Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Foxfyre]

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

Wow, so they did not get fined for not baking a cake?

This is coming from the guy who didn't even know that the bakers got fined

you're trolling, but you're part of a protected class

Not when there is a quota and Asians on average have higher test scores, therefore I have to score higher than both whites and blacks.

It's okay.

Oh really so it is ok for the government to create second class citizens with the use of law? As an Asian I am held to a higher standard than both whites and blacks when trying to get into Harvard.

you're free to start your own thread on this subject

This is on subject, according to you government is to make the decision on what is tolerant and intolerant, even though they've gotten it wrong too many times in history (Obama circa 2008 was intolerant of gay marriage). And also allowed to participate in discrimination, infringing on citizens equal rights. You also believe that, going against the 1st amendment, you do not have the right to exercise your religious beliefs if you are in the public setting.

Perhaps on subject but includes ad hominem expressly forbidden in the OP. Let's keep personal observations out of it Sak because otherwise you are making some valid arguments for the thread.

post two of these arguments you consider valid

What I consider valid is not the topic of this thread. The thread is about tolerance, liberty, and political correctness.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I stopped reading after the second paragraph because you are still framing rebuttal to an argument I have not made. I have not said I should be able to refuse to sell tickets to a Latino or whatever. That would be unjustifiable discrimination against people because of who or what they are. I am saying that I should not have to show the movie at a convention or activity or gathering or event that I did not wish to participate in.

But it's the same thing with the baker - unjustifiable discrimmination because of who or what they are.

No. Choosing not to attend an activity or event does not have to involve who or what anybody is. As I used as illustration in an earlier comment, I would cater your birthday party. I would cater your wedding. I would cater your fund raising event for the Ladies' Aid Society. All the while enjoying your company and inviting you to my dinner party. But if you want me to cater your scheduled cock fight, nope. Not gonna do it. Won't do it no matter how seriously the ACLU threatens to sue me. And that is not discriminating against you in any way shape or form. It is choosing to not participate in or contribute to or be party to an event that I cannot condone.

But the very next day I might cater your class reunion or whatever.

Except - you're making the wrong comparisons. If your business specialized in catering, and you were willing to cater to my neighbors cockfight but refused to cater my cockfight - then that does involve who or what someone is.

Only if you were gay (for the purposes of the argument) businesses can refuse to serve people

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Existing law is not a valid argument for the thread. Mentioning the existing law is not the same thing as arguing it. I have tried to get people to tell me what exact law the baker in question broke. Talking about a fine. Talking about rights. We need to know what law was broken in order to intelligently discuss the why of any fine or government action.

Instead of getting all wrapped up in any PARTICULAR case and the legal proceedings associated with it, this is an opportunity to explore conflicting "rights" and how heavily codified that interaction should be.

I've lived in California where folks don't even READ all the signs for rules and regulations that appear on EVERY doorway. There is a point where CODIFYING everything can lead to atrophy of the judgement muscles. Do you have an expectation to never be offended by some intolerant hater? That kind of deal. Because if our JUDGEMENTS on fairness and tolerance are spelled out -- will anyone be capable or willing to give up their "social freedoms" in exchange for the security of legally prescribed correctness...

I think you're likely hitting on some key elements of the concept Flacal, but I'm not understanding exactly the point you are making here. Are you saying we cannot define what tolerance is? Or that we cannot spell out every example of it?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."
you're trolling, but you're part of a protected class

Not when there is a quota and Asians on average have higher test scores, therefore I have to score higher than both whites and blacks.

Oh really so it is ok for the government to create second class citizens with the use of law? As an Asian I am held to a higher standard than both whites and blacks when trying to get into Harvard.

you're free to start your own thread on this subject

This is on subject, according to you government is to make the decision on what is tolerant and intolerant, even though they've gotten it wrong too many times in history (Obama circa 2008 was intolerant of gay marriage). And also allowed to participate in discrimination, infringing on citizens equal rights. You also believe that, going against the 1st amendment, you do not have the right to exercise your religious beliefs if you are in the public setting.

Perhaps on subject but includes ad hominem expressly forbidden in the OP. Let's keep personal observations out of it Sak because otherwise you are making some valid arguments for the thread.

post two of these arguments you consider valid

What I consider valid is not the topic of this thread. The thread is about tolerance, liberty, and political correctness.

yet you stated somebody made valid arguments. It would be respectful and civil to answer what arguments YOU brought up in general. People do have an expectation or should, of what you are speaking about

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Existing law is not a valid argument for the thread. Mentioning the existing law is not the same thing as arguing it. I have tried to get people to tell me what exact law the baker in question broke. Talking about a fine. Talking about rights. We need to know what law was broken in order to intelligently discuss the why of any fine or government action.

Instead of getting all wrapped up in any PARTICULAR case and the legal proceedings associated with it, this is an opportunity to explore conflicting "rights" and how heavily codified that interaction should be.

I've lived in California where folks don't even READ all the signs for rules and regulations that appear on EVERY doorway. There is a point where CODIFYING everything can lead to atrophy of the judgement muscles. Do you have an expectation to never be offended by some intolerant hater? That kind of deal. Because if our JUDGEMENTS on fairness and tolerance are spelled out -- will anyone be capable or willing to give up their "social freedoms" in exchange for the security of legally prescribed correctness...

conflicting "rights" is a subject that has been around since rights were codified. No one has a right to not be offended. People do have expectations of what they will encounter in public spaces. It's called civility and respect.

You mention legally proscribed correctness. You are being to vague. You must give examples in order to have a discussion.

 

[sakinago]

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

Refusing a service to somebody based upon their belonging to a class of citizens is the classic text book definition of bigotry and discrimination.

First, what law were they charged with violating? The bake-a-cake law?

Wow, so they did not get fined for not baking a cake?

This is coming from the guy who didn't even know that the bakers got fined

you're trolling, but you're part of a protected class

Not when there is a quota and Asians on average have higher test scores, therefore I have to score higher than both whites and blacks.

Yes I am, it infringes on freedom of speech and ownership of property. I am also against affirmative action, because it is an anti-discrimination law that undeniably discriminates. Can anyone say doublethink? So the government should have the right to discriminate in the case of affirmative action?

Edit: sorry didn't see the moderators last post

It's okay.

Oh really so it is ok for the government to create second class citizens with the use of law? As an Asian I am held to a higher standard than both whites and blacks when trying to get into Harvard.

you're free to start your own thread on this subject

This is on subject, according to you government is to make the decision on what is tolerant and intolerant, even though they've gotten it wrong too many times in history (Obama circa 2008 was intolerant of gay marriage). And also allowed to participate in discrimination, infringing on citizens equal rights. You also believe that, going against the 1st amendment, you do not have the right to exercise your religious beliefs if you are in the public setting.

Actually Obama in 2008 said he was tolerant of gays who were married. Many Priests and Ministers say the same things. Many say they would not discriminate against a gay couple, but we know they are telling half truths

So again you have either lied or misrepresented things on yet another post. This has become habitual and I am unsure how to get the OP to put you in line

Same-sex Marriage - Issues - Election Center 2008 - CNN.com

I said he was intolerant of gay marriage, not of gays. Meaning he was against gay marriage, just like the Oregon baker who got fined for discrimination of not providing service, service that involved baking a cake. Nor am I a priest or highly religious, moot point about the priests.

And you have been arguing the accommodation law almost non stop, including in your incredibly short sighted point of, they didn't get fined for not baking a cake.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not when there is a quota and Asians on average have higher test scores, therefore I have to score higher than both whites and blacks.

you're free to start your own thread on this subject

This is on subject, according to you government is to make the decision on what is tolerant and intolerant, even though they've gotten it wrong too many times in history (Obama circa 2008 was intolerant of gay marriage). And also allowed to participate in discrimination, infringing on citizens equal rights. You also believe that, going against the 1st amendment, you do not have the right to exercise your religious beliefs if you are in the public setting.

Perhaps on subject but includes ad hominem expressly forbidden in the OP. Let's keep personal observations out of it Sak because otherwise you are making some valid arguments for the thread.

post two of these arguments you consider valid

What I consider valid is not the topic of this thread. The thread is about tolerance, liberty, and political correctness.

yet you stated somebody made valid arguments. It would be respectful and civil to answer what arguments YOU brought up in general. People do have an expectation or should, of what you are speaking about

Read his arguments and you will know what I am speaking about. I have.

This thread is about liberty, tolerance, and political correctness and not what I think about any member posting here.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Existing law is not a valid argument for the thread. Mentioning the existing law is not the same thing as arguing it. I have tried to get people to tell me what exact law the baker in question broke. Talking about a fine. Talking about rights. We need to know what law was broken in order to intelligently discuss the why of any fine or government action.

Instead of getting all wrapped up in any PARTICULAR case and the legal proceedings associated with it, this is an opportunity to explore conflicting "rights" and how heavily codified that interaction should be.

I've lived in California where folks don't even READ all the signs for rules and regulations that appear on EVERY doorway. There is a point where CODIFYING everything can lead to atrophy of the judgement muscles. Do you have an expectation to never be offended by some intolerant hater? That kind of deal. Because if our JUDGEMENTS on fairness and tolerance are spelled out -- will anyone be capable or willing to give up their "social freedoms" in exchange for the security of legally prescribed correctness...

I think you're likely hitting on some key elements of the concept Flacal, but I'm not understanding exactly the point you are making here. Are you saying we cannot define what tolerance is? Or that we cannot spell out every example of it?

I'm saying we never spell out the exact structure of EVERY issue of tolerance and accomodation as legally enforced laws. Folks need to EXCERSIZE judgement and tolerance. Not obey prescribed limits of such things. When faced with a barrage laws that SPELL OUT common sense, and tolerance -- folks will just ignore them..

Like they do all the ridiculous 20 pages of caution in the ChainSaw manual that came with my new tool this weekend. Do not NEED to show a picture of a guy in a tree cutting off the limb he is sitting on with a big X thru it.


The "sides" will never understand and respect each other --- if it's the LAW that dictates their every interaction..

 

[Foxfyre]

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

Wow, so they did not get fined for not baking a cake?

This is coming from the guy who didn't even know that the bakers got fined

you're trolling, but you're part of a protected class

Not when there is a quota and Asians on average have higher test scores, therefore I have to score higher than both whites and blacks.

It's okay.

Oh really so it is ok for the government to create second class citizens with the use of law? As an Asian I am held to a higher standard than both whites and blacks when trying to get into Harvard.

you're free to start your own thread on this subject

This is on subject, according to you government is to make the decision on what is tolerant and intolerant, even though they've gotten it wrong too many times in history (Obama circa 2008 was intolerant of gay marriage). And also allowed to participate in discrimination, infringing on citizens equal rights. You also believe that, going against the 1st amendment, you do not have the right to exercise your religious beliefs if you are in the public setting.

Actually Obama in 2008 said he was tolerant of gays who were married. Many Priests and Ministers say the same things. Many say they would not discriminate against a gay couple, but we know they are telling half truths

So again you have either lied or misrepresented things on yet another post. This has become habitual and I am unsure how to get the OP to put you in line

Same-sex Marriage - Issues - Election Center 2008 - CNN.com

I said he was intolerant of gay marriage, not of gays. Meaning he was against gay marriage, just like the Oregon baker who got fined for discrimination of not providing service, service that involved baking a cake. Nor am I a priest or highly religious, moot point about the priests.

And you have been arguing the accommodation law almost non stop, including in your incredibly short sighted point of, they didn't get fined for not baking a cake.

Again gently reminding to keep personal observations out of it. You're almost there.

But that is a great observation. Being intolerant of gay marriage is a totally different thing from being intolerant of gays. And refusing to provide services or products for a gay marriage is not the same thing as not providng services or products to gay people.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Existing law is not a valid argument for the thread. Mentioning the existing law is not the same thing as arguing it. I have tried to get people to tell me what exact law the baker in question broke. Talking about a fine. Talking about rights. We need to know what law was broken in order to intelligently discuss the why of any fine or government action.

Instead of getting all wrapped up in any PARTICULAR case and the legal proceedings associated with it, this is an opportunity to explore conflicting "rights" and how heavily codified that interaction should be.

I've lived in California where folks don't even READ all the signs for rules and regulations that appear on EVERY doorway. There is a point where CODIFYING everything can lead to atrophy of the judgement muscles. Do you have an expectation to never be offended by some intolerant hater? That kind of deal. Because if our JUDGEMENTS on fairness and tolerance are spelled out -- will anyone be capable or willing to give up their "social freedoms" in exchange for the security of legally prescribed correctness...

conflicting "rights" is a subject that has been around since rights were codified. No one has a right to not be offended. People do have expectations of what they will encounter in public spaces. It's called civility and respect.

You mention legally proscribed correctness. You are being to vague. You must give examples in order to have a discussion.

You just clarified that yourself. Civility and Respect are no longer REQUIRED if every social interaction involving tolerance is codified. That's my point. You DONT want to push all of these hot issues towards a LEGAL resolution. Because folks will never LEARN the meaning of Tolerance and Respect....

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Existing law is not a valid argument for the thread. Mentioning the existing law is not the same thing as arguing it. I have tried to get people to tell me what exact law the baker in question broke. Talking about a fine. Talking about rights. We need to know what law was broken in order to intelligently discuss the why of any fine or government action.

Instead of getting all wrapped up in any PARTICULAR case and the legal proceedings associated with it, this is an opportunity to explore conflicting "rights" and how heavily codified that interaction should be.

I've lived in California where folks don't even READ all the signs for rules and regulations that appear on EVERY doorway. There is a point where CODIFYING everything can lead to atrophy of the judgement muscles. Do you have an expectation to never be offended by some intolerant hater? That kind of deal. Because if our JUDGEMENTS on fairness and tolerance are spelled out -- will anyone be capable or willing to give up their "social freedoms" in exchange for the security of legally prescribed correctness...

I think you're likely hitting on some key elements of the concept Flacal, but I'm not understanding exactly the point you are making here. Are you saying we cannot define what tolerance is? Or that we cannot spell out every example of it?

I'm saying we never spell out the exact structure of EVERY issue of tolerance and accomodation as legally enforced laws. Folks need to EXCERSIZE judgement and tolerance. Not obey prescribed limits of such things. When faced with a barrage laws that SPELL OUT common sense, and tolerance -- folks will just ignore them..

Like they do all the ridiculous 20 pages of caution in the ChainSaw manual that came with my new tool this weekend. Do not NEED to show a picture of a guy in a tree cutting off the limb he is sitting on with a big X thru it.


The "sides" will never understand and respect each other --- if it's the LAW that dictates their every interaction..

Okay. I do now understand where you were going with that and thank you. That is precisely why I specified not to use existing law in our arguments in this discussion because I wanted people to focus on a concept instead of the laws that currently control some applications of that concept. (I think in your earlier post you expressed that you understood that too.)

Basically the concept in the examples I used in the OP is that what a person says or believes or thinks or expresses that does not violate anybody else's rights should be off limits to the PC police. It is only what a person does or specific actions that we have any right to control if such actions violate the rights of others. I don't have a right to be loud and disruptive and spoil the experience of others attending the movie, for instance, and the proprietor should be able to remove me if I insisted on behaving that way. But I should be able to express my opinion, in a proper setting, that movie goers are uptight pricks or whatever without worrying about some angry mob organizing to punish me because of my opinion. (I actually am one who doesn't want her movie experience spoiled by the way.)

And so far as action goes, I'll repeat the example used in the exchange with Nosmo. I should not as a business person deny movie tickets to people because of their race or ethnicity or sexual orientation, etc. But I should not be forced to show the movie at any of their events that I choose not to participate in.

I don't know why this is so difficult for some to understand and accept. The possible applications of that concept are endless and, as you say, cannot be specified or codified.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

Wow, so they did not get fined for not baking a cake?

This is coming from the guy who didn't even know that the bakers got fined

you're trolling, but you're part of a protected class

Not when there is a quota and Asians on average have higher test scores, therefore I have to score higher than both whites and blacks.

It's okay.

Oh really so it is ok for the government to create second class citizens with the use of law? As an Asian I am held to a higher standard than both whites and blacks when trying to get into Harvard.

you're free to start your own thread on this subject

This is on subject, according to you government is to make the decision on what is tolerant and intolerant, even though they've gotten it wrong too many times in history (Obama circa 2008 was intolerant of gay marriage). And also allowed to participate in discrimination, infringing on citizens equal rights. You also believe that, going against the 1st amendment, you do not have the right to exercise your religious beliefs if you are in the public setting.

Actually Obama in 2008 said he was tolerant of gays who were married. Many Priests and Ministers say the same things. Many say they would not discriminate against a gay couple, but we know they are telling half truths

So again you have either lied or misrepresented things on yet another post. This has become habitual and I am unsure how to get the OP to put you in line

Same-sex Marriage - Issues - Election Center 2008 - CNN.com

I said he was intolerant of gay marriage, not of gays. Meaning he was against gay marriage, just like the Oregon baker who got fined for discrimination of not providing service, service that involved baking a cake. Nor am I a priest or highly religious, moot point about the priests.

And you have been arguing the accommodation law almost non stop, including in your incredibly short sighted point of, they didn't get fined for not baking a cake.

Again, Actually Obama in 2008 said he was tolerant of gays who were married. being against gay marriage as a principle isn't necessarily being intolerant of them. I already mentioned there are religious leaders who were against gay marriages who were very tolerant of gay married couples.

Dante never said no one got fined.

 

[BULLDOG]

I stopped reading after the second paragraph because you are still framing rebuttal to an argument I have not made. I have not said I should be able to refuse to sell tickets to a Latino or whatever. That would be unjustifiable discrimination against people because of who or what they are. I am saying that I should not have to show the movie at a convention or activity or gathering or event that I did not wish to participate in.

But it's the same thing with the baker - unjustifiable discrimmination because of who or what they are.

No. Choosing not to attend an activity or event does not have to involve who or what anybody is. As I used as illustration in an earlier comment, I would cater your birthday party. I would cater your wedding. I would cater your fund raising event for the Ladies' Aid Society. All the while enjoying your company and inviting you to my dinner party. But if you want me to cater your scheduled cock fight, nope. Not gonna do it. Won't do it no matter how seriously the ACLU threatens to sue me. And that is not discriminating against you in any way shape or form. It is choosing to not participate in or contribute to or be party to an event/activity that I cannot condone.

But the very next day I might cater your class reunion or whatever.

I'm not sure how you can compare catering, which does require servers who interact with guests etc., and setting up a cake which usually happens separately, in a different room while the ceremony is being performed somewhere else. Can you explain how those things are anywhere near the same?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This is on subject, according to you government is to make the decision on what is tolerant and intolerant, even though they've gotten it wrong too many times in history (Obama circa 2008 was intolerant of gay marriage). And also allowed to participate in discrimination, infringing on citizens equal rights. You also believe that, going against the 1st amendment, you do not have the right to exercise your religious beliefs if you are in the public setting.

Perhaps on subject but includes ad hominem expressly forbidden in the OP. Let's keep personal observations out of it Sak because otherwise you are making some valid arguments for the thread.

post two of these arguments you consider valid

What I consider valid is not the topic of this thread. The thread is about tolerance, liberty, and political correctness.

yet you stated somebody made valid arguments. It would be respectful and civil to answer what arguments YOU brought up in general. People do have an expectation or should, of what you are speaking about

Read his arguments and you will know what I am speaking about. I have.

This thread is about liberty, tolerance, and political correctness and not what I think about any member posting here.

Dante never asked you about what you THOUGHT. So please do not put words in my mouth

that said, time to move off of this

 

[Foxfyre]

I stopped reading after the second paragraph because you are still framing rebuttal to an argument I have not made. I have not said I should be able to refuse to sell tickets to a Latino or whatever. That would be unjustifiable discrimination against people because of who or what they are. I am saying that I should not have to show the movie at a convention or activity or gathering or event that I did not wish to participate in.

But it's the same thing with the baker - unjustifiable discrimmination because of who or what they are.

No. Choosing not to attend an activity or event does not have to involve who or what anybody is. As I used as illustration in an earlier comment, I would cater your birthday party. I would cater your wedding. I would cater your fund raising event for the Ladies' Aid Society. All the while enjoying your company and inviting you to my dinner party. But if you want me to cater your scheduled cock fight, nope. Not gonna do it. Won't do it no matter how seriously the ACLU threatens to sue me. And that is not discriminating against you in any way shape or form. It is choosing to not participate in or contribute to or be party to an event/activity that I cannot condone.

But the very next day I might cater your class reunion or whatever.

I'm not sure how you can compare catering, which does require servers who interact with guests etc., and setting up a cake which usually happens separately, in a different room while the ceremony is being performed somewhere else. Can you explain how those things are anywhere near the same?

The two things are the same in that the proprietor who not wish to furnish ANY product or service at a specific venue, activity, event, etc. shouldn't have to furnish that product or service. He should not be forced to participate or contribute to ANY event he chooses not to participate in or contribute to.

In my previous post I stated that the applications of that concept were endless and, as we were discussing, impossible to specify and/or codify. Imo, it is a principle that is essential in the understanding of what tolerance is, however.

 

[dblack]

Perhaps on subject but includes ad hominem expressly forbidden in the OP. Let's keep personal observations out of it Sak because otherwise you are making some valid arguments for the thread.

post two of these arguments you consider valid

What I consider valid is not the topic of this thread. The thread is about tolerance, liberty, and political correctness.

yet you stated somebody made valid arguments. It would be respectful and civil to answer what arguments YOU brought up in general. People do have an expectation or should, of what you are speaking about

Read his arguments and you will know what I am speaking about. I have.

This thread is about liberty, tolerance, and political correctness and not what I think about any member posting here.

Dante never asked you about what you THOUGHT. So please do not put words in my mouth

that said, time to move off of this

Third person douchebaggery.

 

[sakinago]

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.

Existing law is not a valid argument for the thread. Mentioning the existing law is not the same thing as arguing it. I have tried to get people to tell me what exact law the baker in question broke. Talking about a fine. Talking about rights. We need to know what law was broken in order to intelligently discuss the why of any fine or government action.

Instead of getting all wrapped up in any PARTICULAR case and the legal proceedings associated with it, this is an opportunity to explore conflicting "rights" and how heavily codified that interaction should be.

I've lived in California where folks don't even READ all the signs for rules and regulations that appear on EVERY doorway. There is a point where CODIFYING everything can lead to atrophy of the judgement muscles. Do you have an expectation to never be offended by some intolerant hater? That kind of deal. Because if our JUDGEMENTS on fairness and tolerance are spelled out -- will anyone be capable or willing to give up their "social freedoms" in exchange for the security of legally prescribed correctness...

conflicting "rights" is a subject that has been around since rights were codified. No one has a right to not be offended. People do have expectations of what they will encounter in public spaces. It's called civility and respect.

You mention legally proscribed correctness. You are being to vague. You must give examples in order to have a discussion.

They have, but that does not mean you ignore the 1st one ever made, "and the exercise thereof." Fining the Oregon baker, the Jewish chef who refuses to do a pig roast, or the Muslim venue owner refusing to serve alcohol, directly conflicts with the first and, and is intolerant to their religious beliefs. Doing so is saying one set of beliefs trumps the other. People have expectations of what to encounter in public, that does not mean those ever changing expectations should be enforced by the government. E.g. DOMA.

"We moved as the spirit listed, they never altered their pace, being neither cloud nor wind-born, like the gods of the marketplace. But the always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come, that a tribe had been wiped off it's ice field, or the lights had gone out in Rome"

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

conflicting "rights" is a subject that has been around since rights were codified. No one has a right to not be offended. People do have expectations of what they will encounter in public spaces. It's called civility and respect.

You mention legally proscribed correctness. You are being to vague. You must give examples in order to have a discussion.

You just clarified that yourself. Civility and Respect are no longer REQUIRED if every social interaction involving tolerance is codified. That's my point. You DONT want to push all of these hot issues towards a LEGAL resolution. Because folks will never LEARN the meaning of Tolerance and Respect....

Is every social interaction involving tolerance is codified? Who is proposing such a thing? No one I know personally, and this includes some very left progressives, want what you have suggested.

People tolerate far more than you imagine or are looking at. Without tolerance there is NO society. It is a main part of the social compact. Our social compact may be frayed, but being a student of history I know -- actually know, we have survived far worse.

 

[dblack]

I think PC is a good thing, as long as it doesn't extend into stupid laws.

 

[Foxfyre]

post two of these arguments you consider valid

What I consider valid is not the topic of this thread. The thread is about tolerance, liberty, and political correctness.

yet you stated somebody made valid arguments. It would be respectful and civil to answer what arguments YOU brought up in general. People do have an expectation or should, of what you are speaking about

Read his arguments and you will know what I am speaking about. I have.

This thread is about liberty, tolerance, and political correctness and not what I think about any member posting here.

Dante never asked you about what you THOUGHT. So please do not put words in my mouth

that said, time to move off of this

Third person douchebaggery.

Careful dblack. I will be happy if you join the discussion, but no negative personal observations (personal insults or ad hominem) allowed please.