Another thought experiment I need your imput on

[Moonbeam]

Recently, with Republicans using gay marriage as a wedge issue to bring folk to the polls, I have again been wondering what we should do when bigots come to the table expressing the opinion that certain fools (should have been foods)some enjoy should be banned.

Rational thinking people who grow up free from the social indoctrination of religious texts that have codified bigotry of one kind or another react powerfully when nut case fanatics try to vote to limit their rights. They want to pack the courts with liberals or violently respond, etc.

Similarly, these folk who know the Word of God, are hell bent as it were, to save civilization from a repeat of Sodom and Gomorrah by cramming their notions of morality down others throats.

What we have here, it would seem, are folk who are sure they are right, one because of logic and reason, and the other because of faith.

Should one side be exterminated by the other for the overall peace it will bring, regardless of which, or should the side that is right eliminate the other? Is one side right? Can both be? Can neither be? What will be the future of our table?

 

[PJABBER]

I thought it was Democrats that were using gay marriage as a wedge issue? My bad.

My opinion, pending ban, is that no one should be banned.

We should also keep government, including courts, out of our lives as much as possible. So maybe ban government.

Those who truly know the word of God are not likely to be ramming that knowledge down anyone's throat. I don't happen to know anyone who knows the word of God, but that's just me.

Those who are sure they are right, for whatever reason, are wrong.

I like to sit at a large table crammed with all sorts, but I would also vote for a round of musical chairs.

 

[PJABBER]

Oh, and I would insist that potato salad is served. Solid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNR74UCidBI&NR

 

[Loyalist]

Recently, with Republicans using gay marriage as a wedge issue to bring folk to the polls, I have again been wondering what we should do when bigots come to the table expressing the opinion that certain fools some enjoy should be banned.

Rational thinking people who grow up free from the social indoctrination of religious texts that have codified bigotry of one kind or another react powerfully when nut case fanatics try to vote to limit their rights. They want to pack the courts with liberals or violently respond, etc.

Similarly, these folk who know the Word of God, are hell bent as it were, to save civilization from a repeat of Sodom and Gomorrah by cramming their notions of morality down others throats.

What we have here, it would seem, are folk who are sure they are right, one because of logic and reason, and the other because of faith.

Should one side be exterminated by the other for the overall peace it will bring, regardless of which, or should the side that is right eliminate the other? Is one side right? Can both be? Can neither be? What will be the future of our table?

Smoking bans and trans fat bans. Remind me who is backing those again.

 

[Jaskalas]

Should one side be exterminated by the other for the overall peace it will bring, regardless of which, or should the side that is right eliminate the other? Is one side right? Can both be? Can neither be? What will be the future of our table?

If you believe in the people and hand power and authority over to their closer representatives among the state legislatures, then the possibilities for who is right and wrong are endless.

The failure to recognize the legitimate role of pluralism in a free society is certainly the path to spilling each others blood.

 

[Moonbeam]

If you believe in the people and hand power and authority over to their closer representatives among the state legislatures, then the possibilities for who is right and wrong are endless.

The failure to recognize the legitimate role of pluralism in a free society is certainly the path to spilling each others blood.

OK, but take some examples from what has been stated so far.....

The religious want to ban gay marriage. They believe they are required to do so to save us from sin. If they maintain a majority there will be no marriage pluralism.

Similarly, there are those who would ban smoking. I am one. I do not believe you have the right to kill yourself or that corporations can make a buck on an addiction that will kill you. I know that I am wiser than folk that smoke. There is no rational doubt about it. I want tobacco outlawed and marijuana legalized. I will vote for my own form of enslaving others because I am smarter than they are. Some others think themselves better because they are religious. Why should people who are right be tolerant, when tolerating tobacco kills people. It is a sin. For others Gay marriage is against the will of God. Why would they incline towards tolerance?

 

[heyheybooboo]

"Exterminated" or "Tolerated" ??

If those 'faiths' would worry less about proselytizing, conversion and their eternal life, and live essentially for a better today and brighter tomorrow, we would not be having this discussion.

An individual is free to believe what they want to believe, but is this a product of socialization and nurture? By golly, I think it is!

As a child were you taught to keep your hands to yourself? Well, then, godammit, do the same with your 'faith'. Worry about your eternal life in private with your God.

And keep your faith out of open and honest discussions about what is best for our collective society, now and in the future.

Because it is simply random chance that you were not born a poor HIV-positive black child in Africa, or the product of an incestuous rape.




--

 

[kage69]

Smoking bans and trans fat bans. Remind me who is backing those again.

Not really an apt comparison. Gay marriage doesn't produce harmful second hand smoke, nor does it lead to higher incidences of cardiovascular diseases or diabetes. I have a lesbian couple down the road from me, and their presence has absolutely zero effect on my life and marriage.

If the social conservatives are really just trying to argue that you should be free to do to whatever you want to do to your body, then why the hangup on cannabis legalization?

 

[PJABBER]

"Exterminated" or "Tolerated" ??
--

I invite you to sit at my table so long as you agree to play musical chairs. And I will serve you sweet, sweet lemonade.

 

[kage69]

And keep your faith out of open and honest discussions about what is best for our collective society, now and in the future.

That excellent point needs repeating. Kudos boo!

 

[Jaskalas]

OK, but take some examples from what has been stated so far.....

The religious want to ban gay marriage. They believe they are required to do so to save us from sin. If they maintain a majority there will be no marriage pluralism.

Similarly, there are those who would ban smoking. I am one. I do not believe you have the right to kill yourself or that corporations can make a buck on an addiction that will kill you. I know that I am wiser than folk that smoke. There is no rational doubt about it. I want tobacco outlawed and marijuana legalized. I will vote for my own form of enslaving others because I am smarter than they are. Some others think themselves better because they are religious. Why should people who are right be tolerant, when tolerating tobacco kills people. It is a sin. For others Gay marriage is against the will of God. Why would they incline towards tolerance?

The entire point of pluralism seemed to fly over your head. Some states would accept it, others would not accept it. Thus both sides could coexist without forcing a confrontation.

To use your example, you alone cannot ban smoking. If the state felt that way, I could move to another which does not. Freedom... of choice! Is this a foreign concept?

 

[BoberFett]

"Exterminated" or "Tolerated" ??

If those 'faiths' would worry less about proselytizing, conversion and their eternal life, and live essentially for a better today and brighter tomorrow, we would not be having this discussion.

An individual is free to believe what they want to believe, but is this a product of socialization and nurture? By golly, I think it is!

As a child were you taught to keep your hands to yourself? Well, then, godammit, do the same with your 'faith'. Worry about your eternal life in private with your God.

And keep your faith out of open and honest discussions about what is best for our collective society, now and in the future.

Because it is simply random chance that you were not born a poor HIV-positive black child in Africa, or the product of an incestuous rape.




--

If the religious have to keep their religion out public discussions, can we ask you to do the same? I want you to keep your religion of government away from me.

 

[heyheybooboo]

If the religious have to keep their religion out public discussions, can we ask you to do the same? I want you to keep your religion of government away from me.

What is great is that you do not even realize how hollow and lame your spewed bullshit is, and how negatively it reflects upon you.





--

 

[cubeless]

Recently, with Republicans using gay marriage as a wedge issue to bring folk to the polls, I have again been wondering what we should do when bigots come to the table expressing the opinion that certain fools some enjoy should be banned.

Rational thinking people who grow up free from the social indoctrination of religious texts that have codified bigotry of one kind or another react powerfully when nut case fanatics try to vote to limit their rights. They want to pack the courts with liberals or violently respond, etc.

Similarly, these folk who know the Word of God, are hell bent as it were, to save civilization from a repeat of Sodom and Gomorrah by cramming their notions of morality down others throats.

What we have here, it would seem, are folk who are sure they are right, one because of logic and reason, and the other because of faith.

Should one side be exterminated by the other for the overall peace it will bring, regardless of which, or should the side that is right eliminate the other? Is one side right? Can both be? Can neither be? What will be the future of our table?

until i figured out that you meant 'foods' and not 'fools' i thought you were trying to keep me and the other right wing crazies on the forum from being banned...

and i agree with you, i guess we need to eliminate you guys... i kind of liked having you around, but if you think that's the only solution i guess we'll have to give it a try...

 

[PJABBER]

until i figured out that you meant 'foods' and not 'fools' i thought you were trying to keep me and the other right wing crazies on the forum from being banned...

and i agree with you, i guess we need to eliminate you guys... i kind of liked having you around, but if you think that's the only solution i guess we'll have to give it a try...

WARS have been started over less!

 

[Corn]

"Exterminated" or "Tolerated" ??

If those 'faiths' would worry less about proselytizing, conversion and their eternal life, and live essentially for a better today and brighter tomorrow, we would not be having this discussion.

An individual is free to believe what they want to believe, but is this a product of socialization and nurture? By golly, I think it is!

As a child were you taught to keep your hands to yourself? Well, then, godammit, do the same with your 'faith'. Worry about your eternal life in private with your God.

And keep your faith out of open and honest discussions about what is best for our collective society, now and in the future.

Because it is simply random chance that you were not born a poor HIV-positive black child in Africa, or the product of an incestuous rape.




--

Freedom of speech was found to be so important that it was codified into the first amendment of our constitution. It is a right guaranteed to all citizens of this great nation, religious or not. I love it when the so-called "progressives" project thier true dislike for our constitution as they spew their hollow and lame bullshit.

 

[cubeless]

WARS have been started over less!

that's pretty much where 'thought experiments' that say the stuff that moonie does end up... all you need is a charismatic leader and some political and economic circumstances to all be in one place at one time and the shit goes in the fan...

just remember, whether someone is 'right' or 'wrong', when you back them into a corner you get an incredible response sometimes...

 

[PJABBER]

that's pretty much where 'thought experiments' that say the stuff that moonie does end up... all you need is a charismatic leader and some political and economic circumstances to all be in one place at one time and the shit goes in the fan...

just remember, whether someone is 'right' or 'wrong', when you back them into a corner you get an incredible response sometimes...

I actually don't know if Moonbeam meant to write "foods" or "fools."

I'm good either way.

Care to clarify, Moonie?

I wish I could stick around a bit longer but the ski slopes are calling to me this afternoon!

Cowabunga!

 

[Moonbeam]

If the religious have to keep their religion out public discussions, can we ask you to do the same? I want you to keep your religion of government away from me.

Thanks, I didn't want to have to tell him this.

He has a religion too, but not one that goes by that name.

 

[Moonbeam]

until i figured out that you meant 'foods' and not 'fools' i thought you were trying to keep me and the other right wing crazies on the forum from being banned...

and i agree with you, i guess we need to eliminate you guys... i kind of liked having you around, but if you think that's the only solution i guess we'll have to give it a try...

I got fouled up, thanks. I was thinking what foods these morsels be and out popped the original.

 

[Moonbeam]

WARS have been started over less!

Indeed.

 

[PJABBER]

i got fouled up, thanks. I was thinking what foods these morsels be and out popped the original.

lmao!

 

[JEDIYoda]

The entire point of pluralism seemed to fly over your head. Some states would accept it, others would not accept it. Thus both sides could coexist without forcing a confrontation.

To use your example, you alone cannot ban smoking. If the state felt that way, I could move to another which does not. Freedom... of choice! Is this a foreign concept?

Frredom of choice does not mean the freedom to do as you please and hope that when your actions lead to your getting cancer or worse that society will shell out the bucks to keep you comfortable and happy while you sit there and die!!

 

[Moonbeam]

Freedom of speech was found to be so important that it was codified into the first amendment of our constitution. It is a right guaranteed to all citizens of this great nation, religious or not. I love it when the so-called "progressives" project thier true dislike for our constitution as they spew their hollow and lame bullshit.

Could it be called self defense, getting rid of the religious bigots before they establish a world religion and an inquisition to support it?

When the swines you have for dinner are bent of destroying your freedom is it wrong to make bacon of them.

I would suggest that since we don't know who will win and spin from the Inquisition to Mao, maybe we should have some sort of pact onto which voters have to sign, that we will never legislate on moral matters since what is moral to one is evil to another. Maybe laws can only govern the physical, like I can't shoot you because it takes your right to life but you can't tell me who I can marry because it subtracts nothing tangible from you.

 

[Moonbeam]

The entire point of pluralism seemed to fly over your head. Some states would accept it, others would not accept it. Thus both sides could coexist without forcing a confrontation.

To use your example, you alone cannot ban smoking. If the state felt that way, I could move to another which does not. Freedom... of choice! Is this a foreign concept?

I don't like it because I don't want the idiots in California telling me what to do and I don't want to move. Plus if a gay marries in Mass his marriage should be good here if he moves here.