In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
now we're at the point of comparing gay people to pedophiles, simply great. You actually do not need to tolerate intolerance. That is simply a completely paradoxical definition of freedom.
Obama is launching an “Every Kid in a Park” initiative Thursday, White House officials said, an effort that aims to get every fourth-grader to visit a national park in the years ahead.
The new campaign, which will offer all fourth-grade students and their families with free admission to national parks and other federal lands and waters for a full year, comes on the same day that the president is designate three new national monuments in Illinois, Colorado and Hawaii.
In concert with the National Park Service’s centennial in 2016, the administration is seeking to expand young people’s participation in the system. Young Americans are increasingly spending time indoors on their electronic devices: a 2010 Kaiser Family Foundation study found that they now devote an average of more than seven hours a day, or about 53 hours a week, to electronic media use. Social research suggests that exposing children to nature when they are roughly 9 years old establishes a connection to the environment that lasts through adulthood.
Brian O’Donnell, executive director of the Conservation Lands Foundation, praised the idea in a statement.
“The sense of wonder and discovery is never more visible in my daughter’s eyes than when she is outside experiencing nature,” O’Donnell said. “Nature is the best teacher, and our parks provide an ideal classroom for learning and inspiration. This is a fantastic initiative that will have lasting benefits for America’s children.”
Not only will all fourth-graders and their families get free national park admission starting in the 2015-16 school year, but the National Park Foundation, the congressionally chartered foundation of the National Park Service – will award transportation grants for children to visit parks, public lands and waters. The program, which was originally called “Ticket to Ride,” will focus on schools that have the most need.
On February 20 2015 10:26 Nyxisto wrote: Yeah, refusing to treat a child because you're offended by their parents sexual orientation doesn't stop someone from being a bigot just because you write a nice letter. Is this even legal behaviour?
Child? I think at that point, your preferred definition is a lump of nonviable tissue. This was a prenatal care issue.
Never mind that the article portrays a sympathetic, hurt, and confused couple rudely cut off from their favorite doctor, and ignore a deeply conflicted, religious pediatrician that knew others could better serve them. I could hardly imagine closeted homosexuals with any more real fears of coming out than today's closeted Christians that may not exercise their faith and remain employed (even as people would demand their skills had they acted contrary to their beliefs). The termination of all this will be losing skilled pediatricians/obstetricians, and that loss will be joyful for some.
On February 20 2015 12:59 Millitron wrote:
On February 20 2015 10:57 Nyxisto wrote:
On February 20 2015 10:34 hannahbelle wrote:
On February 20 2015 10:26 Nyxisto wrote: Yeah, refusing to treat a child because you're offended by their parents sexual orientation doesn't stop someone from being a bigot just because you write a nice letter. Is this even legal behaviour?
Why isn't she allowed to refuse service? Sexual orientation is not and should not be a protected status. The doctor should have the right to determine whom she services. Going to a pediatric appointment is not the same is getting care at an emergency room.
She's a pediatric and the child is her patient, not the parents, and I assume the child isn't homosexual. Secondly she's a doctor and people depend on medical services, if she would be selling donuts it would still be retarded but at least tolerable. Also she has probably sworn an oath at some point that included helping people regardless what their sexual orientation is.
This seems like the kind of thing that the free market should be allowed to solve. Bigoted businesses will lose money. They're turning away customers, and pissing off a lot of the ones they aren't turning away. Do we really need a witch-hunt over this?
btw, the Hippocratic Oath isn't mandatory, and its not legally binding.
Even businesses that serve gay customers, sell them pastries and cakes, and by all news reports don't ask their sexual orientation before purchase, cannot be permitted to operate their business. Whenever a baker has a religious objection to the specific ceremony they're catering, there's a baker shortage. Likewise, when a faithful pediatrician would refer someone else for that prenatal, close relationship, she's the only doctor for miles and the baby will probably be impacted. Actually, the trolls would have you believe she'd prefer that baby hanged. On the economic side, if you work for a Catholic organization, by golly we're going to force them to give you free contraception in a health plan they offer.
Look for tolerance elsewhere, folks.
How exactly does the Christian faith implore its followers to discriminate against people? Its pretty much the opposite of what Christ preached. They act like being homosexual is one of the worst sins ever, so much so that they can't have them as patrons for whatever business or service they provide, when Christ himself would slap them in the face for presuming such arrogance. Christ spent his time among those undesirable to society and taught his followers that no one has the right to judge anyone else because that is Gods job. People are all sinners and should embrace their fellow sinners and both seek out redemption through Christ. The doctor is doing the opposite by shunning them with her shallow justifications. She isn't exercising her religious beliefs, she is using poor interpretation of those beliefs to justify her bigotry.
Sadly, this is not the place to mount a reasoned theological debates as to what is the true interpretation of scripture. Suffice it to say that individuals may feel they're giving approval to the sinful act by keeping silent or going on like there's nothing wrong. Broadly put, you may disagree with another's practice, but it's a wild leap to criminalize alleged hypocrisy. She responded in love (yeah, go fume at that one) at a matter she could not justify to her God. She knew others could offer the same care at the same place. She ought to also know only one party would be portrayed sympathetically no matter her professions of conflict and inward focus not animus. Today only homosexuals have consciences; all others are suspect.
Socially, anybody change their mind about pressuring Christians to resign from CEO positions for their beliefs? Coming out of the closet on the correct side nets you accolades and articles on bravery.
I believe that, legally, she should absolutely be able to refuse non-emergency care to any patient she likes, for any reason she likes. There is more than one pediatrician in that office, let alone in the Detroit area. But people also have the right to make her look, and feel, like shit for doing it. The day you allow your faith to get in the way of your responsibility to help people is the day you become a terrible doctor.
Why does she have to justify the actions of others to her God? That is supposedly between God and these lesbians, and is none of her business. And no, it isn't only homosexuals that have consciences, but people still putting forth bigotry indeed do not have them. An understandable confusion.
As a healthcare provider myself, I find it hard to justify denying anyone healthcare for pretty much any reason. It's a large ethical part of being a healthcare provider (particularly a doctor).
But to talk about this issue more generally (for instance in the issue of someone owning a store and refusing to sell goods to someone), I don't really buy it for a different example either. Sure, you can say, "There are plenty of X in the area, and there's no way they'll ALL deny a gay person service", but this is exactly the kind of thing that CAN happen, and is actually pretty likely to happen in parts of the Deep South.
The only bigotry in this thread is that being displayed towards the doctor for exercising her constitutional and religious rights. You guys seem to be bigoted towards her freedom to do so. Liberal double-think at its finest. It's only bigotry if it is directed towards your "victimized class of the day" right?
Yea...this is a load of crap.
Tolerance does not require that you tolerate the intolerant. Not only is that completely illogical, but it also completely defeats the purpose of attempting to promote tolerance in the first place.
Saying, "Ah hah! You're not tolerant because you aren't tolerating the intolerant!" is, at best, intellectually lazy, and, at worst, fucking stupid.
Do you even read what you write? Are you capable of critical thinking? What you are saying, is you are only tolerant to those that believe in your particular ideology. Everyone else is bigoted if they don't conform to your own narrow-mindedness.
This isn't 1984. You don't get to redefine tolerance to suit your agenda. You're either tolerant of other peoples views or not. Don't hide behind the word. Just come out and say who you really are. A left-wing bigot that seeks to stamp out any opposing belief systems.
you also know you're on the wrong side of human rights when you can replace the words "LGBT" in your argument with "Black people/Jews/insertminorityhere" and the argument becomes one that was routinely used by bigots throughout history.
I substitute the word pedophile in there too. I'm just 10 years ahead of my time I guess.
Well, I didn't actually say that at all, particularly because human rights aren't an ideology.
But between the ridiculous things that you say in this thread and the fact that you called the UDHR a "piece of trash", I've simply lost all respect for you as a human being and refuse to converse with you any more.
the idea that regulating people so that they won't act on their prejudice/bigotry is itself prejudice is pretty confused. we are not even talking about speech here, but actual practiced bigotry.
yes, there is a positive act of coercion against the bigot, but only insofar as to stop the actual bigotry from taking place. it's not like the doctor was locked up in prison.
you also know you're on the wrong side of human rights when you can replace the words "LGBT" in your argument with "Black people/Jews/insertminorityhere" and the argument becomes one that was routinely used by bigots throughout history.
I substitute the word pedophile in there too. I'm just 10 years ahead of my time I guess.
But seriously, HB, are you just trolling or do you really not see the difference between pedophiles and gays?
you also know you're on the wrong side of human rights when you can replace the words "LGBT" in your argument with "Black people/Jews/insertminorityhere" and the argument becomes one that was routinely used by bigots throughout history.
I substitute the word pedophile in there too. I'm just 10 years ahead of my time I guess.
But seriously, HB, are you just trolling or do you really not see the difference between pedophiles and gays?
Nice.
I leave the thread for a few days and come back to hannahbelle comparing gays to pedophiles.
I am actually not surprised by this. Either we're dealing with a master level troll or someone whose viewpoints are so absurd it's not even worth responding to.
The 400,000-member veterans’ group VoteVets.org slammed Fox News Bill O’Reilly on Friday following a report questioning his description of his work in Argentina during the Falklands conflict, Media Matters reported.
“Men and women have fought, died, been wounded, and scarred by war. There are many journalists who actually were in the crossfire, who died, trying to bring the story to the American people,” the group’s president, Jon Soltz, said in a statement. “What Bill O’Reilly has done is steal their valor, and it is wrong.”
Soltz said that, just as NBC News relieved anchor Brian Williams of his on-air duties and suspended him without pay after his story about taking fire in a U.S. military helicopter was debunked, that Fox should do the same to the Factor host.
But according to Soltz, a lack of response by the network will “tell us a lot” about how seriously it can be taken in the wake of the allegations against O’Reilly.
“It makes it seem like anyone can head on over to a war zone,” Soltz’s statement read. “But honestly it is more insulting to the war reporters who never bragged about their war experience, but just kept their head down and did their job. Some of them died doing that job. In my mind, those reporters were heroes.”
O'Reilly would lose his shit if he got pulled off the air. It would make the Inside Edition clip look like a Sunday morning at church. I just hope this at least brings to the forefront the apologies he owes to people.
This is the same Bill O'Reilly who claimed on air that US troops massacred German prisoners at Malmedy, then when confronted about the error lied on air and said he never said that then had the transcripts changed so it reflected is claim.
This effort against O'Reilly feels so much more like an obvious hit piece and the exaggerations so much more commonplace that I don't think it works. And with most liberals insisting on a regular basis that everything he says is a lie anyways, I would guess his reputation isn't suffering much new damage here.
you also know you're on the wrong side of human rights when you can replace the words "LGBT" in your argument with "Black people/Jews/insertminorityhere" and the argument becomes one that was routinely used by bigots throughout history.
I substitute the word pedophile in there too. I'm just 10 years ahead of my time I guess.
But seriously, HB, are you just trolling or do you really not see the difference between pedophiles and gays?
I never compared them. I merely made a prediction that in 10 years from now the same argument will be made with that group...
you also know you're on the wrong side of human rights when you can replace the words "LGBT" in your argument with "Black people/Jews/insertminorityhere" and the argument becomes one that was routinely used by bigots throughout history.
I substitute the word pedophile in there too. I'm just 10 years ahead of my time I guess.
But seriously, HB, are you just trolling or do you really not see the difference between pedophiles and gays?
Nice.
I leave the thread for a few days and come back to hannahbelle comparing gays to pedophiles.
I am actually not surprised by this. Either we're dealing with a master level troll or someone whose viewpoints are so absurd it's not even worth responding to.
Or maybe he's pointing out how the whole "substitute x for black people/jews/minority" thing is really stupid. You can practically substitute just about any group in for x.
Check out this social experiment:
if you didn't watch it, a guy wearing a T-shirt with a swastika on it walks through a gay pride parade. He does nothing but walk; speaks to no one. Barely even looks at anyone. And many paraders sneer and glare. Some shout insults. A few even follow him the entire way through the parade shouting at him.
Bigotry isn't unilateral. Just because you're pro LGBT or whatever doesn't mean you're some paragon of truth.
you also know you're on the wrong side of human rights when you can replace the words "LGBT" in your argument with "Black people/Jews/insertminorityhere" and the argument becomes one that was routinely used by bigots throughout history.
I substitute the word pedophile in there too. I'm just 10 years ahead of my time I guess.
But seriously, HB, are you just trolling or do you really not see the difference between pedophiles and gays?
I never compared them. I merely made a prediction that in 10 years from now the same argument will be made with that group...
"A doctor should treat a baby even if they don't like the fact that one of their parents is a convicted pedophile."
"A doctor should treat all patients, even if the patient is a convicted criminal."
Oh, what horrible things to say, what will society ever do?
On February 22 2015 07:53 Millitron wrote: if you didn't watch it, a guy wearing a T-shirt with a swastika on it walks through a gay pride parade. He does nothing but walk; speaks to no one. Barely even looks at anyone. And many paraders sneer and glare. Some shout insults. A few even follow him the entire way through the parade shouting at him.
Bigotry isn't unilateral. Just because you're pro LGBT or whatever doesn't mean you're some paragon of truth.
maybe because it's fucking idiotic to wear a symbol that stands for the deaths of tens of millions of people at a gay pride parade?
On February 22 2015 07:53 Millitron wrote: if you didn't watch it, a guy wearing a T-shirt with a swastika on it walks through a gay pride parade. He does nothing but walk; speaks to no one. Barely even looks at anyone. And many paraders sneer and glare. Some shout insults. A few even follow him the entire way through the parade shouting at him.
Bigotry isn't unilateral. Just because you're pro LGBT or whatever doesn't mean you're some paragon of truth.
maybe because it's fucking idiotic to wear a symbol that stands for the deaths of tens of millions of people at a gay pride parade?
Not to mention that homosexuals were also one of many groups that Nazis persecuted...
On February 22 2015 07:53 Millitron wrote: if you didn't watch it, a guy wearing a T-shirt with a swastika on it walks through a gay pride parade. He does nothing but walk; speaks to no one. Barely even looks at anyone. And many paraders sneer and glare. Some shout insults. A few even follow him the entire way through the parade shouting at him.
Bigotry isn't unilateral. Just because you're pro LGBT or whatever doesn't mean you're some paragon of truth.
maybe because it's fucking idiotic to wear a symbol that stands for the deaths of tens of millions of people at a gay pride parade?
Except it's an ancient symbol from way before the 1940's. Hindus use it, Finland used it, the Greeks and Romans used it.
The guy neither said nor did anything to imply he was a Nazi. The crowd jumped to conclusions because they're bigots.
On February 20 2015 10:26 Nyxisto wrote: Yeah, refusing to treat a child because you're offended by their parents sexual orientation doesn't stop someone from being a bigot just because you write a nice letter. Is this even legal behaviour?
Child? I think at that point, your preferred definition is a lump of nonviable tissue. This was a prenatal care issue.
Never mind that the article portrays a sympathetic, hurt, and confused couple rudely cut off from their favorite doctor, and ignore a deeply conflicted, religious pediatrician that knew others could better serve them. I could hardly imagine closeted homosexuals with any more real fears of coming out than today's closeted Christians that may not exercise their faith and remain employed (even as people would demand their skills had they acted contrary to their beliefs). The termination of all this will be losing skilled pediatricians/obstetricians, and that loss will be joyful for some.
On February 20 2015 12:59 Millitron wrote:
On February 20 2015 10:57 Nyxisto wrote:
On February 20 2015 10:34 hannahbelle wrote: [quote]
Why isn't she allowed to refuse service? Sexual orientation is not and should not be a protected status. The doctor should have the right to determine whom she services. Going to a pediatric appointment is not the same is getting care at an emergency room.
She's a pediatric and the child is her patient, not the parents, and I assume the child isn't homosexual. Secondly she's a doctor and people depend on medical services, if she would be selling donuts it would still be retarded but at least tolerable. Also she has probably sworn an oath at some point that included helping people regardless what their sexual orientation is.
This seems like the kind of thing that the free market should be allowed to solve. Bigoted businesses will lose money. They're turning away customers, and pissing off a lot of the ones they aren't turning away. Do we really need a witch-hunt over this?
btw, the Hippocratic Oath isn't mandatory, and its not legally binding.
Even businesses that serve gay customers, sell them pastries and cakes, and by all news reports don't ask their sexual orientation before purchase, cannot be permitted to operate their business. Whenever a baker has a religious objection to the specific ceremony they're catering, there's a baker shortage. Likewise, when a faithful pediatrician would refer someone else for that prenatal, close relationship, she's the only doctor for miles and the baby will probably be impacted. Actually, the trolls would have you believe she'd prefer that baby hanged. On the economic side, if you work for a Catholic organization, by golly we're going to force them to give you free contraception in a health plan they offer.
Look for tolerance elsewhere, folks.
How exactly does the Christian faith implore its followers to discriminate against people? Its pretty much the opposite of what Christ preached. They act like being homosexual is one of the worst sins ever, so much so that they can't have them as patrons for whatever business or service they provide, when Christ himself would slap them in the face for presuming such arrogance. Christ spent his time among those undesirable to society and taught his followers that no one has the right to judge anyone else because that is Gods job. People are all sinners and should embrace their fellow sinners and both seek out redemption through Christ. The doctor is doing the opposite by shunning them with her shallow justifications. She isn't exercising her religious beliefs, she is using poor interpretation of those beliefs to justify her bigotry.
Sadly, this is not the place to mount a reasoned theological debates as to what is the true interpretation of scripture. Suffice it to say that individuals may feel they're giving approval to the sinful act by keeping silent or going on like there's nothing wrong. Broadly put, you may disagree with another's practice, but it's a wild leap to criminalize alleged hypocrisy. She responded in love (yeah, go fume at that one) at a matter she could not justify to her God. She knew others could offer the same care at the same place. She ought to also know only one party would be portrayed sympathetically no matter her professions of conflict and inward focus not animus. Today only homosexuals have consciences; all others are suspect.
Socially, anybody change their mind about pressuring Christians to resign from CEO positions for their beliefs? Coming out of the closet on the correct side nets you accolades and articles on bravery.
I believe that, legally, she should absolutely be able to refuse non-emergency care to any patient she likes, for any reason she likes. There is more than one pediatrician in that office, let alone in the Detroit area. But people also have the right to make her look, and feel, like shit for doing it. The day you allow your faith to get in the way of your responsibility to help people is the day you become a terrible doctor.
Why does she have to justify the actions of others to her God? That is supposedly between God and these lesbians, and is none of her business. And no, it isn't only homosexuals that have consciences, but people still putting forth bigotry indeed do not have them. An understandable confusion.
As a healthcare provider myself, I find it hard to justify denying anyone healthcare for pretty much any reason. It's a large ethical part of being a healthcare provider (particularly a doctor).
But to talk about this issue more generally (for instance in the issue of someone owning a store and refusing to sell goods to someone), I don't really buy it for a different example either. Sure, you can say, "There are plenty of X in the area, and there's no way they'll ALL deny a gay person service", but this is exactly the kind of thing that CAN happen, and is actually pretty likely to happen in parts of the Deep South.
The only bigotry in this thread is that being displayed towards the doctor for exercising her constitutional and religious rights. You guys seem to be bigoted towards her freedom to do so. Liberal double-think at its finest. It's only bigotry if it is directed towards your "victimized class of the day" right?
Yea...this is a load of crap.
Tolerance does not require that you tolerate the intolerant. Not only is that completely illogical, but it also completely defeats the purpose of attempting to promote tolerance in the first place.
Saying, "Ah hah! You're not tolerant because you aren't tolerating the intolerant!" is, at best, intellectually lazy, and, at worst, fucking stupid.
Do you even read what you write? Are you capable of critical thinking? What you are saying, is you are only tolerant to those that believe in your particular ideology. Everyone else is bigoted if they don't conform to your own narrow-mindedness.
This isn't 1984. You don't get to redefine tolerance to suit your agenda. You're either tolerant of other peoples views or not. Don't hide behind the word. Just come out and say who you really are. A left-wing bigot that seeks to stamp out any opposing belief systems.
you also know you're on the wrong side of human rights when you can replace the words "LGBT" in your argument with "Black people/Jews/insertminorityhere" and the argument becomes one that was routinely used by bigots throughout history.
I substitute the word pedophile in there too. I'm just 10 years ahead of my time I guess.
Well, I didn't actually say that at all, particularly because human rights aren't an ideology.
But between the ridiculous things that you say in this thread and the fact that you called the UDHR a "piece of trash", I've simply lost all respect for you as a human being and refuse to converse with you any more.
Of course it's an ideology! Everything is an ideology!
you also know you're on the wrong side of human rights when you can replace the words "LGBT" in your argument with "Black people/Jews/insertminorityhere" and the argument becomes one that was routinely used by bigots throughout history.
I substitute the word pedophile in there too. I'm just 10 years ahead of my time I guess.
But seriously, HB, are you just trolling or do you really not see the difference between pedophiles and gays?
I never compared them. I merely made a prediction that in 10 years from now the same argument will be made with that group...
On February 22 2015 07:53 Millitron wrote: if you didn't watch it, a guy wearing a T-shirt with a swastika on it walks through a gay pride parade. He does nothing but walk; speaks to no one. Barely even looks at anyone. And many paraders sneer and glare. Some shout insults. A few even follow him the entire way through the parade shouting at him.
Bigotry isn't unilateral. Just because you're pro LGBT or whatever doesn't mean you're some paragon of truth.
maybe because it's fucking idiotic to wear a symbol that stands for the deaths of tens of millions of people at a gay pride parade?
Except it's an ancient symbol from way before the 1940's. Hindus use it, Finland used it, the Greeks and Romans used it.
The guy neither said nor did anything to imply he was a Nazi. The crowd jumped to conclusions because they're bigots.
EPT
