MERGED: Michael Sam to be First Openly Gay Player - Okay w/ Phins drafting him?

[JTC111]

Think of it as you may. I'm an definitely not right wing at all.. I am very very very liberal (as we call it in Canada).

The fact of the matter is.. those groups who want people to tolerate them, don't tolerate those who disagree with them.

Define "tolerate" for me.

 

[JTC111]

I am black. If someone is racist who am I to force them to be not racist? All I ask is to be able to live my life the way I choose.

So you'd be okay with bringing back segregated lunch counters, hospitals, buses, etc.?

 

[Mike13]

I am going to take a guess and say this thread is a cluster **** of ALL CAPS and religious anger.

 

[Canadianfishfan]

So you'd be okay with bringing back segregated lunch counters, hospitals, buses, etc.?

That isn't a proper example. It seems you're selecting elements, but not considering the entirety of my post.

 

[Canadianfishfan]

Define "tolerate" for me.

Tolerate to me mean, and I'll use the gay example which is the most popular issue du jour.

For instance, the gay community wants gay marriage and equality. It now has become a hotspot issue. They are within their right to ask, seek, and receive it IMO.

But the gay community vilifies people who don't believe in their lifestyle or those rights. That isn't fair.

it also isn't fair that people who don't believe in gay rights to impose themselves on them either.

So my point is it becomes a endless vicious circle.

And what will happen in the end? Well it's already starting. People will just keep their mouths shut and not speak their minds.

Eventually things will explode with some sort of cultural war when people have been censored enough.

I'm not picking sides on the issue. I don't give a **** either way.

But why should I tell you what to think? See my point?

You don't have to like what I say, but it's my opinion. Just like yours is yours. Which is right or wrong ultimately. Neither IMO.

But to go back to your question, this mentality of allow people to be and think whatever they want is never going to happen.

Slowly we are becoming Orwellian.

 

[Canadianfishfan]

People are people, and folks are gonna be bigoted, and I don't have a problem with that. When bigoted people are CALLED bigoted by others, it's usually not because they're bigoted, it's because they do something to hurt other people. We don't have a right to take away rights from other people, or set an arbitrary standard for them that we ourselves cannot meet. Most Americans understand this, we have an innate sense of fairness, and we don't like to see a stacked deck.

Prejudice is small potatoes. Everyone has them. It's when it grows into something larger and more organized, is the problem. You mentioned the past problems of Europe, and you see the ravages of Nazisms and Fascism and how they played on people's bigotry and fear.

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

 

[HoneyB]

That isn't a proper example. It seems you're selecting elements, but not considering the entirety of my post.

He made some great examples for you, you just don't recognize them for some reason. I believe you when you say you're on the liberal side and from Canada. I think you're just slightly missing the point though, and unable to make the connection between your own struggle for civil rights and other people's struggles. Being patient with all views is important, and letting them be expressed is important, but when a group of people have their turn up at bat and are trying to get their due, and that effort is suppressed, then I don't see why speaking out against the suppression is being intolerant. As he explained, if not for the "intolerant" abolitionists, blacks in this country would still be someone else's property.

 

[syborg]

You cannot have a PC culture of equality.. it simply does not work.. see the post by canadianfishfan where he says above:

the gay community wants gay marriage and equality, They are within their right to ask, seek, and receive it. But the gay community vilifies people who don't believe in their lifestyle or those rights. That isn't fair.

it also isn't fair that people who don't believe in gay rights to impose themselves on them either.

So my point is it becomes a endless vicious circle.

What happens with the human ideal of total all round equality is eventually you have to marginalise a section of the commutinty as they differ from you and your view(s) and so it does not work.. you have to have an absolute at some stage regardless of whichever section of the commuinty you 'reject' in favour of this absolute.. Bible believing Christians believe God has set this absolute - those who have hardened their hearts and or deny God do not... equality and PC behaviour is a myth.. there has to be a 'moral' absolute somewhere !

 

[Canadianfishfan]

You cannot have a PC culture of equality.. it simply does not work.. see the post by canadianfishfan where he says above:



What happens with the human ideal of total all round equality is eventually you have to marginalise a section of the commutinty as they differ from you and your view(s) and so it does not work.. you have to have an absolute at some stage regardless of whichever section of the commuinty you 'reject' in favour of this absolute.. Bible believing Christians believe God has set this absolute - those who have hardened their hearts and or deny God do not... equality and PC behaviour is a myth.. there has to be a 'moral' absolute somewhere !

Correct.

 

[HoneyB]

Tolerate to me mean, and I'll use the gay example which is the most popular issue du jour.

For instance, the gay community wants gay marriage and equality. It now has become a hotspot issue. They are within their right to ask, seek, and receive it IMO.

But the gay community vilifies people who don't believe in their lifestyle or those rights. That isn't fair.

it also isn't fair that people who don't believe in gay rights to impose themselves on them either.

So my point is it becomes a endless vicious circle.

And what will happen in the end? Well it's already starting. People will just keep their mouths shut and not speak their minds.

Eventually things will explode with some sort of cultural war when people have been censored enough.

I'm not picking sides on the issue. I don't give a **** either way.

But why should I tell you what to think? See my point?

You don't have to like what I say, but it's my opinion. Just like yours is yours. Which is right or wrong ultimately. Neither IMO.

But to go back to your question, this mentality of allow people to be and think whatever they want is never going to happen.

Slowly we are becoming Orwellian.

I mostly agree with your past posts, and I get where you're coming from, but I don't agree with this. I understand this thought police thing you're bringing up. And there are certainly gray areas. For example, I support hate crime legislation, but on some level I don't agree with it, because you should be able to hate who you want. Still, the legislation is necessary because certain people are targeted strictly based on their nationality, or race, or orientation, and these laws are a way to deal with it and not give a slap on the wrist.

As modernity marches on, I suppose there's a feeling of being a cog in a machine, and under the thumb of governments, and the media, and political correctness. But feeling things like that doesn't mean it's ok for us to be selfish, and oblivious to what other people are going through. We're all in this together. Being angry at your feet, because it wants to start moving and get you to the bathroom, when your head and hands want to sit at the bar and drink a beer, is rather pointless. I know that's an odd analogy but go with it.

Suppression of rights isn't good for you, or me, or anybody. It drags us down. It causes rifts in families, it hinders the productivity of the nation. Insisting that people be allowed to "not believe in the gay lifestyle" is nothing less than a tight rope walk. It could equate to a lot of things. It could mean someone be allowed to simply dislike gays, or it could mean the tolerance of organized propaganda against gays, the tolerance of lies and disinformation, and the tolerance of discrimination.

 

[JTC111]

That isn't a proper example. It seems you're selecting elements, but not considering the entirety of my post.

You said you can't force someone not to be a racist. I'm wondering how hands off you're proposing we be in that regard.
While it's true that we can't force anyone to think anything, we can legislate actions that we find harmful to society as a whole. And it's for that reason that segregation is no longer the law of land, and why the practice of segregation based on race is illegal.

Tolerate to me mean, and I'll use the gay example which is the most popular issue du jour.
For instance, the gay community wants gay marriage and equality. It now has become a hotspot issue. They are within their right to ask, seek, and receive it IMO.
But the gay community vilifies people who don't believe in their lifestyle or those rights. That isn't fair.
it also isn't fair that people who don't believe in gay rights to impose themselves on them either.
So my point is it becomes a endless vicious circle.
And what will happen in the end? Well it's already starting. People will just keep their mouths shut and not speak their minds.
Eventually things will explode with some sort of cultural war when people have been censored enough.
I'm not picking sides on the issue. I don't give a **** either way.
But why should I tell you what to think? See my point?
You don't have to like what I say, but it's my opinion. Just like yours is yours. Which is right or wrong ultimately. Neither IMO.
But to go back to your question, this mentality of allow people to be and think whatever they want is never going to happen.
Slowly we are becoming Orwellian.

No where in that do I find a definition for "tolerate." You're telling me what you don't like but you're not defining the word. I still don't know how you're using it although it's very clear to me that we're using it in different ways.

Here's the definition I provided earlier in this thread:
Tolerance has nothing to do with love or acceptance. To tolerate is nothing more than allowing something to exist. For instance, I tolerate fundamentalists. I don't agree with them and I don't respect their views but I don't advocate making laws to prohibit them from living their lives as they wish as long as they don't harm others, attempt to impose their beliefs on others, and as long as they don't attempt to impede others the same freedom to believe what they choose.

That's what tolerance means, nothing more.

Where the hard right religious folks run afoul of me, and more importantly the Constitution, is when they attempt to impose their morality, rules, etc. on people who don't subscribe to their views.

How does your definition differ from mine?

---------- Post added at 11:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 AM ----------

But the gay community vilifies people who don't believe in their lifestyle or those rights. That isn't fair.

Were the abolitionists wrong to vilify the slave owners?

 

[Sons Of Shula]

I hate the off-season.

 

[HoneyB]

You said you can't force someone not to be a racist. I'm wondering how hands off you're proposing we be in that regard.

While it's true that we can't force anyone to think anything, we can legislate actions that we find harmful to society as a whole. And it's for that reason that segregation is no longer the law of land, and why the practice of segregation based on race is illegal.

I'm wondering the same thing.

I don't think he knows, really. (In regards to the homophobia). It's just a general feeling he has, and I have no problem with feelings. That's what discussions are for, and that's what someone's experiences and working through them over a period of time is about.

Likely what he has experienced is an aversion to a lot of shouting by a community which has at times been excessive, for him. He's probably also run into some people who are rude and overbearing. He also looks around at some straight people who are afraid to speak out for fear of being called homophobic, and he blames that on the gay community. I don't know much about that whole Duck thing, but some people got upset about that, too. But you know, a racist wouldn't be praised on television either, and he should realize that.

 

[Canadianfishfan]

You said you can't force someone not to be a racist. I'm wondering how hands off you're proposing we be in that regard.
While it's true that we can't force anyone to think anything, we can legislate actions that we find harmful to society as a whole. And it's for that reason that segregation is no longer the law of land, and why the practice of segregation based on race is illegal.

As I stated earlier you may have missed. People can believe whatever they want. But not impose themselves on others. So being a slave owner is imposing a will on another. Which I disagree with. Clever little way of trying to discount my point. Kudos. You must understand, in Canada, slavery was legislated away years before the United states. Almost 200 years. You brought up this point in particular because it cannot be contested. You KNOW I have to agree with you. Which is in someways, and unfair conversation. We aren't in disagreement. Thinking something is not the same as imposing on others.

No where in that do I find a definition for "tolerate." You're telling me what you don't like but you're not defining the word. I still don't know how you're using it although it's very clear to me that we're using it in different ways.

Here's the definition I provided earlier in this thread:
Tolerance has nothing to do with love or acceptance. To tolerate is nothing more than allowing something to exist. For instance, I tolerate fundamentalists. I don't agree with them and I don't respect their views but I don't advocate making laws to prohibit them from living their lives as they wish as long as they don't harm others, attempt to impose their beliefs on others, and as long as they don't attempt to impede others the same freedom to believe what they choose.

That's what tolerance means, nothing more.

Was I supposed to get the Websters definition out for you to give an example of something we both know the definition of? That definition, is your interpretation. Which I cannot disagree with.

Where the hard right religious folks run afoul of me, and more importantly the Constitution, is when they attempt to impose their morality, rules, etc. on people who don't subscribe to their views.

How does your definition differ from mine?

I agree and will take it a little further. I have a problem with the hard right or left attempting to impose their morality on people who oppose their views.

---------- Post added at 11:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 AM ----------

Were the abolitionists wrong to vilify the slave owners?

Our view doesn't differ at all actually. I'm not entirely sure it was ascertained it did, unless this is just a friendly debate poking fires. I said things differently.

It is merely history repeating. Today's topic is gay rights. 20 years from now a new social battle will be waged. It's a never ending plight of society. Somewhere someone if going to be offended about something.

Like you, I don't care how people want to live their lives. I fully understand the necessity for people to always push the envelope. It creates progress. It will always create friction and casualties. Such is the nature of progress.

---------- Post added at 12:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 PM ----------

I'm wondering the same thing.

I don't think he knows, really. (In regards to the homophobia). It's just a general feeling he has, and I have no problem with feelings. That's what discussions are for, and that's what someone's experiences and working through them over a period of time is about.

Likely what he has experienced is an aversion to a lot of shouting by a community which has at times been excessive, for him. He's probably also run into some people who are rude and overbearing. He also looks around at some straight people who are afraid to speak out for fear of being called homophobic, and he blames that on the gay community. I don't know much about that whole Duck thing, but some people got upset about that, too. But you know, a racist wouldn't be praised on television either, and he should realize that.

I know all to well being a victim of racism. I am just choosing not to go there. I wish to not use the "race card" in having a good conversation. And no I'm not homophobic. My brother is gay. Stop being judgmental.

 

[JTC111]

I agree and will take it a little further. I have a problem with the hard right or left attempting to impose their morality on people who oppose their views.

I'd like to explore this a little. If you're suggesting that homosexuals are trying to "impose their morality" on those who oppose their view, I'd like to hear how you think that is manifesting itself. Because from where I stand, they're not fighting for more rights than anyone else, they're asking for the equal rights.