Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[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.

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.

That's cool. And entirely off topic. Again have a great day.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

But they aren't imposing their values and morals on anyone else. They are exercising their own values and morals and leaving everybody else alone. So why should they not also be left alone to exercise their values and morals just because Philadelphia people disagree with them? What part of tolerance includes filing suit against them to force them to allow abortion?

 

[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.

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?

What tolerance is being expressed by those who are trying to defund Planned Parenthood?

Should this "new law" of tolerance advocated by the OP allow anyone to violate the law and spread malicious falsehoods about those whose "values and morals" they happen to be intolerant towards?

Those that petitioned A&E were freely expressing their opinions and asking for redress for what they perceived to be a violation of the rights of their fellow Americans. They did not take what he said out of context. They did not do anything that was illegal.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I you had worded #1, Women should be able to obtain a safe, legal abortion, I would have put a check mark by it.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

What tolerance is being expressed by those who are trying to defund Planned Parenthood?

Should this "new law" of tolerance advocated by the OP allow anyone to violate the law and spread malicious falsehoods about those whose "values and morals" they happen to be intolerant towards?

Those that petitioned A&E were freely expressing their opinions and asking for redress for what they perceived to be a violation of the rights of their fellow Americans. They did not take what he said out of context. They did not do anything that was illegal.

Nobody is saying Planned Parenthood should be put out of business. They are just saying that people should not be forced to participate in or contribute to something they believe to be immoral, even evil. What part of tolerance demands that people fund you even if they despise what you do?

 

[Carla_Danger]

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?

What tolerance is being expressed by those who are trying to defund Planned Parenthood?

Should this "new law" of tolerance advocated by the OP allow anyone to violate the law and spread malicious falsehoods about those whose "values and morals" they happen to be intolerant towards?

Those that petitioned A&E were freely expressing their opinions and asking for redress for what they perceived to be a violation of the rights of their fellow Americans. They did not take what he said out of context. They did not do anything that was illegal.

Nobody is saying Planned Parenthood should be put out of business. They are just saying that people should not be forced to participate in or contribute to something they believe to be immoral, even evil. What part of tolerance demands that people fund you even if they despise what you do?

I don't want my tax dollars paying for wars. If you get to opt out of Planned Parenthood, I want to opt out of wars and weapons we don't need.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

But they aren't imposing their values and morals on anyone else. They are exercising their own values and morals and leaving everybody else alone. So why should they not also be left alone to exercise their values and morals just because Philadelphia people disagree with them? What part of tolerance includes filing suit against them to force them to allow abortion?

If Muleshoe, TX took action to obstruct others from exercising their Constitutional rights then yes, they went beyond merely "exercising their own values and morals and leaving everybody else alone" and deserve to be held accountable for their actions.

Muleshoe, TX cannot legislate their values and morality without infringing upon the rights of others in this instance.

 

[Carla_Danger]

# 6 Nobody should have to participate in activities they oppose.


Who has to participate in activities they oppose? I need an example.

Thank you.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

What tolerance is being expressed by those who are trying to defund Planned Parenthood?

Should this "new law" of tolerance advocated by the OP allow anyone to violate the law and spread malicious falsehoods about those whose "values and morals" they happen to be intolerant towards?

Those that petitioned A&E were freely expressing their opinions and asking for redress for what they perceived to be a violation of the rights of their fellow Americans. They did not take what he said out of context. They did not do anything that was illegal.

Nobody is saying Planned Parenthood should be put out of business. They are just saying that people should not be forced to participate in or contribute to something they believe to be immoral, even evil. What part of tolerance demands that people fund you even if they despise what you do?

There is no federal funding of abortion whatsoever.

The funding that PP receives goes towards providing healthcare services like cancer screenings for women.

Does the OP despise providing cancer screenings for women?

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

What tolerance is being expressed by those who are trying to defund Planned Parenthood?

Should this "new law" of tolerance advocated by the OP allow anyone to violate the law and spread malicious falsehoods about those whose "values and morals" they happen to be intolerant towards?

Those that petitioned A&E were freely expressing their opinions and asking for redress for what they perceived to be a violation of the rights of their fellow Americans. They did not take what he said out of context. They did not do anything that was illegal.

Nobody is saying Planned Parenthood should be put out of business. They are just saying that people should not be forced to participate in or contribute to something they believe to be immoral, even evil. What part of tolerance demands that people fund you even if they despise what you do?

I don't want my tax dollars paying for wars. If you get to opt out of Planned Parenthood, I want to opt out of wars and weapons we don't need.

But at least we as a people have a social contract called The Constitution that authorizes the government to organize and fund a military for purposes of our common defense. Now you can certainly make an argument that many, even most wars we have been involved in did not fit the criteria of common defense and I agree, we should not be required to fund and participate in wars that are extra-constitutional activities. IMO we certainly should not be required to do that without a definitive vote by those we elect to represent and speak for us. That is certainly something that should be in the national conversation with both sides of that argument given full rein to make their best arguments.

I can find not one syllable, word, or phrase in the Constitution that gives the federal government authority to require the people of Muleshoe Tx to allow abortion in Muleshoe Tx. Or that would allow Muleshoe Tx to impose its moral convictions on any other society. I think the concept that one city can allow abortion and another city can prohibit it is an excellent example of the logical end result of what tolerance is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Constitutional interpretation does not stop in 1789, 1889, 1989, or now.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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?

What tolerance is being expressed by those who are trying to defund Planned Parenthood?

Should this "new law" of tolerance advocated by the OP allow anyone to violate the law and spread malicious falsehoods about those whose "values and morals" they happen to be intolerant towards?

Those that petitioned A&E were freely expressing their opinions and asking for redress for what they perceived to be a violation of the rights of their fellow Americans. They did not take what he said out of context. They did not do anything that was illegal.

Nobody is saying Planned Parenthood should be put out of business. They are just saying that people should not be forced to participate in or contribute to something they believe to be immoral, even evil. What part of tolerance demands that people fund you even if they despise what you do?

I don't want my tax dollars paying for wars. If you get to opt out of Planned Parenthood, I want to opt out of wars and weapons we don't need.

But at least we as a people have a social contract called The Constitution that authorizes the government to organize and fund a military for purposes of our common defense. Now you can certainly make an argument that many, even most wars we have been involved in did not fit the criteria of common defense and I agree, we should not be required to fund and participate in wars that are extra-constitutional activities. Certainly we should not be requird to do that without a definitive vote by those we elect to represent and speak for us. That is certainly something that should be in the national conversation with both sides of that argument given full rein to make their best arguments.

I can find not one syllable, word, or phrase in the Constitution that gives the federal government authority to require the people of Muleshoe Tx to allow abortion in Muleshoe Tx. Or that would allow Muleshoe Tx to impose its moral convictions on any other society. I think the concept that one city can allow abortion and another city can prohibit it is an excellent example of the logical end result of what tolerance is.

I simply used war as an example of the fact that not all of us like where our tax dollars go. Maybe I should have said "wars of choice".

Abortion is legal, and no tax dollars are going towards funding abortions at Planned Parenthood.

 

[Esmeralda]

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.

But they aren't imposing their values and morals on anyone else. They are exercising their own values and morals and leaving everybody else alone. So why should they not also be left alone to exercise their values and morals just because Philadelphia people disagree with them? What part of tolerance includes filing suit against them to force them to allow abortion?

To disallow abortion for other people is forcing your morals and values on others. No one is forcing those who don't want them to get abortions.

 

[Foxfyre]

# 6 Nobody should have to participate in activities they oppose.


Who has to participate in activities they oppose? I need an example.

Thank you.

Here is your example:

A baker is minding his own business when a person of a 'constitutionally protected group' comes in and demands that the baker decorate cupcakes with a symbol for an upcoming major event--a symbol offensive to the baker. The customer will even furnish the symbols. The baker refuses on grounds that he does not wish to participate in or be associated with that event. The baker is sued and is forced to pay a huge fine if he does not participate in and contribute to the activity by making and decorating the cupcakes for it.

The baker is forced to at least go through the motions of tolerance for the person and his/her event. But where is the tolerance for the baker's sense of right and wrong?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I can find not one syllable, word, or phrase in the Constitution that gives the federal government authority to require the people of Muleshoe Tx to allow abortion in Muleshoe Tx. Or that would allow Muleshoe Tx to impose its moral convictions on any other society. I think the concept that one city can allow abortion and another city can prohibit it is an excellent example of the logical end result of what tolerance is.

Actually it is the exact opposite of tolerance.

Anyone who is an elected representative in the city of MuleShoe TX swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. As a representative of the people they must uphold the rights of all of the citizens, not just those who happen to be anti-abortion.

If, as a representative of the people of Muleshoe, they pass legislation banning abortion within city limits they are violating the rights of those citizens who might need to obtain an abortion in order to save their life.

Muleshoe cannot deny anyone their constitutional rights.

 

[Genevieve]

I did not vote for #1 because it requires clarifying, that being the case where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

I am more interested in whether you voted for #2. In today's PC and 'dictated tolerance' world, many Americans would easily vote for #1 but would not vote for #2. The thesis of the thread suggests that tolerance would allow both points of view.

I voted for both #1 and #2. Abortion (in general) should be legal but some abortions (late term for example) should not be allowed.

 

[Esmeralda]

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?

What tolerance is being expressed by those who are trying to defund Planned Parenthood?

Should this "new law" of tolerance advocated by the OP allow anyone to violate the law and spread malicious falsehoods about those whose "values and morals" they happen to be intolerant towards?

Those that petitioned A&E were freely expressing their opinions and asking for redress for what they perceived to be a violation of the rights of their fellow Americans. They did not take what he said out of context. They did not do anything that was illegal.

Nobody is saying Planned Parenthood should be put out of business. They are just saying that people should not be forced to participate in or contribute to something they believe to be immoral, even evil. What part of tolerance demands that people fund you even if they despise what you do?

I don't want my tax dollars paying for wars. If you get to opt out of Planned Parenthood, I want to opt out of wars and weapons we don't need.

Exactly. You can't pick and choose where your tax dollars go. Refer back to Thoreau and his civil disobedience. You can protest this issue as an act of civil disobedience and go to jail.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

What tolerance is being expressed by those who are trying to defund Planned Parenthood?

Should this "new law" of tolerance advocated by the OP allow anyone to violate the law and spread malicious falsehoods about those whose "values and morals" they happen to be intolerant towards?

Those that petitioned A&E were freely expressing their opinions and asking for redress for what they perceived to be a violation of the rights of their fellow Americans. They did not take what he said out of context. They did not do anything that was illegal.

Nobody is saying Planned Parenthood should be put out of business. They are just saying that people should not be forced to participate in or contribute to something they believe to be immoral, even evil. What part of tolerance demands that people fund you even if they despise what you do?

I don't want my tax dollars paying for wars. If you get to opt out of Planned Parenthood, I want to opt out of wars and weapons we don't need.

But at least we as a people have a social contract called The Constitution that authorizes the government to organize and fund a military for purposes of our common defense. Now you can certainly make an argument that many, even most wars we have been involved in did not fit the criteria of common defense and I agree, we should not be required to fund and participate in wars that are extra-constitutional activities. Certainly we should not be requird to do that without a definitive vote by those we elect to represent and speak for us. That is certainly something that should be in the national conversation with both sides of that argument given full rein to make their best arguments.

I can find not one syllable, word, or phrase in the Constitution that gives the federal government authority to require the people of Muleshoe Tx to allow abortion in Muleshoe Tx. Or that would allow Muleshoe Tx to impose its moral convictions on any other society. I think the concept that one city can allow abortion and another city can prohibit it is an excellent example of the logical end result of what tolerance is.

I simply used war as an example of the fact that not all of us like where our tax dollars go. Maybe I should have said "wars of choice".

Abortion is legal, and no tax dollars are going towards funding abortions at Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood received a whopping record $542 million in federal taxpayer dollars in 2012. Would they be able to offer hundreds of thousands of affordable abortion services without that money coming in even if they say it is used for other things? Even the KKK has had its charitable wing doing good by day even as it donned white sheets for terrorist activities by night. Would you be good with $542 million in tax dollars going to the KKK to help fund its charitable activities? Note: I am NOT comparing Planned Parenthood to the KKK here so don't even go there.

It doesn't matter whether abortion is legal or not. What matters is whether tolerance and liberty allows people to live their lives according to their own moral convictions so long as they leave everybody else alone.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

But they aren't imposing their values and morals on anyone else. They are exercising their own values and morals and leaving everybody else alone. So why should they not also be left alone to exercise their values and morals just because Philadelphia people disagree with them? What part of tolerance includes filing suit against them to force them to allow abortion?

To disallow abortion for other people is forcing your morals and values on others. No one is forcing those who don't want them to get abortions.

Muleshoe is not forcing its moral and values on anybody else in this example. It is simply wanting to exercise its morals and values itself. Philadelphia says it should not be allowed to do that.

What do you say?

 

[sakinago]

I have not voted yet, but if I do, an option I choose will certainly be #9.

Women should be respected by men, and not called horrible things, or have nasty comments directed towards them. Women should be strong, and men should love and protect and respect women.

Do you then make a law for that? The speech that needs to be protected is unpopular speech. If everybody liked what everybody said, we would not need the 1st amendment. If someone calls you the c word and you slap them, and then that person takes you to court for assault. If I'm on the jury, I'm going to no bill you, because people should also take responsibility for what they say. Just like if a business wants to refuse to serve blacks, they should be allowed to...but they will not be in business for long because I and many Americans will refuse to eat/buy from there. What is not right is the government coming in and fining people for things like the Oregon bakery, which at the time they were in compliance with Oregon law, which had not legalized gay marriage yet. That is an activist government, removing free will by use of the stick