I really hope the dems manage to use THIS shit the reps did to their political advantage. I'm all against spin usually, but in this case I think the ends justify the meanse
i.e. keeping bigots and idiots away
autono-wally, erotibot300 on
0
Viscount Islands[INSERT SoKo HERE]...it was the summer of my lifeRegistered Userregular
I really hope the dems manage to use THIS shit the reps did to their political advantage. I'm all against spin usually, but in this case I think the ends justify the meanse
i.e. keeping bigots and idiots away
You have to take some of this with a grain of salt. Most if not all of these bills the Dems are trying to cram at the end are political traps to begin with. They keep adding earmarks and stuff they know Republicans will have trouble supporting so they can label them bigots or whatever since earmarks sunk that one bill last week.
Deacon, you gave up the right to be offended by this stuff the nanosecond you started arguing in favour of hate speech that is going to get people killed.
No see I have the moral fiber to accept the bad with the good - that people have the right to express their morality, even if there are some negative consequences.
Thus, I'm not trying to get you banned for your implicit bigotry towards me, simply pointing it out with an appeal to better yourself as a person.
DeaconBlues on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Viscount Islands[INSERT SoKo HERE]...it was the summer of my lifeRegistered Userregular
Deacon, you gave up the right to be offended by this stuff the nanosecond you started arguing in favour of hate speech that is going to get people killed.
No see I have the moral fiber to accept the bad with the good - that people have the right to express their morality, even if there are some negative consequences.
Thus, I'm not trying to get you banned for your implicit bigotry towards me, simply pointing it out with an appeal to better yourself as a person.
They have the right to hate speech, just as much as everyone on the forum has the right to call them terrible for their hate speech.
Deacon, you gave up the right to be offended by this stuff the nanosecond you started arguing in favour of hate speech that is going to get people killed.
No see I have the moral fiber to accept the bad with the good - that people have the right to express their morality, even if there are some negative consequences.
Thus, I'm not trying to get you banned for your implicit bigotry towards me, simply pointing it out with an appeal to better yourself as a person.
no one has at any point said that people shouldn't have the right to express their morality
you could even make the case that this dude in uganda had that right!
but whether or not they can do something and whether or not they should do something are two entirely different questions
as is whether or not they are culpable for consequences directly or indirectly resulting from their exercising of their right
Deacon, you gave up the right to be offended by this stuff the nanosecond you started arguing in favour of hate speech that is going to get people killed.
No see I have the moral fiber to accept the bad with the good - that people have the right to express their morality, even if there are some negative consequences.
Thus, I'm not trying to get you banned for your implicit bigotry towards me, simply pointing it out with an appeal to better yourself as a person.
I would argue that there is a difference between expressing religious/moral beliefs and inciting an already troubled country to further criminalization and violence.
I would argue that there is a difference between expressing religious/moral beliefs and inciting an already troubled country to further criminalization and violence.
Yeah the difference seems to be "do I, Langly, personally agree with what's being said".
I'm sure I don't have to spell out the problem with that.
I would argue that there is a difference between expressing religious/moral beliefs and inciting an already troubled country to further criminalization and violence.
Yeah the difference seems to be "do I, Langly, personally agree with what's being said".
I'm sure I don't have to spell out the problem with that.
No...no I don't think that's the difference actually.
Viscount Islands on
I want to do with you
What spring does with the cherry trees.
I would argue that there is a difference between expressing religious/moral beliefs and inciting an already troubled country to further criminalization and violence.
Yeah the difference seems to be "do I, Langly, personally agree with what's being said".
I'm sure I don't have to spell out the problem with that.
No...no I don't think that's the difference actually.
It's only different if you believe yourself morally superior to their stance.
For instance, if someone called for revolution to free themeselves from corruption and tyranny, they would be inciting criminal activity and violence, however because of the cause it could be seen as a good thing.
but only a moron would shout his mouth off if it would make things worst
So Rosa Parks was a moron? Or (again), it's okay if you personally agree?
That made things better
So she was right to do it
Let's say that you are an atheist at a gathering of Christians (or vice versa)
Now sure you could say "you all believe in a lie"
That's expressing your beliefs
but if you said it straight to all those dudes and dudettes you would be a moron (and also a twat)
Same with the Pope saying that atheism leads to a moral-less society
Sure he might beleive, it, and he can believe whatever he wants. He can even say whatever he wants
But when he said that in public, he was being a moron. What did that achieve? Nothing, except insulting a bunch of people
Though I wouldn't take away his right to do that, I do criticise him for saying it (both because I disagree, and because it wasn't exactly helpful to atheist/theist relations and that kind of thing)
but only a moron would shout his mouth off if it would make things worst
So Rosa Parks was a moron? Or (again), it's okay if you personally agree?
That made things better
Except hindsight is 20/20 and unless you can predict the future who are you to say what will make things worse or better, beyond that, how you can even evaluate whether a situation is better or worse.
I really hope the dems manage to use THIS shit the reps did to their political advantage. I'm all against spin usually, but in this case I think the ends justify the meanse
i.e. keeping bigots and idiots away
You have to take some of this with a grain of salt. Most if not all of these bills the Dems are trying to cram at the end are political traps to begin with. They keep adding earmarks and stuff they know Republicans will have trouble supporting so they can label them bigots or whatever since earmarks sunk that one bill last week.
Which is hilarious, since the reason a supermajority is now required to even pass anything through the Senate is because Republicans have made a habit of adding "trap" amendments to every major bill in an effort to frame Democrats for voting against things like "prohibiting the sale of viagra to pedophiles".
Not to mention that earmarks have resoundingly bipartisan support.
And earmarks aren't an inherently bad thing, since more often than not they're pasting over the gaping cracks in infrastructure that the federal government would rather ignore than spend money on.
but only a moron would shout his mouth off if it would make things worst
So Rosa Parks was a moron? Or (again), it's okay if you personally agree?
That made things better
So she was right to do it
Let's say that you are an atheist at a gathering of Christians (or vice versa)
Now sure you could say "you all believe in a lie"
That's expressing your beliefs
but if you said it straight to all those dudes and dudettes you would be a moron (and also a twat)
Same with the Pope saying that atheism leads to a moral-less society
Sure he might beleive, it, and he can believe whatever he wants. He can even say whatever he wants
But when he said that in public, he was being a moron. What did that achieve? Nothing, except insulting a bunch of people
Though I wouldn't take away his right to do that, I do criticise him for saying it (both because I disagree, and because it wasn't exactly helpful to atheist/theist relations and that kind of thing)
So a black woman saying to a bus of white men and white women that she was their equal, is a moronic thing to do?
No, it's not whether you agree with the premise or not, it's whether you are putting people in danger irresponsibly with your words/actions.
Rosa Parks put no one at risk but herself, and what she did galvanized a peaceful movement that never resorted to violence. They were attacked, but they themselves never promoted nor incited violence.
Scott Lively put other people in danger, and has directly influenced a nation to adopt harsher rules on homosexuality as a result of his actions/words.
It has nothing to do with whether you agree or not, or whether it makes things better (in the long run) or not.
but only a moron would shout his mouth off if it would make things worst
So Rosa Parks was a moron? Or (again), it's okay if you personally agree?
That made things better
Except hindsight is 20/20 and unless you can predict the future who are you to say what will make things worse or better, beyond that, how you can even evaluate whether a situation is better or worse.
Posts
Crytal clear to retarded crazy people.
This.
i.e. keeping bigots and idiots away
By transracial I just mean a faggy black guy who wanted to wear white makeup and felt more comfortable with white people.
"Oh wow she's letting me pet her dog. I bet if I looked black she wouldn't." <- Basically this.
So no, it's not real.
What spring does with the cherry trees.
You have to take some of this with a grain of salt. Most if not all of these bills the Dems are trying to cram at the end are political traps to begin with. They keep adding earmarks and stuff they know Republicans will have trouble supporting so they can label them bigots or whatever since earmarks sunk that one bill last week.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
No see I have the moral fiber to accept the bad with the good - that people have the right to express their morality, even if there are some negative consequences.
Thus, I'm not trying to get you banned for your implicit bigotry towards me, simply pointing it out with an appeal to better yourself as a person.
The months I pretended to like korean boys all led up to that one glorious moment.
What spring does with the cherry trees.
They have the right to hate speech, just as much as everyone on the forum has the right to call them terrible for their hate speech.
Right != freedom from consequences
no one has at any point said that people shouldn't have the right to express their morality
you could even make the case that this dude in uganda had that right!
but whether or not they can do something and whether or not they should do something are two entirely different questions
as is whether or not they are culpable for consequences directly or indirectly resulting from their exercising of their right
http://www.audioentropy.com/
That's how I keep score, so... fine!
I would argue that there is a difference between expressing religious/moral beliefs and inciting an already troubled country to further criminalization and violence.
But you shouldn't because it's that guy
On this very special episode of Tyra...
"Langly, tell us about you."
Yeah the difference seems to be "do I, Langly, personally agree with what's being said".
I'm sure I don't have to spell out the problem with that.
it's okay, man
I'm straight and white too
it is a heavy burden, I know
No...no I don't think that's the difference actually.
What spring does with the cherry trees.
I am also a regular straight white dude
Glad to see I am not alone
The memories just keep flooding back.
It's only different if you believe yourself morally superior to their stance.
For instance, if someone called for revolution to free themeselves from corruption and tyranny, they would be inciting criminal activity and violence, however because of the cause it could be seen as a good thing.
It's not really the mods' fault, this bias is institutional!
Everyone should be free to express themselves
but only a moron would shout his mouth off if it would make things worst
Being a moron is not against any kind of law
But people will and probably should criticise you for it
So Rosa Parks was a moron? Or (again), it's okay if you personally agree?
That made things better
So she was right to do it
Let's say that you are an atheist at a gathering of Christians (or vice versa)
Now sure you could say "you all believe in a lie"
That's expressing your beliefs
but if you said it straight to all those dudes and dudettes you would be a moron (and also a twat)
Same with the Pope saying that atheism leads to a moral-less society
Sure he might beleive, it, and he can believe whatever he wants. He can even say whatever he wants
But when he said that in public, he was being a moron. What did that achieve? Nothing, except insulting a bunch of people
Though I wouldn't take away his right to do that, I do criticise him for saying it (both because I disagree, and because it wasn't exactly helpful to atheist/theist relations and that kind of thing)
Story of my life, dude.
To put on the unfamiliar mantle of devil's advocate, from the evangelicals pov, they're making things better too.
Except hindsight is 20/20 and unless you can predict the future who are you to say what will make things worse or better, beyond that, how you can even evaluate whether a situation is better or worse.
Which is hilarious, since the reason a supermajority is now required to even pass anything through the Senate is because Republicans have made a habit of adding "trap" amendments to every major bill in an effort to frame Democrats for voting against things like "prohibiting the sale of viagra to pedophiles".
Not to mention that earmarks have resoundingly bipartisan support.
And earmarks aren't an inherently bad thing, since more often than not they're pasting over the gaping cracks in infrastructure that the federal government would rather ignore than spend money on.
Rosa Parks made things worse?
What?
So a black woman saying to a bus of white men and white women that she was their equal, is a moronic thing to do?
Rosa Parks put no one at risk but herself, and what she did galvanized a peaceful movement that never resorted to violence. They were attacked, but they themselves never promoted nor incited violence.
Scott Lively put other people in danger, and has directly influenced a nation to adopt harsher rules on homosexuality as a result of his actions/words.
It has nothing to do with whether you agree or not, or whether it makes things better (in the long run) or not.
What's your point
Do you ride the bus frequently? Have you seen how crowded it is at the front now?