Full Version: Tolerance
The concept of tolerance is one that most people can appreciate. Different people have different views, different skin colors, different languages, and many other differences.
But why is tolerance towards some groups expected, while tolerance of other groups is frowned upon?
I think there exists a lack of tolerance towards people who are religious, particularly Christian. LINK
There is a sense of intolerance towards those who support freedom of association (ie those who argue that certain forms of discrimination should be allowed).
Meanwhile, there is a general feeling that groups advocating gay sex (which you must admit is a controversial issue to most Americans) should be 100% tolerated. Indeed, it is almost an assumption that their views are the correct ones.
Question for debate: Do you feel that there is more tolerance for Left Wing views than Right Wing views?
But why is tolerance towards some groups expected, while tolerance of other groups is frowned upon?
I think there exists a lack of tolerance towards people who are religious, particularly Christian. LINK
There is a sense of intolerance towards those who support freedom of association (ie those who argue that certain forms of discrimination should be allowed).
Meanwhile, there is a general feeling that groups advocating gay sex (which you must admit is a controversial issue to most Americans) should be 100% tolerated. Indeed, it is almost an assumption that their views are the correct ones.
Question for debate: Do you feel that there is more tolerance for Left Wing views than Right Wing views?
Quite a question,
And i would say it depends on who you talk to or are looking at for reference.
for example, if we were looking at the President (the leader of our country, and thus representative of the nation). i would say there are more tolerances for more right wing views. considering his recent stand against gay marriage, his advocating christian ideals, etc.
on the other hand, the press and large amounts of the populance (especially here in northern california), there seems to be more tolerance for Left wing issues. The gay lifestyle is accepted with open arms, christian leaders are looked at as judgemental bigots, and the military is looked down upon as a terrible institution that is doing nothing but wreck havoc upon the world.
you can find people that will support both sides. but politically speaking, the loudest people i have heard, have been the people who are more tolerent of the left wing views.
And i would say it depends on who you talk to or are looking at for reference.
for example, if we were looking at the President (the leader of our country, and thus representative of the nation). i would say there are more tolerances for more right wing views. considering his recent stand against gay marriage, his advocating christian ideals, etc.
on the other hand, the press and large amounts of the populance (especially here in northern california), there seems to be more tolerance for Left wing issues. The gay lifestyle is accepted with open arms, christian leaders are looked at as judgemental bigots, and the military is looked down upon as a terrible institution that is doing nothing but wreck havoc upon the world.
you can find people that will support both sides. but politically speaking, the loudest people i have heard, have been the people who are more tolerent of the left wing views.
I could not use your link for some reason, So I don't know what it says.
Which is really too bad, because I would like to know how religious groups are being oppressed. I have never seen anyones right to be christian taken away. No where have I seen someone deny a person because of his religious affiliation.
However, I have seen people who couldn't marry because they were gay. I disagree that Gay groups have the 100% support from ALL americans. Trust me, there are enough people trying to shoot down gay movements right now. I was surprised that Gays werent even allowed to participate in a very conservative practice (marriage).
Usually its the religious movements that are the opressors. The pope right now is trying to stop gay marriages in the United States.
Back a couple of years ago, a priest and his followers gathered a whole bunch of Satanic material and burned it. What was that material? A childs card game, Pokemon.
Anti-Abortionist (Extremist, but religon plays a huge role in here), shoot various people who are violating their religious code.
Where is the tolerance for Gay marriage, where is the tolerance for Pokemon, where is the tolerance for LEGAL abortion?
I dont know if christians aren't being tolerated, but they certainly aren't ones to be teaching anyone lessons in tolerance.
Which is really too bad, because I would like to know how religious groups are being oppressed. I have never seen anyones right to be christian taken away. No where have I seen someone deny a person because of his religious affiliation.
However, I have seen people who couldn't marry because they were gay. I disagree that Gay groups have the 100% support from ALL americans. Trust me, there are enough people trying to shoot down gay movements right now. I was surprised that Gays werent even allowed to participate in a very conservative practice (marriage).
Usually its the religious movements that are the opressors. The pope right now is trying to stop gay marriages in the United States.
Back a couple of years ago, a priest and his followers gathered a whole bunch of Satanic material and burned it. What was that material? A childs card game, Pokemon.
Anti-Abortionist (Extremist, but religon plays a huge role in here), shoot various people who are violating their religious code.
Where is the tolerance for Gay marriage, where is the tolerance for Pokemon, where is the tolerance for LEGAL abortion?
I dont know if christians aren't being tolerated, but they certainly aren't ones to be teaching anyone lessons in tolerance.
QUOTE
Anti-Abortionist (Extremist, but religon plays a huge role in here), shoot various people who are violating their religious code.
The majority of Anti-Abortionist do NOT agree with killing doctors who preform abortions!
I myself am Pro-Choice, but please do NOT put my mother and other decent Christians into that MINUTE group of extremists, who OBVIOUSLY do not understand what the Anti-Abortion movement is about: PRESERVING LIFE.
The link isn't working for me now, either. Hmm.
Anyway the story was about a religious litmus test for judicial nominees. The litmus test is failed by anyone espousing a Christian outlook.
Here are other links: Democrats try to impose a religious test on judges
Faith and Culture: Religious Litmus Test for Judges?
Religious Discrimination At Heart of Judicial Nominee Battles
Anyway the story was about a religious litmus test for judicial nominees. The litmus test is failed by anyone espousing a Christian outlook.
Here are other links: Democrats try to impose a religious test on judges
Faith and Culture: Religious Litmus Test for Judges?
Religious Discrimination At Heart of Judicial Nominee Battles
I got the link to work. It is a speech by Orrin Hatch defending a supreme court nominee, a Baptist, who some leftist types are afraid of.
Interesting, since it was pro-slavery Baptists who helped run the Mormons out of Missouri. The Mormons would not come down on their side of that issue, and were even sounding like abolitionists at times. Doctrinal differences were only part of the conflict between the locals and the Mormons.
But as to the current spat, it sounds like an attempt at revenge by extreme liberals who feel that the religious right has been inolerant of them.
Intolerance by the religious is practically universal, despite the clear examples given by Christ in the New Testament gospels. It is payback time, and will be as long as the Christians remain so militant in their efforts to condemn others.
Interesting, since it was pro-slavery Baptists who helped run the Mormons out of Missouri. The Mormons would not come down on their side of that issue, and were even sounding like abolitionists at times. Doctrinal differences were only part of the conflict between the locals and the Mormons.
But as to the current spat, it sounds like an attempt at revenge by extreme liberals who feel that the religious right has been inolerant of them.
Intolerance by the religious is practically universal, despite the clear examples given by Christ in the New Testament gospels. It is payback time, and will be as long as the Christians remain so militant in their efforts to condemn others.
A Christian judge makes decisions of much importance and therefore they're positions and ethics should be questioned. A person's views on what they like or should be able to do are private and should be tolerated.
I've never seen a hate crime against someone because they were straight or Christian conservative. I've never seen Planned Parenthood bomb a church. Right wing views are mostly tolerated unless they are incredibly extreme. Although there is distaste for radical Christianity by some atheist liberals like myself. I think that's because the extreme Christian view sometimes is we have all the answers and if we disagree you're going to hell. No gay man is saying straight people are going to hell. The radical Christian outlook on social liberty is therefore isn't appreciated by atheist liberals. It is tolerated.
On the other hand left wing views like socialism or communism aren't tolerated in most of America. Just look at Ann Coulter's book where she accuses liberals of treason. As an answer to the question, the opposite is true in most of America.
I've never seen a hate crime against someone because they were straight or Christian conservative. I've never seen Planned Parenthood bomb a church. Right wing views are mostly tolerated unless they are incredibly extreme. Although there is distaste for radical Christianity by some atheist liberals like myself. I think that's because the extreme Christian view sometimes is we have all the answers and if we disagree you're going to hell. No gay man is saying straight people are going to hell. The radical Christian outlook on social liberty is therefore isn't appreciated by atheist liberals. It is tolerated.
On the other hand left wing views like socialism or communism aren't tolerated in most of America. Just look at Ann Coulter's book where she accuses liberals of treason. As an answer to the question, the opposite is true in most of America.
QUOTE(Billy Jean @ Aug 1 2003, 07:26 PM)
QUOTE
Anti-Abortionist (Extremist, but religon plays a huge role in here), shoot various people who are violating their religious code.
The majority of Anti-Abortionist do NOT agree with killing doctors who preform abortions!
I myself am Pro-Choice, but please do NOT put my mother and other decent Christians into that MINUTE group of extremists, who OBVIOUSLY do not understand what the Anti-Abortion movement is about: PRESERVING LIFE. Agreed. I meant extremist.
Your right though, most anti-abortionist are obviously not for shooting others.
Extremists of any kind are fine as long as they respect other people's autonomy. What I think irritates liberals is people taking the moral high ground on other people's choices.
I personally do not prescribe to a religious philosophy but I respect those who do. The faith people can exhibit when their god is obviously laughing at them (sorry) is damn impressive. The one thing that makes me painfully angry is people assuming they have a god given duty to turn people to their way of life.
This is why extremist right wingers appear revolting bigots and religious terrorists get so little sympathy. If we could all just respect other people's choice to act as they wish as long as it does not damage others then the world would be a happy place. Of course the line on what is damaging another person is hard to place put a little more institutional effort might be nice.
On the subject of abortions I have one opinion that I feel strongly. Up until about 6 months into pregnancy foetuses are not self aware in the human/animal sense. They respond to sensory information with base instinctive reactions no more advanced than plants. Why a mother should not be able stop the creation of an unwanted child is beyond me. Even if they are 'alive' in some basic sense they have no physical experience to compare life and death. They can't have any fear of death and a life time of disability or lack of love can't really compare.
As a last word I think its hilarious for the Christian church to try and marginalise homosexuality which was a feature of almost every civilization before and after Christ. I you want a discussion about unnatural love between two men read Plato's Symposium, he undoubtedly argues it better than i could.
I personally do not prescribe to a religious philosophy but I respect those who do. The faith people can exhibit when their god is obviously laughing at them (sorry) is damn impressive. The one thing that makes me painfully angry is people assuming they have a god given duty to turn people to their way of life.
This is why extremist right wingers appear revolting bigots and religious terrorists get so little sympathy. If we could all just respect other people's choice to act as they wish as long as it does not damage others then the world would be a happy place. Of course the line on what is damaging another person is hard to place put a little more institutional effort might be nice.
On the subject of abortions I have one opinion that I feel strongly. Up until about 6 months into pregnancy foetuses are not self aware in the human/animal sense. They respond to sensory information with base instinctive reactions no more advanced than plants. Why a mother should not be able stop the creation of an unwanted child is beyond me. Even if they are 'alive' in some basic sense they have no physical experience to compare life and death. They can't have any fear of death and a life time of disability or lack of love can't really compare.
As a last word I think its hilarious for the Christian church to try and marginalise homosexuality which was a feature of almost every civilization before and after Christ. I you want a discussion about unnatural love between two men read Plato's Symposium, he undoubtedly argues it better than i could.
Is there more tolerance for Left Wing views than for Right Wing views? QuaneCorsair appears to have it right.
Here in Michigan, the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate is a strong issue. What our politicians generally do here in order to be elected is say, "Look, I'm personally pro-life, but abortion is legal. It's not up to me."
This particular 'litmus test' is not going to change for judges, simply because the pro-life forces are out to save the next generation from being murdered and the pro-choice forces are just as determined to keep abortion safe and legal for the women who are already born. There is no room for compromise.
How strident one group is over the other group depends upon which group has its leader in office. The opposition will make more noise.
Since news crews like to hold the interest of their audiences, they are going to publicize the views of the disgruntled over those who are content or at least not demonstrating about a situation. Since Republicans are in power now, that means the strident Democrats are getting the publicity. When Clinton was in office, it was the Republicans who had the loud complaining to do.
Here in Michigan, the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate is a strong issue. What our politicians generally do here in order to be elected is say, "Look, I'm personally pro-life, but abortion is legal. It's not up to me."
This particular 'litmus test' is not going to change for judges, simply because the pro-life forces are out to save the next generation from being murdered and the pro-choice forces are just as determined to keep abortion safe and legal for the women who are already born. There is no room for compromise.
How strident one group is over the other group depends upon which group has its leader in office. The opposition will make more noise.
Since news crews like to hold the interest of their audiences, they are going to publicize the views of the disgruntled over those who are content or at least not demonstrating about a situation. Since Republicans are in power now, that means the strident Democrats are getting the publicity. When Clinton was in office, it was the Republicans who had the loud complaining to do.
If you can't even understand the meaning of the word tolerance, then you shouldn't be debating in this topic!
Tolerance begins with the assertion that something (X) is wrong, flawed, erroneous, evil, or mistaken. It then proceeds to a place where it chooses to overlook, let pass, etc, X because of a higher priority. Tolerance does not "accept", celebrate, or otherwise affirm that X is good, right or beneficial.
By that standard, the Left is incredibly intolerant in America today. Smoking? Can't tolerate it. Speak out in opposition to gay marriage? Can't tolerate that either (the "higher priority" of the free speech ethic has no place).
Homosexuals today are not asking for tolerance, they are demanding acceptance. They leave no room for "tolerance", because they refuse to permit the notion that homosexuality is wrong/flawed/evil/erroneous/mistaken. Without that possibility, then there is no possibility for tolerance.
Consider if smokers adopted the same tactics as gay activists. If you were to claim that smoking is dangerous, you'd be branded smokophobic. If you were to oppose allowing smokers to light up in public, you'd be branded narrow-minded. Any discussion of the merits of smoking would be treated as an attack on smokers. The only outcome smokers would accept is that you "tolerate" them, without the foundation of recognition that smoking is bad. How is that version of "tolerance" any different than acceptance?
People don't "tolerate" things they consider to be good, they only tolerate things they consider to be bad.
Tolerance begins with the assertion that something (X) is wrong, flawed, erroneous, evil, or mistaken. It then proceeds to a place where it chooses to overlook, let pass, etc, X because of a higher priority. Tolerance does not "accept", celebrate, or otherwise affirm that X is good, right or beneficial.
By that standard, the Left is incredibly intolerant in America today. Smoking? Can't tolerate it. Speak out in opposition to gay marriage? Can't tolerate that either (the "higher priority" of the free speech ethic has no place).
Homosexuals today are not asking for tolerance, they are demanding acceptance. They leave no room for "tolerance", because they refuse to permit the notion that homosexuality is wrong/flawed/evil/erroneous/mistaken. Without that possibility, then there is no possibility for tolerance.
Consider if smokers adopted the same tactics as gay activists. If you were to claim that smoking is dangerous, you'd be branded smokophobic. If you were to oppose allowing smokers to light up in public, you'd be branded narrow-minded. Any discussion of the merits of smoking would be treated as an attack on smokers. The only outcome smokers would accept is that you "tolerate" them, without the foundation of recognition that smoking is bad. How is that version of "tolerance" any different than acceptance?
People don't "tolerate" things they consider to be good, they only tolerate things they consider to be bad.
I am simply saying that there is enough intolerance on the two sides we're talking about for everyone to have a rotten time, Bikerdad. I hope your anger was not directed at me, because I am also liberal. Yes, I know what the word tolerance means. I also know a power struggle when I see one. And that is really what it is. The abortion issue is just one battle.
Yeah, we tolerate each other pretty much in Michigan despite our differences. That being said, there is a world of difference between tolerance and acceptance.
(edited)
Yeah, we tolerate each other pretty much in Michigan despite our differences. That being said, there is a world of difference between tolerance and acceptance.
(edited)
Paladin,
No, my anger wasn't directed at you, not in the least, because your past postings have pretty clearly indicated that you do understand the difference betwixt tolerance and acceptance.
My anger is directed at those who use the word "tolerance" yet demand acceptance. The attack on the Boy Scouts as "intolerant" because the Boy Scouts don't accept homosexuality as being morally upright, is simply one of the most glaring examples of Orwellian doublespeak.
George was a pretty sharp cookie!
Grace and peace, BD
No, my anger wasn't directed at you, not in the least, because your past postings have pretty clearly indicated that you do understand the difference betwixt tolerance and acceptance.
My anger is directed at those who use the word "tolerance" yet demand acceptance. The attack on the Boy Scouts as "intolerant" because the Boy Scouts don't accept homosexuality as being morally upright, is simply one of the most glaring examples of Orwellian doublespeak.
George was a pretty sharp cookie!
Grace and peace, BD
If you were quoting someone who had said the word, "nigger," even if that someone was a black person, would you still feel pressured to revert to society's senseless, childish practice of nervously quoting it as, "the n-word?"
That level of tension about a mere word doesn't happen without decades of oversensitization. Largely, it is liberals that cater to and perpetuate this kind of thing, turning the views they disagree with into taboos as a means of strong-arming public opinion into what they see fit.
There's a reason realtors are no longer allowed to use the terms, "walk-in closet" and "master bedroom," and I assure you, it is not that REPUBLICAN intolerance for dissent is so great that anything even seeming like it is immediately pounced on. The terms are now banned from use among realtors because liberals have in effect, issued their edicts about them, declaring the former as offensive to the handicapped and the latter offensive to oversensitive blacks who never experienced, or even knew anyone who experienced slavery.
Liberals do this with a wide variety of issues, making people hesitant to be proud of their country, express Christian beliefs, or question liberal special rights favors as with gays and femenists. (and just to clarify, I am not religous at all) Conservatives often complain amongst each other about feeling the need to watch out for societal backlash anytime they want to question liberal ideas.
One issue we are made to feel like monsters for talking about is the legal basis for abortion. I still have yet to meet a single person who can make a remotely logical point justifying such a "right." And I'm not talking about the irrational "my body, my business" creedo they regurgitate (which indicates that cold-blooded, 1st degree murder is OK depending on the victim's age and geography), I mean real logic; something that would withstand at least a second or two of scrutiny.
To be clear, Republicans are not entirely innocent of such sleazy tactics either, but there are far fewer examples for them. The only example I can find is the labeling of anti-war people as anti-American, but with the list of liberals who speak reverently of terror-sponsoring dictator Fidel Castro posted on Joe Scarborough's website, I can understand their struggle to distinguish the two.
That level of tension about a mere word doesn't happen without decades of oversensitization. Largely, it is liberals that cater to and perpetuate this kind of thing, turning the views they disagree with into taboos as a means of strong-arming public opinion into what they see fit.
There's a reason realtors are no longer allowed to use the terms, "walk-in closet" and "master bedroom," and I assure you, it is not that REPUBLICAN intolerance for dissent is so great that anything even seeming like it is immediately pounced on. The terms are now banned from use among realtors because liberals have in effect, issued their edicts about them, declaring the former as offensive to the handicapped and the latter offensive to oversensitive blacks who never experienced, or even knew anyone who experienced slavery.
Liberals do this with a wide variety of issues, making people hesitant to be proud of their country, express Christian beliefs, or question liberal special rights favors as with gays and femenists. (and just to clarify, I am not religous at all) Conservatives often complain amongst each other about feeling the need to watch out for societal backlash anytime they want to question liberal ideas.
One issue we are made to feel like monsters for talking about is the legal basis for abortion. I still have yet to meet a single person who can make a remotely logical point justifying such a "right." And I'm not talking about the irrational "my body, my business" creedo they regurgitate (which indicates that cold-blooded, 1st degree murder is OK depending on the victim's age and geography), I mean real logic; something that would withstand at least a second or two of scrutiny.
To be clear, Republicans are not entirely innocent of such sleazy tactics either, but there are far fewer examples for them. The only example I can find is the labeling of anti-war people as anti-American, but with the list of liberals who speak reverently of terror-sponsoring dictator Fidel Castro posted on Joe Scarborough's website, I can understand their struggle to distinguish the two.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Aug 1 2003, 01:21 PM)
The concept of tolerance is one that most people can appreciate. Different people have different views, different skin colors, different languages, and many other differences.
AMs.....
I have no idea the difference between R and L wing.
Of one thing I am certain.
The ONLY thing that counts to me is the person I see and talk with.
I could not give a poo if that person has different views to me, we are all different and I respect that.
Don't we all get a little 'downline' sometimes and wave our thoughts around??
.Be well...........Alan
QUOTE
There's a reason realtors are no longer allowed to use the terms, "walk-in closet" and "master bedroom," and I assure you, it is not that REPUBLICAN intolerance for dissent is so great that anything even seeming like it is immediately pounced on. The terms are now banned from use among realtors because liberals have in effect, issued their edicts about them, declaring the former as offensive to the handicapped and the latter offensive to oversensitive blacks who never experienced, or even knew anyone who experienced slavery.
I was not aware of this!! This sinks to a new level of stupidity.
I apologize for my misguided liberal fellows, whoever they were who banned "master bedroom" and "walk-in closet." This is indefensible in my opinion.
Aquapub writes:
Yes, I will agree with you that it has largely been the loony left that has left us with a legacy of not offending anyone under any circumstances. It's ridiculous and 'political correctness' is a bizarre idea gone totally wonky. Sure, we shouldn't purposely insult people who are different, but to so completely cleanse the English language of anything that might possibly offend anyone for any reason is utterly ludicrous.
Oh, I don't know about that. Christians have been only too happy to inform everyone that they are horrible sinners and are headed straight to hell for centuries. While I will admit that the whole 'correctness' nonsense has gone way overboard, I see the basic idea of being polite in public as a decent and noble one. Nobody can stop you from holding any belief you wish, but they can suggest that you not act on it publically. You're welcome to hate blacks if you wish, but don't go out in public and call them niggers. If you want to hate gays, go ahead, just treat them like human beings in a public setting. I don't see anything wrong with that.
And exactly where do they want gays and feminists to have special rights? Please point out these special rights, I've seen lots of people claim they want them, just no one can say what they are.
There are quite a few very logical arguments for abortion, but as this isn't the thread for it, I'll leave that for elsewhere.
Oh, I can think of plenty, including George Bush's ridiculous statements that atheists cannot be Americans. The anti-war thing is only the most recent example, Republicans are certainly not innocent by any means.
QUOTE
That level of tension about a mere word doesn't happen without decades of oversensitization. Largely, it is liberals that cater to and perpetuate this kind of thing, turning the views they disagree with into taboos as a means of strong-arming public opinion into what they see fit.
Yes, I will agree with you that it has largely been the loony left that has left us with a legacy of not offending anyone under any circumstances. It's ridiculous and 'political correctness' is a bizarre idea gone totally wonky. Sure, we shouldn't purposely insult people who are different, but to so completely cleanse the English language of anything that might possibly offend anyone for any reason is utterly ludicrous.
QUOTE
Liberals do this with a wide variety of issues, making people hesitant to be proud of their country, express Christian beliefs, or question liberal special rights favors as with gays and femenists. (and just to clarify, I am not religous at all) Conservatives often complain amongst each other about feeling the need to watch out for societal backlash anytime they want to question liberal ideas.
Oh, I don't know about that. Christians have been only too happy to inform everyone that they are horrible sinners and are headed straight to hell for centuries. While I will admit that the whole 'correctness' nonsense has gone way overboard, I see the basic idea of being polite in public as a decent and noble one. Nobody can stop you from holding any belief you wish, but they can suggest that you not act on it publically. You're welcome to hate blacks if you wish, but don't go out in public and call them niggers. If you want to hate gays, go ahead, just treat them like human beings in a public setting. I don't see anything wrong with that.
And exactly where do they want gays and feminists to have special rights? Please point out these special rights, I've seen lots of people claim they want them, just no one can say what they are.
QUOTE
One issue we are made to feel like monsters for talking about is the legal basis for abortion. I still have yet to meet a single person who can make a remotely logical point justifying such a "right." And I'm not talking about the irrational "my body, my business" creedo they regurgitate (which indicates that cold-blooded, 1st degree murder is OK depending on the victim's age and geography), I mean real logic; something that would withstand at least a second or two of scrutiny.
There are quite a few very logical arguments for abortion, but as this isn't the thread for it, I'll leave that for elsewhere.
QUOTE
To be clear, Republicans are not entirely innocent of such sleazy tactics either, but there are far fewer examples for them. The only example I can find is the labeling of anti-war people as anti-American, but with the list of liberals who speak reverently of terror-sponsoring dictator Fidel Castro posted on Joe Scarborough's website, I can understand their struggle to distinguish the two.
Oh, I can think of plenty, including George Bush's ridiculous statements that atheists cannot be Americans. The anti-war thing is only the most recent example, Republicans are certainly not innocent by any means.
QUOTE(Cephus @ Aug 13 2003, 07:08 AM)
QUOTE
Liberals do this with a wide variety of issues, making people hesitant to be proud of their country, express Christian beliefs, or question liberal special rights favors as with gays and femenists. (and just to clarify, I am not religous at all) Conservatives often complain amongst each other about feeling the need to watch out for societal backlash anytime they want to question liberal ideas.
"..And exactly where do they want gays and feminists to have special rights? Please point out these special rights, I've seen lots of people claim they want them, just no one can say what they are." Cephus
Gay high schools, abortion, allimony, etc.
QUOTE
One issue we are made to feel like monsters for talking about is the legal basis for abortion. I still have yet to meet a single person who can make a remotely logical point justifying such a "right." And I'm not talking about the irrational "my body, my business" creedo they regurgitate (which indicates that cold-blooded, 1st degree murder is OK depending on the victim's age and geography), I mean real logic; something that would withstand at least a second or two of scrutiny.
"There are quite a few very logical arguments for abortion, but as this isn't the thread for it, I'll leave that for elsewhere." Cephus
Not to sound cocky, but I am eager to see if you can come up with a single one. Want to start a thread in "Lifestyles?"
QUOTE
To be clear, Republicans are not entirely innocent of such sleazy tactics either, but there are far fewer examples for them. The only example I can find is the labeling of anti-war people as anti-American, but with the list of liberals who speak reverently of terror-sponsoring dictator Fidel Castro posted on Joe Scarborough's website, I can understand their struggle to distinguish the two.
"Oh, I can think of plenty, including George Bush's ridiculous statements that atheists cannot be Americans. The anti-war thing is only the most recent example, Republicans are certainly not innocent by any means." Cephus
Please verify that President Bush said that. Got source? Otherwise, please list a single example, one thats beleivable.
QUOTE
Gay high schools, abortion, allimony, etc.
And where are these gay high schools? That one that's been debated in New York wasn't a gay high school, it was open to anyone to attend.
And besides, there are plenty of Christian high schools and Jewish campuses... are these special rights?
What special rights are there in abortion for lesbians, do tell?
Alimony? How so?
QUOTE
Not to sound cocky, but I am eager to see if you can come up with a single one. Want to start a thread in "Lifestyles?"
Feel free to start one, I'll be there.
QUOTE
Please verify that President Bush said that. Got source?
When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O'Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates had the following exchange with then Vice President Bush.
Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are Atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the Atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on Atheists.
QUOTE(aquapub @ Aug 13 2003, 05:36 AM)
That level of tension about a mere word doesn't happen without decades of oversensitization. Largely, it is liberals that cater to and perpetuate this kind of thing, turning the views they disagree with into taboos as a means of strong-arming public opinion into what they see fit.
Because I'm being generalized here, I'd like to see a link that liberals cater and perpetuate oversensitization. (Try not to quote fox news, you might get sued.)
Generally, when I lived in Georgia, everyone was very "hush" about saying something like: "nigger." My (republican) cousin refuses to call asian people asian or black people blacks, but prefers "oriental" and "African-American". I, however, make frequent use of such words.
And, say for instance, it is true that liberals prefer to sensitze america so they ultimately don't use the word nigger for their own strange set of ethics. Wouldn't your quote be intolerant towards those beliefs and ethics?
QUOTE
Do you feel that there is more tolerance for Left Wing views than Right Wing views?
I think it fluctuates, and right now I think that things are equally intolerant on both sides.
Prior to September 11th and George W. Bush, I would have said that yes, there was more tolerance for left wing views than right wing views. Immediately after September 11th, the right wing was king, and it has gradually balanced itself out again. This is all personal perspective, though.It's easy when you are on one side of an issue to feel like you are being unfairly oppressed while at the same time you don't realize how you, in turn, are oppressing your opponent.
QUOTE(aquapub)
There's a reason realtors are no longer allowed to use the terms, "walk-in closet" and "master bedroom," and I assure you, it is not that REPUBLICAN intolerance for dissent is so great that anything even seeming like it is immediately pounced on. The terms are now banned from use among realtors because liberals have in effect, issued their edicts about them, declaring the former as offensive to the handicapped and the latter offensive to oversensitive blacks who never experienced, or even knew anyone who experienced slavery.
I work in a realtor's office, and we've never avoided using these terms, nor do the other realtors that we come in contact with. Perhaps this suggestion has been made by liberal groups. I don't know, but no one is being forced not to use these terms, as far as I know.
QUOTE(Cephus @ Aug 13 2003, 08:27 AM)
QUOTE
Gay high schools, abortion, allimony, etc.
And where are these gay high schools? That one that's been debated in New York wasn't a gay high school, it was open to anyone to attend.
And besides, there are plenty of Christian high schools and Jewish campuses... are these special rights?
What special rights are there in abortion for lesbians, do tell?
Alimony? How so?
If it was just like any other high school, and not one for gays, it wouldn't be in the news at all. That "open to all" stuff is a copout to avoid justifying the merit of a school that obviously is mad special for gays.
Jewish and Christian high schools are PRIVATELY FUNDED, hence NOT special rights, the gay high school is public. Thats government funded special interest at its worst.
Abortion IS a special right. Fathers are denied the right to protect their children.
Alimony=men make payments to ex-wives. And for what? With womens lib, this is a special right. Can't have it both ways.
And Cyan, I'm basing that on my own realtor's refusal to use those terms when showing us our house. She said it was a new rule. It is at least a Sibcy Cline policy.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.