Overreach

goldfly said:
if you actively try to make laws to treat others not as equal as i am and others, i don't see how that isn't anything but hate

it's insane to think in this country that someone can say "hey, we want to be equal as you" and there are a lot of people that go "nope"

and then hide behind bull**** arguments of tyranny and freedom

it makes light of actual tyranny and dilutes the word freedom
Click to expand...

Do you even realize that you said that you're in favor of not allowing people to think a certain way?
 
thethe said:
Do you even realize that you said that you're in favor of not allowing people to think a certain way?
Click to expand...

Nope. That's the power of the leftists platform.

"We are tolerant (of those that vote with us). If you disagree with us you must be intolerant."

It never enters their mind that they are being intolerant. That's as impossible as a minority being a racist, it just can't happen.
 
Jaw said:
Nope. That's the power of the leftists platform.

"We are tolerant (of those that vote with us). If you disagree with us you must be intolerant."

It never enters their mind that they are being intolerant. That's as impossible as a minority being a racist, it just can't happen.
Click to expand...

It's scary that this became the 'enlightened' position. No longer.
 
i don't give a flying **** about the statement

you can name it whatever you want
 
Jaw said:
Nope. That's the power of the leftists platform.

"We are tolerant (of those that vote with us). If you disagree with us you must be intolerant."

It never enters their mind that they are being intolerant. That's as impossible as a minority being a racist, it just can't happen.
Click to expand...

But that runs both ways. I am in my 60s and I remember when the whole political correctness argument ran the other way. If you weren't in favor of bombing the Vietnamese back to the Stone Age, you were considered a communist sympathizer. The whole Red Scare thing was alive and well and ruined many careers in the 1950s and 1960s.

I somewhat agree with the effect of the original article. My problem is "Where does it end?" I know sturg33 will come in with his property rights argument that any business should be able to refuse any customer (and while I don't agree with that, there is an intellectual argument that supports that stance), but in reality, once you enter a free market economy that promotes the free movement of business without barriers, you make a tacit agreement to operate totally in the marketplace. It seems here is that some supposed free marketeers believe in the concept of the free market only to the extent it doesn't offend their sensibilities. I can see all sorts of enterprises using the cover of religion to justify a number of activities that will further divide this country by allowing religious (and I use the term very loosely) to basically secede from the social contract.

But there's no question that high profile confrontations should have been avoided given the volatile nature of the issue.

thethe, you better look up the definition of tyranny.
 
goldfly said:
i don't give a flying **** about the statement

you can name it whatever you want
Click to expand...

Yes, it's clear that you don't care at all about forcing people to think in a singular way which is closely aligned with how you feel is the right way. And of course you don't think there is anything g wrong with that. I very much understand your stance and I'm glad it's out in the open.
 
50PoundHead said:
But that runs both ways. I am in my 60s and I remember when the whole political correctness argument ran the other way. If you weren't in favor of bombing the Vietnamese back to the Stone Age, you were considered a communist sympathizer. The whole Red Scare thing was alive and well and ruined many careers in the 1950s and 1960s.

I somewhat agree with the effect of the original article. My problem is "Where does it end?" I know sturg33 will come in with his property rights argument that any business should be able to refuse any customer (and while I don't agree with that, there is an intellectual argument that supports that stance), but in reality, once you enter a free market economy that promotes the free movement of business without barriers, you make a tacit agreement to operate totally in the marketplace. It seems here is that some supposed free marketeers believe in the concept of the free market only to the extent it doesn't offend their sensibilities. I can see all sorts of enterprises using the cover of religion to justify a number of activities that will further divide this country by allowing religious (and I use the term very loosely) to basically secede from the social contract.

But there's no question that high profile confrontations should have been avoided given the volatile nature of the issue.

thethe, you better look up the definition of tyranny.
Click to expand...

What else would you call the desire to control people's thoughts? Thats one of the most dangerous position I've ever heard someone take on this political board.
 
cool

glad we could go take that time to make sure i'm on the record for not being on the side of thinking it's ok to treat people as 2nd class citizens.

what a dishonor to be on the record for that

i'm so ashamed

but your slippery slope argument and false use of tyranny was such a blast
 
thethe said:
Yes, it's clear that you don't care at all about forcing people to think in a singular way which is closely aligned with how you feel is the right way. And of course you don't think there is anything g wrong with that. I very much understand your stance and I'm glad it's out in the open.
Click to expand...

It's not thinking in a singular way! It's asking people to recognize the rights that people have to participate in the economy. goldfly isn't saying everyone has to order vanilla ice cream. He's saying everyone should be allowed in the ice cream shop to order the flavor they prefer. Do I have that right goldfly?
 
50PoundHead said:
thethe, you better look up the definition of tyranny.
Click to expand...

medal.gif
 
50PoundHead said:
It's not thinking in a singular way! It's asking people to recognize the rights that people have to participate in the economy. goldfly isn't saying everyone has to order vanilla ice cream. He's saying everyone should be allowed in the ice cream shop to order the flavor they prefer. Do I have that right goldfly?
Click to expand...

yep
 
50PoundHead said:
It's not thinking in a singular way! It's asking people to recognize the rights that people have to participate in the economy. goldfly isn't saying everyone has to order vanilla ice cream. He's saying everyone should be allowed in the ice cream shop to order the flavor they prefer. Do I have that right goldfly?
Click to expand...

Of course everyone should be allowed in the shop. I've never said otherwise. But not everyone should be forced to feel everyone should be allowed. I would nevery be in favor of taking someone property rights away or the freedom to live free of physical harm as well as extreme mental harm.

But in now way should people ever be forced to think a certain way even if their beliefs are repugnant.
 
The statement literally was not allowing the freedom for someone to hate. That is legislation of thought is it not?
 
sturg33 said:
Not being able to get your cake anywhere you want isn't things being forced on you.

My boss is gay, and my colleague is catholic. Over drinks they discuss their beliefs and why they believe them. I think she is wrong, but in no world does she "hate" like is commonly being thrown around by goldy. "Hate" will be the new "racist" when it comes to just crying wolf over and over and over again until it loses its meaning
Click to expand...

When hate means anything it means nothing.
 
thethe said:
Of course everyone should be allowed in the shop. I've never said otherwise. But not everyone should be forced to feel everyone should be allowed. I would nevery be in favor of taking someone property rights away or the freedom to live free of physical harm as well as extreme mental harm.

But in now way should people ever be forced to think a certain way even if their beliefs are repugnant.
Click to expand...

Everyone has the freedom to believe what they want to believe, but there are--and should be--limits to how people act of those beliefs. I am not a racist, but some are. If I believe that people of a different race are ruining society, should I be allowed to chastise them and make their lives miserable. There is a distinct difference between what one believes and how one acts. Just because I don't believe that a certain stretch of road shouldn't have a 30 mph speed limit doesn't give me the right to drive 60. It's called a social contract. We all give up something to gain something else.
 
BedellBrave said:
When hate means anything it means nothing.
Click to expand...

Agree here, but we now live in a society wrought with hyperbole. It pervades our life daily. One can't say they simply enjoyed the meal. They have to tell the host that it was stupendous for fear of offending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top