To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 23540
23539  |  23541
Subject: 
Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 18 Mar 2004 20:37:48 GMT
Viewed: 
332 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:

  
Hmmm, I have to agree with you, Dave! Here is the problem.

Okay, so you have a group of bigots. They have every right to be bigotted (let’s for the sake of argument forsake any governmental affiliations here) and live in their bigotted world. So why do groups such as the ACLU constantly swoop in and stir the pot? If pluralism is valued, why is it only when the values agree with their agenda? It’s always “tolerance, tolerance, tolerance” except regarding the intolerant. Then it’s intolerance and lawsuits.

JOHN

Easily answered: because said bigots are trying to limit the freedom of those that they are bigoted against.

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?

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.

  
   If, say, a community that was a majority of Gays attempted to ban Christian fundamentalists from their community (“They aren’t wanted here”) the self-same ACLU would swope down to the defense of the Fundamentalists.

Doubtful. But even if they did, on what grounds?

Not doubtful at all - they have defended conservatives. It just seems as if they are only defending liberals because the conservatives are the ones trying to abridge individual freedom more often.

The grounds? The exact same as the original article.


  
It’s the big joke-- everybody is intolerant of something-- it’s just that Liberals can’t acknowledge theirs!


The big joke is that conservatives can’t see that being a jerk, and can’t standing a jerk, aren’t the same things.

-->Bruce<--



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
 
(...) 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
 
(...) 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)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
 
(...) 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)

33 Messages in This Thread:











Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR