Liberal Tolerance is a Total Fallacy

[Charles Kozierok]

No you dont get it. If you have to pass laws to make women "equal" to men. Then clearly they are not equal.

"Equal" doesn't mean "identical".

There are some people who need more protection under the law than others.

You are arguing with a bunch of people about this, but I don't even get what your objection is. How are you harmed by the existence of a law protecting women against violence?

 

[Jhhnn]

"Equal" doesn't mean "identical".

There are some people who need more protection under the law than others.

You are arguing with a bunch of people about this, but I don't even get what your objection is. How are you harmed by the existence of a law protecting women against violence?

That doesn't matter because he's just concern trolling...

 

[cybrsage]

Pssst. You don't have soul.

Your desire for something to not exist does not alter its existance.

Also, removing context from bigotry is a surefire way to display your intellectual dishonesty.

Bigotry is a word with a definition. Your desire for the definition to only apply when you want it to apply does not alter the actual defintion at all.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Your desire for something to not exist does not alter its existance.

Just as a point of order -- the onus, logically, is on someone making a positive assertion of existence to provide proof thereof, not on the person denying the assertion.

If I claim that there are pink unicorns, it's up to me to prove that they exist, not up to you to prove that they don't.

 

[cybrsage]

This is because "conservative intelligence" is too.

I do not need to hear a conservative spout his beliefs. I can model him in BASIC on an 8088 -- the conservative himself is redundant. Unless one is doing research on cognitive failures there's really no reason to listen to a conservative. I do not need to hear parts of a belief structure that is warped to be in compliance with the belief that the Earth was created 6000 years ago by an invisible man who lives in the sky and who dances around granting wishes.

Your post makes Celestia cry.

 

[cybrsage]

Just as a point of order -- the onus, logically, is on someone making a positive assertion of existence to provide proof thereof, not on the person denying the assertion.

Correct, though irrelevant. I did not ask him to prove anything, I simply said his desire for something to not exist does not alter the existance of that something. This is true.

You can desire Battleship 2012 to be a good movie, for example...

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Correct, though irrelevant. I did not ask him to prove anything, I simply said his desire for something to not exist does not alter the existance of that something. This is true.

It's actually not irrelevant.

When something is claimed to exist for which there is no scientific evidence, it is wholly appropriate to point out the default position, which is that something doesn't exist unless it is proven to exist. Trying to turn this around as being a function of his "desire for something to not exist" is fallacious.

It is really far more appropriate to claim that your desire for souls TO exist doesn't mean they do.

 

[cybrsage]

It's actually not irrelevant.

When something is claimed to exist for which there is no scientific evidence, it is wholly appropriate to point out the default position, which is that something doesn't exist unless it is proven to exist. Trying to turn this around as being a function of his "desire for something to not exist" is fallacious.

It is really far more appropriate to claim that your desire for souls TO exist doesn't mean they do.

The last sentence would also be correct, but nothing you said actually addresses what I said. You are addressing what you wish I said.

Are you claiming my statement is wrong?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Are you claiming my statement is wrong?

A statement doesn't have to be wrong to be deceptive and/or intellectually dishonest.

 

[cybrsage]

So you agree it is a correct statement, but are arguing against it because you do not like the connotations of said correct statement. What is your point, other than to show you dislike the connotations of the correct statement?

 

[nehalem256]

Do you also posit that every law protecting children from sexual abuse by adults requires a corollary protecting adults from sexual abuse by children lest we oppress adults?

No, because children are not regarded as being equal to adults.

"Equal" doesn't mean "identical".

There are some people who need more protection under the law than others.

So much for equal protection under the law huh.

You are arguing with a bunch of people about this, but I don't even get what your objection is. How are you harmed by the existence of a law protecting women against violence?

It is not me specifically, but men in general who are harmed by the idea that domestic violence is something that is committed by men onto women; see this story:

Well now that's something you should tell my brother in law. He was married to a physically abusive woman and she once knocked him out with a butcher block. He didn't call the police directly but a friend who was on the force. He asked if there were witnesses to the crime and he said no. He strongly advised him to not call officially because his wife will contend that she was defending himself and in the eyes of the court he is guilty unless he can prove otherwise. The best case is that wouldn't be prosecuted or sued by her.

That's very common. The assumption in disputes in many cases is that the man is guilty. Statistics shown demonstrate that the woman is often the one who initiates violence, yet the contention is that the man is the one who is to blame. That does not excuse anything if it's true, but there is a very real obstacle to justice when the real world requires the demonstration of innocence on the part of a person, not proof of guilt. r

Maybe he should have worked out more :\

 

[Jhhnn]

It depends on whether you are more concerened about your soul or people you do not know.

Pssst. You don't have soul.

Also, removing context from bigotry is a surefire way to display your intellectual dishonesty.

Your desire for something to not exist does not alter its existance.

Bigotry is a word with a definition. Your desire for the definition to only apply when you want it to apply does not alter the actual defintion at all.

You were the party claiming the existence of "soul", an unprovable assertion. When called on that, you attempted to put the burden of proof onto the other side, as is your usual dishonest method.

 

[Double Trouble]

It's always very telling how those who claim to be tolerant are anything but. Basically, it's the old hypocritical "I'm tolerant, but only for those things I agree with. Anything else will not be tolerated". Idiots. With any luck the mall burns down the ground sometime soon, preferably after they fail to make their insurance payment.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So much for equal protection under the law huh.

You're confused about the difference between equality and equal protection. The fact that some people use protection more than others doesn't mean they aren't equals.

There are laws in every jurisdiction against murder. But if you live in a bad neighborhood in a big city, you are far more likely to need those protections than I do living in a rural area. That doesn't mean we aren't equal under the law.

It is not me specifically, but men in general who are harmed by the idea that domestic violence is something that is committed by men onto women.

Well, it primarily is. Sure, there are cases that go in the opposite direction, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule.

The average man is also taller, heavier and stronger than the average woman.

I do understand your point -- we shouldn't focus only on one specific type of violence. But the solution is to raise awareness of all types of violence, not make a big fuss about efforts to address the problem.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It's always very telling how those who claim to be tolerant are anything but.
...
With any luck the mall burns down the ground sometime soon, preferably after they fail to make their insurance payment.

Thanks a lot. I just got that ironymeter cleaned and calibrated, too.

 

[-Slacker-]

The Grove mall is not a public mall, like it's claimed in the OP. Which means that they can throw whoever the hell they want out the door, whenever they want, because it's private property.

I support the rights of bigots to freedom of speech and expression, even of the likes of the westbroo baptist church, but these rights are not applicable on private property, so he fact that they were thrown the fuck out was a good thing.

 

[Howard]

The Grove mall is not a public mall, like it's claimed in the OP. Which means that they can throw whoever the hell they want out the door, whenever they want, because it's private property.

Sort of, not really. Are people normally this ignorant?

 

[-Slacker-]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grove_at_Farmers_Market

Private property.

 

[Howard]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grove_at_Farmers_Market

Private property.

cool brah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 - Title II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...ccommodations_.28and_Commercial_Facilities.29

 

[werepossum]

I question your objectivity judging what the left and right do or don't do. Both sides have their bad moments when it comes to the "big tent" approach, but there are plenty of examples of lefties and righties embracing different viewpoints. The attraction of claiming "tolerance" for your personal ideology is appealing, but probably leads to inaccurate assessment of how tolerant people on your "side" really are. Particularly when your survey technique is to exclusively search for stories of the other side being intolerant

If you want a good example of where both sides need massive improvement, all you have to do is look at the hot button issues of the day. A politician taking the "wrong" side on an issue like that will result in them being absolutely destroyed by their party in most cases. Being a pro-gay marriage or anti-gun Republican or an anti-abortion or pro-torture Democrat will make things very hard for you.

I agree with all that, including my own lack of objectivity. Although to the extent that I have a side, it's from being noticeably more alienated from one side than from the other. In more or less the words of Parker and Stone, I hate conservatives, but I really, really hate progressives. (I note a huge difference between true classical liberals, the most tolerant and freedom-loving of the political animals, and the Marxist totalitarian progressives.)

I generally identify libertarians as the best American example of classical liberals; even though I disagree with their confidence in people and correspondingly with their idea of the appropriate size and scope of government, libertarians are without question the most tolerant and most freedom-loving among us. So I remain conservative fiscally and in defense, border security and foreign policy, libertarian in social matters, and liberal in environmental and sometimes civil rights matters, attempting to co-opt the best of each viewpoint, as I see it.

 

[Double Trouble]

cool brah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 - Title II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...ccommodations_.28and_Commercial_Facilities.29

Thank you for helping educate an ignorant child

 

[shira]

I ran across this this morning after reading a thread here created by one of our brain-dead leftists. A thread in which he tried desperately again and again to control what was said and thought.

This gave me a big laugh so I thought I'd share it.

Liberal Tolerance is a Total Fallacy

If this same shopping center issued a similar statement about a public figure who stated that he was opposed to marriages between between blacks and whites would you hold the same opinion? How about if a public figure opposed equal rights for Jews?

What you don't understand - what right-wing extremists are unable to understand - is that opposing same-sex marriage is just a bigoted, just as outrageously iniquitous, as opposing miscegenation or being anti-Semitic.

You THINK that opposing same-sex marriage is a reasonable position. Just wait 20 years and see how those who continue to oppose same-sex marriages are viewed.

 

[jackstar7]

Bigotry is a word with a definition. Your desire for the definition to only apply when you want it to apply does not alter the actual defintion at all.

Tut tut. I know the word quite well. I'm bigoted against active ignorance for one thing.

Your intellectual dishonesty at trying to brand people with a stigmatized word while actively removing the context to differentiate rational intolerance from the irrational is disingenuois trolling to stymie efforts to simply express an opinion. I imagine you are for gay marriage, but you just enjoy winding people up.

 

[jackstar7]

You were the party claiming the existence of "soul", an unprovable assertion. When called on that, you attempted to put the burden of proof onto the other side, as is your usual dishonest method.

I'm sure he's busy working up to a response today.

 

[boomerang]

If this same shopping center issued a similar statement about a public figure who stated that he was opposed to marriages between between blacks and whites would you hold the same opinion? How about if a public figure opposed equal rights for Jews?

What you don't understand - what right-wing extremists are unable to understand - is that opposing same-sex marriage is just a bigoted, just as outrageously iniquitous, as opposing miscegenation or being anti-Semitic.

You THINK that opposing same-sex marriage is a reasonable position. Just wait 20 years and see how those who continue to oppose same-sex marriages are viewed.

Please stop, you're scaring me.

Btw, you only think you know what I think. Your post is irrational because it's based on assumptions you've made that fit your agenda.