Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Foxfyre]

This thread is not about political parties or religious issues or scientific purity, or gay rights, or race relations, or a 'war on women', or Donald Trump or abortion or any other hot button issue of the day. Any of these can be used as illustration to discuss the thread topic, but we won't be debating them again in this thread. There are many threads already created to debate such subjects.

This thread is about what we Americans consider to be freedom and what we should and should not be willing to allow others who live among us to be, to think, to believe, to say.

For example only:

Probably most Americans believe homosexuality is a natural human condition and believe gay people have the right to be left alone and live their lives as they choose. But should Americans who don't believe homosexuality to be a natural human condition and who chose not to be party to what they define as the 'gay lifestyle' also have the right to be left alone and live their lives as they choose? Should either side have power to force the other to accept a particular side?

Probably most Americans believe in the theory of natural selection and want that taught as science and they also want the right to reject creationism and intelligent design as scientific concepts. But should Americans who embrace creationism and intelligent design be able to include that in science class in their schools? Should either side have power to force the other to accept a particular side?

Abortion is a fact of American life and probably most Americans want at least some abortion to be legal and a matter of choice. But should Americans who believe abortion to be murder of a human life be allowed that point of view with impunity? Should either side have power to force the other to accept a particular side?

Probably most Americans would not get their nose out of joint if Megyn Kelly had suggested Donald Trump was driven by an overdose of testosterone and male arrogance. But a lot of people are apoplectic over Donald Trump referring to Megyn Kelly as 'hormonal' et al. If we truly believe in equality of the sexes, can we believe women are too fragile to be subject to implied misogyny while men are immune to sexist references?

I hope you see where I am going with this.

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic with no ad hominem or personal insults directed at any USMB member or any other person, group, entity, or demographic.

2. For purposes of this discussion only, if there is any question or dispute re definitions used, the OP will define the word or term.

3. Links can be used to reinforce an argument but are not required and, if they are used, must be accompanied by a brief description of what the member will learn if they click on the link.

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform. Note: existing law is not a valid argument for the thread topic. What the law should be is fair game for this discussion.

The poll is set up so members can change their answers if they change their mind.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I did not vote for #1 because it requires clarifying, that being the case where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

 

[Foxfyre]

I did not vote for #1 because it requires clarifying, that being the case where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

I am more interested in whether you voted for #2. In today's PC and 'dictated tolerance' world, many Americans would easily vote for #1 but would not vote for #2. The thesis of the thread suggests that tolerance would allow both points of view.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no such thing as 'political correctness,' it's a contrivance of the right, the consequence of disdain for free and open debate in our free and democratic society.

Indeed, the lie of 'political correctness' represents an effort by most on the right to stifle that free and open debate, by attempting to vilify those who denounce hate, bigotry, and racism.

Bigots, racists, and those who seek to propagate hate are at complete liberty to express their views and opinions; in fact, hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul), where no one desires to subject bigots or racists to punitive measures or in any way use the authority of the state to silence their views.

Likewise, those who oppose bigotry, racism, and hate are at liberty to express their opinions, to denounce racism and bigotry, where that denunciation in no way constitutes 'political correctness,' nor 'prohibits' bigots and racists from exhibiting their ignorance and hate.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is no such thing as 'political correctness,' it's a contrivance of the right, the consequence of disdain for free and open debate in our free and democratic society.

Indeed, the lie of 'political correctness' represents an effort by most on the right to stifle that free and open debate, by attempting to vilify those who denounce hate, bigotry, and racism.

Bigots, racists, and those who seek to propagate hate are at complete liberty to express their views and opinions; in fact, hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul), where no one desires to subject bigots or racists to punitive measures or in any way use the authority of the state to silence their views.

Likewise, those who oppose bigotry, racism, and hate are at liberty to express their opinions, to denounce racism and bigotry, where that denunciation in no way constitutes 'political correctness,' nor 'prohibits' bigots and racists from exhibiting their ignorance and hate.

We're not going to debate semantics friend. As OP I define political correctness as the social phenomenon that requires people to use or avoid certain words or language and/or requires people to accept certain concepts and/or reject others. The phenomenon does exist, I have defined the term used to describe it, and it is not up for discussion or challenge per the thread rules. You however are okay if you choose a different term to describe the phenomenon, but the thread topic is not whether there is or is not political correctness.

The question is not whether racists or bigots are able to express their views. The question is whether they are allowed to hold such views as their right to hold and can do so without expectations that some will attempt to punish or harm them because they hold such views. The issue is what tolerance is. If those who believe racist and bigoted language is inappropriate and therefore is prohibited on their own turf do not then allow others a different point of view on the others' own turf, how can there be tolerance?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Everyone has the right to spout racist and bigoted views.

But that right ends when they cause harm to others.

Individual rights have limitations and accountability. Free speech does not give anyone the right to libel and/or slander someone else without being held accountable under the Law of the Land for that libel and/or slander.

Tolerance is merely another means of trying to get away with being a racist and/or bigot.

Yes, you can be bigoted against gays all you want in your private life but you cannot harm others. If you run a gas station you can't refuse to fill the cars of gays because of your individual religious bigotry. The Law of the Land means that everyone deserves to be treated equally and your personal religious bigotry does not give you the right to harm others by denying them the same service that you give to others.

Or to put it more succinctly, there can be no tolerance for racists and/or bigots where they causes harm to others.

If the OP wants to change the Law of the Land then she is at liberty to do so but until it is changed there is no right for intolerant racists and/or bigots to practice their small minded beliefs to the detriment of others.

 

[Debra K]

Agree or disagree: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform.

I'm not sure what you mean by "allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace". Most certainly everyone is entitled to their own opinion or point of view. As a general matter, everyone is entitled to live their own lives according to their own morals. However, actions (conduct) have consequences. For instance, when a person chooses to enter the business world and open their doors to the public to conduct business ... they should do so with the understanding that "the public" includes everyone ... even persons whom the business owner doesn't want to serve based on the business owner's private views. I don't think we can live side by side in peace if discrimination in public accommodations is sanctioned.

 

[Wake]

I am content to allow homosexuals to live in peace, and though I don't support gay marriage, I won't prevent it, either, because I do know that America is a secular nation.

I don't have to accept it, and I won't be bullied into being forced into accepting it 100%. If you are liberal, you can either accept that not everyone believes in lock-step what you believe, or you can be an ass and try to bully and castigate and bother people for not submitting to your views.

If I don't believe your ideas regarding homosexuality and gay marriage, and am not trying to impede gay marriage but merely voicing my views, what you should do, if you're respectful, is not try to inflame things.

And I do know and have met and spoken with liberals who are not nearly as zealous and extreme as some here. I've even been fortunate enough to befriend a homosexual man who is willing to speak with me on these issues in a calm and respectful manner. When I share with him that I don't feel it is natural, he does not close his mind and fire his mouth and say I am evil or bigoted. We talk quietly, point by point, with mutual respect and understanding. Instances are so, so rare and beneficial. A socio-political counterpart willing to listen and engage while utter respect and understanding. So rare. Coveted, almost.

 

[Wake]

I have not voted yet, but if I do, an option I choose will certainly be #9.

Women should be respected by men, and not called horrible things, or have nasty comments directed towards them. Women should be strong, and men should love and protect and respect women.

 

[Foxfyre]

Agree or disagree: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform.

I'm not sure what you mean by "allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace". Most certainly everyone is entitled to their own opinion or point of view. As a general matter, everyone is entitled to live their own lives according to their own morals. However, actions (conduct) have consequences. For instance, when a person chooses to enter the business world and open their doors to the public to conduct business ... they should do so with the understanding that "the public" includes everyone ... even persons whom the business owner doesn't want to serve based on the business owner's private views. I don't think we can live side by side in peace if discrimination in public accommodations is sanctioned.

But doesn't it hinge on what the definition of discrimination is? A business owner should have the right to expect a level of decency, appropriate dress, and conduct in his place of business and should be able to set the rules for what that will be as well as the products and/or services he chooses to provide. I have no problem with an anti-discrimination law above and beyond that if the community social contract decides on that policy. But in the name of non discrimination, the business owner should not have to prepare a porkless product just because some customers wants that or to provide pork in a product just because some want that even as the business owner should be free to do that if he chooses to do that. The business owner should not have to decorate or provide a product that is offensive to the business owner just because a customer wants that. And the business owner should not be required to participate in activities the business owner choose not to participate in.

Non discrimination should never be interpreted that everything must be tolerated by the business owner.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am content to allow homosexuals to live in peace, and though I don't support gay marriage, I won't prevent it, either, because I do know that America is a secular nation.

I don't have to accept it, and I won't be bullied into being forced into accepting it 100%. If you are liberal, you can either accept that not everyone believes in lock-step what you believe, or you can be an ass and try to bully and castigate and bother people for not submitting to your views.

If I don't believe your ideas regarding homosexuality and gay marriage, and am not trying to impede gay marriage but merely voicing my views, what you should do, if you're respectful, is not try to inflame things.

And I do know and have met and spoken with liberals who are not nearly as zealous and extreme as some here. I've even been fortunate enough to befriend a homosexual man who is willing to speak with me on these issues in a calm and respectful manner. When I share with him that I don't feel it is natural, he does not close his mind and fire his mouth and say I am evil or bigoted. We talk quietly, point by point, with mutual respect and understanding. Instances are so, so rare and beneficial. A socio-political counterpart willing to listen and engage while utter respect and understanding. So rare. Coveted, almost.

I have gay friends I can be that honest with too, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for those people. They don't agree with my views on traditional marriage and how it should be defined, but they don't think I am evil or terrible because I hold those views either. And I attended one of their same sex weddings despite holding the views that I do. In my opinion that is tolerance. People are allowed their beliefs and convictions but do not presume to force them on everybody else.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have not voted yet, but if I do, an option I choose will certainly be #9.

Women should be respected by men, and not called horrible things, or have nasty comments directed towards them. Women should be strong, and men should love and protect and respect women.

Nobody, men or women, should be called horrible things or have nasty comments directed toward them. Men and women should be respected by men and women. My problem with the whole politically correct misogynistic scene is the assumption that we women are somehow too fragile and vulnerable to endure somebody's opinion that we are fragile and vulnerable. I have fought my own battles as a woman trying to fit into a man's world, and I resented mightily anybody's assumption that I need special treatment and consideration in order to succeed. At the same time I appreciate you guys who are real men a whole lot and I enjoy having a door held open for me or being offered a seat (which I usually decline with thanks.)

 

[Wake]

Agreed.

I'm very tolerant of hearing their disagreeable views.

If I were intolerant, they wouldn't be existent, which is what intolerance is and does.

 

[Wake]

I have not voted yet, but if I do, an option I choose will certainly be #9.

Women should be respected by men, and not called horrible things, or have nasty comments directed towards them. Women should be strong, and men should love and protect and respect women.

Nobody, men or women, should be called horrible things or have nasty comments directed toward them. Men and women should be respected by men and women. My problem with the whole politically correct misogynistic scene is the assumption that we women are somehow too fragile and vulnerable to endure somebody's opinion that we are fragile and vulnerable. I have fought my own battles as a woman trying to fit into a man's world, and I resented mightily anybody's assumption that I need special treatment and consideration because I am a woman. At the same time I appreciate you guys who are real men a whole lot and I enjoy having a door held open for me or being offered a seat (which I usually decline with thanks.)

I don't know... honestly...

My mother imbued me with her morals and beliefs. There are many women who teach their boys to respect girls, and they become men who respect women.

On this issue, it's a deep one. It's something that's to me by my female family members for years, from the time I became self-aware. I honestly don't know if I can change my thoughts and feelings on this so quickly.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Agree or disagree: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform.

I'm not sure what you mean by "allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace". Most certainly everyone is entitled to their own opinion or point of view. As a general matter, everyone is entitled to live their own lives according to their own morals. However, actions (conduct) have consequences. For instance, when a person chooses to enter the business world and open their doors to the public to conduct business ... they should do so with the understanding that "the public" includes everyone ... even persons whom the business owner doesn't want to serve based on the business owner's private views. I don't think we can live side by side in peace if discrimination in public accommodations is sanctioned.

But doesn't it hinge on what the definition of discrimination is? A business owner should have the right to expect a level of decency, appropriate dress, and conduct in his place of business and should be able to set the rules for what that will be as well as the products and/or services he chooses to provide. I have no problem with an anti-discrimination law above and beyond that if the community social contract decides on that policy. But in the name of non discrimination, the business owner should not have to prepare a porkless product just because some customers wants that or to provide pork in a product just because some want that even as the business owner should be free to do that if he chooses to do that. The business owner should not have to decorate or provide a product that is offensive to the business owner just because a customer wants that. And the business owner should not be required to participate in activities the business owner choose not to participate in.

Non discrimination should never be interpreted that everything must be tolerated by the business owner.

If you are open for business then you don't get to discriminate based upon your religious beliefs unless your business specifically caters only to one religion and openly advertises itself as doing so.

A Kosher butchery won't stock certain meat products and it cannot be compelled to sell what it doesn't stock nor can it be compelled to stock those items. But if the owner refused to sell what he does stock to anyone who walks in the door on the basis that they don't belong to his religion then he is violating the law.

So no, the OP's position is a violation of the Law of the Land and until it is changed a business owner must give equal service to all customers irrespective of the owner's own personal beliefs.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have not voted yet, but if I do, an option I choose will certainly be #9.

Women should be respected by men, and not called horrible things, or have nasty comments directed towards them. Women should be strong, and men should love and protect and respect women.

Nobody, men or women, should be called horrible things or have nasty comments directed toward them. Men and women should be respected by men and women. My problem with the whole politically correct misogynistic scene is the assumption that we women are somehow too fragile and vulnerable to endure somebody's opinion that we are fragile and vulnerable. I have fought my own battles as a woman trying to fit into a man's world, and I resented mightily anybody's assumption that I need special treatment and consideration because I am a woman. At the same time I appreciate you guys who are real men a whole lot and I enjoy having a door held open for me or being offered a seat (which I usually decline with thanks.)

I don't know... honestly...

My mother imbued me with her morals and beliefs. There are many women who teach their boys to respect girls, and they become men who respect women.

On this issue, it's a deep one. It's something that's to me by my female family members for years, from the time I became self-aware. I honestly don't know if I can change my thoughts and feelings on this so quickly.

Nor should you. You are who and what you are. I am not offended that you think you should defer to me or respect me as the 'fair sex' even as I have fought hard to make a place for myself and succeed in what is normally a man's world. I would graciously accept and even appreciate your deference even knowing that I am perfectly capable of opening a door or pulling out a chair all by myself. I have absolutely no problem with good manners and respect shown as you seem to be describing it and if you wanted to carry in my groceries because that is what you are supposed to do, I would let you and would appreciate it. Its a dichotomy maybe that we can appreciate being accepted as equals even if we are treated as women.

At the same time I wouldn't consider it a hostile work environment if you happened to have a sexy pinup in your office or if you used a word most of the PC police would crucify you if you were in the wrong ideological camp. I can appreciate that men usually process information and observe differently than women and would allow you that.

Tolerance doesn't mean I have to like you. All it means is that I allow you to be you. (I do like you though.)

 

[Foxfyre]

Agree or disagree: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform.

I'm not sure what you mean by "allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace". Most certainly everyone is entitled to their own opinion or point of view. As a general matter, everyone is entitled to live their own lives according to their own morals. However, actions (conduct) have consequences. For instance, when a person chooses to enter the business world and open their doors to the public to conduct business ... they should do so with the understanding that "the public" includes everyone ... even persons whom the business owner doesn't want to serve based on the business owner's private views. I don't think we can live side by side in peace if discrimination in public accommodations is sanctioned.

But doesn't it hinge on what the definition of discrimination is? A business owner should have the right to expect a level of decency, appropriate dress, and conduct in his place of business and should be able to set the rules for what that will be as well as the products and/or services he chooses to provide. I have no problem with an anti-discrimination law above and beyond that if the community social contract decides on that policy. But in the name of non discrimination, the business owner should not have to prepare a porkless product just because some customers wants that or to provide pork in a product just because some want that even as the business owner should be free to do that if he chooses to do that. The business owner should not have to decorate or provide a product that is offensive to the business owner just because a customer wants that. And the business owner should not be required to participate in activities the business owner choose not to participate in.

Non discrimination should never be interpreted that everything must be tolerated by the business owner.

If you are open for business then you don't get to discriminate based upon your religious beliefs unless your business specifically caters only to one religion and openly advertises itself as doing so.

A Kosher butchery won't stock certain meat products and it cannot be compelled to sell what it doesn't stock nor can it be compelled to stock those items. But if the owner refused to sell what he does stock to anyone who walks in the door on the basis that they don't belong to his religion then he is violating the law.

So no, the OP's position is a violation of the Law of the Land and until it is changed a business owner must give equal service to all customers irrespective of the owner's own personal beliefs.

I suggest you re-read the OP and try again. The existing law of the land has absolutely no role in this discussion.

 

[shadow355]

This thread is not about political parties or religious issues or scientific purity, or gay rights, or race relations, or a 'war on women', or Donald Trump or abortion or any other hot button issue of the day. Any of these can be used as illustration to discuss the thread topic, but we won't be debating them again in this thread. There are many threads already created to debate such subjects.

This thread is about what we Americans consider to be freedom and what we should and should not be willing to allow others who live among us to be, to think, to believe, to say.

For example only:

Probably most Americans believe homosexuality is a natural human condition and believe gay people have the right to be left alone and live their lives as they choose. But should Americans who don't believe homosexuality to be a natural human condition and who chose not to be party to what they define as the 'gay lifestyle' also have the right to be left alone and live their lives as they choose? Should either side have power to force the other to accept a particular side?

Probably most Americans believe in the theory of natural selection and want that taught as science and they also want the right to reject creationism and intelligent design as scientific concepts. But should Americans who embrace creationism and intelligent design be able to include that in science class in their schools? Should either side have power to force the other to accept a particular side?

Abortion is a fact of American life and probably most Americans want at least some abortion to be legal and a matter of choice. But should Americans who believe abortion to be murder of a human life be allowed that point of view with impunity? Should either side have power to force the other to accept a particular side?

Probably most Americans would not get their nose out of joint if Megyn Kelly had suggested Donald Trump was driven by an overdose of testosterone and male arrogance. But a lot of people are apoplectic over Donald Trump referring to Megyn Kelly as 'hormonal' et al. If we truly believe in equality of the sexes, can we believe women are too fragile to be subject to implied misogyny while men are immune to sexist references?

I hope you see where I am going with this.

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic with no ad hominem or personal insults directed at any USMB member or any other person, group, entity, or demographic.

2. For purposes of this discussion only, if there is any question or dispute re definitions used, the OP will define the word or term.

3. Links can be used to reinforce an argument but are not required and, if they are used, must be accompanied by a brief description of what the member will learn if they click on the link.

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform. Note: existing law is not a valid argument for the thread topic. What the law should be is fair game for this discussion.

The poll is set up so members can change their answers if they change their mind.

Some people mistake tolerance for ignorance.

Last week, I had a guy drive out Gate 2, on day shift at about 4:00 pm.... at my job site. MOST BOTTLES, aluminum cans, soft drink containers, two liters of cola, bottles of water, liquid of any sorts ARE NOT allowed inside the complex, for the simple reason......they create an explosion hazard. An explosion could create fatalities, a mass casuality incident, cause severe burns and permanent damage and scarring......not to mention put hundreds of people out of a job.....and cause many months, or years even to rebuild ; IF THE decision to rebuild was made.

I went into "Military Mode" ( I am prior service - security experience ). The individual was a new contractor whom just had the safety orientation, and he drives out the gate with a two liter of "Mountain Dew" in the front drivers seat......like it was intentional to "get my goat".

Yes, I understand that some people see me as the overly nice guy, naive and whom is great with a stethoscope ( we all all EMS - Fire - HAZ MAT - Rescue - Security guys ) and whom has most liklely went through covert psychological assessments than any other person. I believe that I was watched when I first started my job, AND MY Personality was compared to my pictures in my residence that someone secretly snooped in while I was not at home, but point being.....THAT DOES NOT GIVE SOMEONE THE authority to be asinine and mistake me for stupid, nor to "try my patience" and play psychological game with me.



Well, not so much as "get my goat" , as it was obvious to me he was blatantly and with intention to make me get up in ire......so I did. I went into full "Military Mode."

Even after me and many of my colleagues previously having filed many written and computer incident reports with our supervisors and Department Manager.... of individuals bringing unauthorized containers into "The Plant", contractors are still allowed to bring unauthorized, and potentially lethal causing containers into the complex, without reprimand or punishment.....when the previous policy when I started was that they were not allowed back on Plant Site. Unauthorized containers could potentially cause a vapor.....or hot metal explosion ( google China Aluminum explosion...or hot metal explosion to understand. In China a whole factory was decimated ).

If I go into "Military Mode", I am not with restraint. If I am yelled and screamed at and I defend myself.....I am considered without restraint......a "Type A" person if you will. If someone plays stupid, plays word game with me and I yell back.....I am without restraint. If someone is intentionally being stupid or ignorant......playing dumb - or intentionally violating safety rules ( some rules can prove to be damaging or fatal to my coworkers and people I am charged with protecting ) ....and I go into "Military Mode"...I am considered without restraint...and sometimes formally, or informally retaliated against.

Some people intentionally "try my patience". I let them know that to do so....is simply a mistake. Other than a few people, about three in number...those whom got into a verbal confrontation with me lost, and never "tried" me again.


What would any other reasonable person, Security Officer, Law Enforcement Officer, Prior Service Military......do in my position and under the same circumstances? But yet, I am "led to believe"; or sometimes I am told, that I am the bad guy, and previously in some instances....even my supervisors and management failed to stand behind me as well as some of my decisions.
People previously, some of them, should have been told to leave, or escorted out of the complex.....SIMPLE as that. But we do not have that authority and people are allowed to violate and/or break severe safety policy and rules......some continuously break the rules and policy ; without reprimand...or punishment. Previously they were escorted out of the plant, and we did not have to pay the rest of their contract ( monies ) due to a safety violation. Now........they can do as they wish with no fear of punishment or reprimand, or worry of financial loss.

Especially the repetitive offenders that like to bring in, sneak in pop and soda cans. They should be told to leave.....never to return.


Shadow 355

 

[Foxfyre]

This thread is not about political parties or religious issues or scientific purity, or gay rights, or race relations, or a 'war on women', or Donald Trump or abortion or any other hot button issue of the day. Any of these can be used as illustration to discuss the thread topic, but we won't be debating them again in this thread. There are many threads already created to debate such subjects.

This thread is about what we Americans consider to be freedom and what we should and should not be willing to allow others who live among us to be, to think, to believe, to say.

For example only:

Probably most Americans believe homosexuality is a natural human condition and believe gay people have the right to be left alone and live their lives as they choose. But should Americans who don't believe homosexuality to be a natural human condition and who chose not to be party to what they define as the 'gay lifestyle' also have the right to be left alone and live their lives as they choose? Should either side have power to force the other to accept a particular side?

Probably most Americans believe in the theory of natural selection and want that taught as science and they also want the right to reject creationism and intelligent design as scientific concepts. But should Americans who embrace creationism and intelligent design be able to include that in science class in their schools? Should either side have power to force the other to accept a particular side?

Abortion is a fact of American life and probably most Americans want at least some abortion to be legal and a matter of choice. But should Americans who believe abortion to be murder of a human life be allowed that point of view with impunity? Should either side have power to force the other to accept a particular side?

Probably most Americans would not get their nose out of joint if Megyn Kelly had suggested Donald Trump was driven by an overdose of testosterone and male arrogance. But a lot of people are apoplectic over Donald Trump referring to Megyn Kelly as 'hormonal' et al. If we truly believe in equality of the sexes, can we believe women are too fragile to be subject to implied misogyny while men are immune to sexist references?

I hope you see where I am going with this.

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic with no ad hominem or personal insults directed at any USMB member or any other person, group, entity, or demographic.

2. For purposes of this discussion only, if there is any question or dispute re definitions used, the OP will define the word or term.

3. Links can be used to reinforce an argument but are not required and, if they are used, must be accompanied by a brief description of what the member will learn if they click on the link.

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform. Note: existing law is not a valid argument for the thread topic. What the law should be is fair game for this discussion.

The poll is set up so members can change their answers if they change their mind.

Some people mistake tolerance for ignorance.

Last week, I had a guy drive out Gate 2, on day shift at about 4:00 pm.... at my job site. MOST BOTTLES, aluminum cans, soft drink containers, two liters of cola, bottles of water, liquid of any sorts ARE NOT allowed inside the complex, for the simple reason......they create an explosion hazard. An explosion could create fatalities, a mass casuality incident, cause severe burns and permanent damage and scarring......not to mention put hundreds of people out of a job.....and cause many months, or years even to rebuild ; IF THE decision to rebuild was made.

I went into "Military Mode" ( I am prior service - security experience ). The individual was a new contractor whom just had the safety orientation, and he drives out the gate with a two liter of "Mountain Dew" in the front drivers seat......like it was intentional to "get my goat".

Yes, I understand that some people see me as the overly nice guy, naive and whom is great with a stethoscope ( we all all EMS - Fire - HAZ MAT - Rescue - Security guys ) and whom has most liklely went through covert psychological assessments than any other person. I believe that I was watched when I first started my job, AND MY Personality was compared to my pictures in my residence that someone secretly snooped in while I was not at home, but point being.....THAT DOES NOT GIVE SOMEONE THE authority to be asinine and mistake me for stupid, nor to "try my patience" and play psychological game with me.



Well, not so much as "get my goat" , as it was obvious to me he was blatantly and with intention to make me get up in ire......so I did. I went into full "Military Mode."

Even after me and many of my colleagues previously having filed many written and computer incident reports with our supervisors and Department Manager.... of individuals bringing unauthorized containers into "The Plant", contractors are still allowed to bring unauthorized, and potentially lethal causing containers into the complex, without reprimand or punishment.....when the previous policy when I started was that they were not allowed back on Plant Site. Unauthorized containers could potentially cause a vapor.....or hot metal explosion ( google China Aluminum explosion...or hot metal explosion to understand. In China a whole factory was decimated ).

If I go into "Military Mode", I am not with restraint. If I am yelled and screamed at and I defend myself.....I am considered without restraint......a "Type A" person if you will. If someone plays stupid, plays word game with me and I yell back.....I am without restraint. If someone is intentionally being stupid or ignorant......playing dumb - or intentionally violating safety rules ( some rules can prove to be damaging or fatal to my coworkers and people I am charged with protecting ) ....and I go into "Military Mode"...I am considered without restraint...and sometimes formally, or informally retaliated against.

Some people intentionally "try my patience". I let them know that to do so....is simply a mistake. Other than a few people, about three in number...those whom got into a verbal confrontation with me lost, and never "tried" me again.


What would any other reasonable person, Security Officer, Law Enforcement Officer, Prior Service Military......do in my position and under the same circumstances? But yet, I am "led to believe"; or sometimes I am told, that I am the bad guy, and previously in some instances....even my supervisors and management failed to stand behind me as well as some of my decisions.
People previously, some of them, should have been told to leave, or escorted out of the complex.....SIMPLE as that. But we do not have that authority and people are allowed to violate and/or break severe safety policy and rules......some continuously break the rules and policy ; without reprimand...or punishment. Previously they were escorted out of the plant, and we did not have to pay the rest of their contract ( monies ) due to a safety violation. Now........they can do as they wish with no fear of punishment or reprimand, or worry of financial loss.

Especially the repetitive offenders that like to bring in, sneak in pop and soda cans. They should be told to leave.....never to return.

Shadow 355

Of course 'official rules' are somewhat different than presumed cultural rules that those who presume to enforce them can pick and choose who will be punished and who will get a pass. For instance Kelly Osborne on "The View" this past week was complaining about Trump's commitment to securing the border and dealing with illegals and said something to the effect: "If you kick every Latino out of this country, then who is going to be cleaning your toilet, Donald Trump? Kelly gets pretty much a pass from the PC police though because 1) she was attacking a controversial un-PC person and 2) of course she, a PC crowd darling, didn't mean it like it came out. Had somebody famous who isn't a PC crowd darling said something like that, however, there would be huge shouts of indignant demands for that person's head to roll.

(And that doesn't even account for the real truth that Donald has not called for kicking Latinos out of the country, but rather has suggested that we kick out those who are here illegally.)

So if you are not entirely politically correct when you deal with disagreeable people on the job, well you are not a person of interest to the MSM or PC police. If you were, you might have to measure your words more carefully or deal with the organized angry mobs descending upon you demanding you be fired, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I did not vote for #1 because it requires clarifying, that being the case where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

I am more interested in whether you voted for #2. In today's PC and 'dictated tolerance' world, many Americans would easily vote for #1 but would not vote for #2. The thesis of the thread suggests that tolerance would allow both points of view.

I voted for #2.