posted
Turning the other cheek is a virtue that can never be demanded of someone else. It is a decision you must make for yourself based on wisdom. Demanding that others turn the cheek is the equivalent of demanding that others donate to charity: once it is demanded, it is no longer a donation...it is an obligation.
To me tolerance means never forgetting the humanity of every single person, regardless of their beliefs or actions. It means remembering that they have a right to believe differently. It means remembering that they have a right to act differently. It means recognizing their human dignity.
Tolerance does NOT mean excusing people from the consequences of their acts. We must tolerate their right to act, but still hold them accountable. Tolerance does not mean tolerating bad behaviors. You can be tolerant and still adamantly defend yourself against wrongs done against you directly or indirectly.
In essence, I believe tolerance should be directed toward the human being, but is kind of irrelevant when it comes to human acts.
Now, the world 'tolerate' seems to have a different connotation than tolerance. Tolerate means to allow something to happen and is generally separate from how you feel about it. I can tolerate you calling me names because I decide it is a battle not worth fighting. But I am not going to like it one iota. I am not going to respect the behavior one iota. My deciding to tolerate your behavior really has nothing to do with tolerance. The tolerance is separate. I can have tolerance toward you as a human being. I can respect your right to call me names. I can respect your humanity.
Or, I could decide to not tolerate your name-calling behavior and inform you that I won't tolerate it. I can do this and still have tolerance toward you as a person. Thus, I can refuse to tolerate while still exercising tolerance.
Gotta' love semantics.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: They are certainly causing harm to them at least when they win those votes. I don't know what apathetically has to do with anything. Many of them are quite passionate about it.
I meant being apathetic towards the people they are affecting.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Turning the other cheek is a virtue that can never be demanded of someone else. It is a decision you must make for yourself based on wisdom. Demanding that others turn the cheek is the equivalent of demanding that others donate to charity: once it is demanded, it is no longer a donation...it is an obligation.
Charity *is* an obligation. You can't compel it, but you can certainly require it.
I can't get to the rest of your thoughtful post Marlozhan.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: They are certainly causing harm to them at least when they win those votes. I don't know what apathetically has to do with anything. Many of them are quite passionate about it.
I meant being apathetic towards the people they are affecting.
I still don't know how it matters. How does it make the harm less?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: They are certainly causing harm to them at least when they win those votes. I don't know what apathetically has to do with anything. Many of them are quite passionate about it.
I meant being apathetic towards the people they are affecting.
I still don't know how it matters. How does it make the harm less?
It doesn't. But do you have a universal reaction to people who harm you? Do you treat a person person who is harming you who feels they are justified, but can still be talked to the same way as somebody who without regard for you abuses you?
I don't know about you, but it seems like learning to love all men was one of the hardest things for Jesus to get across to people because folks were so obsessed with who the biggest sinners were.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many times must I say that I am talking about tolerance for actions, not for people? One can care for people without giving them a pass on actions that harm you.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems to me like he could have saved us all a lot of time if he was simply more specific about the limits of men loving all men.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How many times must I say that I am talking about tolerance for actions, not for people? One can care for people without giving them a pass on actions that harm you.
What does that mean in the context of same-sex marriage opponents and proponents both voting for that agenda?
You can't tolerate people voting for things you find harmful?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Seems to me like he could have saved us all a lot of time if he was simply more specific about the limits of men loving all men.
posted
Just checking: if someone held a KKK-ish set of beliefs on race and politics, but kept it strictly political and condemned violence even in support of their own particular goals-such a person shouldn't be labeled intolerant if they are 'honestly' arriving at this outlook, are willing to speak courteously even to the inferior spawn of lesser races, and don't verbally abuse them?
If that's not what you meant I'll need a correction, but if it is-I don't see how this sort of thing can fit at all with your earlier repeated statements about intent not being so much more important in your measurement of intolerance.
There are those who believe God commands them not to allow people to practice other religions-that it's best for thee other people, and God's followers, if the force of the state be used to prevent them from being heathens or heretics. Such a person could certainly meet at the qualification you set earlier for honest self-evaluation, critical thinking, and outward courtesy but I think-I hope-you wouldn't insist they not be labelled intolerant.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just checking: if someone held a KKK-ish set of beliefs on race and politics, but kept it strictly political and condemned violence even in support of their own particular goals-such a person shouldn't be labeled intolerant if they are 'honestly' arriving at this outlook, are willing to speak courteously even to the inferior spawn of lesser races, and don't verbally abuse them?
Would they be intolerant if they were in fact right?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course. If they were right, non-whites would fall into the broad category 'things that are bad that nobody is expected to tolerate'-which in this case non-whites would be because they would do most of the other things in that category at much higher rates, and would make whites progressively worse by contact.
As for SSM, if the 'God disapproves of homosexuality' crowd is right...then God is intolerant of homosexuality and seeking to emulate God, so are God's followers. Whether it's a case of 'God disapproves because it's bad for them' or 'it's bad for them because God disapproves' doesn't really matte, it's all similarly irrelevant to outsiders, much less the actual subjects of the disapproval.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
You seem to be a proponent of polygamy, and think that it is no more inherently harmful to society then one to one homosexual and heterosexual marriage. I disagree, but perhaps you could answer a couple questions I have and enlighten me.
So in a normal society, a man who takes four or five wives for himself of necessity leaves three or four men without sexual and life partners. Now, of course some people choose not to marry, and there are homosexuals, but those subsets tend to cancel each other out. One man taking several wives in a population of roughly equal genders would not be the same, would you agree?
If we look at every past society that has practiced polygamy, they all had ways of taking care of the problem that a large population of undersexed young males represented. They could either start a war with another tribe, in order to both get some of the excess males killed and "win" more females, or they lived very close to non polygamist societies with which they could import females and export males.
The United States could not easily solve that problem in those ways, and that's why I think it's a different issue. Unlike homosexual marriage, there is an actual danger to societal cohesion if polygamy became widespread. Unless you don't think incubating a population of angry young men would be a problem?
I suppose you could say that not everyone would choose polygamy, but I'm assuming that it's your religion that inclines you to that. LDS want to spread their religion, peacefully, to everyone. So, eventually...
I probably shouldn't assume that you'd marry your secretary tomorrow if it were legal, but only because your church forbids it. Why do you think they did? What other assumptions of mine do you think are incorrect so that widespread polygamy wouldn't cause problems?
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just checking: if someone held a KKK-ish set of beliefs on race and politics, but kept it strictly political and condemned violence even in support of their own particular goals-such a person shouldn't be labeled intolerant if they are 'honestly' arriving at this outlook, are willing to speak courteously even to the inferior spawn of lesser races, and don't verbally abuse them?
Would they be intolerant if they were in fact right?
Sure. But since they are not right, we would be wrong to be tolerant of their political actions and we should oppose them and condemn such beliefs.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
You seem to be a proponent of polygamy, and think that it is no more inherently harmful to society then one to one homosexual and heterosexual marriage.
This thread might not be the place to have an extensive discussion of polygamy. I myself do not practice polygamy, nor do I think I would were it legal.
quote: So in a normal society, a man who takes four or five wives for himself of necessity leaves three or four men without sexual and life partners. Now, of course some people choose not to marry, and there are homosexuals, but those subsets tend to cancel each other out. One man taking several wives in a population of roughly equal genders would not be the same, would you agree?
No, I wouldn't. There would also be women who would prefer multiple husbands.
quote: If we look at every past society that has practiced polygamy, they all had ways of taking care of the problem that a large population of undersexed young males represented. They could either start a war with another tribe, in order to both get some of the excess males killed and "win" more females, or they lived very close to non polygamist societies with which they could import females and export males.
Again, only a problem if only males are permitted to be in polygamist relationships.
quote: The United States could not easily solve that problem in those ways, and that's why I think it's a different issue. Unlike homosexual marriage, there is an actual danger to societal cohesion if polygamy became widespread. Unless you don't think incubating a population of angry young men would be a problem?
There are already people who live their entire lives without finding a companion. They are not threats to our country. There are already people who innately prefer the format of having multiple partners but instead try to conform to societal norms of just one, and then have to ask for an open marriage, often with spouses that don't want that.
quote: I suppose you could say that not everyone would choose polygamy, but I'm assuming that it's your religion that inclines you to that. LDS want to spread their religion, peacefully, to everyone. So, eventually...
As I said, no it doesn't incline me towards it. Mormons are actually pretty staunchly monogamist right now. And now not everybody would choose polygamy, even at its prime, a small percentage of Mormons elected to live that way.
quote: I probably shouldn't assume that you'd marry your secretary tomorrow if it were legal, but only because your church forbids it. Why do you think they did? What other assumptions of mine do you think are incorrect so that widespread polygamy wouldn't cause problems?
The church has openly stated why it does not permit polygamy. Because the United States government has passed laws that forbid it, and have aggressively enforced them in times past, the church has elected to discontinue the practice for now.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
If it's polite "oeuvre" than it means very little. But if our black person thinks white people should just shut up and get out of the way, then yes, there is intolerance. I don't see how you could argue they are tolerant at all, only that it seems like all you care about is excusing intolerance, not finding a reason to be tolerant. [/QUOTE]
Alright, I think I know how to proceed.
First: this hypothetical person is not having his hypothetical position described back by you. Replace "wants white people to shut up and get out of the way" with "wants to purposefully not associate with KKK members or have to respond to their proposals to 'politely' discuss the idea of white supremacy with them"
Still 'intolerant?' where the KKK member is 'tolerant?'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samprimary: I think it would be more useful for our purposes if our hypothetical relocation advocate was not a member of a group that by definition does not wish to tolerate the existence of black people.
As for our hypothetical black person, "wants to purposefully not associate with KKK members or have to respond to their proposals to 'politely' discuss the idea of white supremacy with them""
Again, the KKK muddles this because he would have a reasonable belief that KKK members would harm him, and even if they didn't they have unashamedly inherited a violent past and have not disassociated themselves or apologized for those acts.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
but the KKK is working with good intentions! They legitimately think the appropriate course for humanity is separation of the races. They don't want to actively cause harm to blacks, they want to remove blacks to other countries specifically for blacks and have this one be for whites.
They're usually very religious and they have communed with God on this point and they sincerely believe that this is a benevolent task and God's will!
And this KKK member (as many KKK members do) completely disavow any calls to violence, so it's unfair of you to state on their behalf that they can't tolerate the existence of black people.
Remember: his intentions are, to him, good.
quote:even if they didn't they have unashamedly inherited a violent past and have not disassociated themselves or apologized for those acts.
Again: the KKK has officially disavowed violent acts.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:but the KKK is working with good intentions! They legitimately think the appropriate course for humanity is separation of the races. They don't want to actively cause harm to blacks, they want to remove blacks to other countries specifically for blacks and have this one be for whites.
So our hypothetical KKK has denounced all immoral acts committed in the past, staunchly condemns any unequal treatment of black people here, maintains that black people would be happier if they were assisted in relocating to a hypothetical place that is reasonably attractive as a place to live, but would not compel black people by force to relocate?
edit: And they acknowledge and have reasonable arguments for the criticisms their opponents make?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Correct, they only want to change the law so that eventually the country would move towards being only for people of the white race. No violence, just adjustment of the law to segregate the races as God's will mandates.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course. They've communed with God and know in their heart that this is what God requires of the races, and that there will be plenty of better places for the blacks to live over the course of relocation.
They're perfectly willing to come to the table and politely discuss it, too!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know this is getting beyond the usefulness of a hypothetical, but how on earth do you sort out who is white?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It'll be easy enough to mandate it through kinship records along with phenotypical assessment. Where necessary it's very easy to get a full genetic history, and since separation of the races is God's will, it would be very easy to have an inspired understanding of who is white, if needed.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
This. I think kindness as discussed in this blog post is something roughly akin to what BB wants tolerance to mean.
I will say, as somebody who is gay, it is irksome to me to see somebody deciding what respect for me is or isn't. Not that I suspect it matters much.
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyway, as we are progressing, what's the status on the kkk member being 'tolerant' or the black person being 'intolerant'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Hold up. Eventually they only want white people in the United States?
I can't help but wonder: why is this(if I'm reading you right) apparently a sticking point for some standard of tolerant lobbying for discrimination under the law, but 'they want the US to be a 'hetero-only' marriage country' isn't also a disqualifier?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll get to that later, right now i'm sussing out the boundaries of 'tolerance' and what voids anything being considered 'intolerant'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Anyway, as we are progressing, what's the status on the kkk member being 'tolerant' or the black person being 'intolerant'
Honestly, I'm still mulling it over. I'm not exactly practiced at identifying tolerance in the KKK, even hypothetically.
-----------
Emreecheek: I'm sorry if I am being irksome, I certainly don't want that to be the case. I'm not trying to decide for you what respect entails, only what I personally think tolerance means. Nobody appointed me definer of respect. We all of course have to establish for ourselves what a concept like respect or tolerance means, and determine whether that definition is useful in greater society.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can appreciate that, BlackBlade, but I'm also trying to imagine which heterosexuals I know that would hear something like 'I feel who you're attracted to, who you lust after and romantically love, and some of your most profound, important relationships (dating, marriage, family-that-we-make) is fundamentally inferior to mine, both here and eternally, and needs to be legally restricted for your own good and that of my children'...
Who hears that-which is, and I mean this literally, a nicer shading of anti-SSM positions-and feels they are respected and tolerated?
Or am I wrong? Are there people out there who are anti-SSM *without* thinking that way? Without thinking that who homosexuals want to love is perverse or at *best* inferior, wrong?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: Polygamy is wrong because it is an inferior system. It creates a situation where a male can't find a suitable partner, and can lead to the exploitation of women, particularly underaged women.
Does that sound at least in spirit akin to Christians who indicate that homosexuals cannot have children, and their unions lead to a situation where children are without one sex in the home, and everything that sex brings to a family?
Look, honestly, I'm getting kind of burned out on being the only person who argues against pigeon-holing all 40+% of the country that votes against same-sex unions as intolerant bigots. Or that it's not actually in our best interests to practice a scorched earth policy even if ultimately it neutralizes more racists and does so faster than any other strategy. I think it simply drives racism deeper, where it waits for nourishment, and that nourishment comes in the form of actual mistreatment from so cold "tolerant progressives" and copious amounts of martyr syndrome.
-----------
Samprimary: I'm not ready to call our KKK member tolerant, I feel like there's too many other things swirling in the mix. I don't feel like your black person is practicing tolerance either.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So then, that's the question. WHY is the KKK member intolerant.
Let's take a look at what he is fulfilling:
- disavows violent acts, wants to act purely in terms of legal policy using our democratic system of lawmaking
- acts gracious and willing to engage with black people who want to have an open-minded conversation about what he's doing
- is acting sincerely, feels genuinely that he has good intentions and that he is doing good
- feels he is logically and intellectually honest and consistent about it, insofar as this is compatible with his faith, which he has consulted and sincerely believes in
Every single "good intention" and willingness to be genial and gracious and communicative in person is there. He has a steadfast belief in his own good intentions.
So what, given your previous system for assessing and addressing the issue of tolerance, makes it so that you're not ready to call him tolerant? What other things are swirling in the mix? How do they overrule his politeness and good intentions? Why does he not deserve to be acknowledged as tolerant, under your definition?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The KKK analogy fails (as do most analogies under the strictest logical scrutiny) because racial intolerance does not equate to intolerance for differing sexual orientation. SSM ought to be debated on its own terms. In this regard, until this society has made up its mind, polite tolerance for opposing viewpoints should be standard practice. This is true of any controversial issue that still exists; such as abortion, socialized medicine, global warming or what have you. Until the issue of slavery was settled once and for all (and thank God it has been) tolerance for the opposing viewpoint ought to have then been observed. Had that been the case, the controversy just might have been resolved without resorting to war.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
ETA: put more simply, your basic position is 'the analogy fails because they're unequal'. You skipped the part where you actually make that case. ----- I see an utter chasm in one key phrase: slaver and its advocates should never, anywhere have been tolerated, regardless of what the contemporary consensus view on the subject was. Unless you mean that in a simple political pragmatist fashion, in which case I've misread you, I fail to see why in terms of morality and justice the broader social consensus ought to have any bearing on how polite and tolerant a good person ought to be with respect to anything-much less certain practices.
As for the failure in analogizing sexual preference to race, well, that's the question, isn't it? If it is true that this is gentically determined, or largely so, then I fail to see hy it's not very much like race, unless we revisit the old 'they can choose celibacy for life' argument. But whether it's a question of genetics, choice, upbringing, or a blend of these and more even then that has little bearing on when one is being intolerant, and your argument that the comparison is invalid because race is fixed and sexuality (apparently?) isn't needs, well, an actual argument.
If a behavior towards a fixed trait is intolerant, such as the KKK member's, why does it suddenly become tolerant kf the trait isn't fixed, as with for example a member of NOM? Saying or suggesting it's because it's a question of choice isn't actually an argument, it's just a pointing out of the (claimed, but also un-argued) difference between two traits.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I'm just going to remark on the situation that while the question of slavery might be settled, the problem isn't.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point, which is why moral people everywhere can get behind the eradication of slavery by nearly any means necessary. But there was a time when it was still debatable in this country and I find it unfortunate that it took a horrific civil war to settle things. The right side would have won out eventually, I imagine. Slaves would have remained enslaved in the interim though, so there's that...
The questions involving origins (genetic, environment, choice, demonic possession or whatever the f***) are exactly the point: there are fundamental questions to which we have no definitive answers. Therefore, an honest and respectful debate is the least we can ask of those engaged on either side, and for the sake of us watching from the sidelines, so to speak. Extremists on both sides will go to war, and "are you with us or against us" drags everyone else into the fray.
Oh yeah, I did not actually make the case that there is in fact a distinction between racism and "Homophobia" (in quotations because I don't use the term myself; it is designed to imply mental illness and therefore inferiority amongst those on one side of the debate) because the differences are self-evident. How about this: imagine yourself asking a veteran of the Civil Rights movement how his struggle compares to that of the SSM movement. Do you think you're going to encounter an attitude of parity?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That reasoning also doesn't make sense. Saying the argument is self-evident doesn't actually constitute an argument.
As for parity, I don't understand your reasoning. So because one group was treated one way roughly three and more generations ago than one in the present, that's going to mean the groups they struggle *for* don't have anything in common? This is also not an argument-I imagine Harriet Tubman might not feel, were she fast forwarded through time, that there was much parity between what she risked and sacrificed when compared to, say, a Freedom Rider, but somehow I doubt she wouldn't recognize their common ground even though they faced radically different challenges.
quote:The questions involving origins (genetic, environment, choice, demonic possession or whatever the f***) are exactly the point: there are fundamental questions to which we have no definitive answers. Therefore, an honest and respectful debate is the least we can ask of those engaged on either side, and for the sake of us watching from the sidelines, so to speak. Extremists on both sides will go to war, and "are you with us or against us" drags everyone else into the fray.
The point is popular consensus has no bearing on what he actual truth is. If sexual preference is hard genetics, comparisons to race equality are very valid, full stop, regardless if what Jesus Patriot Liberty U might think. If it's a matter of sinful debauchery, the likeness vanishes.
As for honest respect, for a long time I've felt that the only opponents who were honest were those who admitted 'it's against my religion'. I can respect that, even as I point out their disrespect for the idea of freedom of religion. It isn't extremist to point out someone is being intolerant, especially kf they actually are. Or if it is, why don't we also say it's 'extremist' to wish to sustain a religious law in our society for religious reasons? Or in this peculiarly slanted style of tolerance, is that disrespectful? If someone attempts to run roughshod over someone, how rude and 'extremist' is it of them to complain with the tread of the tire drawn on their back?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:How about this: imagine yourself asking a veteran of the Civil Rights movement how his struggle compares to that of the SSM movement. Do you think you're going to encounter an attitude of parity?
Well there's this:
quote:“Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights."
"I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."
That's written by Mildred Loving of Loving v. Virginia, the landmark case that overturned anti-miscegenation laws across the country, establishing a direct equivalence between her fight for mixed-race marriage and the present fight for SSM.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everyone is equal, and everyone should support everyone else's rights so long as said rights do not inhibit others ability to engage in harmless self-expression.
Not supporting the rights of others is implied intolerance. Any moral Human Being should make it a priority to advocate for other Human Beings. Would any moral person disagree with this?
However, others may call our own self-important tolerance "intolerance", in as much as we are advocating something that they believe to be morally wrong.
Basically, I suppose we all should respect everyone's views as being equally valid to our own; if we don't share their opinions or viewpoints, we should at least respect them, as there is always someone who can call us "intolerant" for finding their harmless self-expression to be morally repugnant, so often based solely on upbringing or differing societal mores.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We should respect people even if we disagree with their views and we should remember that their right to hold those views is equal to our right to our views.
That doesn't mean we have to believe all views are equally valid.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: The KKK analogy fails (as do most analogies under the strictest logical scrutiny) because racial intolerance does not equate to intolerance for differing sexual orientation. SSM ought to be debated on its own terms.
So you're claiming on BlackBlade's behalf that the threshold for being 'tolerant' and 'intolerant' changes based on the subject being discussed in a way which permits someone to be tolerant even while refusing to deal with a KKK member who's trying to be genial and polite about the issue of racial segregation, but intolerant when it comes to a gay person dealing with their rights?
I somehow doubt this is going to pass muster.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: We should respect people even if we disagree with their views and we should remember that their right to hold those views is equal to our right to our views.
That doesn't mean we have to believe all views are equally valid.
I completely agree with that.
---
Samp: I don't really know what to do with our KKK member. I still have him under consideration, but it just doesn't lead to any conclusions.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should clarify that by "respect" there I mean treat with regard for basic human dignity, not necessarily look up to or admire. The word is a little ambiguous.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what drawing room courtesy is. But again, I agree with dkw, even after her clarification.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, that example doesn't count since it is probably negated ten ttimes over by Civil rights activists who are insulted by modern comparisons to SSM activists. The point being, anecdotal evidence can always be countered with another anecdote.
Also, if something is truly self-evident, then by definition it doesn't need any further argument to support it. Ones refusal to see something as self-evident doesn't make it any less so. It usually just highlights the refuser's willful blindness. This is a common occurrence in modern political debate as a progressive will not admit that 2+2=4 if 4 does not promote the leftist agenda.
ANYWAY, Sam, I am not arguing anything on B&B's behalf, I'm just pointing out that equality for all races is not so similar to equality for homosexuals that any argument for one can be seamlessly transposed into an argument for the other. I say the differences between the two are self-evident, but naturally this is not true for progressives so I'm just going to step away now and go back to watching the world burn.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do people really still bicker over race? Shouldn't we just see one another as Human Beings rather than colors?
As for our KKK member, considering that it is an organization built on hate and the supposition that all Human Beings are no inherently equal, why even consider hateful things?
What is the value of thinking hateful things?
As for equally valid view points: Can you observe things outside of your consciousness? If not, then how do you know that other's viewpoints are not equally valid to your own?
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I spent a year in Africa and they are beautiful hard working people. Africans aren't tainted by race baiters and embittered by a slave history like the African American. The Habashas I spent time with found the ghetto attitude soldiers to be distasteful and ugly. In Amharic, they said "escayami"....or ugly.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
shut up and go away, stop desperately trying to obtusely cram in your worldly "noble" experiences in the hopes that we won't desperately pity you
because this is the most embarrasingly pitiable behavior I've seen in a long time from an ostensibly adult person.
we're not here to change your nappy and validate your shortcomings and persecution complex
Printer-friendly view of this topic
