 | | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | (...) Easily answered: because said bigots are trying to limit the freedom of those that they are bigoted against. If, say, a community that was a majority of Gays attempted to ban Christian fundamentalists from their community ("They aren't wanted (...) (21 years ago, 18-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) So I should not be able to form a club that excludes LEGO clone-lovers because I am limiting the freedom of Dave! to becoming a member? (...) Doubtful. But even if they did, on what grounds? (...) It's the big joke-- everybody is intolerant of (...) (21 years ago, 18-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) Not the same example. What you want to do is forcibly evict Dave! from Lugnet because he (for the sake of this argument) plays with Brand X, even though he is not doing it on Lugnet. (...) Not doubtful at all - they have defended (...) (21 years ago, 18-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee —John Neal
|
| | | | | (...) If I am Todd, isn't that my right? Need I justify my reasons? And to whom? (...) I think the ratio is a lot higher for other reasons. I like this (from their web site): (URL) Fetal Rights> You might suppose that the ACLU might be concerned (...) (21 years ago, 18-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | (...) What does membership in a private club have to do with forcing gays out of their own private property? And, just to address your example, the fictional "Todd" may well have to justify his reason, and to a judge, depending on the Terms of (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I fear we are not on the same wavelength here. I think Larry addressed my concern: (URL) private verses public> (...) Well, in the original, the government was involved. From the beginning I posed my question assuming no governmental (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) So, you are saying that those that can't stand racists aren't as bad as the actual racists, they are worse. As I said, stupid or self-serving. (...) It is the justification of racism that I am trying to understand (well, I do, it is a game to (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Look, all I am saying is that if one is going to preach tolerance (read: pluralists), than be tolerant in all circumstances, not merely when it serves one's agendas. (...) There is no justification for it, except to say that everyone has the (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) But, you're demanding that Liberals be tolerant of intolerance, so wouldn't you have to tolerate the Liberals' intolerance of intolerance? (...) Are we to understand, then, that you will henceforth be tolerant of homosexuals as well as of (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) No, he gets to be intolerant because he doesn't believe in tolerance - he just doesn't want intolerance of his intolerance, and will pretend that any intolerance of his intolerance is the same as his intolerance itself, and therefore said (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Okay, this horse is past due for the glue factory, but I just wanted to make this final observation. It isn't any secret that conservatives have lower tolerance level on most issues than liberals do. That's why they are called conservative;-) (...) (21 years ago, 22-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Doesn't address my point in the slightest. Nothing more than I expected. -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 22-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Well, I thought you were kidding around. Provide a concrete example-- or were you referring to racism? JOHN (21 years ago, 22-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) And I am saying that those that want to be intolerant (read: haters of those different from their own narrow views) have come up with an ego-defense mechanism that tries to equate their intolerance of others as the same as the disapproval of (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee —Richard Parsons
|
| | | | | | (...) Bruce's big joke only gets funnier. Richard Still baldly going... (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Yes, they do. As long as the forsake any governmental affiliation is strictly adhered to. That's tough to do today though. (...) But LUGNET, being completely privately funded, ought to (under the free association clause) be completely within (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee —Richard Parsons
|
| | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote: (snip worthy summation) (...) Agreed. Its validity seems to flow rather directly and consequentially from some deeply enshrined and rather important principles concerning the fundamental rights of (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Sadly, (and from the perspective of) for the future of the republic, I'm not sure that's really worth being debated either, as it appears to be a settled question that he can make mileage from this issue and a mostly irrelevant question (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee) —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) When you speak about the issue in terms of contract recognition, sure it seems obvious. But doesn't this seem painfully obvious as well: men and women are not the same. The are not simply humans with irrelevant, interchangable reproduction (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee) —Wayne McCaul
|
| | | | | (...) Why? You keep saying that, but I don't to see *why* it's obvious. Can you spell out the real advantages of 1 man/1 woman? What, exactly, does it have over other unions that makes it the superior way of raising children? My experience with (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) First, I am not saying that 2 men or 2 women can't raise a family. What I am asking is: All things being equal, is it better that a child has a mother? All things being equal, is it better that a child has a father? Each sex is unique, each (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) I don't think it's so obvious, honestly. If the fundamental criterion for legal marriage is the possibility of childbirth, then non-fertile couples must not be allowed to wed. Similarly, if a wife and husband try unsuccessfully to conceive, (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Don't ask, don't tell;-) But seriously, privacy issues put that tack in irons. (...) If you want to argue that men and women are basically the same, bring it on;-D (...) Specious. You are comparing apples and oranges. Of course I'd never (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, the last time I looked, they're pretty different in most cases. But my point is that the difference between men and women is not central to marriage. Therefore the difference between men and women cannot be used as a gatekeeper criterion (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Yes but not necessarily relevant. (...) No. It's not at all obvious that is true. You'd have to prove it. But don't bother, because even if it were true, what of it? Marriage != Raising Children Ideal != Only Not Ideal != Should be Forbidden (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
