I'm fairly certain the cycle never discontinues either way. People will always disagree on things, and will kill each other over those things. It's been happening as long as humans have existed. I see no end in sight. If Islam conquers the world there will still be different sects within the parent religion killing each other.
I'm fairly certain the cycle never discontinues either way. People will always disagree on things, and will kill each other over those thing… mores. It's been happening as long as humans have existed. I see no end in sight. If Islam conquers the world there will still be different sects within the parent religion killing each other.
Of course there will always be killing, it's inevitable, but that wasn't really the point. Just compare nations that are tolerant to those that are not, it's a pretty noticeable difference, is it not? Being intolerant of intolerance is on a whole different playing field to just being intolerant of ____, and saying one is the other is grossly dishonest in my opinion, even if they are the same in definition alone.
I'm fairly certain the cycle never discontinues either way. People will always disagree on things, and will kill each other over those thing… mores. It's been happening as long as humans have existed. I see no end in sight. If Islam conquers the world there will still be different sects within the parent religion killing each other.
Okay I see the problem, and I'm not having a theology debate with you. No one ever gains anything from those. I will jusy say I disagree w… moreith you in regards to people picking and choosing what parts of the bible the will and will not follow. But this is likely due to it being written and/or translated in a way that makes it difficult to know if a certain passage is to be taken literally. I think you already touched on it being written thousands of years ago by multiple people so I hope this comment won't cause further confusion.
Nope it's pretty much the same you say that you are tolerant for as long as something is not clashing with your views which is basically the same what the so called intolertant people do towards people they don't like.
Of course there will always be killing, it's inevitable, but that wasn't really the point. Just compare nations that are tolerant to those t… morehat are not, it's a pretty noticeable difference, is it not? Being intolerant of intolerance is on a whole different playing field to just being intolerant of ____, and saying one is the other is grossly dishonest in my opinion, even if they are the same in definition alone.
No, that is not the same thing. I'll jump right into it with Godwin's law and ask if being against the intolerance of the Nazis was simply "being intolerant of someone's views." Of course it wasn't. People can have different views, but when those views advocate for violence against another group for simply existing and having the same rights as other groups equating the two "intolerances" is ridiculous.
Nope it's pretty much the same you say that you are tolerant for as long as something is not clashing with your views which is basically the same what the so called intolertant people do towards people they don't like.
So what about all those people who on the one hand say that tolerance and PC is the highest virtue yet on other hand say that people who don't share their view point should be marginalized, mocked ect, ect
No, that is not the same thing. I'll jump right into it with Godwin's law and ask if being against the intolerance of the Nazis was simply "… morebeing intolerant of someone's views." Of course it wasn't. People can have different views, but when those views advocate for violence against another group for simply existing and having the same rights as other groups equating the two "intolerances" is ridiculous.
I would say that most religious people see marriage as not just a BIG part of their religion, but also as an issue of morality. Thus when you change the definition of an institution that has been around for millenniums, the question then becomes: "Where does it stop - where do we draw the line as to what we consider to be moral and immoral? Between what we view as sacred, and not sacred? And what does this mean for the future of religious freedom?"
I think those questions are the ones that die hard religious people are concerned about.
Personally speaking, and mind you I'm now speaking from a PURELY personal standpoint: I have no problem if two people live together outside of marriage, Straight or Gay. That doesn't bother me in the least! But I do you marriage to be a sacred thing, and one shouldn't have been changed. I'm all for Gays and Lesbians being treated as human beings, but I don't believe that changing the definition of marriage was crucial in order for that to be accomplished. I also don't really care what two people do in private, as long as it's not harming others.
Well, while it's true that some ''internet progressives'' (aka SJW) don't know where to draw the line, most religious conservatives (if not … moreall) want to force their own beliefs on other people, such as homosexuals. It's okay if you don't support the act of two men/women getting married, you don't have to, but if you try to deny their RIGHT of doing so, then I don't see why you shouldn't be considered a ''bigot''. You CAN be morally against gay marriage and still be in favor of the legalization. Otherwise, you're just shoving your own beliefs down their throaths.
I would say that most religious people see marriage as not just a BIG part of their religion, but also as an issue of morality. Thus when yo… moreu change the definition of an institution that has been around for millenniums, the question then becomes: "Where does it stop - where do we draw the line as to what we consider to be moral and immoral? Between what we view as sacred, and not sacred? And what does this mean for the future of religious freedom?"
I think those questions are the ones that die hard religious people are concerned about.
Personally speaking, and mind you I'm now speaking from a PURELY personal standpoint: I have no problem if two people live together outside of marriage, Straight or Gay. That doesn't bother me in the least! But I do you marriage to be a sacred thing, and one shouldn't have been changed. I'm all for Gays and Lesbians being treated as human beings, but I don't believe that changing the definition of marriage … [view original content]
The distinction between holy and profane is, and always has been, purely subjective. Cows are sacred in Hinduism and eaten elsewhere. Catholic monestaries preserve pieces of saints, while Prodestants don't give a damn.
The institution of marriage isn't static. It has and will change as peoples' customs and expectations change. That's why we no longer do arranged marriages (in most cultures) or wed off our ten year old daughters to men three times their age. These changes are inevitable and it won't lead to a slippery slope situation where people can wed farm animals. People always raise these alarmist concerns in times of social change.
I would say that most religious people see marriage as not just a BIG part of their religion, but also as an issue of morality. Thus when yo… moreu change the definition of an institution that has been around for millenniums, the question then becomes: "Where does it stop - where do we draw the line as to what we consider to be moral and immoral? Between what we view as sacred, and not sacred? And what does this mean for the future of religious freedom?"
I think those questions are the ones that die hard religious people are concerned about.
Personally speaking, and mind you I'm now speaking from a PURELY personal standpoint: I have no problem if two people live together outside of marriage, Straight or Gay. That doesn't bother me in the least! But I do you marriage to be a sacred thing, and one shouldn't have been changed. I'm all for Gays and Lesbians being treated as human beings, but I don't believe that changing the definition of marriage … [view original content]
Many, many forms of marriage precede Christian marriage. I mean, polygamous marriage predates christian marriage. That doesn't mean that christian marriage is corruption in your mind though, so why does this?
I would say that most religious people see marriage as not just a BIG part of their religion, but also as an issue of morality. Thus when yo… moreu change the definition of an institution that has been around for millenniums, the question then becomes: "Where does it stop - where do we draw the line as to what we consider to be moral and immoral? Between what we view as sacred, and not sacred? And what does this mean for the future of religious freedom?"
I think those questions are the ones that die hard religious people are concerned about.
Personally speaking, and mind you I'm now speaking from a PURELY personal standpoint: I have no problem if two people live together outside of marriage, Straight or Gay. That doesn't bother me in the least! But I do you marriage to be a sacred thing, and one shouldn't have been changed. I'm all for Gays and Lesbians being treated as human beings, but I don't believe that changing the definition of marriage … [view original content]
You think it is because,just like the cherrypicked extreme side you're talking about. There are also plenty coming from your side where all of them are just some pretentious defener.
Also, considering how popular Trump is, I fail to see how what you're describing is 'politically incorrect'. That's just a right wing buzzword to make people feel like the government is controlling every aspect of their lives.
Irony of that is politically the world barely changes from generation to generation. If at all. People complain about politics today, but it has pretty much been just as dirty and corrupt from century to century with high and low points over time. Same kind of people always fighting and arguing with each other as well. I mean even the media hasn't really changed, it's been just as horrible as ever. Some of my favorite quotes about the media came from General Sherman from the American Civil War, he personally wished he could shoot them. lol
The last time the USA was this politically divided we ended up going to Civil War with each other. If any Youth's who are conservative today in the USA likely are because they live in an environment which encourages it and nothing more. Personally no right minded youth should be conservative, it's more natural for a middle age and older adult to be conservative it just isn't natural for teens and young adults to be majority conservative so of course those that are will feel like they're in the wrong generation, but give it a few decades and more of their friends likely will be conservative. Why do people become conservative with age? Because the world changes, and they refuse to adapt to those changes, whether it's politically or ethnically.
You think it is because,just like the cherrypicked extreme side you're talking about. There are also plenty coming from your side where all of them are just some pretentious defener.
enter link description here
I don't get it. As many others have already said, the definition of marriage is not exclusive to Christianity and it has been changed many times in the past. So why should the concept of morality and immorality be held in the hands of Christians? Why should a majority get to choose the rights of a minority? I don't think you would be defending this kind of thing if their beliefs weren't the same as yours. It seems to me that you and many other Christians are not defending religious freedom, cause being forced to live by Christian principles is not having freedom of religion. And that's a hell of a double standart if you ask me.
Give people the right to do what they want with their lives (as long as they're not harming anyone), including marrying whoever they want, and you'll see how everyone would be happier.
I would say that most religious people see marriage as not just a BIG part of their religion, but also as an issue of morality. Thus when yo… moreu change the definition of an institution that has been around for millenniums, the question then becomes: "Where does it stop - where do we draw the line as to what we consider to be moral and immoral? Between what we view as sacred, and not sacred? And what does this mean for the future of religious freedom?"
I think those questions are the ones that die hard religious people are concerned about.
Personally speaking, and mind you I'm now speaking from a PURELY personal standpoint: I have no problem if two people live together outside of marriage, Straight or Gay. That doesn't bother me in the least! But I do you marriage to be a sacred thing, and one shouldn't have been changed. I'm all for Gays and Lesbians being treated as human beings, but I don't believe that changing the definition of marriage … [view original content]
I don't get it. As many others have already said, the definition of marriage is not exclusive to Christianity and it has been changed many t… moreimes in the past. So why should the concept of morality and immorality be held in the hands of Christians? Why should a majority get to choose the rights of a minority? I don't think you would be defending this kind of thing if their beliefs weren't the same as yours. It seems to me that you and many other Christians are not defending religious freedom, cause being forced to live by Christian principles is not having freedom of religion. And that's a hell of a double standart if you ask me.
Give people the right to do what they want with their lives (as long as they're not harming anyone), including marrying whoever they want, and you'll see how everyone would be happier.
You do realize the conversation was in reference to a man advocating the beating of homosexuals, yes? Your rebuttal attacks a broad group of people, some of their points may be valid (if, for instance, they rebuke a person for honestly advocating the lynching of a Muslim student), but most of them are vague discrepancies with nebulous systems of oppression, we're not talking about the same thing here. If and when one of these "PC virtue signalers" advocates for the beating of white people because they're white then sure, we're on the same subject.
So what about all those people who on the one hand say that tolerance and PC is the highest virtue yet on other hand say that people who don't share their view point should be marginalized, mocked ect, ect
I have to say that when you mentioned 10 year old girls being married to men 3× their age, I just got this sickening feeling in my stomach. I know that over in the middle east that Muslims do that sorta thing, and I must say that I'm morally opposed that.
Call me discriminating against Muslims, but I do not see how such a thing can be justified. Nor them being allowed to treat women like cattle, and if they don't do exactly what they want, the men are allowed to beat them - or even outright kill them.
Also, there was a Muslim woman some time back, who along with her boyfriend, were gang-raped, and then when she reported what happened to the Muslim authorities, she received over 200 lashes, and all because she was alone with her boyfriend, which is apparently a huge offense under Islamic law.
How do you justify that? At such a time, the humane thing to do would be to give comfort to both of these poor victims, and get a manhunt going for their assailants. But apparently her and her boyfriend were not worthy of such consideration.
Also, apparently under Muslim law, men are allowed to sexually assault children. Right now there's a thing on Facebook about a Marine, who's name I forget, who saved a boy from being molested by a Muslim - who ironically was the chief of police. Anyway the U.S army wants to have this man kicked out of the army because of it. Since when does the U.S. army take the side of a child molester, regardless of his religion? The incident was not just mentioned on Facebook, but also NBC news.
I know I went way off track here, but when I read what you wrote about little girls being married to grown men, it just made me feel so disgusted that I had to speak up. As well as mention other things that these people do that sicken me. And I'm sorry for any offense I may have caused, but at the same time when I hear or read about such things happening, the humanity in me cries out for Justice on behalf of the victims.
The distinction between holy and profane is, and always has been, purely subjective. Cows are sacred in Hinduism and eaten elsewhere. Cath… moreolic monestaries preserve pieces of saints, while Prodestants don't give a damn.
The institution of marriage isn't static. It has and will change as peoples' customs and expectations change. That's why we no longer do arranged marriages (in most cultures) or wed off our ten year old daughters to men three times their age. These changes are inevitable and it won't lead to a slippery slope situation where people can wed farm animals. People always raise these alarmist concerns in times of social change.
That's what I'm trying to convey here. Very often behind the slogan ,,no tolerance for intolerance" hides simply another political agenda that mocks and ridicules everything that is not within the bounds of their ideology. So in my eyes there's no real difference between bigots and the people who preach tolerance, with exception that the latter are hypocrites.
You do realize the conversation was in reference to a man advocating the beating of homosexuals, yes? Your rebuttal attacks a broad group of… more people, some of their points may be valid (if, for instance, they rebuke a person for honestly advocating the lynching of a Muslim student), but most of them are vague discrepancies with nebulous systems of oppression, we're not talking about the same thing here. If and when one of these "PC virtue signalers" advocates for the beating of white people because they're white then sure, we're on the same subject.
I have no problem with traditional views so long as they hold up.
For example, it is traditionally viewed that killing and stealing is wrong, as is bestiality and other such scenarios. However, when a view is proven consistantly to be wrong/incorrect, that is when I have a problem with a traditional view.
With that said, however, I do agree with the main point of your case. Yes, civil discussion and debate, free of fallacious ad hominems, straw counter-arguments and other such ought to be the way to go about an issue.
Oooh...I could get angry and snidely debunk your various misconceptions about Islam, but I doubt that would help either of us. However I'd like to raise a couple very important points.
1.) We shouldn't group the behavior of all Muslims together. Like Christianity, Islam is a very complicated religion that manifests itself differently almost everywhere. The Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia is a very different from the way the faith is practiced in mostly secular countries like Tunisia or Indonesia. I'm sure you'd agree that the Amish and Greek Orthodox Churches have completely different traditions and worldview that make them almost completely incompatible. The 'big tent' strategy works no better in regards to Islam.
2.) A lot of the ugly shit people associate with Islam have their roots in the underlying culture of the people. People often think that Saudi culture margainalizes women because of Islam, but the truth is many of these practices and attitudes pre-date Islamic and are considered un-Islamic in other cultures. Since the time if the four-dynasties, Islamic scholars have used the Quran to flimsily justify pre-Islamic traditions and give these practices a false air of religious authority. Enter....Saudi Arabia's requirement that women cover their entire body. The Quran advocates modesty, which Saudi scholars used to justify their tradition of forcing women to cover themselves.
Examples can be found elsewhere in the world. People tend to think that Iraqi grudges and blood feuds are due to Islamic influence when in reality it seems to be a largely Iraqi phenomenon. Similarly, child molestation is a widespread problem in Afghanistan, but this actually has nothing to do with Islam. It's an ugly phenomenon within the Pashtun culture, especially within the police force. In the case you mentioned, the army unfairly went after the soldier who reported the abuse because the police chief was an important strategic asset. Unfortunately, the sheer corruption and degeneracy within the Afghan police is a big reason why we'll probably never win the war.
Despite this being a time when the world is in hysterics over Islamic extremism, Islam is largely moving in a progressive direction. Globalization and modernization is rapidly eroding support for old, reactionary traditions and the clerics who push them. Even in Saudi Arabia, the people are becoming increasingly unsatisfied with the status quo (their oil problems are helping). Basically, what we have now is a slow-burning conflict between reactionary and progressive forces in Islam.
I have to say that when you mentioned 10 year old girls being married to men 3× their age, I just got this sickening feeling in my stomach. … moreI know that over in the middle east that Muslims do that sorta thing, and I must say that I'm morally opposed that.
Call me discriminating against Muslims, but I do not see how such a thing can be justified. Nor them being allowed to treat women like cattle, and if they don't do exactly what they want, the men are allowed to beat them - or even outright kill them.
Also, there was a Muslim woman some time back, who along with her boyfriend, were gang-raped, and then when she reported what happened to the Muslim authorities, she received over 200 lashes, and all because she was alone with her boyfriend, which is apparently a huge offense under Islamic law.
How do you justify that? At such a time, the humane thing to do would be to give comfort to both of these poor victims, and get a manhunt going … [view original content]
If you actually are okay with someone having the "belief" that homosexuals should be beaten, then that just gives away what kind of person you are. Unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying. There's nothing wrong with not being okay with that kind of thing whatsoever.
That's what I'm trying to convey here. Very often behind the slogan ,,no tolerance for intolerance" hides simply another political agenda th… moreat mocks and ridicules everything that is not within the bounds of their ideology. So in my eyes there's no real difference between bigots and the people who preach tolerance, with exception that the latter are hypocrites.
How do you have a civil discussion with someone who thinks you belong in a mass grave? Or someone who thinks you were better off as chattel? Or someone who thinks you shouldn't be allowed to reproduce?
I have no problem with traditional views so long as they hold up.
For example, it is traditionally viewed that killing and stealing is wr… moreong, as is bestiality and other such scenarios. However, when a view is proven consistantly to be wrong/incorrect, that is when I have a problem with a traditional view.
With that said, however, I do agree with the main point of your case. Yes, civil discussion and debate, free of fallacious ad hominems, straw counter-arguments and other such ought to be the way to go about an issue.
But you can have a civil conversation with somebody with more measured beliefs, like someone who is just uncomfortable with the idea of you because they've never met anybody like you. Some people can be dismissed as racists/cowards/shitheads out of hand because that's all they are, but most people can be civil and even understanding if they sit down and listen.
How do you have a civil discussion with someone who thinks you belong in a mass grave? Or someone who thinks you were better off as chattel? Or someone who thinks you shouldn't be allowed to reproduce?
Gay marriage is often conducted in religious ceremonies. There are a lot of religious people who do support gay marriage, including many Christian churches. In those religious institutions, they do deem gay marriage to be a sacred thing. It would actually be taking away their freedom of religion if the supreme court ruling was overturned.
Having gay marriage doesn't affect any religious person that isn't gay or bisexual in any way, as everyone is still able to attend a church that doesn't support it. It would affect those who are religious, including the ministers who conduct gay marriage as part of their religious ceremonies. That's absolutely not right. It's not right to take away someone's religious freedoms because they interpret the Christian Bible differently, or because they follow a completely different religious text. Freedom of religion is all about the giving religious institutions to freedom to interpret their religious texts however they deem appropriate to their spirituality.
Just as people who don't support gay marriage are free to attend a church that doesn't support gay marriage, people who do support gay marriage should be able to attend a church that does, and ministers should be able to interpret their religious texts to perform gay marriage if their interpretation of their religious texts deems that ceremony to fit with their religion. It's not right for someone to deem someone else's religious ceremony as not actually being religious because it doesn't coincide with their own personal beliefs.
Freedom of religion protects those religions that don't officiate gay marriage as part of their religion, but it protects those who do as well. And that's the way it should be. Freedom isn't a one way street.
I would say that most religious people see marriage as not just a BIG part of their religion, but also as an issue of morality. Thus when yo… moreu change the definition of an institution that has been around for millenniums, the question then becomes: "Where does it stop - where do we draw the line as to what we consider to be moral and immoral? Between what we view as sacred, and not sacred? And what does this mean for the future of religious freedom?"
I think those questions are the ones that die hard religious people are concerned about.
Personally speaking, and mind you I'm now speaking from a PURELY personal standpoint: I have no problem if two people live together outside of marriage, Straight or Gay. That doesn't bother me in the least! But I do you marriage to be a sacred thing, and one shouldn't have been changed. I'm all for Gays and Lesbians being treated as human beings, but I don't believe that changing the definition of marriage … [view original content]
Most of the time I see 'politically correct' used, it's not to make people feel as if the government is trying to control their lives, at least not the government specifically. Rather, they ascribe it to any group attempting to control speech and language.
Also, considering how popular Trump is, I fail to see how what you're describing is 'politically incorrect'. That's just a right wing buzzword to make people feel like the government is controlling every aspect of their lives.
I'm referring to the notion held by some (I'm not sure if Ram thinks this) that we're supposed to tolerate even the worst speech, and that publicly objecting means you're being "oppressive" or denying people their freedom of speech. "Yes, civil discussion and debate" is appropriate most of the time, but there has to be a line between views that merit civil discourse and views that merit social ostracization (and maybe an ass kicking).
It's Bike Week where I live and you should really see some if the racist bullshit that comes out of the woodwork this time of year. It really shows how much of a double-edged sword our "freedom to be bigoted" can be.
You don't.
But you can have a civil conversation with somebody with more measured beliefs, like someone who is just uncomfortable with th… moree idea of you because they've never met anybody like you. Some people can be dismissed as racists/cowards/shitheads out of hand because that's all they are, but most people can be civil and even understanding if they sit down and listen.
Ah, I see. Allow me to clarify. In cases whereby one thinks in a certain way due to misinformation or being honestly mistaken, that is when civil discourse ought to be used. In cases where you've people that cannot be reasoned with (e.g. religeous fanaticists, hardcore conservatives and liberals, etc), that is a different game entirely.
EDIT: Also, I am unfamiliar with bike week. Care to please elaborate on the racism involved?
Debating in that case Is fine.
I'm referring to the notion held by some (I'm not sure if Ram thinks this) that we're supposed to tolerate… more even the worst speech, and that publicly objecting means you're being "oppressive" or denying people their freedom of speech. "Yes, civil discussion and debate" is appropriate most of the time, but there has to be a line between views that merit civil discourse and views that merit social ostracization (and maybe an ass kicking).
It's Bike Week where I live and you should really see some if the racist bullshit that comes out of the woodwork this time of year. It really shows how much of a double-edged sword our "freedom to be bigoted" can be.
If you actually are okay with someone having the "belief" that homosexuals should be beaten, then that just gives away what kind of person y… moreou are. Unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying. There's nothing wrong with not being okay with that kind of thing whatsoever.
EDIT: Also, I am unfamiliar with bike week. Care to please elaborate on the racism involved?
Sure. Bike Week is one of the biggest motorcycle gatherings and attracts bikers from across the country and is a big boon the city's economy. It used to be kinda dangerous and controversial because of the outlaw element, but these days it's gone mainstream. Most of the bikers are fine, bunch of lawyers and doctors admiring each others' custom bikes, getting drunk and and having a good time.
But there's usually some white power, neo-confederate shitheads who come too. The biker culture is fiercely conservative as it is, so the white-power types don't get run off like they probably should. They get their liquid courage and they start doing shit like groping/harassing women and hassling minorities. One of my Muslim co-workers had her niqab ripped off and they been known the throw things at black people and call them slurs as they drive past on their bikes (just saw the latter happen today actually) There's been no violent hate crimes since I moved here, but it creates a very toxic environment for a lot of people. Most alarmingly, the local merchants cater to these types with overtly racist t-shirts and memorabilia.
Ah, I see. Allow me to clarify. In cases whereby one thinks in a certain way due to misinformation or being honestly mistaken, that is when … morecivil discourse ought to be used. In cases where you've people that cannot be reasoned with (e.g. religeous fanaticists, hardcore conservatives and liberals, etc), that is a different game entirely.
EDIT: Also, I am unfamiliar with bike week. Care to please elaborate on the racism involved?
EDIT: Also, I am unfamiliar with bike week. Care to please elaborate on the racism involved?
Sure. Bike Week is one of the biggest … moremotorcycle gatherings and attracts bikers from across the country and is a big boon the city's economy. It used to be kinda dangerous and controversial because of the outlaw element, but these days it's gone mainstream. Most of the bikers are fine, bunch of lawyers and doctors admiring each others' custom bikes, getting drunk and and having a good time.
But there's usually some white power, neo-confederate shitheads who come too. The biker culture is fiercely conservative as it is, so the white-power types don't get run off like they probably should. They get their liquid courage and they start doing shit like groping/harassing women and hassling minorities. One of my Muslim co-workers had her niqab ripped off and they been known the throw things at black people and call them slurs as they drive p… [view original content]
I get what you're saying, but I don't believe the word "hypocrite" applies to a situation where somebody just isn't okay with someone advocating physical violence on a certain group of people. If that were the case, everybody against ISIS would be a hypocrite.
Everybody going against ISIS is a consequence of their actions not hypocrisy. What I believe in is that people should be allowed to say whatever they want no matter how offensive or hateful it is. Just so when they act on it or people who they influenced do something, they should be ready to face consequences.
Censoring people in blind attempt to eliminate hate speech will just frustrate them more and more until one of them will take an action. Most of the so called hate preachers are just that preachers all words no action.
I get what you're saying, but I don't believe the word "hypocrite" applies to a situation where somebody just isn't okay with someone advoca… moreting physical violence on a certain group of people. If that were the case, everybody against ISIS would be a hypocrite.
That's what I'm trying to convey here. Very often behind the slogan ,,no tolerance for intolerance" hides simply another political agenda th… moreat mocks and ridicules everything that is not within the bounds of their ideology. So in my eyes there's no real difference between bigots and the people who preach tolerance, with exception that the latter are hypocrites.
Comments
Therefore let ISIS do their thing, lest the cycle continue.
I'm fairly certain the cycle never discontinues either way. People will always disagree on things, and will kill each other over those things. It's been happening as long as humans have existed. I see no end in sight. If Islam conquers the world there will still be different sects within the parent religion killing each other.
Indeed, people simply don't get that simple truth. Killing each other is in our nature and no amount of idealism will change that.
Of course there will always be killing, it's inevitable, but that wasn't really the point. Just compare nations that are tolerant to those that are not, it's a pretty noticeable difference, is it not? Being intolerant of intolerance is on a whole different playing field to just being intolerant of ____, and saying one is the other is grossly dishonest in my opinion, even if they are the same in definition alone.
Nope it's fine. Nevermind.
Nope it's pretty much the same you say that you are tolerant for as long as something is not clashing with your views which is basically the same what the so called intolertant people do towards people they don't like.
No, that is not the same thing. I'll jump right into it with Godwin's law and ask if being against the intolerance of the Nazis was simply "being intolerant of someone's views." Of course it wasn't. People can have different views, but when those views advocate for violence against another group for simply existing and having the same rights as other groups equating the two "intolerances" is ridiculous.
So what about all those people who on the one hand say that tolerance and PC is the highest virtue yet on other hand say that people who don't share their view point should be marginalized, mocked ect, ect
I would say that most religious people see marriage as not just a BIG part of their religion, but also as an issue of morality. Thus when you change the definition of an institution that has been around for millenniums, the question then becomes: "Where does it stop - where do we draw the line as to what we consider to be moral and immoral? Between what we view as sacred, and not sacred? And what does this mean for the future of religious freedom?"
I think those questions are the ones that die hard religious people are concerned about.
Personally speaking, and mind you I'm now speaking from a PURELY personal standpoint: I have no problem if two people live together outside of marriage, Straight or Gay. That doesn't bother me in the least! But I do you marriage to be a sacred thing, and one shouldn't have been changed. I'm all for Gays and Lesbians being treated as human beings, but I don't believe that changing the definition of marriage was crucial in order for that to be accomplished. I also don't really care what two people do in private, as long as it's not harming others.
. . . You can't actually be serious. This is a Poe post, right?
The distinction between holy and profane is, and always has been, purely subjective. Cows are sacred in Hinduism and eaten elsewhere. Catholic monestaries preserve pieces of saints, while Prodestants don't give a damn.
The institution of marriage isn't static. It has and will change as peoples' customs and expectations change. That's why we no longer do arranged marriages (in most cultures) or wed off our ten year old daughters to men three times their age. These changes are inevitable and it won't lead to a slippery slope situation where people can wed farm animals. People always raise these alarmist concerns in times of social change.
You mean Poe's Law?
Many, many forms of marriage precede Christian marriage. I mean, polygamous marriage predates christian marriage. That doesn't mean that christian marriage is corruption in your mind though, so why does this?
You think it is because,just like the cherrypicked extreme side you're talking about. There are also plenty coming from your side where all of them are just some pretentious defener.
enter link description here
Also, considering how popular Trump is, I fail to see how what you're describing is 'politically incorrect'. That's just a right wing buzzword to make people feel like the government is controlling every aspect of their lives.
Irony of that is politically the world barely changes from generation to generation. If at all. People complain about politics today, but it has pretty much been just as dirty and corrupt from century to century with high and low points over time. Same kind of people always fighting and arguing with each other as well. I mean even the media hasn't really changed, it's been just as horrible as ever. Some of my favorite quotes about the media came from General Sherman from the American Civil War, he personally wished he could shoot them. lol
The last time the USA was this politically divided we ended up going to Civil War with each other. If any Youth's who are conservative today in the USA likely are because they live in an environment which encourages it and nothing more. Personally no right minded youth should be conservative, it's more natural for a middle age and older adult to be conservative it just isn't natural for teens and young adults to be majority conservative so of course those that are will feel like they're in the wrong generation, but give it a few decades and more of their friends likely will be conservative. Why do people become conservative with age? Because the world changes, and they refuse to adapt to those changes, whether it's politically or ethnically.
I don't get it. As many others have already said, the definition of marriage is not exclusive to Christianity and it has been changed many times in the past. So why should the concept of morality and immorality be held in the hands of Christians? Why should a majority get to choose the rights of a minority? I don't think you would be defending this kind of thing if their beliefs weren't the same as yours. It seems to me that you and many other Christians are not defending religious freedom, cause being forced to live by Christian principles is not having freedom of religion. And that's a hell of a double standart if you ask me.
Give people the right to do what they want with their lives (as long as they're not harming anyone), including marrying whoever they want, and you'll see how everyone would be happier.
To have freedom of religion you must first have freedom from religion. The first is not possible without the second.
You do realize the conversation was in reference to a man advocating the beating of homosexuals, yes? Your rebuttal attacks a broad group of people, some of their points may be valid (if, for instance, they rebuke a person for honestly advocating the lynching of a Muslim student), but most of them are vague discrepancies with nebulous systems of oppression, we're not talking about the same thing here. If and when one of these "PC virtue signalers" advocates for the beating of white people because they're white then sure, we're on the same subject.
Yeah, I tried to correct it.
There was something to correct? I was just agreeing with you
Yeah.
I have to say that when you mentioned 10 year old girls being married to men 3× their age, I just got this sickening feeling in my stomach. I know that over in the middle east that Muslims do that sorta thing, and I must say that I'm morally opposed that.
Call me discriminating against Muslims, but I do not see how such a thing can be justified. Nor them being allowed to treat women like cattle, and if they don't do exactly what they want, the men are allowed to beat them - or even outright kill them.
Also, there was a Muslim woman some time back, who along with her boyfriend, were gang-raped, and then when she reported what happened to the Muslim authorities, she received over 200 lashes, and all because she was alone with her boyfriend, which is apparently a huge offense under Islamic law.
How do you justify that? At such a time, the humane thing to do would be to give comfort to both of these poor victims, and get a manhunt going for their assailants. But apparently her and her boyfriend were not worthy of such consideration.
Also, apparently under Muslim law, men are allowed to sexually assault children. Right now there's a thing on Facebook about a Marine, who's name I forget, who saved a boy from being molested by a Muslim - who ironically was the chief of police. Anyway the U.S army wants to have this man kicked out of the army because of it. Since when does the U.S. army take the side of a child molester, regardless of his religion? The incident was not just mentioned on Facebook, but also NBC news.
I know I went way off track here, but when I read what you wrote about little girls being married to grown men, it just made me feel so disgusted that I had to speak up. As well as mention other things that these people do that sicken me. And I'm sorry for any offense I may have caused, but at the same time when I hear or read about such things happening, the humanity in me cries out for Justice on behalf of the victims.
That's what I'm trying to convey here. Very often behind the slogan ,,no tolerance for intolerance" hides simply another political agenda that mocks and ridicules everything that is not within the bounds of their ideology. So in my eyes there's no real difference between bigots and the people who preach tolerance, with exception that the latter are hypocrites.
I have no problem with traditional views so long as they hold up.
For example, it is traditionally viewed that killing and stealing is wrong, as is bestiality and other such scenarios. However, when a view is proven consistantly to be wrong/incorrect, that is when I have a problem with a traditional view.
With that said, however, I do agree with the main point of your case. Yes, civil discussion and debate, free of fallacious ad hominems, straw counter-arguments and other such ought to be the way to go about an issue.
Oooh...I could get angry and snidely debunk your various misconceptions about Islam, but I doubt that would help either of us. However I'd like to raise a couple very important points.
1.) We shouldn't group the behavior of all Muslims together. Like Christianity, Islam is a very complicated religion that manifests itself differently almost everywhere. The Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia is a very different from the way the faith is practiced in mostly secular countries like Tunisia or Indonesia. I'm sure you'd agree that the Amish and Greek Orthodox Churches have completely different traditions and worldview that make them almost completely incompatible. The 'big tent' strategy works no better in regards to Islam.
2.) A lot of the ugly shit people associate with Islam have their roots in the underlying culture of the people. People often think that Saudi culture margainalizes women because of Islam, but the truth is many of these practices and attitudes pre-date Islamic and are considered un-Islamic in other cultures. Since the time if the four-dynasties, Islamic scholars have used the Quran to flimsily justify pre-Islamic traditions and give these practices a false air of religious authority. Enter....Saudi Arabia's requirement that women cover their entire body. The Quran advocates modesty, which Saudi scholars used to justify their tradition of forcing women to cover themselves.
Examples can be found elsewhere in the world. People tend to think that Iraqi grudges and blood feuds are due to Islamic influence when in reality it seems to be a largely Iraqi phenomenon. Similarly, child molestation is a widespread problem in Afghanistan, but this actually has nothing to do with Islam. It's an ugly phenomenon within the Pashtun culture, especially within the police force. In the case you mentioned, the army unfairly went after the soldier who reported the abuse because the police chief was an important strategic asset. Unfortunately, the sheer corruption and degeneracy within the Afghan police is a big reason why we'll probably never win the war.
Despite this being a time when the world is in hysterics over Islamic extremism, Islam is largely moving in a progressive direction. Globalization and modernization is rapidly eroding support for old, reactionary traditions and the clerics who push them. Even in Saudi Arabia, the people are becoming increasingly unsatisfied with the status quo (their oil problems are helping). Basically, what we have now is a slow-burning conflict between reactionary and progressive forces in Islam.
If you actually are okay with someone having the "belief" that homosexuals should be beaten, then that just gives away what kind of person you are. Unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying. There's nothing wrong with not being okay with that kind of thing whatsoever.
How do you have a civil discussion with someone who thinks you belong in a mass grave? Or someone who thinks you were better off as chattel? Or someone who thinks you shouldn't be allowed to reproduce?
You don't.
But you can have a civil conversation with somebody with more measured beliefs, like someone who is just uncomfortable with the idea of you because they've never met anybody like you. Some people can be dismissed as racists/cowards/shitheads out of hand because that's all they are, but most people can be civil and even understanding if they sit down and listen.
Gay marriage is often conducted in religious ceremonies. There are a lot of religious people who do support gay marriage, including many Christian churches. In those religious institutions, they do deem gay marriage to be a sacred thing. It would actually be taking away their freedom of religion if the supreme court ruling was overturned.
Having gay marriage doesn't affect any religious person that isn't gay or bisexual in any way, as everyone is still able to attend a church that doesn't support it. It would affect those who are religious, including the ministers who conduct gay marriage as part of their religious ceremonies. That's absolutely not right. It's not right to take away someone's religious freedoms because they interpret the Christian Bible differently, or because they follow a completely different religious text. Freedom of religion is all about the giving religious institutions to freedom to interpret their religious texts however they deem appropriate to their spirituality.
Just as people who don't support gay marriage are free to attend a church that doesn't support gay marriage, people who do support gay marriage should be able to attend a church that does, and ministers should be able to interpret their religious texts to perform gay marriage if their interpretation of their religious texts deems that ceremony to fit with their religion. It's not right for someone to deem someone else's religious ceremony as not actually being religious because it doesn't coincide with their own personal beliefs.
Freedom of religion protects those religions that don't officiate gay marriage as part of their religion, but it protects those who do as well. And that's the way it should be. Freedom isn't a one way street.
Oh, I thought you were referring to a specific part of my post, I edited it in order to avoid misconception. My bad :P
Most of the time I see 'politically correct' used, it's not to make people feel as if the government is trying to control their lives, at least not the government specifically. Rather, they ascribe it to any group attempting to control speech and language.
Debating in that case Is fine.
I'm referring to the notion held by some (I'm not sure if Ram thinks this) that we're supposed to tolerate even the worst speech, and that publicly objecting means you're being "oppressive" or denying people their freedom of speech. "Yes, civil discussion and debate" is appropriate most of the time, but there has to be a line between views that merit civil discourse and views that merit social ostracization (and maybe an ass kicking).
It's Bike Week where I live and you should really see some if the racist bullshit that comes out of the woodwork this time of year. It really shows how much of a double-edged sword our "freedom to be bigoted" can be.
Ah, I see. Allow me to clarify. In cases whereby one thinks in a certain way due to misinformation or being honestly mistaken, that is when civil discourse ought to be used. In cases where you've people that cannot be reasoned with (e.g. religeous fanaticists, hardcore conservatives and liberals, etc), that is a different game entirely.
EDIT: Also, I am unfamiliar with bike week. Care to please elaborate on the racism involved?
I never said I were. what I mean is that for me preaching about selective tolerance is just hypocrisy that's it nothing more, nothing less
Sure. Bike Week is one of the biggest motorcycle gatherings and attracts bikers from across the country and is a big boon the city's economy. It used to be kinda dangerous and controversial because of the outlaw element, but these days it's gone mainstream. Most of the bikers are fine, bunch of lawyers and doctors admiring each others' custom bikes, getting drunk and and having a good time.
But there's usually some white power, neo-confederate shitheads who come too. The biker culture is fiercely conservative as it is, so the white-power types don't get run off like they probably should. They get their liquid courage and they start doing shit like groping/harassing women and hassling minorities. One of my Muslim co-workers had her niqab ripped off and they been known the throw things at black people and call them slurs as they drive past on their bikes (just saw the latter happen today actually) There's been no violent hate crimes since I moved here, but it creates a very toxic environment for a lot of people. Most alarmingly, the local merchants cater to these types with overtly racist t-shirts and memorabilia.
A shame. The bikies I happen to know are actually some of the most courteous and good-hearted people I know.
I get what you're saying, but I don't believe the word "hypocrite" applies to a situation where somebody just isn't okay with someone advocating physical violence on a certain group of people. If that were the case, everybody against ISIS would be a hypocrite.
Everybody going against ISIS is a consequence of their actions not hypocrisy. What I believe in is that people should be allowed to say whatever they want no matter how offensive or hateful it is. Just so when they act on it or people who they influenced do something, they should be ready to face consequences.
Censoring people in blind attempt to eliminate hate speech will just frustrate them more and more until one of them will take an action. Most of the so called hate preachers are just that preachers all words no action.
So don't use the completely justifiable sentence because some people are asshats. Got it.