Subject:
|
Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:46:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
337 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
| |
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 I am Todd, isn’t that my right? Need I justify my reasons? And to whom?
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
I think the ratio is a lot higher for other reasons. I like this (from their
web site):
Fighting Fetal Rights
You might suppose that the ACLU might be concerned about the rights of humans
merely days away from birth. When your cause jibes with theirs, you’re in like
Flint.
| |
| |
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.
|
They aren’t, but you’ve lost me.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
