Post by: Desertdog on March 11, 2008, 08:23:42 AM
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=69213
Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, does not think marching in a so-called "gay-pride parade" is a proper venue for the president of the United States.
However, one presidential candidate has made a pledge to do just that Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York). She says that Clinton made her pledge in the Washington Blade a Washington newspaper serving the homosexual community. "...Really now! We've seen these gay pride parades in San Francisco and elsewhere," exclaims Donnelly. "Is this really an appropriate role for the President or the Commander in Chief of our armed forces? I don't think so..."
According to Donnelly, there is virtually no difference between Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) when it comes to advancing the gay and lesbian agenda. Obama recently wrote an open letter to the homosexual community pledging to end the ban on open homosexuals serving in the military, as well as repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
Donnelly says both Clinton and Obama would force the homosexual agenda on American citizens by force of law.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 11, 2008, 08:48:44 AM
Post by: BridgeWalker on March 11, 2008, 09:22:09 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on March 11, 2008, 09:24:09 AM
And those "parades" are pretty damned disgusting, what goes on. It's a parade of fetishes on display.
Post by: HankB on March 11, 2008, 09:52:37 AM
(Hmmm . . . I see a thread closure coming . . . )
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 11, 2008, 09:53:24 AM
I really don't care what people do in their bedrooms, but I don't want to see it.
And those "parades" are pretty damned disgusting, what goes on. It's a parade of fetishes on display.
And those "parades" are pretty damned disgusting, what goes on. It's a parade of fetishes on display.
What fun is a pride parade if it doesn't shock the squares?
Post by: Finch on March 11, 2008, 10:07:27 AM
I really don't care what people do in their bedrooms, but I don't want to see it.
And those "parades" are pretty damned disgusting, what goes on. It's a parade of fetishes on display.
And those "parades" are pretty damned disgusting, what goes on. It's a parade of fetishes on display.
Exactly. I had the unfortunate opportunity to witness one and it wasn't what I was expecting. I thought it was just going to be a civil rights type march with people holding signs and such. Instead I got an eyeful of some guy walking down the street with spiked shoulder pads and a strap-on hanging from his waist.
Post by: Jamisjockey on March 11, 2008, 12:03:49 PM
I really don't care what people do in their bedrooms, but I don't want to see it.
And those "parades" are pretty damned disgusting, what goes on. It's a parade of fetishes on display.
And those "parades" are pretty damned disgusting, what goes on. It's a parade of fetishes on display.
Exactly. I had the unfortunate opportunity to witness one and it wasn't what I was expecting. I thought it was just going to be a civil rights type march with people holding signs and such. Instead I got an eyeful of some guy walking down the street with spiked shoulder pads and a strap-on hanging from his waist.
Yeah I was out on a bike ride through SLC of all places once. Accidentally intercepted the parade route and had to stop a group of men in tu-tus. Got yelled at by a cop for cutting through the paradeers....but we just wanted out of there!
Post by: BrokenPaw on March 11, 2008, 12:05:59 PM
If gay people want to be accepted by society, they need to get on with just being. Being themselves, being part of society, being the mailman or doctor or engineer or what-have-you that you see every day. Being proud of who you are is different from being Proud; the latter implies ostentation, rudeness, and an unseemly belief that all people have to accept all things.
Gay people need to get it into their heads that not everyone will accept them. Ever. Just like we pagans need to deal with the fact that not everyone will accept us. Ever. Marching about it gathers no sympathy; rather it drives the fence-sitters away because it hauls out the dregs of the subdemographic and puts them on display for people.
And because a "Pride" march of any kind is, by its very definition, pot-stirring, it's no place for a Chief Executive.
-BP
Post by: Paddy on March 11, 2008, 03:24:48 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 11, 2008, 03:37:58 PM
Quote
Being proud of who you are is different from being Proud; the latter implies ostentation, rudeness, and an unseemly belief that all people have to accept all things.
Ostentation, rudeness, and sometimes nude-ness.
Post by: BrokenPaw on March 11, 2008, 03:39:40 PM
I agree 100% with Broken Paw. Quite clearly, the Apocalypse is very near.
I'll buy you a beverage of your choice, and we can watch the festivities.
-BP
Post by: Bogie on March 11, 2008, 05:06:56 PM
I'm guessing the thread's still gonna get Irwined... It's gonna be just too easy to be sleazy...
Post by: Fjolnirsson on March 11, 2008, 05:51:22 PM
I had no idea. It was like I'd taken crazy pills. I've seen more normal behavior at a Star Trek convention....
And the President has no business marching in the streets. Good way to give your secret service guys a heart attack.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 11, 2008, 06:09:01 PM
The difference between Tolerance and Acceptance. You can actually get people to tolerate quite a lot of things. You cannot force people to accept those same things without setting up resentment and backlash. Tolerance just means live and let live. Acceptance normally means you agree with it.
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on March 11, 2008, 06:10:38 PM
http://www.claudiocaprara.it/mediamanager/sys.user/38949/Huma%20Abedin.jpg
Shows better taste than Bill, for sure.
Quote
Good way to give your secret service guys a heart attack.
A Gay Pride Parade might just set them into Praetorian Guard mode.
Post by: Bogie on March 11, 2008, 07:15:43 PM
Post by: BridgeWalker on March 11, 2008, 07:21:33 PM
Gotta wonder what she'd make of our pink pistols gunbuddies...
I think her head might explode.
Does. Not. Compute.
Post by: K Frame on March 11, 2008, 07:25:07 PM
Unfortunately far too many people believe that tolerance equals acceptance.
Post by: Strings on March 11, 2008, 07:53:29 PM
Worked a Pagan Pride Day several years ago (for a group collecting books to send to the troops in the sandbox). I hope to never see such a weird group of folks again...
Can y'all imagine a "Gun Pride Parade"?
Post by: seeker_two on March 12, 2008, 01:20:38 AM
Can y'all imagine a "Gun Pride Parade"?
Count me in.....
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 12, 2008, 01:22:41 AM
Gotta agree with BP here: Pride events are scary places...
Worked a Pagan Pride Day several years ago (for a group collecting books to send to the troops in the sandbox). I hope to never see such a weird group of folks again...
Can y'all imagine a "Gun Pride Parade"?
Worked a Pagan Pride Day several years ago (for a group collecting books to send to the troops in the sandbox). I hope to never see such a weird group of folks again...
Can y'all imagine a "Gun Pride Parade"?
This was tried, without success, by a crazy fellow from Colorado.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 12, 2008, 10:34:31 PM
Gotta agree with BP here: Pride events are scary places...
Worked a Pagan Pride Day several years ago (for a group collecting books to send to the troops in the sandbox). I hope to never see such a weird group of folks again...
Can y'all imagine a "Gun Pride Parade"?
Worked a Pagan Pride Day several years ago (for a group collecting books to send to the troops in the sandbox). I hope to never see such a weird group of folks again...
Can y'all imagine a "Gun Pride Parade"?
Sure. Everyone marching with their rifle of choice at port arms.
And then, later, the police breaking up fights between groups of AK vs AR adherents and JMB vs Glock devotees.
Post by: Pew pew pew on March 12, 2008, 10:43:33 PM
At the same time, I believe that I should be able to walk down the street and hold my boyfriend's hand and be open about the fact that I just happen to like men if it's relevant - but, damnit, I don't see a reason to wear a goddamn strap-on in the street. Sorry. (I find PDA beyond a quick peck or hand holding and the like to be gross from anyone.)
I don't know. I feel like an anomaly in the gay "community" sometimes.
Post by: seeker_two on March 13, 2008, 01:23:09 AM
And then, later, the police breaking up fights between groups of AK vs AR adherents and JMB vs Glock devotees.
...and don't forget the epic clashes b/t the 9mm's and the .45's that just didn't stop.....
Post by: longeyes on March 13, 2008, 08:22:01 AM
Post by: Scout26 on March 13, 2008, 08:38:07 AM
Quote
Can y'all imagine a "Gun Pride Parade"?
I was just in one on Tuesday at IGOLD (Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day). We marched from the Hilton to the Capitol (about 7-8 blocks). No guns, just flags and some signs. (including one Ron Paul goofball, fortunately not in a Wookie or Star Trek outfit). When we got to the Capitol, before we went in to lobby, the ISRA director thanked the Springfield Police (and we gave them a round of applause) and apologized to them and the people of Springfield for tying up traffic for the 15-20 minutes it took 2500 people to walk there.
But back to the OP, it'll give Hillary a chance to come out of the closet.
Post by: seeker_two on March 13, 2008, 12:31:57 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on March 13, 2008, 12:35:58 PM
Tolerance and acceptance are two VERY different things.
Unfortunately far too many people believe that tolerance equals acceptance.
Count me as one of them.Unfortunately far too many people believe that tolerance equals acceptance.
Why don't you delineate the difference.
Post by: BrokenPaw on March 13, 2008, 02:20:22 PM
Quote
tol?er?ance /ˈtɒlərəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tol-er-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
noun
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
Acceptance:
Quote
ac?cept?ance /?kˈsɛptəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ak-sep-tuhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun
1. the act of taking or receiving something offered.
2. favorable reception; approval; favor.
noun
1. the act of taking or receiving something offered.
2. favorable reception; approval; favor.
The difference between tolerance and acceptance is the difference between a "live and let live" attitude, and the embracing of ideas as one's own.
I do not have to accept my neighbor's religion, but I do have to tolerate it.
-BP
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 13, 2008, 06:59:52 PM
Somebody once said that people don't become more tolerant, they just choose different targets for their intolerance. I don't know if this is true universally, but it certainly holds true for the American left.
Post by: Tecumseh on March 13, 2008, 07:14:56 PM
And the President has no business marching in the streets. Good way to give your secret service guys a heart attack.
So by taking the job as President of the United States, you have to give up your first amendment rights?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 13, 2008, 07:43:49 PM
And the President has no business marching in the streets. Good way to give your secret service guys a heart attack.
So by taking the job as President of the United States, you have to give up your first amendment rights?Besides, does anyone believe Hillary would go to a gay pride march because she enjoys the festivities? It's an obvious attempt at pandering. Doesn't this insult the gay pride folks?
Gun owners and hunters were insulted and disgusted when Kerry claimed to hunt dear by crawling through the mud. Why would it be any different for gays?
Post by: wooderson on March 13, 2008, 07:55:31 PM
Post by: Tecumseh on March 13, 2008, 08:50:15 PM
Hey! Welcome back, Tecumseh. We missed you!
Nope, you don't lose your first amendment rights when you become Prez. But what you can do by right, and what you ought to do, are often two entirely different things. This is especially true of the POTUS, where public discretion matters a great deal more than in private life. If you're POTUS, you should be smart enough to stay away from any of the confrontational and antagonistic "pride" marches.
Besides, does anyone believe Hillary would go to a gay pride march because she enjoys the festivities? It's an obvious attempt at pandering. Doesn't this insult the gay pride folks?
Gun owners and hunters were insulted and disgusted when Kerry claimed to hunt dear by crawling through the mud. Why would it be any different for gays?
So it is wrong for politicians to pander? All politicians do it. I have been to the pride parade here in town as well as some of the others back home in Chicago and I did not feel it was confrontational and antagonistic. Either way she should have a chance to march if she wants. I would argue that we can look at Herr Bush and the way he antagonizes the country. And the President has no business marching in the streets. Good way to give your secret service guys a heart attack.
So by taking the job as President of the United States, you have to give up your first amendment rights?Besides, does anyone believe Hillary would go to a gay pride march because she enjoys the festivities? It's an obvious attempt at pandering. Doesn't this insult the gay pride folks?
Gun owners and hunters were insulted and disgusted when Kerry claimed to hunt dear by crawling through the mud. Why would it be any different for gays?
Either way I dont think is an insult. If it is than Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. as well as numerous other people have insulted us gunowners.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 14, 2008, 04:08:41 AM
Tolerance:
Acceptance:
The difference between tolerance and acceptance is the difference between a "live and let live" attitude, and the embracing of ideas as one's own.
I do not have to accept my neighbor's religion, but I do have to tolerate it.
-BP
That doesnt really cover it.Quote
tol?er?ance /ˈtɒlərəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tol-er-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
noun
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
Acceptance:
Quote
ac?cept?ance /?kˈsɛptəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ak-sep-tuhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun
1. the act of taking or receiving something offered.
2. favorable reception; approval; favor.
noun
1. the act of taking or receiving something offered.
2. favorable reception; approval; favor.
The difference between tolerance and acceptance is the difference between a "live and let live" attitude, and the embracing of ideas as one's own.
I do not have to accept my neighbor's religion, but I do have to tolerate it.
-BP
A "live and let live" attitude implies an acceptability of the philosophy or dogma. If my neighbor is a neo-Nazi I might not actively picket his house or throw Molotiv cocktails, but if I dont do what I reasonably can to counter that, then I am tolerating it, and by extension accepting it.
Post by: BrokenPaw on March 14, 2008, 04:35:51 AM
Acceptance would require that you embrace or support those beliefs. That's a different thing entirely, and I think everyone here would be behind you when you chose not to do that.
Now, I'll grant you that there are plenty out there who preach "tolerance" when they really mean "acceptance". That's a separate issue.
-BP
Post by: MechAg94 on March 14, 2008, 06:51:55 AM
Tolerance = Live and Let Live or "I won't form a mob and come lynch you" or Respect that they also have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Acceptance = To me this generally means approval or agreement or support for someone else's position/views/culture.
IMO, you can hate someone with a pure passion and still tolerate them. Acceptance implies a bit more than that.
I don't have to approve of or agree with the lifestyle of a homosexual (for example) or even associate with them if I choose, but I can and will leave them alone and respect their right to choose their own path with the expectation that they will do the same for me and others. I guess "Neo-Nazi" fits in that as well.
If you have a different view, that is fine. It is just the way I use the words.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 14, 2008, 07:35:07 AM
Not so. Your neighbor has a right to believe whatever it is that he chooses to believe. To, his rights require that you tolerate his beliefs; to wit, you do not take action that mitigates those rights.
Acceptance would require that you embrace or support those beliefs. That's a different thing entirely, and I think everyone here would be behind you when you chose not to do that.
Now, I'll grant you that there are plenty out there who preach "tolerance" when they really mean "acceptance". That's a separate issue.
-BP
Acceptance would require that you embrace or support those beliefs. That's a different thing entirely, and I think everyone here would be behind you when you chose not to do that.
Now, I'll grant you that there are plenty out there who preach "tolerance" when they really mean "acceptance". That's a separate issue.
-BP
Why does he have a right to believe whatever he wants? I reject that notion.
And if I dont outright reject something, then I am ipso facto endorsing it as a viable alternative.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 14, 2008, 07:58:52 AM
I reject your implied control over my beliefs.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 14, 2008, 07:59:35 AM
So do you want a law passed saying he can't believe that?
I reject your implied control over my beliefs.
He can believe anything he wants. He just can't express it in public.
I reject your implied control over my beliefs.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 14, 2008, 08:01:28 AM
Post by: BrokenPaw on March 14, 2008, 08:09:47 AM
Quote
Why does he have a right to believe whatever he wants?
Self-contradiction, two posts later:
Quote
He can believe anything he wants.
"He can believe anything he wants." That's tolerance.
"He's right." That would be acceptance.
Tolerance is the one that's required, to avoid hypocrisy. Acceptance is not required.
-BP
Post by: Dntsycnt on March 14, 2008, 08:35:39 AM
I'm not making accusations, just exploring the idea as it has been expressed.
Post by: keeleon on March 14, 2008, 08:43:24 AM
Quote
He can believe anything he wants. He just can't express it in public.
And yet you stated that you would feel wrong in your own mind if you didn't express your opinion ON his opinion in public.
To me the difference is tolerance is when you see something you don't like, and just walk away from it. Acceptance is when you see something that you might not like but grow to "accept" it and maybe even smile if you see it. "Intolerance" is when you voice your disapproval for it. No one is saying that your not allowed to be intolerant of neo-nazis, and hell I agree with you of not "tolerating" them, as I don't either. I will tell them to back the eff off. I "accept" gay people, however, because while I don't "agree" with it, I have several gay friends that I don't mind hanging out with as long as they don't throw it in my face. I "accept" them existing as gay, but I "tolerate" when they do "gay" things. But that's where the difference is. Just don't say you are "tolerant" of everyone when you actually aren't. I don't think that we should have to be. Everyone preaches "tolerance" but who says we even have to? They should have the same rights as all other human beings, true, but we shouldn't have to like it when they flaunt their differences in our face.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 14, 2008, 09:32:38 AM
Quote
He can believe anything he wants. He just can't express it in public.
And yet you stated that you would feel wrong in your own mind if you didn't express your opinion ON his opinion in public.
And your point is?
Post by: Paddy on March 14, 2008, 09:41:18 AM
Quote
Are the members of the Westboro Crazy Bastards therefore "tolerant"?
No, they are not tolerant. The root cause for intolerance and injustice is ignorance. In their case, that ignorance goes all the way to the bone. Now I won't try to second guess God, because I have no idea what He will do. But I certainly wouldn't want to be in their shoes when it comes time for them to account to Him.
Post by: Ex-MA Hole on March 14, 2008, 09:52:12 AM
I would argue that we can look at Herr Bush and the way he antagonizes the country.
Tecumseh, welcome back. Please note Mike Irwin's sticky at the top of this particular forum.
Thank you.
Post by: roo_ster on March 14, 2008, 10:26:16 AM
Many folks nowdays use the word "tolerance" but really mean "acceptance."
In today's PC multi-cultist milieu, the worst sins are "intolerance" and being "judgmental." No thought is given to the consequences.
=======
As you might expect, I urinate on the PC multi-cultist POV. I heap derision on it and bash it over the head with contempt.
This whole notion that we are required to tolerate anything and everything is a tool developed and used by those who would destroy W civ.
Some things are intolerable.
Take, for example, TR's Hypothetical Neo-nazi Neighbor (HNN). Why should TR keep his mouth shut when HNN goes off on a HNN rant? Why should he tolerate HNN in the "fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward" sense? Why should TR not use the means available to him to run HNN out of town on a rail?
I would draw the line at physical violence to persons or property and the use of the law to silence HNN. Pretty much every other tool ought to be considered fair game, especially the use of TR's speech/writing, social stigma, social discrimination*, refusal to do business with, etc.
Such tools can and ought to be used against those whose views are antithetical to Western civ in general, and American constitutional republicanism in particular. Why tolerate the speech of those who would end our freedom to speak? Such is deserving of all the social brickbats the community can muster.
The freedom of speech does not come with a freedom from criticism codicil. Same thing goes for legal actions: just because it is legal does not grant immunity from criticism.
* Another fine word and practice deplored by the self-anointed
Post by: keeleon on March 14, 2008, 11:13:07 AM
Quote
And your point is?
My point is that it is not fair of you to state that he is "not allowed" to express his beliefs publicly, when in the next breath you state that you feel obligated to PUBLICLY EXPRESS your disapproval of his opinions. You are both entitle to your opinions, and as long ass neither one of you causes harm to anyone else then you can do whatever you want. Of course, since most neo-nazis promote violence, and I'm sure you don't it is a moot point. But he can march and protest just as much as you. Again I state that I personally do not tolerate that kind of behavior either, but I also don't state that they shouldn't be allowed to display their opinion either. If their opinion causes people to be hurt or harmed, then yes they do need to stop.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 14, 2008, 01:07:33 PM
Quote
And your point is?
My point is that it is not fair of you to state that he is "not allowed" to express his beliefs publicly, when in the next breath you state that you feel obligated to PUBLICLY EXPRESS your disapproval of his opinions. You are both entitle to your opinions, and as long ass neither one of you causes harm to anyone else then you can do whatever you want. Of course, since most neo-nazis promote violence, and I'm sure you don't it is a moot point. But he can march and protest just as much as you. Again I state that I personally do not tolerate that kind of behavior either, but I also don't state that they shouldn't be allowed to display their opinion either. If their opinion causes people to be hurt or harmed, then yes they do need to stop.
No, we cant say that some opinions are worth more than others. That'd be undemocratic, dontchaknow. We cant say that some opinions dont deserve the time of day or to be expressed. That some opinions are just flat out wrong. No, no. Every opinion is equal to every other opinion. It may not be right for me, but it might be right for you.
I evacuate myself all over such a stance.
Post by: Strings on March 14, 2008, 01:49:55 PM
At current, your Hypothetical Neo-Nazi Neighbor's beliefs are looked at by our society with contempt: while he has a right to his beliefs, and the right to express his opinion, most in society would look on those beliefs with contempt. On the other hand, your "anti-Nazi" beliefs are considered acceptable, even commendable.
But what happens if/when society shifts, and the acceptability of those beliefs switch?
Right now, you're (basically) advocating the violation of one's First Amendment rights because the viewpoint espoused is unpopular. But, if we do that to THIS set of beliefs, are you going to be so supporting of such violations when the shoe's on the other foot? It IS within the realm of possibility that antisemitism could become "socially acceptable", at which point the roles reverse.
For that matter, what about "pro-gun" views? Conservative views in general? There's a fairly large portion of society right now that sees such as "dangerous", and "not worth protecting". Where, exactly, do you draw the line there?
Going back to your Hypothetical Neo-Nazi, I think I can illustrate the point (and how I look at it). If all he's doing is saying "The Nazis had the best form of government.", or even just "The Nazis made the most scientific advancements.", then we pretty much have to let him go ahead and believe/say what he wants (of course, we are well within our rights to point and laugh). If, however, he started with things like "The Nazis should have been allowed to finish the job.", or "The Jews are subhuman, and should be locked away from society.", then something needs to be done to kinda keep him quiet.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 14, 2008, 01:55:45 PM
Post by: Strings on March 14, 2008, 02:05:59 PM
Wasn't all that long ago that anti-Semitism was consdiered "acceptable". Times changed, and now it's not. But we could go back to that...
Basically, if you deny the rights to one, you deny the rights to all. Not the world I want to live in. YMMV
Post by: The Rabbi on March 14, 2008, 02:09:22 PM
It's not a fallacy.
Wasn't all that long ago that anti-Semitism was consdiered "acceptable". Times changed, and now it's not. But we could go back to that...
Basically, if you deny the rights to one, you deny the rights to all. Not the world I want to live in. YMMV
Wasn't all that long ago that anti-Semitism was consdiered "acceptable". Times changed, and now it's not. But we could go back to that...
Basically, if you deny the rights to one, you deny the rights to all. Not the world I want to live in. YMMV
You're right: it isn't slippery slope,its the fallacy of the beard. What a great term.
Yes, if we dont accept this horrible opinion as valid, then we can't accept even good opinions as valid. Sounds pretty fallacious to me.
Quote
Slippery Slope
Alias:
* Argument of the Beard
* Fallacy of the Beard
Quote&
&f once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination. Once begin upon this downward path, you never know where you are to stop. Many a man has dated his ruin from some murder or other that perhaps he thought little of at the time.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html
Alias:
* Argument of the Beard
* Fallacy of the Beard
Quote&
&f once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination. Once begin upon this downward path, you never know where you are to stop. Many a man has dated his ruin from some murder or other that perhaps he thought little of at the time.
Post by: Strings on March 14, 2008, 02:34:26 PM
ANY opinion is "valid", as opinions can't be wrong (by the simple fact that they aren't required to BE fact)
Wait a sec... why AM I bothering to argue with you?
Post by: BrokenPaw on March 14, 2008, 04:22:04 PM
No one is suggesting that this hypothetical neo-Nazi's opinions are "acceptable". They're saying he has a right to have them.
If you suggest that he does not have a right to his opinions, then you support the idea of thought-crime. Anyone who has an opinion that is not on your short list of "acceptable" would therefore be subject to sanction. I defy you to answer Strings' challenge; what sanctions would all of us be under, for having viewpoints that The Rabbi, Ultimate Arbiter Of What We May Think, finds to be unacceptable?
Tolerance of someone's ideas and acceptance of them are not the same thing. Yet you argue as if they are. Is this mere unwillingness to accept that your viewpoint is not logically consistent, or is it deliberate obduracy?
-BP
Post by: Tuco on March 14, 2008, 06:34:26 PM
When trying to reconcile event/positions/colors/opinions/incidents within the psyche, one must first acknowledge they happened,
e.g. "I accept that the Rabbi voices strong opinions on economics here on APS"
That happens. I can't change it. I don't have to like it.
Acceptance is an intermediate step between stimulus and passing judgment.
Acceptance acknowledges fact. Period.
Approval is favorable judgment.
e.g. "I approve of the Rabbi using APS to pass his economic opinions as fact. And he's got a friendly, persuasive tone."
Approval is the acknowledgment that I can agree with a certain set of opinions/motivators/politics/theories.
Two different things, approval and acceptance.
Learn that and live life a little easier.
Helpful soakers.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 15, 2008, 04:52:18 PM
Ok Rabbi, then outline what you consider "acceptable" viewpoints. Let's see how many points would strip me (and quite a few other members here) of our rights in Rabbiland.
ANY opinion is "valid", as opinions can't be wrong (by the simple fact that they aren't required to BE fact)
Wait a sec... why AM I bothering to argue with you?
ANY opinion is "valid", as opinions can't be wrong (by the simple fact that they aren't required to BE fact)
Wait a sec... why AM I bothering to argue with you?
No, any opinion is not valid. Some opinions are simply wrong. Demonstrably so. No one should be prosecuted for holding opinions. They should be prosecuted for expressing them.
Why are you bothering to argue with me? I don't know, since you are wrong.
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 15, 2008, 05:11:28 PM
Closed.