Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Why Liberals Aren’t as Tolerant as They Think

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    One of the ways that viruses spread is by close contact.
    Like protesters?

    I would not consider a group "tooled up" and entering the state council to be peaceable.
    Did they harm or break anything?


    I am left to wonder if you would have used the same language to describe a group of American Muslims or Black Americans who had arrived dressed and equipped in precisely the same manner.
    These guys have been peaceful:

    march.jpg
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Like protesters?



      Did they harm or break anything?
      All that is irrelevant. Their dress code and their equipment was clearly designed to intimidate.

      I have no idea what your pictures shows. Are they part of an army?
      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        We all endorse free speech. or do we?
        There are noted exceptions, of course, such as yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

        The Allies hanged Streicher for doing nothing more than expressing his opinions.
        Seriously? They hanged him, a war criminal (in war time) for doing nothing but "expressing his opinions"?

        You mean like...
        • “Let us make a new beginning today, so that we can annihilate the Jews!”
        • “There was no doubt that Hitler had ordered the extermination of the Jews, and had, as a matter of fact, expressed that intention before the war. Early in the war, he must have realized that he would have to die and decided to take the Jews with him. But that was no solution, because you would have to exterminate all the Jews, and there are still many Jews in all countries, so Hitler’s idea of exterminating the whole race was obviously impractical.”


        A WAR CRIMINAL is your best example of intolerance of "free speech"? The "boss of Nuremberg' is your poster boy for "free speech"
        SERIOUSLY?

        There may also be occasions when despite our right to say what we think, it is politic, tactful [and dare I suggest polite] not to do so.
        So, what, you're comparing Ann Coulter to a Nazi War Criminal?

        Inviting individuals who are known for their inflammatory and [to some] offensive language strikes me as tactics that might be considered similar to those of the agent provacateur.
        Wow. And I had just bragged about you being reasonable.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          These guys have been peaceful:

          [ATTACH=CONFIG]47165[/ATTACH]
          Personally, I'd feel safer around this group of organized (black) militia exercising their rights than around BLM anarchists. It is obvious this group isn't going to cause any trouble - no one advertises that they want a confrontation in this way.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Seriously? They hanged him, a war criminal (in war time) for doing nothing but "expressing his opinions"?
            No he was hanged after the war ended.

            My point is that Streicher had done nothing more than express his opinions [we would both agree that his opinions were vile and monstrous]. However, his sentence offers an historical example of where speech was considered worthy of the death sentence.

            In one respect Streicher offers an historical example of the issue with the much cherished belief in the inalienable right of free speech in every single instance because if that right is deemed to be inalienable then we must also accept the right of individuals like Streicher to express their opinions.


            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            So, what, you're comparing Ann Coulter to a Nazi War Criminal?
            Where have I written any such thing?
            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
              No he was hanged after the war ended.
              The war had ended, yes, the war trials, not so much.

              My point is that Streicher had done nothing more than express his opinions [we would both agree that his opinions were vile and monstrous]. However, his sentence offers an historical example of where speech was considered worthy of the death sentence.
              You honestly believe that he ONLY "expressed opinions"?

              In one respect Streicher offers an historical example of the issue with the much cherished belief in the inalienable right of free speech in every single instance because if that right is deemed to be inalienable then we must also accept the right of individuals like Streicher to express their opinions.
              wow

              Where have I written any such thing?
              You haven't. But I'm talking about the intolerance of the left, for example, in not allowing Ann Coulter (an example, mind you) to speak because they simply don't agree with her opinions.

              From the OP.....
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              .....The leftist extremists can say things like "(F-bomb) the Police" and "Kill every Cop", and the left will defend that as "free speech", and even defend the anarchy and chaos around it as "peaceful protesters", doing everything in their power to ignore the anarchy they are excusing.

              The right can say something like "all lives matter", and the left will break out into hysteria. It's speech. It's true. But it's verboten.

              Colleges and universities can have the silliest and nuttiest leftists speak on their campus, but the presence of a conservative speaker causes near riots.

              Are there ANY lefties here who claim to be 'tolerant'?
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                Wasn't tweb originally created by Christians who got tired of another forum that banned a lot of people?
                Yeah. someone who only wanted people who had all the same beliefs.

                Do you remember Troy Brooks? he was the same way. He had some very odd ideas about church and Christianity. He set up his own forum and then vetted anyone who joined with a hugely long quiz to make sure they fit his standards and beliefs. Basically, he was the only person on the site and had to create his own sockpuppets to make it appear otherwise.

                if you want to check him out, search for "Biblocality"

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  The war had ended, yes, the war trials, not so much.
                  The Trials did not begin until November 1945.

                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  You honestly believe that he ONLY "expressed opinions"?
                  He was not actively involved in the war. He did not fight. He did not participate in murdering innocent people. In 1940 he lost all his official party positions and spent the rest of the war in obscurity although he was permitted to continue with the publication of Der Stürmer. As noted all he did [I deliberately emphasise that word] was express his opinions [vile although they undoubtedly were].

                  Hence we have the ethical [and civil liberties] dilemma. Is there ever a point at which the inalienable right to freedom of speech and the expression of opinion should be curtailed?

                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  You haven't.
                  Thank you. Please be so kind in the future not to attribute things to me that I have not written. It is simple good manners!

                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  But I'm talking about the intolerance of the left, for example, in not allowing Ann Coulter (an example, mind you) to speak because they simply don't agree with her opinion.
                  As I noted in my first reply I do wonder if inviting speakers like Ms Coulter or Mr Yiannopoulos is tending towards the actions of the agent provocateur.

                  I am not suggesting those individuals should not have a platform on which to express their views, I am simply wondering if certain campus groups invite such speakers, knowing that there will be protests, that these protests may turn violent [because there is always a minority that resorts to violence] which then permits the campus organisation which extended the invitation to say "Aha! The Left does not tolerate free speech".

                  As a matter of interest would you recognise the right of a student group to invite someone who shared Streicher's views to speak on campus?
                  "It ain't necessarily so
                  The things that you're liable
                  To read in the Bible
                  It ain't necessarily so
                  ."

                  Sportin' Life
                  Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    Wasn't tweb originally created by Christians who got tired of another forum that banned a lot of people?
                    I believe they were actually banned from said forum.


                    Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      The Trials did not begin until November 1945.
                      Yeah, the war had to be over first. That's how these things work.

                      He was not actively involved in the war. He did not fight. He did not participate in murdering innocent people. In 1940 he lost all his official party positions and spent the rest of the war in obscurity although he was permitted to continue with the publication of Der Stürmer. As noted all he did [I deliberately emphasise that word] was express his opinions [vile although they undoubtedly were].

                      Hence we have the ethical [and civil liberties] dilemma. Is there ever a point at which the inalienable right to freedom of speech and the expression of opinion should be curtailed?
                      Where is the right to free speech declared an inalienable right?
                      Are you confusing that with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, expressed in the Declaration of Independence?
                      The right to free speech was actually an amendment to the US Constitution.

                      Thank you. Please be so kind in the future not to attribute things to me that I have not written. It is simple good manners!
                      Please be so kind in the future not to assume that a QUESTION I ask is somehow an attribution. It is simple good manners!

                      As I noted in my first reply I do wonder if inviting speakers like Ms Coulter or Mr Yiannopoulos is tending towards the actions of the agent provocateur.
                      But a Black Lives Matter speaker would be totally acceptable? (That thing at the end of the sentence is a question mark )

                      I am not suggesting those individuals should not have a platform on which to express their views, I am simply wondering if certain campus groups invite such speakers, knowing that there will be protests, that these protests may turn violent [because there is always a minority that resorts to violence] which then permits the campus organisation which extended the invitation to say "Aha! The Left does not tolerate free speech".
                      Either they recognize free speech, or they don't. If they don't want to allow conservative speakers, they should not allow liberal ones.

                      As a matter of interest would you recognise the right of a student group to invite someone who shared Streicher's views to speak on campus?
                      I think it would be reasonable to have a policy not allowing speakers on campus who are clearly calling for genocide or are fiercely antisemitic, particularly if that were the purpose of their speech.
                      If some student group wanted to invite such a person, they have every right to rent a venue for that purpose.

                      The hypocrisy is claiming to be all about "tolerance", but only extending that tolerance in one direction.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        All that is irrelevant. Their dress code and their equipment was clearly designed to intimidate.

                        I have no idea what your pictures shows. Are they part of an army?
                        That is a black militia group protesting at Georgia’s Stone Mountain Park. So were they designed to intimidate?

                        https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ar...-georgia-park/
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          That is a black militia group protesting at Georgia’s Stone Mountain Park. So were they designed to intimidate?

                          https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ar...-georgia-park/
                          Even the name they chose (which contains the F bomb) is intended to intimidate.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            Even the name they chose (which contains the F bomb) is intended to intimidate.
                            I want to see if Hypatia is consistent...
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                              In my experience most liberals and most conservatives in real life don't spend much time arguing online. There's some selection bias in the people that appear there. They're the kind of people who would be the kind to argue. And that's typically either people with a bee in their bonnet, or people like us who just enjoy a good discussion.
                              I've spoken with liberals face to face since I work with them, and on the rare occasions politics or religion enter the conversation, any pretense of being reasonable disappears. They would rather shout over you than listen to what you have to say, and so I end the conversation as quickly and civilly as possible. In that respect, online debate is superior because I can present my entire argument without hindrance.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                Yeah, the war had to be over first. That's how these things work.
                                I merely added a qualification. The Trials ended in 1946,

                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                Where is the right to free speech declared an inalienable right?
                                I have been in exchanges with Americans who consider it to be so.

                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                Are you confusing that with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, expressed in the Declaration of Independence?
                                No

                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                The right to free speech was actually an amendment to the US Constitution.
                                Precisely.

                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                                Please be so kind in the future not to assume that a QUESTION I ask is somehow an attribution. It is simple good manners!
                                You wrote" So, what, you're comparing Ann Coulter to a Nazi War Criminal?" As I made no mention of Ms Coulter in the post to which you were responding, it follows that I could not have made any comparison.

                                I did subsequently cite her and Mr Yiannopoulos in another reply.

                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                But a Black Lives Matter speaker would be totally acceptable? (That thing at the end of the sentence is a question mark )
                                I have no idea. I see no reason why not. Nor do I have any comprehension as to why Ms Coulter or Mr Yiannopoulos should not be permitted to speak. However, if a BLM speaker's invitation led to similar protests it would demonstrate [excuse the pun] that intolerance existed on both sides.

                                As mentioned earlier, I do wonder if such invitations are merely attempts to denounce the opposition. However, that is only my personal opinion.

                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                                Either they recognize free speech, or they don't. If they don't want to allow conservative speakers, they should not allow liberal ones.
                                That goes both ways of course.

                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                                I think it would be reasonable to have a policy not allowing speakers on campus who are clearly calling for genocide or are fiercely antisemitic, particularly if that were the purpose of their speech.
                                Yet in a world where free speech is condoned as a right, why should such a person be denied their right, however, repulsive their views might be to you and I? [I am playing the devil's advocate on this]


                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                If some student group wanted to invite such a person, they have every right to rent a venue for that purpose.
                                That statement appears to contradict your above comment wherein you have opined that a policy should exist whereby speakers espousing views such as Streicher's should not be allowed on campus. You have then stated that if a group wished to invite such a person they should be have the right to rent a venue.

                                Where exactly do you stand on speakers who hold views like those of Streicher? Are they to be refused permission to speak on campus? Or should a student group be permitted to rent a venue to hear such an individual? Or are you suggesting that venue should be off campus?

                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                The hypocrisy is claiming to be all about "tolerance", but only extending that tolerance in one direction.
                                And again, that goes both ways. So if the hypothetical BLM speaker's invitation led to violent protests, those students would be equally intolerant.

                                I have issues with hate speech. Fact. I do not think it should be banned because it does not go away - it merely goes underground where it festers and spreads like some malignant tumour on the body politic. I would prefer a tolerant society where people lived and let live without trying to demonise the opposition. However, it is unlikely such a society will ever exist.

                                Therefore I would rather that those who espouse views that are considered extreme [by either side] are intellectually and rigorously challenged to defend those views and are permitted to be heard.
                                "It ain't necessarily so
                                The things that you're liable
                                To read in the Bible
                                It ain't necessarily so
                                ."

                                Sportin' Life
                                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                160 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X