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.
I have no knowledge of the meeting but I'm trying to not jump to conclusions. I have no problem with people citing religious conscious. I have a problem with people expecting special treatment due to religion and causing excessive burden to the government system.
Only thing I'll say is I wish the vatican would be more open about the meeting.
Also I doubt that my opinion on how far religious rights extend in a democracy and in particularly America is anywhere close to the pope.
I think that people are overreacting to the meeting because they mistakenly thought the pope was suddenly on their side just because he agreed with them about a few things.
Cowboy - not quoting since that thing is too hard to quote; and much is not addressed to me
Exactly what it says: those with no basis in reality.
You shouldn't assume there aren't any democrats who'd fit that criterion on some issues. It's those repeated unfounded assumptions of yours that are part of the issue, don't assume needlessly. At present there may be a trend one way, which is far different from it being entirely one-sided.
Some amendments, some law changes, some to the rules of the senate/house.
You can choose your own opinions, you can't choose your own facts. That's kinda the point of this; there's a difference between things that are truly a matter of opinion, and intentionally misrepresenting the facts.
On September 30 2015 07:31 zlefin wrote: ...pity that the system lacks better mechanisms for truly throwing the bums out.
This kind of thinking has always worried me, and I do see it from both sides occasionally, but I definitely have seen much more of it from the Democrats. And I think anyone who feels this way needs to take a step back and ponder what they are suggesting.
Any time you want the political system changed in such a way as to silence the voices of dissent and opposition, you should be especially careful to keep in mind the principles upon which this nation was founded: tolerance of a diversity of opinion. It is very difficult for any society to function properly for as long as ours has, and I think we should all be loathe to move away from that proven success into uncharted territory, especially when oftentimes it seems more about sticking it to the other side than an actual desire for compromise and tolerance.
It is not very tolerant to say that you're only going to allow the opinions you like and agree with to have a place in the conversation.
I'm very open-minded, but I also know how to actually run things, and how to intelligently assess arguments; and having people in a position who show that they are not interested in having an actual debate or in running things is not helpful. If you see more of it from the Democrats, there are several possible reasons: 1) democrats are less tolerant. 2) Republicans are crazier/doing less reasonable thing 3) both sides do it similarly but you're simply more aware of the bad things done by the other side, which is also quite a common occurrence.
I don't think congresspeople should do things that would, if they were in a court of law, be grounds for contempt citations, let alone perjury. The ones more about sticking it to the other side than compromise and tolerance have been the Republicans for several years now.
Do not lie, I never said I'd only allow opinions I like and agree with, that you assert otherwise means you're strawmanning or failing to read what is written. I would be willing to disallow opinions that have no basis in reality. While diversity of opinion is nice, one of the purposes of government is to filter out the crazy stupid, and make decisions based on reality. There does need to be a place for the crazy stupid, so they can at least be heard, and I'm not quite sure where that should be, but Congress isn't the place for it.
edit: also, other people keep writing responses better than I do my only consolation is that I have good enough judgement to recognize that.
I apologize if I misunderstood you, or continue to do so, but you said:
You implied in your first and second paragraphs that you think those opinions, the "crazy-stupid ones" are being held by people in Congress. I assume you're not talking about Democrats here, so it's probably mostly the Tea-Party, conservative types, right? Okay, so are you saying you just don't want them in Congress, or were you actually suggesting something be done to keep those opinions out?
You said these were better responses, so I assume you've endorsed what's said in them:
On September 30 2015 07:31 zlefin wrote: ...pity that the system lacks better mechanisms for truly throwing the bums out.
This kind of thinking has always worried me, and I do see it from both sides occasionally, but I definitely have seen much more of it from the Democrats. And I think anyone who feels this way needs to take a step back and ponder what they are suggesting.
Any time you want the political system changed in such a way as to silence the voices of dissent and opposition, you should be especially careful to keep in mind the principles upon which this nation was founded: tolerance of a diversity of opinion. It is very difficult for any society to function properly for as long as ours has, and I think we should all be loathe to move away from that proven success into uncharted territory, especially when oftentimes it seems more about sticking it to the other side than an actual desire for compromise and tolerance.
It is not very tolerant to say that you're only going to allow the opinions you like and agree with to have a place in the conversation.
Having spoken with a 6th circuit judge who did prior voter apportionment work as an attorney, you're arguing with a phantasm here. zlefin is not advocating that we silence the voices of dissent and opposition, he's pointing towards a troubling phenomena through which our form of representative government is changing for the worse. That's why your "oh, our system is so nice, don't break it" bit is nostalgic red herring fishing; never before has Congress continuously been rated this poorly and had this degree of "stickiness" to its seats. Furthermore, if you think that our nation's principles require an unbending obedience in the face of winner take all voter apportionment and redistricting, you need to check your history book (and not one circulated in Texas public schools, cowboy).
With that in mind, we ought to look at ways of bettering the accountability of our elected officials instead of waving away concerns with wishy washy gesticulations towards outdated notions of founding father logic. Such are a poor substitute for an actual assessment of our democracy's health.
Furthermore, if you think that our nation's principles require an unbending obedience in the face of winner take all voter apportionment and redistricting, you need to check your history book (and not one circulated in Texas public schools, cowboy).
With that in mind, we ought to look at ways of bettering the accountability of our elected officials instead of waving away concerns with wishy washy gesticulations towards outdated notions of founding father logic. Such are a poor substitute for an actual assessment of our democracy's health.
I probably should check my history books more often, but I was wondering exactly what this all means? It seems to be saying that Congress has gotten so out of hand, so far off the deep end, that there is no option but to be willing to "[wave] away concerns with wishy washy gesticulations towards outdated notions of founding father logic."
Bettering accountability sounds nice, and I think gerrymandering is definitely something we can look at, but you weren't very specific, even with those. My problems with the sentiment being expressed is that you're dancing around the specifics of who gets the axe and what kind of changes we'll be making.
On September 30 2015 07:31 zlefin wrote: ...pity that the system lacks better mechanisms for truly throwing the bums out.
This kind of thinking has always worried me, and I do see it from both sides occasionally, but I definitely have seen much more of it from the Democrats. And I think anyone who feels this way needs to take a step back and ponder what they are suggesting.
Any time you want the political system changed in such a way as to silence the voices of dissent and opposition, you should be especially careful to keep in mind the principles upon which this nation was founded: tolerance of a diversity of opinion. It is very difficult for any society to function properly for as long as ours has, and I think we should all be loathe to move away from that proven success into uncharted territory, especially when oftentimes it seems more about sticking it to the other side than an actual desire for compromise and tolerance.
It is not very tolerant to say that you're only going to allow the opinions you like and agree with to have a place in the conversation.
Nothing wrong with different opinions and dissent but congress should be in the businesses of governing and there are currently people in there who, by their actions, seem to have no such intentions. And they are indeed a problem.
voting 50 times to repeal Obamacare despite knowing it cannot succeed is not the purpose of Congress. Its a 5 year old throwing a tantrum.
The vast majority of the Republicans in Congress voted on those bills. Is it the vast majority that need to be kicked out, or is it just a few trouble-makers? And are we talking about forming PACs and running attack-ads and getting the vote out against them; or are we talking about opening up the books and changing the actual structure of Congress/elections? And if we're talking about actual changes to the law, with the stated intent of disallowing some of the opinions held by and actions taken by sitting Congressional representatives, exactly what changes are you suggesting? That isn't something to be discussed lightly; so if you're saying we need to do it than you need to point out specific guidelines for how far this thing will be allowed to go.
Are we discussing a few simple bills and rule changes to bring the order back, or are we talking about opening up the Constitution and passing some amendments? I'm only asking because it seems like you have all hinted at possibly the latter, but definitely the former. If that is what you're saying, then yes, I think that is a rather extreme position, and no, I was not lying when I said you wanted to ban opinions you didn't like. You seem to be suggesting that you should get to pick which opinions your opposition is allowed to have, or at least, which opinions they are allowed to bring to government. That if they have certain opinions you disagree with, that's fine, but all these other ones are just too much. There's a thin line very thin line between that and tyranny, and I don't think I trust anyone to tread it. Better to err on the side of caution and use the system as it was intended.
Hear, hear. The lesser version is treating certain opinions as just too radical to be considered, and that is pervasive here as it is everywhere ... X is too extremist, radical, make it stop make it stop. X is anti-science anti-fact anti-reason anti-dignity pro-discrimination. This person is motivated by malice and seeks injury first, hiding behind religious liberty or free exercise rights that was always a ploy. They never acted in good faith in defense of their civil rights, they only sought to deprive others of theirs (This spawns never-ceasing amusement as they scream discrimination against the little guy louder and louder, feigning the defense of Hester Prynn but adopting her oppressors tactics--B for Bigot.)
Well, you've now sought to remove all legitimacy from the other side down to the motivations in both economic thought and religious liberty. You don't want to debate, you want the debate declared over, and for the other side to admit defeat and stop talking. In the last neat ideology wrap-up, the modern right is just too hate-filled to ever do it, so back to the crusade.
On September 30 2015 07:31 zlefin wrote: ...pity that the system lacks better mechanisms for truly throwing the bums out.
This kind of thinking has always worried me, and I do see it from both sides occasionally, but I definitely have seen much more of it from the Democrats. And I think anyone who feels this way needs to take a step back and ponder what they are suggesting.
Any time you want the political system changed in such a way as to silence the voices of dissent and opposition, you should be especially careful to keep in mind the principles upon which this nation was founded: tolerance of a diversity of opinion. It is very difficult for any society to function properly for as long as ours has, and I think we should all be loathe to move away from that proven success into uncharted territory, especially when oftentimes it seems more about sticking it to the other side than an actual desire for compromise and tolerance.
It is not very tolerant to say that you're only going to allow the opinions you like and agree with to have a place in the conversation.
I'm very open-minded, but I also know how to actually run things, and how to intelligently assess arguments; and having people in a position who show that they are not interested in having an actual debate or in running things is not helpful. If you see more of it from the Democrats, there are several possible reasons: 1) democrats are less tolerant. 2) Republicans are crazier/doing less reasonable thing 3) both sides do it similarly but you're simply more aware of the bad things done by the other side, which is also quite a common occurrence.
I don't think congresspeople should do things that would, if they were in a court of law, be grounds for contempt citations, let alone perjury. The ones more about sticking it to the other side than compromise and tolerance have been the Republicans for several years now.
Do not lie, I never said I'd only allow opinions I like and agree with, that you assert otherwise means you're strawmanning or failing to read what is written. I would be willing to disallow opinions that have no basis in reality. While diversity of opinion is nice, one of the purposes of government is to filter out the crazy stupid, and make decisions based on reality. There does need to be a place for the crazy stupid, so they can at least be heard, and I'm not quite sure where that should be, but Congress isn't the place for it.
edit: also, other people keep writing responses better than I do my only consolation is that I have good enough judgement to recognize that.
I apologize if I misunderstood you, or continue to do so, but you said:
I would be willing to disallow opinions that have no basis in reality.
You implied in your first and second paragraphs that you think those opinions, the "crazy-stupid ones" are being held by people in Congress. I assume you're not talking about Democrats here, so it's probably mostly the Tea-Party, conservative types, right? Okay, so are you saying you just don't want them in Congress, or were you actually suggesting something be done to keep those opinions out?
You said these were better responses, so I assume you've endorsed what's said in them:
On September 30 2015 07:31 zlefin wrote: ...pity that the system lacks better mechanisms for truly throwing the bums out.
This kind of thinking has always worried me, and I do see it from both sides occasionally, but I definitely have seen much more of it from the Democrats. And I think anyone who feels this way needs to take a step back and ponder what they are suggesting.
Any time you want the political system changed in such a way as to silence the voices of dissent and opposition, you should be especially careful to keep in mind the principles upon which this nation was founded: tolerance of a diversity of opinion. It is very difficult for any society to function properly for as long as ours has, and I think we should all be loathe to move away from that proven success into uncharted territory, especially when oftentimes it seems more about sticking it to the other side than an actual desire for compromise and tolerance.
It is not very tolerant to say that you're only going to allow the opinions you like and agree with to have a place in the conversation.
Having spoken with a 6th circuit judge who did prior voter apportionment work as an attorney, you're arguing with a phantasm here. zlefin is not advocating that we silence the voices of dissent and opposition, he's pointing towards a troubling phenomena through which our form of representative government is changing for the worse. That's why your "oh, our system is so nice, don't break it" bit is nostalgic red herring fishing; never before has Congress continuously been rated this poorly and had this degree of "stickiness" to its seats. Furthermore, if you think that our nation's principles require an unbending obedience in the face of winner take all voter apportionment and redistricting, you need to check your history book (and not one circulated in Texas public schools, cowboy).
With that in mind, we ought to look at ways of bettering the accountability of our elected officials instead of waving away concerns with wishy washy gesticulations towards outdated notions of founding father logic. Such are a poor substitute for an actual assessment of our democracy's health.
Furthermore, if you think that our nation's principles require an unbending obedience in the face of winner take all voter apportionment and redistricting, you need to check your history book (and not one circulated in Texas public schools, cowboy).
With that in mind, we ought to look at ways of bettering the accountability of our elected officials instead of waving away concerns with wishy washy gesticulations towards outdated notions of founding father logic. Such are a poor substitute for an actual assessment of our democracy's health.
I probably should check my history books more often, but I was wondering exactly what this all means? It seems to be saying that Congress has gotten so out of hand, so far off the deep end, that there is no option but to be willing to "[wave] away concerns with wishy washy gesticulations towards outdated notions of founding father logic."
Bettering accountability sounds nice, and I think gerrymandering is definitely something we can look at, but you weren't very specific, even with those. My problems with the sentiment being expressed is that you're dancing around the specifics of who gets the axe and what kind of changes we'll be making.
On September 30 2015 07:31 zlefin wrote: ...pity that the system lacks better mechanisms for truly throwing the bums out.
This kind of thinking has always worried me, and I do see it from both sides occasionally, but I definitely have seen much more of it from the Democrats. And I think anyone who feels this way needs to take a step back and ponder what they are suggesting.
Any time you want the political system changed in such a way as to silence the voices of dissent and opposition, you should be especially careful to keep in mind the principles upon which this nation was founded: tolerance of a diversity of opinion. It is very difficult for any society to function properly for as long as ours has, and I think we should all be loathe to move away from that proven success into uncharted territory, especially when oftentimes it seems more about sticking it to the other side than an actual desire for compromise and tolerance.
It is not very tolerant to say that you're only going to allow the opinions you like and agree with to have a place in the conversation.
Nothing wrong with different opinions and dissent but congress should be in the businesses of governing and there are currently people in there who, by their actions, seem to have no such intentions. And they are indeed a problem.
voting 50 times to repeal Obamacare despite knowing it cannot succeed is not the purpose of Congress. Its a 5 year old throwing a tantrum.
The vast majority of the Republicans in Congress voted on those bills. Is it the vast majority that need to be kicked out, or is it just a few trouble-makers? And are we talking about forming PACs and running attack-ads and getting the vote out against them; or are we talking about opening up the books and changing the actual structure of Congress/elections? And if we're talking about actual changes to the law, with the stated intent of disallowing some of the opinions held by and actions taken by sitting Congressional representatives, exactly what changes are you suggesting? That isn't something to be discussed lightly; so if you're saying we need to do it than you need to point out specific guidelines for how far this thing will be allowed to go.
Are we discussing a few simple bills and rule changes to bring the order back, or are we talking about opening up the Constitution and passing some amendments? I'm only asking because it seems like you have all hinted at possibly the latter, but definitely the former. If that is what you're saying, then yes, I think that is a rather extreme position, and no, I was not lying when I said you wanted to ban opinions you didn't like. You seem to be suggesting that you should get to pick which opinions your opposition is allowed to have, or at least, which opinions they are allowed to bring to government. That if they have certain opinions you disagree with, that's fine, but all these other ones are just too much. There's a thin line very thin line between that and tyranny, and I don't think I trust anyone to tread it. Better to err on the side of caution and use the system as it was intended.
Hear, hear. The lesser version is treating certain opinions as just too radical to be considered, and that is pervasive here as it is everywhere ... X is too extremist, radical, make it stop make it stop. X is anti-science anti-fact anti-reason anti-dignity pro-discrimination. This person is motivated by malice and seeks injury first, hiding behind religious liberty or free exercise rights that was always a ploy. They never acted in good faith in defense of their civil rights, they only sought to deprive others of theirs (This spawns never-ceasing amusement as they scream discrimination against the little guy louder and louder, feigning the defense of Hester Prynn but adopting her oppressors tactics--B for Bigot.)
Well, you've now sought to remove all legitimacy from the other side down to the motivations in both economic thought and religious liberty. You don't want to debate, you want the debate declared over, and for the other side to admit defeat and stop talking. In the last neat ideology wrap-up, the modern right is just too hate-filled to ever do it, so back to the crusade.
Are we actually in a universe where Danglars is saying that truth is relative and everyone can be right in their own way so we should treat everyone's opinion equally? It's like I've fallen through the looking glass.
If people believe and perpetuate things that are demonstrably false I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest they should not hold office, especially when those things affect their policymaking. Or, at the very least, that it be far easier to rub it in their constituents' faces that they believe things that are demonstrably false.
Edit: I mean, look at the edited Planned Parenthood tapes. Nobody in the House that opposed Boehner will ever mention they were edited to make the organization look worse, even though the people that leaked the tapes themselves released an unedited version. Hell, for some of them I bet the editors could have announced publicly that they had been edited and were completely false, and it would not change the way they treat the tapes as proof of Planned Parenthood profiting off of selling organs. That's insane.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of them think the scene Fiorina described is actually in the tape.
Trump would send all Syrian refugees back to Syria because they might be an ISIS army....this sounds very similar to his comments on Latin American illegal immigrants. Except this time they are fucking refugees ffs.
i thought he was just a blatant demagogue at first but looking a bit deeper into the family history it seems like he's a genuine kind of guy when it comes to his prejudices.
On September 30 2015 07:31 zlefin wrote: ...pity that the system lacks better mechanisms for truly throwing the bums out.
This kind of thinking has always worried me, and I do see it from both sides occasionally, but I definitely have seen much more of it from the Democrats. And I think anyone who feels this way needs to take a step back and ponder what they are suggesting.
Any time you want the political system changed in such a way as to silence the voices of dissent and opposition, you should be especially careful to keep in mind the principles upon which this nation was founded: tolerance of a diversity of opinion. It is very difficult for any society to function properly for as long as ours has, and I think we should all be loathe to move away from that proven success into uncharted territory, especially when oftentimes it seems more about sticking it to the other side than an actual desire for compromise and tolerance.
It is not very tolerant to say that you're only going to allow the opinions you like and agree with to have a place in the conversation.
I'm very open-minded, but I also know how to actually run things, and how to intelligently assess arguments; and having people in a position who show that they are not interested in having an actual debate or in running things is not helpful. If you see more of it from the Democrats, there are several possible reasons: 1) democrats are less tolerant. 2) Republicans are crazier/doing less reasonable thing 3) both sides do it similarly but you're simply more aware of the bad things done by the other side, which is also quite a common occurrence.
I don't think congresspeople should do things that would, if they were in a court of law, be grounds for contempt citations, let alone perjury. The ones more about sticking it to the other side than compromise and tolerance have been the Republicans for several years now.
Do not lie, I never said I'd only allow opinions I like and agree with, that you assert otherwise means you're strawmanning or failing to read what is written. I would be willing to disallow opinions that have no basis in reality. While diversity of opinion is nice, one of the purposes of government is to filter out the crazy stupid, and make decisions based on reality. There does need to be a place for the crazy stupid, so they can at least be heard, and I'm not quite sure where that should be, but Congress isn't the place for it.
edit: also, other people keep writing responses better than I do my only consolation is that I have good enough judgement to recognize that.
I apologize if I misunderstood you, or continue to do so, but you said:
I would be willing to disallow opinions that have no basis in reality.
You implied in your first and second paragraphs that you think those opinions, the "crazy-stupid ones" are being held by people in Congress. I assume you're not talking about Democrats here, so it's probably mostly the Tea-Party, conservative types, right? Okay, so are you saying you just don't want them in Congress, or were you actually suggesting something be done to keep those opinions out?
You said these were better responses, so I assume you've endorsed what's said in them:
On September 30 2015 07:31 zlefin wrote: ...pity that the system lacks better mechanisms for truly throwing the bums out.
This kind of thinking has always worried me, and I do see it from both sides occasionally, but I definitely have seen much more of it from the Democrats. And I think anyone who feels this way needs to take a step back and ponder what they are suggesting.
Any time you want the political system changed in such a way as to silence the voices of dissent and opposition, you should be especially careful to keep in mind the principles upon which this nation was founded: tolerance of a diversity of opinion. It is very difficult for any society to function properly for as long as ours has, and I think we should all be loathe to move away from that proven success into uncharted territory, especially when oftentimes it seems more about sticking it to the other side than an actual desire for compromise and tolerance.
It is not very tolerant to say that you're only going to allow the opinions you like and agree with to have a place in the conversation.
Having spoken with a 6th circuit judge who did prior voter apportionment work as an attorney, you're arguing with a phantasm here. zlefin is not advocating that we silence the voices of dissent and opposition, he's pointing towards a troubling phenomena through which our form of representative government is changing for the worse. That's why your "oh, our system is so nice, don't break it" bit is nostalgic red herring fishing; never before has Congress continuously been rated this poorly and had this degree of "stickiness" to its seats. Furthermore, if you think that our nation's principles require an unbending obedience in the face of winner take all voter apportionment and redistricting, you need to check your history book (and not one circulated in Texas public schools, cowboy).
With that in mind, we ought to look at ways of bettering the accountability of our elected officials instead of waving away concerns with wishy washy gesticulations towards outdated notions of founding father logic. Such are a poor substitute for an actual assessment of our democracy's health.
Furthermore, if you think that our nation's principles require an unbending obedience in the face of winner take all voter apportionment and redistricting, you need to check your history book (and not one circulated in Texas public schools, cowboy).
With that in mind, we ought to look at ways of bettering the accountability of our elected officials instead of waving away concerns with wishy washy gesticulations towards outdated notions of founding father logic. Such are a poor substitute for an actual assessment of our democracy's health.
I probably should check my history books more often, but I was wondering exactly what this all means? It seems to be saying that Congress has gotten so out of hand, so far off the deep end, that there is no option but to be willing to "[wave] away concerns with wishy washy gesticulations towards outdated notions of founding father logic."
Bettering accountability sounds nice, and I think gerrymandering is definitely something we can look at, but you weren't very specific, even with those. My problems with the sentiment being expressed is that you're dancing around the specifics of who gets the axe and what kind of changes we'll be making.
On September 30 2015 07:31 zlefin wrote: ...pity that the system lacks better mechanisms for truly throwing the bums out.
This kind of thinking has always worried me, and I do see it from both sides occasionally, but I definitely have seen much more of it from the Democrats. And I think anyone who feels this way needs to take a step back and ponder what they are suggesting.
Any time you want the political system changed in such a way as to silence the voices of dissent and opposition, you should be especially careful to keep in mind the principles upon which this nation was founded: tolerance of a diversity of opinion. It is very difficult for any society to function properly for as long as ours has, and I think we should all be loathe to move away from that proven success into uncharted territory, especially when oftentimes it seems more about sticking it to the other side than an actual desire for compromise and tolerance.
It is not very tolerant to say that you're only going to allow the opinions you like and agree with to have a place in the conversation.
Nothing wrong with different opinions and dissent but congress should be in the businesses of governing and there are currently people in there who, by their actions, seem to have no such intentions. And they are indeed a problem.
voting 50 times to repeal Obamacare despite knowing it cannot succeed is not the purpose of Congress. Its a 5 year old throwing a tantrum.
The vast majority of the Republicans in Congress voted on those bills. Is it the vast majority that need to be kicked out, or is it just a few trouble-makers? And are we talking about forming PACs and running attack-ads and getting the vote out against them; or are we talking about opening up the books and changing the actual structure of Congress/elections? And if we're talking about actual changes to the law, with the stated intent of disallowing some of the opinions held by and actions taken by sitting Congressional representatives, exactly what changes are you suggesting? That isn't something to be discussed lightly; so if you're saying we need to do it than you need to point out specific guidelines for how far this thing will be allowed to go.
Are we discussing a few simple bills and rule changes to bring the order back, or are we talking about opening up the Constitution and passing some amendments? I'm only asking because it seems like you have all hinted at possibly the latter, but definitely the former. If that is what you're saying, then yes, I think that is a rather extreme position, and no, I was not lying when I said you wanted to ban opinions you didn't like. You seem to be suggesting that you should get to pick which opinions your opposition is allowed to have, or at least, which opinions they are allowed to bring to government. That if they have certain opinions you disagree with, that's fine, but all these other ones are just too much. There's a thin line very thin line between that and tyranny, and I don't think I trust anyone to tread it. Better to err on the side of caution and use the system as it was intended.
Hear, hear. The lesser version is treating certain opinions as just too radical to be considered, and that is pervasive here as it is everywhere ... X is too extremist, radical, make it stop make it stop. X is anti-science anti-fact anti-reason anti-dignity pro-discrimination. This person is motivated by malice and seeks injury first, hiding behind religious liberty or free exercise rights that was always a ploy. They never acted in good faith in defense of their civil rights, they only sought to deprive others of theirs (This spawns never-ceasing amusement as they scream discrimination against the little guy louder and louder, feigning the defense of Hester Prynn but adopting her oppressors tactics--B for Bigot.)
Well, you've now sought to remove all legitimacy from the other side down to the motivations in both economic thought and religious liberty. You don't want to debate, you want the debate declared over, and for the other side to admit defeat and stop talking. In the last neat ideology wrap-up, the modern right is just too hate-filled to ever do it, so back to the crusade.
Are we actually in a universe where Danglars is saying that truth is relative and everyone can be right in their own way so we should treat everyone's opinion equally? It's like I've fallen through the looking glass.
If people believe and perpetuate things that are demonstrably false I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest they should not hold office, especially when those things affect their policymaking. Or, at the very least, that it be far easier to rub it in their constituents' faces that they believe things that are demonstrably false.
Edit: I mean, look at the edited Planned Parenthood tapes. Nobody in the House that opposed Boehner will ever mention they were edited to make the organization look worse, even though the people that leaked the tapes themselves released an unedited version. Hell, for some of them I bet the editors could have announced publicly that they had been edited and were completely false, and it would not change the way they treat the tapes as proof of Planned Parenthood profiting off of selling organs. That's insane.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of them think the scene Fiorina described is actually in the tape.
If you say a lie enough times in public, people will believe it. You would think we would have learned from McCarthy.
On October 01 2015 15:19 Slaughter wrote: Trump would send all Syrian refugees back to Syria because they might be an ISIS army....this sounds very similar to his comments on Latin American illegal immigrants. Except this time they are fucking refugees ffs.
O'REILLY: Ok. Israel is not taking any. Britain is taking a few -- maybe 5,000. You know thousands will come to the United States of migrants. Now, do you object to migrants getting out of the Middle East and North Africa? Do you object to them coming to the U.S.A.? TRUMP: I hate the concept of it, but on a humanitarian basis with what's happening, you have to. You know, this was started by President Obama when he didn't go in and do the job when he should have. When he drew the line in the sand which turned out to be a very artificial line. But, you know, it's living in hell in Syria, there is no question about it. They are living in hell. And something has to be done.
I think he's just making things up as he goes along
On October 01 2015 07:20 hunts wrote:Or they can stop being whiney little shits and realize that "freedom of religions" and "freedom of speech" only extend to the person, not their ability to harm another person, and not to hateful speech.
The first amendment protection of freedom of speech does indeed apply to most hateful speech. There is a narrow exception where speech obviously intended to incite violence is not protected.
(See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul)
And no one is arresting any Republicans for the dumb shit they say about climate change, homosexuals, and Obama being a Muslim. We just laugh. There is no constitutional amendment protecting them from laughter and ridicule, and rightfully so.
The reactionary right seems to get their panties in a wad about their "rights being oppressed" when it's not the government coming down on them, it's the people. If hundreds of people want to picket your bakery because you didn't make a cake for a gay couple, that's their prerogative as long as they don't break any laws. That's not violating their "rights" its society telling them they are assholes.
For what it's worth, I think it should be legal to refuse service to anyone for any reason, precisely because of the result outlined above. If a business owner does something abhorrent or discriminatory, but not illegal, society takes care of it.
Well played. I never felt he had the true Trump fervor, but he felt it would bother people. His time in the "ask questions thread" revealed true love of the bait post.
On October 01 2015 07:20 hunts wrote:Or they can stop being whiney little shits and realize that "freedom of religions" and "freedom of speech" only extend to the person, not their ability to harm another person, and not to hateful speech.
The first amendment protection of freedom of speech does indeed apply to most hateful speech. There is a narrow exception where speech obviously intended to incite violence is not protected.
(See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul)
And no one is arresting any Republicans for the dumb shit they say about climate change, homosexuals, and Obama being a Muslim. We just laugh. There is no constitutional amendment protecting them from laughter and ridicule, and rightfully so.
The reactionary right seems to get their panties in a wad about their "rights being oppressed" when it's not the government coming down on them, it's the people. If hundreds of people want to picket your bakery because you didn't make a cake for a gay couple, that's their prerogative as long as they don't break any laws. That's not violating their "rights" its society telling them they are assholes.
For what it's worth, I think it should be legal to refuse service to anyone for any reason, precisely because of the result outlined above. If a business owner does something abhorrent or discriminatory, but not illegal, society takes care of it.
The only problem with your idea is that unfortunately there are probably enough racist, bigoted people to keep the businesses open and peer pressure in itself is probably not enough to fix the problem (which is why we have civil rights laws in the first place, the problem didn't just take care of itself). It sounds good as an idea but I think in practice it would prove to be ineffective.
On October 01 2015 07:20 hunts wrote:Or they can stop being whiney little shits and realize that "freedom of religions" and "freedom of speech" only extend to the person, not their ability to harm another person, and not to hateful speech.
The first amendment protection of freedom of speech does indeed apply to most hateful speech. There is a narrow exception where speech obviously intended to incite violence is not protected.
(See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul)
And no one is arresting any Republicans for the dumb shit they say about climate change, homosexuals, and Obama being a Muslim. We just laugh. There is no constitutional amendment protecting them from laughter and ridicule, and rightfully so.
The reactionary right seems to get their panties in a wad about their "rights being oppressed" when it's not the government coming down on them, it's the people. If hundreds of people want to picket your bakery because you didn't make a cake for a gay couple, that's their prerogative as long as they don't break any laws. That's not violating their "rights" its society telling them they are assholes.
For what it's worth, I think it should be legal to refuse service to anyone for any reason, precisely because of the result outlined above. If a business owner does something abhorrent or discriminatory, but not illegal, society takes care of it.
The only problem with your idea is that unfortunately there are probably enough racist, bigoted people to keep the businesses open and peer pressure in itself is probably not enough to fix the problem (which is why we have civil rights laws in the first place, the problem didn't just take care of itself). It sounds good as an idea but I think in practice it would prove to be ineffective.
Yeah, the problem is that humans are generally very bad at thinking and acting rationally - there's a reason it took thousands of years for us to come up with the scientific method.
There are a whole lot of people who are willing to suffer financial harm if it means they get to be bigoted.
Not only that, but I really have trouble understanding how a right do discrimination is supposed to be a right at all, if you run an official business you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. Employers can't turn down job applications based on ethnicity, sexual orientation and so on either, can they?
On October 02 2015 01:55 Plansix wrote: Can we just have the GOP debate where Trump argues with previous statements he made?
On October 02 2015 02:30 Nyxisto wrote: Not only that, but I really have trouble understanding how a right do discrimination is supposed to be a right at all, if you run an official business you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. Employers can't turn down job applications based on ethnicity, sexual orientation and so on either, can they?
It's not a right to discriminate, although refusal of service can be used to discriminate. My issue with making it illegal to refuse service to anyone you like is when some asshole who you kick out of your business claims it is because of discrimination. Maybe a rare case, but I don't like the idea of dick customers having all the leverage when they can go elsewhere but the business owner cannot. I see that as being a bigger potential problem than the occasional gay couple having to go to a different baker/photographer and then that baker/photographer being lambasted by society at large.
On October 02 2015 02:30 Nyxisto wrote: Not only that, but I really have trouble understanding how a right do discrimination is supposed to be a right at all, if you run an official business you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. Employers can't turn down job applications based on ethnicity, sexual orientation and so on either, can they?
On October 02 2015 01:55 Plansix wrote: Can we just have the GOP debate where Trump argues with previous statements he made?
It's not a right to discriminate, although refusal of service can be used to discriminate. My issue with making it illegal to refuse service to anyone you like is when some asshole who you kick out of your business claims it is because of discrimination. Maybe a rare case, but I don't like the idea of dick customers having all the leverage when they can go elsewhere but the business owner cannot. I see that as being a bigger potential problem than the occasional gay couple having to go to a different baker/photographer and then that baker/photographer being lambasted by society at large.
This isn't any different that the normal problem retailers face. They already fear social influential people who don't like their service and decide to badmouth them on facebook or some shit. The gay couple is no more a threat than the women who brings her shitty kids to the cake and gets mad when the owner tell them not to touch the cakes. Both can go ham on social media to put them out of business.
On October 02 2015 02:52 ZasZ. wrote: It's not a right to discriminate, although refusal of service can be used to discriminate.
Honestly why else will people refuse service? "Sorry I just didn't enjoy making money today" isn't exactly common behaviour. Practically every time these refusal situations come up it's about discrimination.
EPT
my only consolation is that I have good enough judgement to recognize that.
