Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Steeled]

Couldn't go a single post without demonizing the other side? I'd say I'm surprised but that would be a lie.

[GlyphGryph]

In what way did I demonize the other side?

Are you actually interested in responding to the points I made, or defending your own claims, or is dismissive hand-waving honestly the best you can muster?

Because it's not much of an argument.

[Helgoland]

Would it be impolite to call troll?
Even if it is, screw that. I'm calling troll.

[wierd]

I'm sorry, but "Intolerance of intolerance" is irrational. That is, unless you want to start practicing self-loathing right away.

Here's the scoop-- Just remember that your rights and privileges end where those of another begin.
In the story of "Baby jesus hates teh gayz, and it makes baby jesus cry when teh gayz getz da marriagez!" hogwash, the real crime is when the people professing a right to their own religious beliefs conflate that with a right to make other people follow those religious beliefs, by co-opting such institutions as the legal profession.

Being personally against gay marriage is "ok", (note the quotes) so long as that personal opinion does not spill out into the streets with pickets and voiolence or into courtrooms with lawyering and corruption.

Part of having freedom of speech is allowing people you disagree with to hold dissenting ideals, and to speak about them.

I am intolerant of oppression, not of intolerance.

[Helgoland]

I am intolerant of oppression, not of intolerance.

Tolerating intolerance will lead to opression in any liberal society; that's why Germany has laws against Volksverhetzung (translates roughly to "incitement of violent hatred in the population"). If you advocate the rule of the superior Aryan Übermensch, you're going to spend some time behind bars; same goes for denying the holocaust or telling people to kill all the Muslim Untermenschen.
Calling intolerance against intolerance irrational is a pointless argument based on formal logic; it's an oxymoron, both for effect and because a logically sound definition would probably require a few semesters of mathematics to properly understand.

Interesting example of intolerance against intolerance: The Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold, the paramilitary force of the supporters of the Weimar Republic

[wierd]

"Incitement of violence" is exactly the crime I was referring to-

EG, you can yourself believe that your extra white skin makes you extra-special all you want. But when you start acting out on that belief, there is a problem.

It is probably true that most people cannot reconcile such a thing internally. "Why should I, a member of the superior race(TM), bother with these inferior men!?" and all that balogna.

Does holding such views make you into a twisted weirdo? Sure does. Does it make you more prone to being a violent offender? Sure does.  Is the crime holding the view though? No.  The crime is acting on the view.

[GlyphGryph]

I'm sorry, but "Intolerance of intolerance" is irrational.

It's perfectly logical. If you're goal is to maximize tolerance, it makes perfect sense to not only oppose intolerance, but to pass laws and create systems specifically aimed at disempowering those who attempt to spread it.

Tolerance, as a permissive ideal, is inherently a weak stance. There are many types of intolerance that can threaten to destroy the delicate balance it creates.

Oppression is the end result of tolerating intolerance, because oppression is simply intolerance with power. It's important to remember what intolerance is (and maybe the problem here is working from different definitions?):
Intolerance is an unwillingness to allow the existence or expression of states and activities contrary to their own beliefs.

This doesn't mean an intolerance for disagreement, because disagreement is not intolerance - you should tolerate people who merely think that gay folk should not get married, because that position is not intolerant. If they begin to advocate legislation to make it impossible for people to do that which they disagree with though, anyone reasonably dedicated to the principles of tolerance and open society should be expected to act against them - to be unwilling to allow them such a victory.

It's like this:
If you believe gay people should not marry each other, but you do not seek to limit them from doing so if they disagree, you are a tolerant person.
If you believe that gay people should be prevented from being able to marry each other, you are engaging in intolerance.
For the tolerant position to obtain dominance, we must seek to suppress the ability for the second group to achieve their desires - we must be intolerant of such behaviour that seeks to expand intolerance.

[LordSlowpoke]

Being personally against gay marriage is "ok", (note the quotes) so long as that personal opinion does not spill out into the streets with pickets and voiolence or into courtrooms with lawyering and corruption.

Part of having freedom of speech is allowing people you disagree with to hold dissenting ideals, and to speak about them.

I am intolerant of oppression, not of intolerance.

* LordSlowpoke claps.

fuck's sakes, it took how long for someone to share my opinion?

Does holding such views make you into a twisted weirdo? Sure does. Does it make you more prone to being a violent offender? Sure does.  Is the crime holding the view though? No.  The crime is acting on the view.

this also!

don't mind me cutting out like 80% of your posts i agree with the whole thing but these are the most important parts for me

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Being personally against gay marriage is "ok", (note the quotes) so long as that personal opinion does not spill out into the streets with pickets and voiolence or into courtrooms with lawyering and corruption.

Does holding such views make you into a twisted weirdo? Sure does. Does it make you more prone to being a violent offender? Sure does.  Is the crime holding the view though? No.  The crime is acting on the view.

Devil's Advocate Mode Engaged
"Personally being gay is "ok" so long as that personal struggle does not spill out into society with avocation of sin or into courtrooms with legislation of immorality. Does holding such attractions make you a twisted weirdo? Sure does. Does it make you more prone to being a sexual criminal? Sure does. Is the sin having the attraction though? No. The sin is acting upon it."

By the way, I hear this almost verbatim from religious people pretty often, so no trying to weasel out of answering.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

The Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold, the paramilitary force of the supporters of the Weimar Republic

Is this organization still around?

[wierd]

Being personally against gay marriage is "ok", (note the quotes) so long as that personal opinion does not spill out into the streets with pickets and voiolence or into courtrooms with lawyering and corruption.

Does holding such views make you into a twisted weirdo? Sure does. Does it make you more prone to being a violent offender? Sure does.  Is the crime holding the view though? No.  The crime is acting on the view.

Devil's Advocate Mode Engaged
"Personally being gay is "ok" so long as that personal struggle does not spill out into society with avocation of sin or into courtrooms with legislation of immorality. Does holding such attractions make you a twisted weirdo? Sure does. Does it make you more prone to being a sexual criminal? Sure does. Is the sin having the attraction though? No. The sin is acting upon it."

By the way, I hear this almost verbatim from religious people pretty often, so no trying to weasel out of answering.

Ahh--- But non-sequitor is a non-sequitor!

See here- There is nothing stopping said religious crazies from forming their own little insular communities elsewhere. You can find this in copious abundance with straight up Amish and Mennonite communities that are more "traditional".

Or, did you NOT know about the practice of Shunning? *updated-- better link

(Has mennonite relatives. Is shunned. Does not care. They are weirdos.)

The difference? The mennonites arent picketing my house insisting that I stop being "English", and that I return to being mennonite like my family on my mom's side are. They leave me alone, and I leave them alone-- everybody's happy.

The "Teh gaynezz makes baby jezuz CWY!" crowd can go make their own little crazyville somewhere, if they feel they cant handle living in a cosmopolitan society. When they try to turn the cosmopolitan society into their own little crazyville, THAT is when there is a problem.

The converse side, is that we cosmopolitans should NOT try to turn their own little crazyville into another cosmopolitanland.

We ignore them. they ignore us. Everybody's happy.

[XXSockXX]

The Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold, the paramilitary force of the supporters of the Weimar Republic

Is this organization still around?

Yes, but of course not as a paramilitary organisation, all of these would be illegal. It apparently still exists as a club promoting democratic values and education.

[GlyphGryph]

Does holding such views make you into a twisted weirdo? Sure does. Does it make you more prone to being a violent offender? Sure does.  Is the crime holding the view though? No.  The crime is acting on the view.

Intolerance is specifically the acting on such beliefs, though. Having a view doesn't make you intolerant - only trying to force others to share the view does. If you disagree with something, but don't try and force others to follow your beliefs, that is what it means to be tolerant!

After all, you can't be "tolerant" of views you agree with, that doesn't make any sense.

Groups like the Amish are a bit of a "safe edge case", in that they are a sort of limited intolerance - they technically don't allow others to do certain things, but it's contingent on voluntary membership - they don't try to stop "people" from doing those things, only members, and the only punishment is losing membership, and while that's a pretty powerful hammer in many cases, their inward-focus means they don't pose a threat to an open society and thus should, themselves, be tolerated.

[Max White]

I also think that it is important to note that if the standard here is that it is fine to be as bigoted as you like, but not to act on that, then it is also unacceptable to vote based on your bigoted belief, as that is an action with very real consequences.

[wierd]

It is possible to convert others using peaceful methods, even when the ideology to which the conversion is going towards is one of "Crazy."

"Crazy" is a relative term. I am sure my mennonite relatives think I am batshit. They may be right!

The difference here, is that they send me a message politely and civilly-- and I return the same message. When they come to my house with a rope and shackles-- thats when there is a problem. Same if they try to pass legal ordinance, which is basically the same thing, just using law instead of rope.

In respect to the gay marriage issue:

If a church preacher/pastor/cleric/$Term decides that they wont officiate a marriage, because the participants are gay-- that is his being faithful to his religion. The gay couple has no right to force that preacher to perform the ceremony. There are other places to get married besides a building associated with religious practice; The priest is empowered to perform weddings; he does not hold a monopoly on the process.

Often times the "Intolerance to intolerance" crowd will demonize, and even victimize these preachers. They are free to practice whatever religious rights and ordinances they want ON THEMSELVES. That means if they assert that they cannot perform a ceremony, they cannot perform the ceremony without violating their own beliefs. It is wrong for the homosexual couple to flip out and demand the service be performed. The gay people do not have that right.

They have the right to get married. They don't have the right to force a church to marry them.