Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

4thTimeLucky · 06-12-2003, 11:53 PM

virFighter

Thanks for a good post.
I think the tricky part comes down to the fact that (a) any action to protect the life, liberty and happiness of one person will affect the life, liberty and happiness of another, and (b) libertarians such as myself believe in a being tolerant, but as the condundrum goes: should the totally tolerant person be tolerant of intolerance?

titsmurf
I think you'll need to sharpen up those posts a bit to have an impact around here (especially on this thread!).

You: I don't care what the bible says
Me: You should care, because religion and the bible is central to this thread and being ignorant of what it says won't help you.

You: The bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, but they've existed. Same with homosexuality.
Me: How the same? The bible doesn't mention homosexuals, buy they still existed? In fact the Bible mentions homosexuals a few times - and not in a very positive light - hence the presence of Christianity in this debate.

//EDIT// Thanks Antagony, I had indeed misinterpreted it.

You: And these people are every bit as much entitled to happiness as straight people are.
Me: Goodness, I think we finally agree on something. Of course, others might not. If homosexuality is a sin then why should sinners be entitled to happiness?

You: either you claim these people are inferior to you... in this case you are prejudiced.... or you don't claim they are inferior to you
Me: Two points here.
Firstly, you will have to convince the other side of why thinking someone is inferior is prejudice. Prejudice is an unfair bias against someone. The other side is arguing that it is perfectly fair to think that sinners (i.e. murderers, thieves, rapists, practicing homosexuals) have done something that makes them (morally) inferior.
Secondly, the issue may not be about inferiority and so those are not really the two main options. The issue could well be: homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal but different. And so the other side might argue that this difference should be reflected in the fact that homosexuals cannot get married. Another example: A person with poor eyesight and a person with 20/20 vision are equal but different. One of them should be allowed to become a jet fighter pilot, the other should not.

When the only option you lay open to the other side is to "shut up", you can be pretty sure that you have missed something and that it is you who are now verging on the unreasonably intolerant.

EDIT:> This post took me a while. SecretMethod got in there before me. Great minds... erm whatever.

By the way Secret, did you notice your quote up there on the list of shame?

06-12-2003, 11:53 PM	#73 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	virFighter Thanks for a good post. I think the tricky part comes down to the fact that (a) any action to protect the life, liberty and happiness of one person will affect the life, liberty and happiness of another, and (b) libertarians such as myself believe in a being tolerant, but as the condundrum goes: should the totally tolerant person be tolerant of intolerance? titsmurf I think you'll need to sharpen up those posts a bit to have an impact around here (especially on this thread!). You: I don't care what the bible says Me: You should care, because religion and the bible is central to this thread and being ignorant of what it says won't help you. You: The bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, but they've existed. Same with homosexuality. Me: How the same? The bible doesn't mention homosexuals, buy they still existed? In fact the Bible mentions homosexuals a few times - and not in a very positive light - hence the presence of Christianity in this debate. //EDIT// Thanks Antagony, I had indeed misinterpreted it. You: And these people are every bit as much entitled to happiness as straight people are. Me: Goodness, I think we finally agree on something. Of course, others might not. If homosexuality is a sin then why should sinners be entitled to happiness? You: either you claim these people are inferior to you... in this case you are prejudiced.... or you don't claim they are inferior to you Me: Two points here. Firstly, you will have to convince the other side of why thinking someone is inferior is prejudice. Prejudice is an unfair bias against someone. The other side is arguing that it is perfectly fair to think that sinners (i.e. murderers, thieves, rapists, practicing homosexuals) have done something that makes them (morally) inferior. Secondly, the issue may not be about inferiority and so those are not really the two main options. The issue could well be: homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal but different. And so the other side might argue that this difference should be reflected in the fact that homosexuals cannot get married. Another example: A person with poor eyesight and a person with 20/20 vision are equal but different. One of them should be allowed to become a jet fighter pilot, the other should not. When the only option you lay open to the other side is to "shut up", you can be pretty sure that you have missed something and that it is you who are now verging on the unreasonably intolerant. EDIT:> This post took me a while. SecretMethod got in there before me. Great minds... erm whatever. By the way Secret, did you notice your quote up there on the list of shame? __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless! Last edited by 4thTimeLucky; 06-13-2003 at 12:07 AM..