Subject:
|
Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:46:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
351 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
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?
|
What does membership in a private club have to do with forcing gays out of
their own private property?
|
I fear we are not on the same wavelength here. I think Larry addressed my
concern: private verses
public
| |
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 Service.
| |
| |
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
|
I see you snipped the reason for the grounds: the self-evident exact same as
the original. I take it you have no argument with that?
|
Well, in the original, the government was involved. From the beginning I posed
my question assuming no governmental interference.
| |
As to the ACLU page: I have no idea what you think backs you up there, and
I’m not going to wade through numerous links trying to figure out what in the
world you are talking about. Nor do I see any relation to my original
statement: they have defended conservatives.
|
Not nearly as many (statistically) as they should, but I’ll drop it-- it was
more of a shot at the ACLU.
| |
| |
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.
|
You’ll have to be more specific, but don’t bother since it really is neither
hear nor there to this discussion: It simply does not address what I said.
|
Fair enough.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
“Everybody is intolerant of something” which you are using in relation to
liberals being “intolerant of intolerance”. Translated, “Liberals are as big
as jerks as racists (insert homophobes, mysoginists, etc, as appropriate)
because they are intolerant of the racists intolerance.” That is, they are
somehow equal in their intolerance. That is simply one of the stupidiest or
most self-serving conclusions that I have ever seen and it is one that is
routinely used by conservatives.
You say they aren’t the same, but your examples contradict yourself.
|
Ah, there was my confusion. They are the same, in a manner of speaking. If I
hate clone-lovers, I am guilty of intolerance. If I am a pluralist and I can’t
tolerate those who hate clone-lovers, then I am guilty of intolerance and
hypocrisy.
It is the justification of the hypocrisy of the pluralists that I am trying to
understand.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
