Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[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.

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

To quote the OP herself!

"Note: existing law is not a valid argument for the thread topic. What the law should be is fair game for this discussion."

In every response that I have made I have pointed out the OP needs to change the law first if she wants to impose her version of law.

Establishing what the current legal baseline is for the law is within the OP guidelines specified and is a necessary component of making any changes to the law.

In my quoted post above I used a perfectly valid example of a business that is based upon catering to a specific religion. I pointed out how the business owner must operate under present law. I then pointed out the OP wants to change the current laws and must work to make that happen.

But instead of responding with a viable alternative to the Law of the Land the OP deflects. Why is that?

Perhaps the OP doesn't have a viable alternative version of the law that would work in that circumstance. But we will never know if she doesn't post how she wants to change the law.

So how about if the OP does exactly that? How about if she puts forward an actual proposal for how the law is supposed to be written so that we can all take a look at what she has in mind?

Is that too much to expect of an OP who actually asked exactly that in her own words?

"What the law should be is fair game for this discussion."

 

[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.

To quote the OP herself!

"Note: existing law is not a valid argument for the thread topic. What the law should be is fair game for this discussion."

In every response that I have made I have pointed out the OP needs to change the law first if she wants to impose her version of law.

Establishing what the current legal baseline is for the law is within the OP guidelines specified and is a necessary component of making any changes to the law.

In my quoted post above I used a perfectly valid example of a business that is based upon catering to a specific religion. I pointed out how the business owner must operate under present law. I then pointed out the OP wants to change the current laws and must work to make that happen.

But instead of responding with a viable alternative to the Law of the Land the OP deflects. Why is that?

Perhaps the OP doesn't have a viable alternative version of the law that would work in that circumstance. But we will never know if she doesn't post how she wants to change the law.

So how about if the OP does exactly that? How about if she puts forward an actual proposal for how the law is supposed to be written so that we can all take a look at what she has in mind?

Is that too much to expect of an OP who actually asked exactly that in her own words?

"What the law should be is fair game for this discussion."

You used the existing law for your argument. The OP specifically states that 'existing law is not a valid argument for the thread topic' and I included that specifically to avoid that kind of derailment of the thread. I do not care what the existing law is for purposes of this discussion and the topic is not what can and cannot be expected of the OP. So please focus on the thread topic in its entirety and make your argument for what is or is not tolerance and/or what the law should be, or please find something else to do.

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.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So the OP refuses to provide any semblance of "what the law should be" for reasons unknown?

How can the topic even be discussed unless the OP is willing to actually propose something that will be "fair game for discussion"?

Is the OP even serious about "what the law should be" or is this just an exercise in venting on her part?

Inquiring minds are waiting with bated breath for the next exciting installment of "tolerance has to be a two way street" to see whether our intrepid OP can find her way down this "two way street" and come up with anything at all that resembles "what the law should be".

 

[Foxfyre]

Wake's comments re 'respect of women' were intriguing to me because that is one of the more intangible components of PC attitudes. It is reasonable I think for we parents to instill in our sons that they are not to bully or hit girls because biologically men are more often bigger, stronger, faster, and more physically aggressive than are most women and therefore men are more likely to have capability to physically harm women than women are to physically harm men. (I did teach both son and daughter that it isn't nice to hit anybody other than in self defense.)

And there is the side of me that says it is wrong, counter productive, and diminishes us all when useful standards involving strength, speed, etc. are lowered so that more women can be included.

But I have strongly resented the inference that women are so fragile and stupid that they are somehow harmed if male pronouns are used in hymn books or scripture or training manuals, etc. Or that we are too fragile and sensitive and are materially and physically harmed if somebody uses an extemporaneous misogynistic word or sexist phrase or tells a sexist joke. I have chosen to break through glass ceilings by demonstrating that I can do a job as well as any man and I appreciate laws that allow me to try. If I cannot, then the man deserves the job.

So is it a dichotomy that I appreciate a guy like Wake who would pull out my chair to assist me in being seated at the restaurant, who would offer to carry something heavy for me, who would help me with my coat or hold open a door for me, all with an implied inference that this is the way to treat women--an inference that resulted from a point of view that women are the 'weaker sex'?

Two points of view that may or may not be conflicting values, but in my world, tolerance requires that both points of view be allowed to coexist peacefully side by side.

 

[Coyote]

The OP appears to be set up to discuss attitudes and opinions and what the law should be - not existing law. Please try to follow the guidelines. How would you change the existing law to reflect what you believe to be right?

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.

 

[Coyote]

I always find yes/no questions problematic

Pro choice people should be able to obtain a safe, legal abortion.
Pro life people should be able to prohibit at least some abortion.
I voted yes to both of these. Late term elective abortion (after fetal viability, third trimester) should be restricted to mothers life/health or severe (as in not survivable) fetal deformaties.

Minorities should be protected from racially charged language.
Not clear on this one....what is meant by this? My feeling is if someone is going to be a bigot, let them be a bigot and they will be called on it loud and clear. It shouldn't be "prohibited" by law, it's free speech and like all free speech there are consequences. However - a private establishment can choose to boot someone who uses racially charged language.

Americans with equal rights need no special protections.
What does this mean?

Gay people should be entitled to equal rights under the law.
Yes
Nobody should have to participate in activities they oppose.
Up to a point. Should they be allowed to discrimminate? If people don't like desegregated schools - should they be allowed to go back to segregation because they oppose it? Where do you draw the line between their rights and the rights of an individual not to be discrimminated against?

All American school children should be taught mandatory science.
You bet!

Local citizens should choose the science (and other) curriculum.
Yes - up to a point. There should be certain standards across the nation. Higher education institutions have to be accredited which means they meet certain educational standards. Why should public schools be any different?

Women should not be subject to misogynistic language.
This is another one that is hard to answer yes or no. I can give back as good as I get. However - there comes a point where repeated misogyny can become workplace harrassment.

Women are as tough as men re impact of language.
Yes

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So the OP refuses to provide any semblance of "what the law should be" for reasons unknown?

How can the topic even be discussed unless the OP is willing to actually propose something that will be "fair game for discussion"?

Is the OP even serious about "what the law should be" or is this just an exercise in venting on her part?

Inquiring minds are waiting with bated breath for the next exciting installment of "tolerance has to be a two way street" to see whether our intrepid OP can find her way down this "two way street" and come up with anything at all that resembles "what the law should be".

Agreed.

There can't be 'debate now,' or 'structured debate,' for that matter, when the premise of the argument can't be challenged – indeed, that 's the very nature of debate.

There are those, for example, who believe the laws 'should be' as they exist now, who correctly understand that a necessary, proper, and Constitutional law does not manifest as 'intolerance,' nor the myth of 'political correctness,' where a just law does not 'dictate' any point of view, nor 'compel' anyone to believe in a certain thing or manner.

This position is perfectly valid and shouldn't be prohibited simply because it undermines the premise of the argument.

Placing the premise of the argument 'off limits' to debate is no 'debate.'

 

[Derideo_Te]

Nobody should have to participate in activities they oppose.
Up to a point. Should they be allowed to discrimminate? If people don't like desegregated schools - should they be allowed to go back to segregation because they oppose it? Where do you draw the line between their rights and the rights of an individual not to be discrimminated against?

Yes, I had a hard time with that one too just as I am having a hard time with the OP topic as stated.

I have chosen to participate in this thread and the OP appears to be "intolerant" of my contributions.

Does the OP have the right to be intolerant of my contributions? Or, does the OP have to be tolerant of my "opposing points of view" because she claimed the following in the OP topic;

"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."

And it isn't just a matter of where to draw the line but more importantly WHO gets to draw the line.

Since this OP topic is about tolerance being a "two way street" then it must allow "opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace" because for the OP to do otherwise she is "dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform".

Or to put it more succinctly is the OP demonstrating how she would regulate "tolerance" to suit herself while "dictating political correctness" in the process?

Perhaps the OP could "define" these terms so that there is no further confusion as to what they mean as far as she is concerned.

 

[Foxfyre]

I always find yes/no questions problematic

Pro choice people should be able to obtain a safe, legal abortion.
Pro life people should be able to prohibit at least some abortion.
I voted yes to both of these. Late term elective abortion (after fetal viability, third trimester) should be restricted to mothers life/health or severe (as in not survivable) fetal deformaties.

Minorities should be protected from racially charged language.
Not clear on this one....what is meant by this? My feeling is if someone is going to be a bigot, let them be a bigot and they will be called on it loud and clear. It shouldn't be "prohibited" by law, it's free speech and like all free speech there are consequences. However - a private establishment can choose to boot someone who uses racially charged language.

Americans with equal rights need no special protections.
What does this mean?

Gay people should be entitled to equal rights under the law.
Yes
Nobody should have to participate in activities they oppose.
Up to a point. Should they be allowed to discrimminate? If people don't like desegregated schools - should they be allowed to go back to segregation because they oppose it? Where do you draw the line between their rights and the rights of an individual not to be discrimminated against?

All American school children should be taught mandatory science.
You bet!

Local citizens should choose the science (and other) curriculum.
Yes - up to a point. There should be certain standards across the nation. Higher education institutions have to be accredited which means they meet certain educational standards. Why should public schools be any different?

Women should not be subject to misogynistic language.
This is another one that is hard to answer yes or no. I can give back as good as I get. However - there comes a point where repeated misogyny can become workplace harrassment.

Women are as tough as men re impact of language.
Yes

Unfortunately, the word restrictions in poll options limit our ability to include qualifiers and nuance.

The point I hoped to make is, that we all have our point of view about all those things in the poll options as well as in many other things, but can we allow others to have a different point of view without fear of harassment or bullying or organized punishment?

To pull one example from the many but attaching no superior importance to it, a person may feel strongly that creationism or intelligent design has no place in the science curriculum. But can he accept that others feel just as strongly that creationism and intelligent design are prevalent beliefs in our culture and should be discussed and allowed along with other science? When it comes to accreditation, who should be the authority to do that? The school systems themselves? (my vote) Or a faceless bureaucracy that may or may not be qualified to know what good education is?

Another example but attaching no superior importance to it, can tolerance include a belief that the developing baby in the womb is a human life from conception but not declare evil those who feel it personally necessary to destroy it? Or can those who believe that the woman's choice takes precedence over any right of the baby in the womb even to the point to declaring that baby to not be a person also accept that there are those who consider that developing life to be sacred? And allow each group to reflect their convictions in the societies they develop?

When it comes to discrimination, does the right of somebody to have a product decorated in a specific way take precedence over the right of somebody to not participate in such a decoration they consider to be immoral or offensive? Why can't discrimination laws allow for protection of EVERYBODY to be who and what they are?

Or must everything be a one size fits all dictated by a central government.

 

[BULLDOG]

Sorry, but most of the questions are not answerable with yes or no answers. If you asked if they were generally true or false, that's easy, but a hard answer just doesn't work in every case.

 

[Ravi]

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

It would be the same, childish taunt no matter which gender made it. Trump showed that he is a child.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry, but most of the questions are not answerable with yes or no answers. If you asked if they were generally true or false, that's easy, but a hard answer just doesn't work in every case.

That's fine. The poll is NOT the OP. It just offers some examples of things that society in general often holds opposing views about and hopefully helps us think about whether we are or are not tolerant in allowing opposing points of views on things. The premise of the OP is whether we as a society are tolerant enough to allow people to think and believe differently than we do, or if we think one group should be able to force everybody to conform to what that group thinks and believes. The difference between liberty/tolerance and political correctness.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

It would be the same, childish taunt no matter which gender made it. Trump showed that he is a child.

The thread is not about Donald Trump. His remark was used in an illustration leading up to a specific question related to the OP. Please focus on that question and not Donald Trump. There are plenty of threads already out there to discuss Donald Trump.

 

[Bonzi]

I don't agree with any of them.. with the possible exceptions of #6 and #10.

I want to "knee jerk" and say yes on #6 but, think there might be a instance out there where I'd be off on that...
#10 - I'm a thick skinned tough minded person, so, I can't speak for all women. So I tend to agree with that on personal level.

I disagree with all the others....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"I always find yes/no questions problematic"

That's putting it kindly.

For example:

“Minorities should be protected from racially charged language.”

“Protected” by whom – certainly not government, as that's neither its role nor responsibility. Indeed, hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul), immune from attack by the state.

On the other hand, however inalienable, our rights are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government – including freedom of speech. When hate speech seeks to provoke imminent lawlessness or harm, it is no longer protected speech, and is subject to punitive measures by government. (Wisconsin v. Mitchell)

Consequently, there is no 'yes' or 'no' with regard to “protecting” minorities from “racially charged” language.

 

[BULLDOG]

Sorry, but most of the questions are not answerable with yes or no answers. If you asked if they were generally true or false, that's easy, but a hard answer just doesn't work in every case.

That's fine. The poll is NOT the OP. It just offers some examples of things that society in general often holds opposing views about and hopefully helps us think about whether we are or are not tolerant in allowing opposing points of views on things. The premise of the OP is whether we as a society are tolerant enough to allow people to think and believe differently than we do, or if we think one group should be able to force everybody to conform to what that group thinks and believes. The difference between liberty/tolerance and political correctness.

Doesn't a society mutually decide the rules that everyone must abide by for the society to exist? That requires that some people just aren't allowed to do everything they want. Conformity to those rules is the basis for all societies. The only way a person could have total liberty would be to live alone with no contact with others. With interaction, rules are a must.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry, but most of the questions are not answerable with yes or no answers. If you asked if they were generally true or false, that's easy, but a hard answer just doesn't work in every case.

That's fine. The poll is NOT the OP. It just offers some examples of things that society in general often holds opposing views about and hopefully helps us think about whether we are or are not tolerant in allowing opposing points of views on things. The premise of the OP is whether we as a society are tolerant enough to allow people to think and believe differently than we do, or if we think one group should be able to force everybody to conform to what that group thinks and believes. The difference between liberty/tolerance and political correctness.

Doesn't a society mutually decide the rules that everyone must abide by for the society to exist? That requires that some people just aren't allowed to do everything they want. Conformity to those rules is the basis for all societies. The only way a person could have total liberty would be to live alone with no contact with others. With interaction, rules are a must.

But does everybody in the country have to abide by the same legal or implied rules? If that was the rule when slavery was legal in some states, the entire country would be expected to endorse, allow, and approve of slavery. In the 20th Century, my home town at the time would not have been able to desegregate on its own without pressure or orders from anywhere else--we did it just because it was the right thing to do even as other places thought we were terrible.

In the early years of our nation, some communities were little theocracies with rigid religious rules and punitive disciplines for the members of those societies because that is the way the people wanted it. At the same time there were communities like Deadwood with no rules or law at all and where anarchy prevailed because that is the way the people wanted it. In time, the people of both those groups chose something different--the little theocracies dissolved and much more tolerance was initiated. The people in the wide open lawless places saw that as an unpleasant way to live and adopted rules and laws to curb the violence and antisocial behavior.

It is possible for such opposing societies to co-exist in our vast nation that is among the world's very largest land masses. Why do you think it is so threatening for some when other American societies choose something different?

 

[Bonzi]

Several of your questions involve language.
Freedom of speech. We have it or not. Which?

 

[Foxfyre]

Several of your questions involve language.
Freedom of speech. We have it or not. Which?

Doesn't matter whether we have it or not so far as the OP is concerned. But make your argument for why somebody should be able to speak their mind, even if it is politically incorrect or offensive, without fear of some organized mob trying to punish him/her materially or physically. Or why those organized mobs are justified in shutting down politically incorrect speech if that is what you believe.

 

[Bonzi]

Several of your questions involve language.
Freedom of speech. We have it or not. Which?

Doesn't matter whether we have it or not so far as the OP is concerned. But make your argument for why somebody should be able to speak their mind, even if it is politically incorrect or offensive, without fear of some organized mob trying to punish him/her materially or physically. Or why those organized mobs are justified in shutting down politically incorrect speech if that is what you believe.

You should be able to say what you want with no fear.
Mobs should be controlled and punished at all costs.