Tolerance: Allowing people to be who and what they are.

[Delta4Embassy]

Can prove everything I ever say. Just didn't think anyone'd challenge "the sky is blue." But ok...Gimme a few.

 

[Foxfyre]

Can prove everything I ever say. Just didn't think anyone'd challenge "the sky is blue." But ok...Gimme a few.

Please do not derail the thread with a diatribe re Republicans. I believe you believe everything you said. You will NOT find ANYTHING to change my opinion that you are dead wrong. So please don't muddy the waters by dragging a bunch of unrelated stuff in here. If you want to start another thread on the evils of Republicanism, I'm sure you'll get a lot of traffic.

On this thread, how evil Republicans are or are not is irrelevent EXCEPT as how it pertains to the issue of tolerance and allowing people to be who and what they are when their point of view requires no contribution or participation by anybody else.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As to the other part about intolerance of other's ideas costing us our Constitutional rights, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Much of the vitriol in politics is all bark, no bite. Anytime who proposed taking an eraser to the Bill of Rights would be run out of town on a rail. That said, there are occasions where rights are being suppressed, but lost completely and permanently no. I think educating Americans on what those rights are should be a continuing process so when such suppression occurs, people understand it's unconstitutional and don't just roll over and accept it. Lawsuits work well for this.

But at least on tv, freedom to voice dissent or disagree is being suppressed fairly often. But then there's the fact that on-air tv is business, and if someone's saying things that will negatively impact that business you get rid of them. Better to take a little hit than allow somoene fundamentally at odds with your business to keep shooting their mouth off.

It starts off rather innocuously in all countries that become oppressive totalitarian states. First this group, then that group is demonized until it becomes politically correct for the angry mobs, groups, or organizations use strongarm (figuratively or actually) tactics to shut people up--only politically correct speech is allowed. It is a slow creep from there to having all freedoms first suppressed, and then removed altogether.

I have no problem with anybody barking. I have tried to be very clear about that. It's when they choose to bite purely because of who are what somebody is that it becomes an infringement on peoples' unalienable rights.

Actually, I have to challenge that somewhat (the bolded): history has shown us that most dictatorships have evolved very, very quickly. In more recent history, NAZI Germany sprung out of the Weimar Republic within less than one year of Hitler's appointment to the Chancellorship of said Republic under President Paul Hindenburg. And the Nürnberg Laws were already being drafted and the lion's share of them, which caused suppression, pretty much happened all at once.

We love to take the romantic view that dictatorships can spring up slowly because people tend to be like frogs in a pot of water that is heating up very, very slowly, but historical facts are quite actually NOT on the side of that form of argument at all.

We have come to hear the phrase "first they came for the XXX, but I didn't do anything, and then they came for the XXX, and I still didn't do anything", etc.... but in NAZI Germany, they actually pretty much went after everyone on their hit list all at once.

The question I have of you is whether you really think anything like 1933-1945 Germany, 1927-1945 Japan, 1917-1990 UDSSR is even possible in the USA. I believe very much that it is quite impossible.

True.

The notion of ‘creeping totalitarianism’ is essentially false.

And the Anglo-American judicial traditions of due process, judicial review, and the rule of law will safeguard our civil liberties from unwarranted encroachment by the state.

Indeed, unbridled, full-throated discourse in private society serves the important role of safeguarding our civil liberties as well, rendering involvement by the government or the courts unnecessary; to advocate any limitations on this discourse in the context of private society would in fact pose a threat to our civil liberties.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Can prove everything I ever say. Just didn't think anyone'd challenge "the sky is blue." But ok...Gimme a few.

Please do not derail the thread with a diatribe re Republicans. I believe you believe everything you said. You will NOT find ANYTHING to change my opinion that you are dead wrong. So please don't muddy the waters by dragging a bunch of unrelated stuff in here. If you want to start another thread on the evils of Republicanism, I'm sure you'll get a lot of traffic.

On this thread, how evil Republicans are or are not is irrelevent EXCEPT as how it pertains to the issue of tolerance and allowing people to be who and what they are when their point of view requires no contribution or participation by anybody else.

Diatribe? Hmmmm....

He expressed an opinon, with which you already disagreed.

So, what was that again about someone wanting to control or stifle? And how is his mentioning of the Republican Party any more OT than your mentioning of Nancy Pelosi? You are both using those things to illustrate points, or? So, what's the big deal?

This was a most excellent exchange to watch, for I do believe that you just played out the meaning of the OP.

You have been hinting all over the place that the Left is somehow stifling freedoms, but you just tried to stifle this man's freedoms.

Fascinating.

And you will also notice that I did not not particularly agree with some of Delta4Embassy's sentiments.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It starts off rather innocuously in all countries that become oppressive totalitarian states. First this group, then that group is demonized until it becomes politically correct for the angry mobs, groups, or organizations use strongarm (figuratively or actually) tactics to shut people up--only politically correct speech is allowed. It is a slow creep from there to having all freedoms first suppressed, and then removed altogether.

I have no problem with anybody barking. I have tried to be very clear about that. It's when they choose to bite purely because of who are what somebody is that it becomes an infringement on peoples' unalienable rights.

Actually, I have to challenge that somewhat (the bolded): history has shown us that most dictatorships have evolved very, very quickly. In more recent history, NAZI Germany sprung out of the Weimar Republic within less than one year of Hitler's appointment to the Chancellorship of said Republic under President Paul Hindenburg. And the Nürnberg Laws were already being drafted and the lion's share of them, which caused suppression, pretty much happened all at once.

We love to take the romantic view that dictatorships can spring up slowly because people tend to be like frogs in a pot of water that is heating up very, very slowly, but historical facts are quite actually NOT on the side of that form of argument at all.

We have come to hear the phrase "first they came for the XXX, but I didn't do anything, and then they came for the XXX, and I still didn't do anything", etc.... but in NAZI Germany, they actually pretty much went after everyone on their hit list all at once.

The question I have of you is whether you really think anything like 1933-1945 Germany, 1927-1945 Japan, 1917-1990 UDSSR is even possible in the USA. I believe very much that it is quite impossible.

True.

The notion of ‘creeping totalitarianism’ is essentially false.

And the Anglo-American judicial traditions of due process, judicial review, and the rule of law will safeguard our civil liberties from unwarranted encroachment by the state.

Indeed, unbridled, full-throated discourse in private society serves the important role of safeguarding our civil liberties as well, rendering involvement by the government or the courts unnecessary; to advocate any limitations on this discourse in the context of private society would in fact pose a threat to our civil liberties.

I concur.

 

[Foxfyre]

Can prove everything I ever say. Just didn't think anyone'd challenge "the sky is blue." But ok...Gimme a few.

Please do not derail the thread with a diatribe re Republicans. I believe you believe everything you said. You will NOT find ANYTHING to change my opinion that you are dead wrong. So please don't muddy the waters by dragging a bunch of unrelated stuff in here. If you want to start another thread on the evils of Republicanism, I'm sure you'll get a lot of traffic.

On this thread, how evil Republicans are or are not is irrelevent EXCEPT as how it pertains to the issue of tolerance and allowing people to be who and what they are when their point of view requires no contribution or participation by anybody else.

Diatribe? Hmmmm....

He expressed an opinon, with which you already disagreed.

So, what was that again about someone wanting to control or stifle? And how is his mentioning of the Republican Party any more OT than your mentioning of Nancy Pelosi? You are both using those things to illustrate points, or? So, what's the big deal?

This was a most excellent exchange to watch, for I do believe that you just played out the meaning of the OP.

You have been hinting all over the place that the Left is somehow stifling freedoms, but you just tried to stifle this man's freedoms.

Fascinating.

And you will also notice that I did not not particularly agree with some of Delta4Embassy's sentiments.

Sorry but insisting that members stay on the thread topic is not suppression of speech. It is suppression of bad manners in a forum with rules. Thanks for understanding.

Now then, do you or do you not believe Delta has the right to his opinion about Republicans--to express that opinion--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after him to take away his livelihood and otherwise ruin his life as much as they can?

Do I or do I not have the right to defend Republicans--and believe me I won't be doing that all that often--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after me to get me fired and/or otherwise ruin my life as much as I can?

 

[Asclepias]

Please do not derail the thread with a diatribe re Republicans. I believe you believe everything you said. You will NOT find ANYTHING to change my opinion that you are dead wrong. So please don't muddy the waters by dragging a bunch of unrelated stuff in here. If you want to start another thread on the evils of Republicanism, I'm sure you'll get a lot of traffic.

On this thread, how evil Republicans are or are not is irrelevent EXCEPT as how it pertains to the issue of tolerance and allowing people to be who and what they are when their point of view requires no contribution or participation by anybody else.

Diatribe? Hmmmm....

He expressed an opinon, with which you already disagreed.

So, what was that again about someone wanting to control or stifle? And how is his mentioning of the Republican Party any more OT than your mentioning of Nancy Pelosi? You are both using those things to illustrate points, or? So, what's the big deal?

This was a most excellent exchange to watch, for I do believe that you just played out the meaning of the OP.

You have been hinting all over the place that the Left is somehow stifling freedoms, but you just tried to stifle this man's freedoms.

Fascinating.

And you will also notice that I did not not particularly agree with some of Delta4Embassy's sentiments.

Sorry but insisting that members stay on the thread topic is not suppression of speech. It is suppression of bad manners in a forum with rules. Thanks for understanding.

Now then, do you or do you not believe Delta has the right to his opinion about Republicans--to express that opinion--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after him to take away his livelihood and otherwise ruin his life as much as they can?

Do I or do I not have the right to defend Republicans--and believe me I won't be doing that all that often--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after me to get me fired and/or otherwise ruin my life as much as I can?

You have the right to express what you want to but people also have the right to financially ruin you for expressing it as long as they do not break any laws. There are consequences to voicing your opinion. You have to weigh which is better for you.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Please do not derail the thread with a diatribe re Republicans. I believe you believe everything you said. You will NOT find ANYTHING to change my opinion that you are dead wrong. So please don't muddy the waters by dragging a bunch of unrelated stuff in here. If you want to start another thread on the evils of Republicanism, I'm sure you'll get a lot of traffic.

On this thread, how evil Republicans are or are not is irrelevent EXCEPT as how it pertains to the issue of tolerance and allowing people to be who and what they are when their point of view requires no contribution or participation by anybody else.

Diatribe? Hmmmm....

He expressed an opinon, with which you already disagreed.

So, what was that again about someone wanting to control or stifle? And how is his mentioning of the Republican Party any more OT than your mentioning of Nancy Pelosi? You are both using those things to illustrate points, or? So, what's the big deal?

This was a most excellent exchange to watch, for I do believe that you just played out the meaning of the OP.

You have been hinting all over the place that the Left is somehow stifling freedoms, but you just tried to stifle this man's freedoms.

Fascinating.

And you will also notice that I did not not particularly agree with some of Delta4Embassy's sentiments.

Sorry but insisting that members stay on the thread topic is not suppression of speech. It is suppression of bad manners in a forum with rules. Thanks for understanding.

Now then, do you or do you not believe Delta has the right to his opinion about Republicans--to express that opinion--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after him to take away his livelihood and otherwise ruin his life as much as they can?

Do I or do I not have the right to defend Republicans--and believe me I won't be doing that all that often--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after me to get me fired and/or otherwise ruin my life as much as I can?

Oh, I support both of your rights and I support those rights to be loud and full-throated as well. And sure, part of a free society is a form of tolerance that allows things that one side would consider unsavory to come into play. So, you may think that some of Delta4Embassy's comments were unsavory, just as I think your failed attempt to disparage Nancy Pelosi was somewhat unsavory. But at the same time, even during both exchanges, new information has some to light, so we have all actually benefitted from the exchange.

Or?

But I disagree with you in your assessment that he was trying to derail this thread. He was not. He was using a group as an example to make a point, just as you did with Nancy Pelosi.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Actually, I have to challenge that somewhat (the bolded): history has shown us that most dictatorships have evolved very, very quickly. In more recent history, NAZI Germany sprung out of the Weimar Republic within less than one year of Hitler's appointment to the Chancellorship of said Republic under President Paul Hindenburg. And the Nürnberg Laws were already being drafted and the lion's share of them, which caused suppression, pretty much happened all at once.

We love to take the romantic view that dictatorships can spring up slowly because people tend to be like frogs in a pot of water that is heating up very, very slowly, but historical facts are quite actually NOT on the side of that form of argument at all.

We have come to hear the phrase "first they came for the XXX, but I didn't do anything, and then they came for the XXX, and I still didn't do anything", etc.... but in NAZI Germany, they actually pretty much went after everyone on their hit list all at once.

The question I have of you is whether you really think anything like 1933-1945 Germany, 1927-1945 Japan, 1917-1990 UDSSR is even possible in the USA. I believe very much that it is quite impossible.

I think what's happened in the past is more or less impossible now because of global communications. People know better. And if some Hitler'esque figure came onto the world stage saying how this group and that group was responsible for all our woes, they'd be found out and debunked that same day.

Problem is, people need a scapegoat so denouncing those with opinions and ideas opposite to our own is a common tactic in politics. The Republicans have indeed borrow some plays from the Nazi playbook like denouncing immigrants. And their attempts to deny basic human rights to the LGBT community harkens back to Nazi Germany as well (orign of the inverted pink triangle being the symbol used marking concentration camp prisoners as homosexuals.) And going over to Africa to push their anti-gay rhetoric onto countries so poor anyone offering help will have their ideology implemented in law as in Uganda recently is much as the Nazis spread around the world empowering politicial underdogs into power positions if they supported the Nazi agenda. So while I wouldn't say the Republicans are like Nazis, I would say they're copying a lot of things Nazis did so that it's becomming a bit of a concern to me as a Jew and member of the LGBT community.

And I respect your right to characterize Republicans that way even though everything you just said about what Republicans have done or attempted is a flat out untruth if not an intentional lie. And I have every right to call you on it and say bullshit that Republicans have copied anything Nazi or utilized Nazi-like tactics in any respect.

But PLEASE let's don't sidetrack the thread on who and who isn't Nazis, or whether the Democrats or Republicans most deserve to wear Hitler mustaches. That is appropriate for another thread, not this one.

But the exchange between you and me on the subject IS pertinent to this thread. Should you be able to express your contempt for Republicans without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will try to take away your livelihood and otherwise ruin your life? Yes you should.

And should I be able to say what you said is a bunch of crap without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will try to take away my livelihood and otherwise ruin my life? Yes I should.

And what Stat said about the Nazis accomplishing what they did very quickly is worth a second look. My understanding of history is that it took the Nazi party close to a decade and a half to accomplish a totalitarian state, and while that was very fast in the whole scope of world history, it didn't happen just overnight but in increments as society was conditioned or lulled to accept what was happening as a good, noble, virtuous thing. And while I do NOT want to get into a discussion of Hitler's Germany outside of that very narrow concept, I do think we can learn from it. Most especially the component in which the Nazis first controlled the message that would be acceptable. Any who dared veer from the politically correct version could expect swift and certain reprimand in various ways.

So who is now trying to--demanding to--control the message in the USA. And urging swift and certain reprimand to those who wander off the politically correct reservation?

Well you kinda just called me a liar so I'd like to show I'm not arbitraily dumping on Republicans, and that in fact much of their political ideology is exactly identical to that of the Nazis leading up to WWII and the Holocaust. Will keep it short.

Themes in Nazi propaganda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In 1933, Hitler's speeches spoke of serving Germany and defending it from its foes: hostile countries, Communism, liberals, and culture decay..."

Would assume you don't need proof of how Republicans denounce liberals? Or how Republicans are anti-LGBT as being 'moral decay'? And how they insist Islamic Sharia law is a threat to our system of governing and law much as Nazis did with Communism?

So yes Virginia, there are similarities between the Nazis and the Republicans.

 

[Foxfyre]

Diatribe? Hmmmm....

He expressed an opinon, with which you already disagreed.

So, what was that again about someone wanting to control or stifle? And how is his mentioning of the Republican Party any more OT than your mentioning of Nancy Pelosi? You are both using those things to illustrate points, or? So, what's the big deal?

This was a most excellent exchange to watch, for I do believe that you just played out the meaning of the OP.

You have been hinting all over the place that the Left is somehow stifling freedoms, but you just tried to stifle this man's freedoms.

Fascinating.

And you will also notice that I did not not particularly agree with some of Delta4Embassy's sentiments.

Sorry but insisting that members stay on the thread topic is not suppression of speech. It is suppression of bad manners in a forum with rules. Thanks for understanding.

Now then, do you or do you not believe Delta has the right to his opinion about Republicans--to express that opinion--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after him to take away his livelihood and otherwise ruin his life as much as they can?

Do I or do I not have the right to defend Republicans--and believe me I won't be doing that all that often--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after me to get me fired and/or otherwise ruin my life as much as I can?

You have the right to express what you want to but people also have the right to financially ruin you for expressing it as long as they do not break any laws. There are consequences to voicing your opinion. You have to weigh which is better for you.

Do they? Do they have a right to ruin me purely for who I am or what I believe? Or can they just do that legally?

The point is not what they CAN do.

The point is what is the right, honorable, ethical, moral thing to do.

Do you condone an angry mob, group, or organization trying to ruin somebody purely because of who and what he/she is and/or because of a belief that he/she holds?

I am not finding many conservatives who can't answer that with a simple yes or no.

I'm not finding many left of center who will even admit the question is asked, much less answer it straight up or down.

Which is making that video Mojo posted early in the thread more and more pertinent here I think.

 

[Asclepias]

Sorry but insisting that members stay on the thread topic is not suppression of speech. It is suppression of bad manners in a forum with rules. Thanks for understanding.

Now then, do you or do you not believe Delta has the right to his opinion about Republicans--to express that opinion--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after him to take away his livelihood and otherwise ruin his life as much as they can?

Do I or do I not have the right to defend Republicans--and believe me I won't be doing that all that often--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after me to get me fired and/or otherwise ruin my life as much as I can?

You have the right to express what you want to but people also have the right to financially ruin you for expressing it as long as they do not break any laws. There are consequences to voicing your opinion. You have to weigh which is better for you.

Do they? Do they have a right to ruin me purely for who I am or what I believe? Or can they just do that legally?

The point is not what they CAN do.

The point is what is the right, honorable, ethical, moral thing to do.

Do you condone an angry mob, group, or organization trying to ruin somebody purely because of who and what he/she is and/or because of a belief that he/she holds?

I am not finding many conservatives who can't answer that with a simple yes or no.

I'm not finding many left of center who will even admit the question is asked, much less answer it straight up or down.

Which is making that video Mojo posted early in the thread more and more pertinent here I think.

I have no problem with saying without a doubt if you open your mouth to voice a negative opinion just because you think what say is important, then morally and ethically I can condone you being ruined. If what you are saying is not positive you should keep your mouth closed or deal with the consequences. Like my grandmother used to say, "if you don't have something good to say don't say nothing at all". Its really that simple.

 

[Foxfyre]

You have the right to express what you want to but people also have the right to financially ruin you for expressing it as long as they do not break any laws. There are consequences to voicing your opinion. You have to weigh which is better for you.

Do they? Do they have a right to ruin me purely for who I am or what I believe? Or can they just do that legally?

The point is not what they CAN do.

The point is what is the right, honorable, ethical, moral thing to do.

Do you condone an angry mob, group, or organization trying to ruin somebody purely because of who and what he/she is and/or because of a belief that he/she holds?

I am not finding many conservatives who can't answer that with a simple yes or no.

I'm not finding many left of center who will even admit the question is asked, much less answer it straight up or down.

Which is making that video Mojo posted early in the thread more and more pertinent here I think.

I have no problem with saying without a doubt if you open your mouth to voice a negative opinion just because you think what say is important, then morally and ethically I can condone you being ruined. If what you are saying is not positive you should keep your mouth closed or deal with the consequences. Like my grandmother used to say, "if you don't have something good to say don't say nothing at all". Its really that simple.

Well thank you for being honest about it. Because your point of view, if there is no push back, will destroy every unalienable right and liberty we enjoy, you can understand why I find your point of view really scary.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Sorry but insisting that members stay on the thread topic is not suppression of speech. It is suppression of bad manners in a forum with rules. Thanks for understanding.

Now then, do you or do you not believe Delta has the right to his opinion about Republicans--to express that opinion--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after him to take away his livelihood and otherwise ruin his life as much as they can?

Do I or do I not have the right to defend Republicans--and believe me I won't be doing that all that often--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after me to get me fired and/or otherwise ruin my life as much as I can?

You have the right to express what you want to but people also have the right to financially ruin you for expressing it as long as they do not break any laws. There are consequences to voicing your opinion. You have to weigh which is better for you.

Do they? Do they have a right to ruin me purely for who I am or what I believe? Or can they just do that legally?

The point is not what they CAN do.

The point is what is the right, honorable, ethical, moral thing to do.

Do you condone an angry mob, group, or organization trying to ruin somebody purely because of who and what he/she is and/or because of a belief that he/she holds?

I am not finding many conservatives who can't answer that with a simple yes or no.

I'm not finding many left of center who will even admit the question is asked, much less answer it straight up or down.

Which is making that video Mojo posted early in the thread more and more pertinent here I think.

Oh, that's easy:

I don't condone it. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.

It is also morally wrong, imo.

But more importantly, it tends to backfire more often than not, if not in this generation, then in the next.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"Do you condone an angry mob, group, or organization trying to ruin somebody purely because of who and what he/she is and/or because of a belief that he/she holds?

I'm not finding many left of center who will even admit the question is asked, much less answer it straight up or down."

No.

Would rather watch cartoons than spend time trying to convince such people they're wrong. Just as we Jews don't seek converts, that sentiment extends to at least my feelings of those I don't agree with. I'm never going to be able to convince someone I'm right and they're wrong if they don't already agree with me despite saying otherwise.

 

[Statistikhengst]

"Do you condone an angry mob, group, or organization trying to ruin somebody purely because of who and what he/she is and/or because of a belief that he/she holds?

I'm not finding many left of center who will even admit the question is asked, much less answer it straight up or down."

No.

Would rather watch cartoons than spend time trying to convince such people they're wrong. Just as we Jews don't seek converts, that sentiment extends to at least my feelings of those I don't agree with. I'm never going to be able to convince someone I'm right and they're wrong if they don't already agree with me despite saying otherwise.

What did you say? I was watching cartoons....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuUJfYcn3V4]Q-36 Space Modulator - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"That creature has stolen the elunium 36 explosive space modulator!"

Those were the great cartoons, not like the crap now.

 

[Foxfyre]

You have the right to express what you want to but people also have the right to financially ruin you for expressing it as long as they do not break any laws. There are consequences to voicing your opinion. You have to weigh which is better for you.

Do they? Do they have a right to ruin me purely for who I am or what I believe? Or can they just do that legally?

The point is not what they CAN do.

The point is what is the right, honorable, ethical, moral thing to do.

Do you condone an angry mob, group, or organization trying to ruin somebody purely because of who and what he/she is and/or because of a belief that he/she holds?

I am not finding many conservatives who can't answer that with a simple yes or no.

I'm not finding many left of center who will even admit the question is asked, much less answer it straight up or down.

Which is making that video Mojo posted early in the thread more and more pertinent here I think.

Oh, that's easy:

I don't condone it. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.

It is also morally wrong, imo.

But more importantly, it tends to backfire more often than not, if not in this generation, then in the next.

Thank you. I really REALLY hope you're right about that, and that honor, ethics, morality, tolerance, and liberty will win out. That is the whole thing. Not what it is legal to do, but what is the right thing to do.

But if the momentum towards total political correctness continues, I do think we are headed for complete totalitarianism in our generation because nobody in government will dare push back. And, they will become as addicted to that power as they are to the power that holding the purse strings gives them.

 

[Asclepias]

Do they? Do they have a right to ruin me purely for who I am or what I believe? Or can they just do that legally?

The point is not what they CAN do.

The point is what is the right, honorable, ethical, moral thing to do.

Do you condone an angry mob, group, or organization trying to ruin somebody purely because of who and what he/she is and/or because of a belief that he/she holds?

I am not finding many conservatives who can't answer that with a simple yes or no.

I'm not finding many left of center who will even admit the question is asked, much less answer it straight up or down.

Which is making that video Mojo posted early in the thread more and more pertinent here I think.

I have no problem with saying without a doubt if you open your mouth to voice a negative opinion just because you think what say is important, then morally and ethically I can condone you being ruined. If what you are saying is not positive you should keep your mouth closed or deal with the consequences. Like my grandmother used to say, "if you don't have something good to say don't say nothing at all". Its really that simple.

Well thank you for being honest about it. Because your point of view, if there is no push back, will destroy every unalienable right and liberty we enjoy, you can understand why I find your point of view really scary.

Everything goes in cycles. There will be a push back. My stance will not destroy our illusions of our rights. The simple law of supply and demand will self regulate those that do not conform with popular opinion. If more people hate your opinion, the more you will feel it in your pocketbook depending on how educated your consumers are.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Do they? Do they have a right to ruin me purely for who I am or what I believe? Or can they just do that legally?

The point is not what they CAN do.

The point is what is the right, honorable, ethical, moral thing to do.

Do you condone an angry mob, group, or organization trying to ruin somebody purely because of who and what he/she is and/or because of a belief that he/she holds?

I am not finding many conservatives who can't answer that with a simple yes or no.

I'm not finding many left of center who will even admit the question is asked, much less answer it straight up or down.

Which is making that video Mojo posted early in the thread more and more pertinent here I think.

Oh, that's easy:

I don't condone it. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.

It is also morally wrong, imo.

But more importantly, it tends to backfire more often than not, if not in this generation, then in the next.

Thank you. I really REALLY hope you're right about that, and that honor, ethics, morality, tolerance, and liberty will win out. That is the whole thing. Not what it is legal to do, but what is the right thing to do.

But if the momentum towards total political correctness continues, I do think we are headed for complete totalitarianism in our generation because nobody in government will dare push back and they will become as addicted that power as they are to the power that holding the purse strings gives them.

There would probably be no need for anyone to feel the need to push PC if the vast majority of people could learn to use modesty and self-imposed restraint in their dealings with fellow homo-sapiens to begin with. Well, it is very late here where I live, I am only still up because of a pine allergy.

Proceed apace, free thinkers of the world. I shall now think in sleep.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have no problem with saying without a doubt if you open your mouth to voice a negative opinion just because you think what say is important, then morally and ethically I can condone you being ruined. If what you are saying is not positive you should keep your mouth closed or deal with the consequences. Like my grandmother used to say, "if you don't have something good to say don't say nothing at all". Its really that simple.

Well thank you for being honest about it. Because your point of view, if there is no push back, will destroy every unalienable right and liberty we enjoy, you can understand why I find your point of view really scary.

Everything goes in cycles. There will be a push back. My stance will not destroy our illusions of our rights. The simple law of supply and demand will self regulate those that do not conform with popular opinion. If more people hate your opinion, the more you will feel it in your pocketbook depending on how educated your consumers are.

But the fact that you condone it, in my opinion makes you part of the problem. And if there are enough who condone it, there won't be enough to push back. And it won't be long before those who try to push back become targets themselves. It is how every totalitarian nation takes control--by removing the power of the people to dissent. Which is exactly what physically and materially hurting people for who they are or what they believe is.