that are surely more to your liking. Do have a great day though.

I don't intend to further participate. I am familiar with formal debate and one does not set up a formal debate with a biased and illogical premise that doesn't actually allow for open and reasonable discussion. It just isn't done in real debate.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Doesn't a society mutually decide the rules that everyone must abide by for the society to exist? That requires that some people just aren't allowed to do everything they want. Conformity to those rules is the basis for all societies. The only way a person could have total liberty would be to live alone with no contact with others. With interaction, rules are a must.

But does everybody in the country have to abide by the same legal or implied rules? If that was the rule when slavery was legal in some states, the entire country would be expected to endorse, allow, and approve of slavery. In the 20th Century, my home town at the time would not have been able to desegregate on its own without pressure or orders from anywhere else--we did it just because it was the right thing to do even as other places thought we were terrible.

In the early years of our nation, some communities were little theocracies with rigid religious rules and punitive disciplines for the members of those societies because that is the way the people wanted it. At the same time there were communities like Deadwood with no rules or law at all and where anarchy prevailed because that is the way the people wanted it. In time, the people of both those groups chose something different--the little theocracies dissolved and much more tolerance was initiated. The people in the wide open lawless places saw that as an unpleasant way to live and adopted rules and laws to curb the violence and antisocial behavior.

It is possible for such opposing societies to co-exist in our vast nation that is among the world's very largest land masses. Why do you think it is so threatening for some when other American societies choose something different?

Our society is made up of countless sub societies, each adhering to their own specific rules. This one might smoke. That one might hate the idea of even growing tobacco. They are all free to behave as they like within their own circle, but must conform to wider rules if interacting with someone outside their specific circle. It's the price paid to be part of the larger group. Fortunately, we have laws and a system of government to sort out the continuing conflicts between opposing groups. The majority has decided that you must abide by those laws if you are to remain a member of the larger society, even if you disagree with them.

But what justification do you have for say Philadelphia who chooses unrestricted abortion laws demanding that Muleshoe TX also have unrestricted abortion laws. And filing suit against Muleshoe if the people there vote to restrict abortion? Why cannot Muleshoe allow Philadelphia people to be who and what they are and organize their society as they choose and expect to live their own lives and organize their own society as they choose?

Why should an organized mob go after the advertisers and livelihood of a Phil Robertson who, in a setting totally unrelated to his occupations, truthfully answered direct questions put to him in an interview and expressed his religious views in opposition to homosexuality. Was he right? Most of us don't think so. But should he be entitled to his views in peace even as he tolerates and allows others their own different point of view?

This is the concept I think we have lost in America today--the true spirit of live and let live i.e. You do your thing and live your life and, so long as you don't impose that on me or interfere with my life, we'll all get along just fine.

Again, the only way you can truly "live and let live" is to live alone with no outside interaction. Muleshoe freely agreed to be governed by the same federal laws everybody else agreed to. Our society has determined that some laws apply equally for everybody. As I said before, it's the price of enjoying the advantages of our society. Philadelphia didn't make that decision. They didn't have the authority to do that. We all made that decision. If you disagree with it, there is a wonderful way of changing it. We set up courts to take care of all those things.

People who don't care for Roberts opinions hardly meet the definition of a mob, and they are certainly free to express their opinions to anybody they like, just like he is. That is a perfect example of how free speech works. He is free to continue believing anything he wants, but he will have to realize that others have that same right. It's up to him if he wants that kind of pissing match.

Again, the only way you will find total freedom to do what ever you want is to live alone with no outside contact. God gave us the ability to live together without all this conflict. Too bad so many of his followers aren't willing to use that ability.

On what basis of the Constitution does or should give the federal government authority to dictate to the people of Muleshoe TX what values and moral principles must guide their common lives together?

The Constitution enables the people of Muleshoe, TX to not have abortions if those are the values and moral principles that they adopt for themselves.

But equally so they cannot impose their values and morals on anyone else because to do would be intolerant of the values and morals of others.