Michael Brown

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We live in a democracy. Simply disagreeing with someone doesn't give you the right to call them a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, etc. It doesn't solve anything, poisons the discourse, and polarizes the electorate.

That guy at Mozilla got attacked for hating gays since he donated to a campaign against gay marriage. If a man disagrees with another group on the definition of marriage, he should lose his job? That's very near fascism. Rationalize it however you like, it's still a form of bigotry... Rabble-rousing people against those you disagree with proves how little merit an argument has. Win a debate through logic, not by force. Otherwise just join ISIS

Freedom of speech not freedom from the consequences of that speech. The Mozilla guy got what he deserved, don't oppose the masses unless you want to get burned. Isn't that kind of the point of this whole St. Louis thing?

Originally Posted by Ratstomper [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The problem is perspective. Tolerance and intolerance are entirely based on who is speaking at the time. Someone sharing their religion would be considered intolerance by some and attacking someone's religious beliefs would be considered intolerance by others. We don't really have any solid rulings as to what is intolerance and what isn't and even if we did, what room is there for new or unrepresented views to come into the picture? How does everyone get what they want? They can't.

Real tolerance is understanding that you have to share a world with these people, regardless of whether you like them or not. You have to tolerate them. The alternative is conflict; often large scale, bloody conflict.

Make lemonade, imo. It's healthier for everyone involved.

Yet you ignore the fact that many of these groups are doing everything in their power to directly oppress the groups that they are intolerant against. Stopping oppression is not being intolerant, it's stopping oppression.

[Pringles]

My favorite part about all this is those protesting against violence.... who are protesting....... violently. Idiots.

[Pringles]

Originally Posted by Pringles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My favorite part about all this is those protesting against violence.... who are protesting....... violently. Idiots.

... and then expecting the police not to do something about it.

[indiscriminate_hater]

George W Bush doesn't care about black people

[Hailto]

I really don't care what happened to Michael Brown or whats going on in this shitty town. Am i part of the problem?

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yet you ignore the fact that many of these groups are doing everything in their power to directly oppress the groups that they are intolerant against. Stopping oppression is not being intolerant, it's stopping oppression.

For the sake of brevity and ease of discussion, let's use an example. Exactly who did you have in mind when you say "these groups"? Lobbyists trying to pass anti-gay legislation? Maybe you meant those trying to pass anti-gun legislation? Or did you mean casino owners fighting for the rights to set up shop in Hawaii?

Do you see what I mean? For any one person who thinks they're being wronged, there is someone on the other side that bring they're same moral implications to bear. The only way around that Gordian knot is 1) both sides come to a mutual conclusion that they shouldn't be forcing other people to do things or 2) one side eradicates the other.

I think a lot of people know that, but few actually practice it. Actually stopping people who are unfairly manipulating the system to further their beliefs or whose beliefs or desires destabilize things or cause horrible things to happen is an independent issue; one that won't be solved until rational people from all beliefs learn that tolerance isn't a nice or fuzzy word. It's a survival mechanism that requires us to co-exist with people and ideas we don't like.

[Gaffin 7.0]

Originally Posted by Hailto [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I really don't care what happened to Michael Brown or whats going on in this shitty town. Am i part of the problem?

[LulzSect]

petty larceny is worth death amirite

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by Ratstomper [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Do you see what I mean? For any one person who thinks they're being wronged, there is someone on the other side that bring they're same moral implications to bear. The only way around that Gordian knot is 1) both sides come to a mutual conclusion that they shouldn't be forcing other people to do things or 2) one side eradicates the other.

I think a lot of people know that, but few actually practice it. Actually stopping people who are unfairly manipulating the system to further their beliefs or whose beliefs or desires destabilize things or cause horrible things to happen is an independent issue; one that won't be solved until rational people from all beliefs learn that tolerance isn't a nice or fuzzy word. It's a survival mechanism that requires us to co-exist with people and ideas we don't like.

That's one of the flaws with the two party system. Balls to the wall or nothing instead of simple option 3. For example.

Originally Posted by Ratstomper [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For the sake of brevity and ease of discussion, let's use an example. Exactly who did you have in mind when you say "these groups"? Lobbyists trying to pass anti-gay legislation?

Gay marriage bans are wrong no matter what way you look at it, however at the same token, forcing priests to perform marriages against the will of their belief system is also wrong. If any of these lawmakers had a lick of sense, they'd allow the individual churches to decide whether or not they would allow same-sex marriages. The issue is the politicians who have money in it one way or the other so either side has much less gain if you make that sweet middle ground.

Originally Posted by Ratstomper [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Maybe you meant those trying to pass anti-gun legislation?

You'll have to be more specific but either way banning any kind of weapon should be considered unconstitutional (You should be able to purchase a rocket launcher, AAA gun, Tanks, Planes etc.) and gun-free zones absolutely don't work. This is coming from a social progressive who has never owned/fired a gun mind you. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by Ratstomper [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Or did you mean casino owners fighting for the rights to set up shop in Hawaii?

I know next to nothing about the nuances of casino issues since I don't gamble but am not anti-gambling. I do know from experience with the casinos (I think Trump?) recently wanted to set up in Western Mass, that it should be up to the individual districts and by extension the local voter populace, to decide whether or not they want to allow it, no different than deciding about an amusement park, movie theater, shopping mall etc..

[Eliseus]

[QUOTE=KagatobLuvsAnimu;1583336]Gay marriage bans are wrong no matter what way you look at it, however at the same token, forcing priests to perform marriages against the will of their belief system is also wrong. If any of these lawmakers had a lick of sense, they'd allow the individual churches to decide whether or not they would allow same-sex marriages. The issue is the politicians who have money in it one way or the other so either side has much less gain if you make that sweet middle ground./QUOTE]

I agree, so is putting pedos in jail, and polygamy, and bestiality, and so on. I mean they were all born that way right? So how come they can't have their freedom to stick it into whatever hole they want.