defending your views

[Tomk80]

Do come on now. No-one deserves physical assault for holding an opinion and using words.

The longer I think about it, the less I think that is true. If you hold opinions and use words that bring down other humans to a level somehow lower than others (and I would hold that this is precisely what Storminside does with his opinion), you give up the right to be treated like a human being yourself.

Now, I did not say we should give them what they deserve. We should indeed not resort to physical violence, for a whole bunch of reasons, both moral and practical. But that does not mean they do not deserve it.

 

[Jade Margery]

The longer I think about it, the less I think that is true. If you hold opinions and use words that bring down other humans to a level somehow lower than others (and I would hold that this is precisely what Storminside does with his opinion), you give up the right to be treated like a human being yourself.

Now, I did not say we should give them what they deserve. We should indeed not resort to physical violence, for a whole bunch of reasons, both moral and practical. But that does not mean they do not deserve it.

Not good enough.

The whole reason we're in this mess is because some groups of people consider other certain groups of people to be less than people, less than human. It's the first excuse for any atrocity in history. They don't believe like us, so they're like animals, so we can kill them. They don't have our skin color, so they're like animals, so we can enslave them. They aren't the same gender as we are, so they're like animals, so we can oppress them.

You don't fix that by becoming that. You just make it worse. It's hypocritical and doesn't help anything. This:

If you hold opinions and use words that bring down other humans to a level somehow lower than others... you give up the right to be treated like a human being yourself.

...is YOU giving up YOUR right to be treated like a human being, by your very own argument.

 

[Gadarene]

The longer I think about it, the less I think that is true. If you hold opinions and use words that bring down other humans to a level somehow lower than others (and I would hold that this is precisely what Storminside does with his opinion), you give up the right to be treated like a human being yourself.

Now, I did not say we should give them what they deserve. We should indeed not resort to physical violence, for a whole bunch of reasons, both moral and practical. But that does not mean they do not deserve it.

As JM rightly pointed out, dehumanising is what is dangerous here, and I don't think it helps in any situation.

Besides, I personally prefer feeling smug and superior at how I don't dehumanise people, not like those icky gay-bashers. Much more fun

 

[Jro]

I think we should just shoot all the jerks and let god sort 'em out. What?

 

[ranunculus]

I think we should just shoot all the jerks and let god sort 'em out. What?

oh, you

 

[Tomk80]

Not good enough.

The whole reason we're in this mess is because some groups of people consider other certain groups of people to be less than people, less than human. It's the first excuse for any atrocity in history. They don't believe like us, so they're like animals, so we can kill them. They don't have our skin color, so they're like animals, so we can enslave them. They aren't the same gender as we are, so they're like animals, so we can oppress them.

I disagree, for the last sentences I wrote. I think there is a difference between how people deserve to be treated and how we should subsequently act towards them.

To give a somewhat extreme example here, I am of the opinion that mass murderers deserve the death penalty. However, I do oppose the death penalty. Not because I think we would be "stooping to their level", but because I think one of the ways that we show our humanity is not by treating our fellow humans how they deserve to be treated, but in fact by treating them better.

I am even willing to up the ante, and state that if someone is marginalizing others from society, the only thing that could be stooping to their level would be to marginalize those people from society. I am firmly of the opinion that punching someone in the face once is mild compared to that. So even if you want think the stooping to their level argument holds merit, which I would submit it does not, you still would be way above their level.

You don't fix that by becoming that. You just make it worse. It's hypocritical and doesn't help anything. This:

...is YOU giving up YOUR right to be treated like a human being, by your very own argument.

I disagree, for the same reason that I do not think it is intolerant to by "intolerant about intolerance". Some people act in ways that place them outside of civilized society, for example racism and bigotry. Pointing out that someone deserves to be treated because of his bigotry or even placing them outside of society for that reason is not hypocritical.

There are both moral and practical reasons to not act upon people on how they deserve to be treated. A moral reason could be that by marginalizing these people, we may refuse them an opportunity to learn and become better than they are not. We may take away from them their opportunity to grow. A practical reason would be that we cannot police this in any way, since opinions on what we think is part of "civilized society" differ, and thus are cannot be enforced. Therefore, we should not act upon the treatment they deserve. But that does not mean they do not deserve that treatment.

 

[Tnmusicman]

I would have jumped down your throat too if you said it like that, to be honest.

But I have more of a problem with defending my views from other Catholics. Occasionally I have to deal with the atheists that are all "haha you think that there's some giant omniscient dude in the sky? You're an idiot! Do you believe in a flying spaghetti monster too?"
...

 

[All Englands Skies]

There are ways to debate and there are ways, but broadly speaking the notion of tolerance does not involve tolerating intolerance, by definition.

Fact is, Liberals are the ones who usually leave the realms of debate and go into Character assasination mode.

The ones who cannot stand it if somebody disagrees with them and the ones who accuse others of being "bigots" all the time.

They also stereotype, lie and misinform about those they are against.

As I've said, all do this, but Liberals seem to get off with doing it, seem to get to say exactly what they want about the groups they dislike, but if a rival thinking group does the same to them, they do a good job in making them like like a group of hateful, ranting bigots.

Liberal minded people have attacked me for my faith and said downright insulting things, but thats "okay", a Christian can say there view gently, only touch an issue and they're all of a sudden a "hateful bigot against freedom"

Liberals, bit by bit are making it culturally "taboo" to disagree with them in anyway.

 

[Jro]

Fact is, Liberals are the ones who usually leave the realms of debate and go into Character assasination mode.

The ones who cannot stand it if somebody disagrees with them and the ones who accuse others of being "bigots" all the time.

They also stereotype, lie and misinform about those they are against.

As I've said, all do this, but Liberals seem to get off with doing it, seem to get to say exactly what they want about the groups they dislike, but if a rival thinking group does the same to them, they do a good job in making them like like a group of hateful, ranting bigots.

Liberal minded people have attacked me for my faith and said downright insulting things, but thats "okay", a Christian can say there view gently, only touch an issue and they're all of a sudden a "hateful bigot against freedom"

Liberals, bit by bit are making it culturally "taboo" to disagree with them in anyway.

Yeah I'm totally with you, we should have an open and honest debate about whether black people can marry white people.

oh, you

 

[All Englands Skies]

Yeah I'm totally with you, we should have an open and honest debate about whether black people can marry white people.

What made you choose that issue out of the hat?

 

[Jro]

What made you choose that issue out of the hat?

Well that's who I don't want getting married. Also the Buddhists, Anglicans, Taoists, Rastafarians, Libertarians, Tofu eaters, the diabetic or Emily Dickinson. And I think we should codify it into law.

 

[All Englands Skies]

Well that's who I don't want getting married. Also the Buddhists, Anglicans, Taoists, Rastafarians, Libertarians, Tofu eaters, the diabetic or Emily Dickinson. And I think we should codify it into law.

Are you the full shilling?

 

[Jro]

Are you the full shilling?

I'm just trying to have a dialogue here.

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

I still don't get how allowing a gay couple to get married is a threat to anyone's marriage, particularly since it seems everyone and their dog is getting a divorce these days. Want to protect marriage? Keep Kim Kardashian away from the bridal magazines!

 

[All Englands Skies]

I'm just trying to have a dialogue here.

You've addressed nothing!

 

[Jro]

You've addressed nothing!

What would you like me to address about my <s>Anti-Dickinsonian</s>* marriage amendment proposal?

*sorry, protect traditional marriage amendment proposal.

 

[All Englands Skies]

What would you like me to address about my <s>Anti-Dickinsonian</s>* marriage amendment proposal?

*sorry, protect traditional marriage amendment proposal.

By not allowing you to marry?

In one shot, traditional marriage saved!!!!!

 

[Jro]

By not allowing you to marry?

In one shot, traditional marriage saved!!!!!

See, you get to ban everyone you want to ban, why can't we all get involved in banning folks from marriage? I want to append my list to include anyone with Viking heritage.

 

[Tnmusicman]

Fact is, Liberals are the ones who usually leave the realms of debate and go into Character assasination mode.

The ones who cannot stand it if somebody disagrees with them and the ones who accuse others of being "bigots" all the time.

They also stereotype, lie and misinform about those they are against.

As I've said, all do this, but Liberals seem to get off with doing it, seem to get to say exactly what they want about the groups they dislike, but if a rival thinking group does the same to them, they do a good job in making them like like a group of hateful, ranting bigots.

Liberal minded people have attacked me for my faith and said downright insulting things, but thats "okay", a Christian can say there view gently, only touch an issue and they're all of a sudden a "hateful bigot against freedom"

Liberals, bit by bit are making it culturally "taboo" to disagree with them in anyway.

You are right about that. No one that is Christian with " old fashioned" values can say so without being labeled a bigot or a hater. It's not enough to disagree but certain groups would have you ousted just for holding to those beliefs.

I've been attacked by the same ones you have I'm sure and I'm amazed at the hypocrisy. Someone's belief that same sex marriage lessens the seriousness of marriage (as another person commented earlier) got one fellow all in a dither. I don't even think the person saying it was making a claim about the legality of same sex marriage but rather his own personal opinion on the matter of same sex marriage being something he personally disagreed with but not necessarily saying it should remain illegal as far as marriage is concerned.

 

[IanCG]

Whenever I see someone complain about "I can't have old fashioned values without being called a bigot or a hater", for some reason it comes off as "I can't have bigoted or hateful values without being called a bigot or a hater".

Reminds me of a guy I used to work with, who told me one "I'm not racist, I just don't think black men should date white women."