Tolerance hurts, too.

[phoenix_fire]

Z, I'm a Christian but don't really consider myself an american. See: so much less cognitive dissonance. Also, I don't see how twofer accepted your argument (per the link in your sig). And I don't see why it's such a big deal that you put it in your sig.

[Mr. Hyde]

Quote by: belverron We hear this all of the time, but which hurts more, the hatred that you dismiss or the friend who doesn't accept you for who you are?

I don't think that's the case with this quote. In the quote in question, the man has Gay FRIENDS who know where he stands. This means both he and they have overcome their differences and maintain a friendship. Consider the following. I have a friend who is Atheist. He doesn't just NOT believe in God, he's so far into believing there is no god that he thinks ANYONE who believes in God is "Fucking idiot and should kill themselves."

I am a Deist. We've been pretty close friends for a while, not so much NOW since he lives too far away to see on a regular basis, but still. We overcame that difference. We used to talk about Philosophy and Religion quite a lot, DESPITE that difference.

Quote by: belverron Think about how your friends feel when you tell them about your principles. Is that really what your god wants? That is no god I would believe in.

My god doesn't give a rat's ass what I do. I don't care what my god does. It's a nice relationship. Works like a bad divorce.

[Jack]

This whole thread is just another attempt by a homosexual person to try to normalize aberrant behavior.

You've managed to read a lot into this thread. How can a person expressing his opinions in a forum that might be seen by less than a hundred people be considered trying to "normalize" anything? Is your use of the term "aberrant" an attempt to further stigmatize homosexuality? It's just your opinion, nothing more.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Z, I'm a Christian but don't really consider myself an american. See: so much less cognitive dissonance.

WTF are you talking about? Either you're an American citizen or you aren't. Which is it? Are you Canadian? Don't let me find out that you live in Kentucky and just think it's cool to say "I'm not really an American..."

Also, I don't see how twofer accepted your argument (per the link in your sig).

If I say to you "Superman is not real because he's a fictional comic book character and has attributes which violate the known laws of reality"...

...And you counter by stating...

"Superman cares about you and wants you to be safe. He will save you even if you're not worthy and if you're a badguy WATCH OUT!"

Have you really countered my argument? No. In fact, you haven't even addressed it. In a formal debate, you'd be laughed away from the podium and lose.

That's effectively what twoa has done. Me: "This thing is fictional." Her: "Yeah!? Well the thing you're accusing of being fictional says..."

And I don't see why it's such a big deal that you put it in your sig.

I'm fed up with theists thinking they can "counter" well reasoned arguments by preaching. It's asinine. If I told you that crest toothpaste caused more cavities than it prevented and you "countered" by telling us how much you liked the taste of it, people would wonder what you were smoking... but when it comes to theism, people think they can get away with just such an argument. Well no more. I'll have none of it.

Frankly, I've seen a rather pathetic showing from the entire site on that thread. Not one of you who claims to be Christian has really tried to refute it. I find that horrendous. It tells me that you haven' studied the roots of your faith at all.

You haven't done your homework, but you want full credit for the assignment. Sorry, but your grade = F

[jd420]

>We hear this all of the time, but which hurts more, the hatred that you dismiss or the
>friend who doesn't accept you for who you are?

Eh. I dunno. I sorta view it under the light of the double-edged sword, "do unto others" - whether that is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "do unto others as they would do unto you."

Both... probably apply.

WHERE the former is is up to you. I'm far enough left to scare the tolerance folks, yet alot of my friends are nazi skinheads - I accept that campaigning for zooerotic lbieration is probably not high on their priority list. They accept that I'm not really going to be all into "running over spics with mah truck" quite so much as they are. We talk about other things, and it works.

They know that if they beat down any of my friends, regardless of color, I'm going to have a problem with it. And I know that if any of my friends just says to themself "hey, let's beat down some nazis," well, they're probably going to retaliate.

So far, it hasn't really been a problem.

Of course, *if* this is chosen - and it *is* an 'if,' varying from person to person - it takes some minimal standards on both sides. I doubt I'll end up developing a friendship with twoanickel, for instance, simply because his responses in this thread fail to demonstrate the level of minimal tolerance and professionalism I have come to expect from the average hard-line nazi. And, naturally, those who aren't downright militantly secure in having a different opinion can have problems on the other end. If your opinions are moderate and muddled, you're probably not the best candidate of association for *anyone* who knows what they believe, no matter what side you're on. And if you're not comfortable with believing quite differently than frankly everyone around you, and being secure and confident enough to boot-stomp someone if neccesary, this may also not be for you.

For other people, it works. ~shrug~

...the flipside, of course - doing to others for their beliefs what I am comfortable with them doing to mine - is doing unto others as they would do unto you.

This... may be a trickier one.

Do they want the soldiery of the state to assault you for your tribe? That becomes a very tricky issue. Sending people with guns on assault on your tribe really isn't any different than doing it themselves - it's just more cowardly.

At that point, an eye for an eye would probably involve shooting them, and perhaps they should not be your friend.

...on the other hand, if they despise an imaginary lifestyle they made up in their head but don't feel the state should bother *anyone* - well, hell. You don't fornicate on their militia compound and they don't fornicate on yours. Sounds perfect.

...but yes, all in all, it's "do unto others" in its dual-edged sword, whether "as you would have them," or "as they would."

[jd420]

>Substitute "gay people" with the word, "professional gamblers," "adrenaline junkies," or >any other "lifestyle choice" that differs from the norm, and tell me if Belverron still has a >point.
>...
>This whole thread is just another attempt by a homosexual person to try to normalize >aberrant behavior. Sorry, Belverron, I don't hate you at all. I just think you're wrong.

...or for that matter, heterosexuality. Luckily, I'm lightly skilled in breeder-bashing if the occasion calls for it.

Cheers!

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: belverron We hear this all of the time, but which hurts more, the hatred that you dismiss or the friend who doesn't accept you for who you are? I know that for me it is the latter. It's that kind of silliness that tears people apart. When I asked my step-mother to vote against the amendment, and she said she didn't know how she felt about that .... It's all a bunch of bullshit; gay people aren't really any different. It's a few verses in the Bible, and we don't ignore so few that someone will notice a few more on that list. Antiquated, groundless tradition, it is. It only hurts. Think about how your friends feel when you tell them about your principles. Is that really what your god wants? That is no god I would believe in.

What diff does it make? You have a right to go unquestioned in believing as you choose, and so do I. Specifically your right to hold such beliefs; the merit of those is a separate question, and the answer does not in any way change the validity of that right. Thus what anyone else says is of no significance.

[puellamore]

That's true - we each have a right to our own beliefs and worldviews. But when people start trying to establish laws and policies based on irrational, unproven, intolerant bullshit, their right to their beliefs ends. Like George W. Slime going to war in Iraq because his bullshit god told him to. Or anti same-sex marriage laws based on a bunch of ancient scribblings.

[Mr. Jaggers]

There are many forms of prejudice, but intolerance is the most blind and the most brutally stupid; for it makes no allowances, rejecting the good with the bad - it would throw out the baby with the bath water. There can be little reason or justification for such wholesale exclusion of anything. Everyone has something they cannot tolerate; which is why the world is in such an intolerable state. If only people were more tolerant of each other, then, for once, there might be peace in the world.

[Dirty Name]

If only people were more tolerant of each other, then, for once, there might be peace in the world.

Bah. Nonsense. Your tolerance is another man's oppression. Nazi's "tolerated" Hitler's views, and look what happened to the Jews. Where do you draw the line? Do you tolerate NAMBLA if a 17-year old male enters into a relationship willingly?

Do tolerant people tolerate the intolerant? No. It's just so much crap.

[The Bacon Guy]

Do tolerant people tolerate the intolerant? No.

As vitriolic as your post was, I would agree with the main point. By my standards, anyone who is intolerant of homosexuality is misguided and essentially wrong. On the other hand, these people are likely to say that my acceptance of homosexuality is wrong. Homosexuals feel that intolerance is harmful. The intolerant feel that homosexuality is harmful. Neither viewpoint is right in an absolute sense.

People should be entitled to think and say what they like about homosexuality. If you find that someone you know is so intolerant of homosexuality that it prevents you forming a friendship with them then don't. Intolerance is just another viewpoint and you have to live with it, just as they have to live with homosexuality.

However, when intolerance becomes law, i.e gay marriage bans, that is a different matter.

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: puellamore That's true we each have a right to our own beliefs and worldviews. But when people start trying to establish laws and policies based on irrational, unproven, intolerant bullshit, their right to their beliefs ends.

Be sure to tell all your atheist and evolutionist pals that you have ruled them out of the game.

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy As vitriolic as your post was, I would agree with the main point. By my standards, anyone who is intolerant of homosexuality is misguided and essentially wrong. On the other hand, these people are likely to say that my acceptance of homosexuality is wrong. Homosexuals feel that intolerance is harmful. The intolerant feel that homosexuality is harmful. Neither viewpoint is right in an absolute sense. People should be entitled to think and say what they like about homosexuality. If you find that someone you know is so intolerant of homosexuality that it prevents you forming a friendship with them then don't. Intolerance is just another viewpoint and you have to live with it, just as they have to live with homosexuality. However, when intolerance becomes law, i.e gay marriage bans, that is a different matter.

You are without merit in your assertions in the final paragraph, where it all comes down to "Everyone who disagrees with BaconBoy is wrong and evil!!". Uh...right. This right after you said "People should be entitled to think and say what they like about homo-sex". You neglected to point out that you meant only people who agree with you, which is nothing new when it comes to what purports to be "liberal" thinking.

Here is the deal with "tolerance". The word means that you respect everyone's right to believe as he/she does. You do not give up your right to disagree or vote or exercise the First Amendment. Tolerating does not mean accepting the validity of someone's truth claims or agreeing with her, or being silent about your differing view. "Intolerance" is present only when you hurt or threaten someone for having or expressing a belief, like what those young turds tried to do to Secretary Rice last week when they proved that having been schooled does not always equal having been educated. They did not storm the stage to show their heritage as followers of 1960s losers, but their disrespect for the concept of hearing someone else's opinion proved them immature and unprepared for life in the real world.

[The Bacon Guy]

You are without merit in your assertions in the final paragraph, where it all comes down to "Everyone who disagrees with BaconBoy is wrong and evil!!". Uh...right. This right after you said "People should be entitled to think and say what they like about homo-sex". You neglected to point out that you meant only people who agree with you, which is nothing new when it comes to what purports to be "liberal" thinking

Okay, did you even READ my post?

Homosexuals feel that intolerance is harmful. The intolerant feel that homosexuality is harmful. Neither viewpoint is right in an absolute sense.

People should be entitled to think and say what they like about homosexuality.

Intolerance is just another viewpoint and you have to live with it, just as they have to live with homosexuality.

Only people who agree with me are entitled to views? That is exactly the opposite of what I am saying. I have my views. Others have their views. NEITHER ONE IS RIGHT IN AN ABSOLUTE SENSE.

How does this in your head equate to "Everyone who disagrees with BaconBoy is wrong and evil!!"?

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Okay, did you even READ my post?

Yes indeed, and I responded a few messages to the north.

Only people who agree with me are entitled to views? That is exactly the opposite of what I am saying. I have my views. Others have their views. NEITHER ONE IS RIGHT IN AN ABSOLUTE SENSE.

Oh but one view absolutely IS right in "an absolute sense", because the reality of objective truth means it cannot be a matter of every answer being correct. But as I said, I do not reject the notion of your believing as you do, and I demand that you extend the same courtesy to me. This is not what you indicated when you said:

However, when intolerance becomes law, i.e gay marriage bans, that is a different matter.

So in the name of alleged "tolerance", you are declaring that you and we as a society shall not "tolerate" what offends you personally. Thus your demand of tolerance is complete intolerance.

How does this in your head equate to "Everyone who disagrees with BaconBoy is wrong and evil!!"?

I apologize. I was working from memory and did not get your exact name.

[The Bacon Guy]

Oh but one view absolutely IS right in "an absolute sense", because the reality of objective truth means it cannot be a matter of every answer being correct. But as I said, I do not reject the notion of your believing as you do, and I demand that you extend the same courtesy to me. This is not what you indicated when you said: However, when intolerance becomes law, i.e gay marriage bans, that is a different matter. So in the name of alleged "tolerance", you are declaring that you and we as a society shall not "tolerate" what offends you personally. Thus your demand of tolerance is complete intolerance.

I think you need to understand the difference between prejudice and discrimination. Prejudice concerns attitudes. Discrimination concerns behaviour.

Intolerance for homosexuality is PREJUDICE. People heve a right to hold prejudiced attitudes.

Laws limiting the rights of homosexuals are DISCRIMINATION. As laws should be about protecting people, not enforcing morality, discriminatory laws like this are, in my view, wrong.

The point I was making was that holding prejuduced views is one thing, but acting upon these views in order to limit people's rights is another.

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy I think you need to understand the difference between prejudice and discrimination. Prejudice concerns attitudes. Discrimination concerns behavior.

Not at all. Discrimination means nothing more than choosing, and you have to do this hundreds of times each day just to survive. We have a Constitution (over here in the free world, after telling King George where to stick it) that affirms government's commitment to our rights that are fundamental to the Natural Law on which Western freedom is founded and entirely dependent. And we have legislation that forbids doing others' freedom violence. But nowhere therein can you find that some fictional "right" has to be respected or invented.

Intolerance for homosexuality is PREJUDICE. People heve a right to hold prejudiced attitudes.

You will not get away with that. What you define as "prejudice" is your business, but it holds no water legally. I or you or whoever else has the right to value whatever the individual chooses, and that I find something disgusting that you hold dear is my RIGHT. That means you cannot penalize people for speaking out against disgusting pathologies whose aim and certainty is the destruction of our culture. So roll out as many fancy insults as you can to label someone else's freedom, but you have no power under the law to impose any penalty.

And because I am the definition of tolerance, I am not at all troubled by your believing what you like.

Laws limiting the rights of homosexuals are DISCRIMINATION.

Absolutely (see my comments about "rights" and "discrimination"), but no one is proposing to do any such thing.

As laws should be about protecting people

Still we have no disagreement.

, not enforcing morality

Wrong, because all law is based on morality. We as a society judge it wrong to kill your neighbor in cases where your self-defense is not the motive. It is a morality call, and I suspect that you would agree with that judgement.

The point I was making was that holding prejuduced views is one thing, but acting upon these views in order to limit people's rights is another.

How about when you say that my believing or acting to legislate in a way you reject is wrong?

[belverron]

I think this is relevant.

Quote by: John Stuart Mill, On Liberty The will of the people ... practically means the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people; the majority, or those who succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority; the people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against thhis as against any other abuse of power. ... Some rules of conduct ... must be imposed, by law in the first place, and by opinion on many things which are not fit subjects for the operation of law. What these rules should be is the principal question in human affairs; but if we except a few of the most obvious cases, it is one of those which least progress has been made in resolving. No two ages, and scarcely any two countries, have decided it alike; and the decision of one age or country is a wonder to another. Yet the people of any given age and country no more suspect any difficulty in it, than if it were a subject on which mankind had always been agreed. The rules which obtain among themselves appear to them self-evident and self-justifying. This all but universal illusion is one of the examples of the magical influence of custom, which is not only, as the proverb says, a second nature, but is continually mistaken for the first. The effect of custom, in preventing any misgivings respecting the rules of conduct which mankind impose on one another, is all the more complete because the subject is one on which it is not generally considered necessary that reasons should be given, either by one person to others or by each to himself. People are accustomed to believe, and have been encouraged in the belief by some who aspire to the character of philosophers, that their feelings, on subjects of this nature, are better than reasons, and render reasons unnecessary. The practical principal which guides them to their opinions on the regulation of human conduct, is the feeling in each person's mind that everybody should be required to act as he, and those with whom he sympathises, wolud liket hem to act. No one, indeed, acknowledges to himself that his standard of judgment is his own liking; but an opinion on a point of conduct, not supported by reasons, can only count as one person's preference; and if the reasons, when given, are a mere appeal to a similar preference felt by other people, it is still only many people's liking instead of one. To an ordinary man, however, his own preference, thus supported, is not only a perfectly satisfactory reason, but the only one he generally has for any of his notions of morality, taste, or propriety, which are not expressly written in his religious creed; and his chief guide in the interpretation even of that. ... In the minds of almost all religious persons, even in the most tolerant countries, the duty of toleration is admitted with tacit reserves.

[The Bacon Guy]

Discrimination means nothing more than choosing

Incorrect. In a literal sense, discrimination does indeed mean distinguishing. But in a social context, discrimination is "the unequal treatment of individuals or groups based on arbitrary characteristics such as race, gender, sex etc." Therefore, discrimination in this context does, as I said, concern behaviour.

And we have legislation that forbids doing others' freedom violence.

How is gay marriage doing your freedom any violence?

You will not get away with that. What you define as "prejudice" is your business, but it holds no water legally. I or you or whoever else has the right to value whatever the individual chooses, and that I find something disgusting that you hold dear is my RIGHT. That means you cannot penalize people for speaking out against disgusting pathologies whose aim and certainty is the destruction of our culture. So roll out as many fancy insults as you can to label someone else's freedom, but you have no power under the law to impose any penalty.

Your persecution complex has caused you to so profoundly miss the point that I'm not even going to attempt to explain it to you.

Wrong, because all law is based on morality. We as a society judge it wrong to kill your neighbor in cases where your self-defense is not the motive. It is a morality call, and I suspect that you would agree with that judgement.

Indeed I would but for a different reason. Laws prevneting you from killing your neighbour are in place to protect your neighbour. The morality of this is based on the fact that it is protecting people. Laws banning gay marriage or, in other countries banning homosexual relations are not in place to protect anyone but are simply there to enforce arbitrary morals.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: Saint Vern The word means that you respect everyone's right to believe as he/she does. You do not give up your right to disagree or vote or exercise the First Amendment.

I fully agree with that statement.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy However, when intolerance becomes law, i.e gay marriage bans, that is a different matter.

I totally disagree with that statement... a gay marriage ban has little to do with "intolerance" and everything to do with protecting the institution of traditional marriage from being diluted with irrelevant unions.