ilovefuzz.com

Posted: **Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:16 am**

i'm not saying that. i'm saying that intolerance of intolerance promotes tolerance overall, which should be a simple goal, and in practice actually does work. i mean thats the very basis that civil rights is based on, but in more aggressive language.

tolerating intolerance is to be passively intolerant yourself.

Posted: **Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:38 am**

Gearmond wrote:i'm not saying that. i'm saying that intolerance of intolerance promotes tolerance overall, which should be a simple goal, and in practice actually does work. i mean thats the very basis that civil rights is based on, but in more aggressive language.

tolerating intolerance is to be passively intolerant yourself.

I disagree. The basis of civil rights is basically applying the laws equally across all the citizenry. Equally oppressed or equally free as you choose to see it.

Intolerance of intolerance promotes an attitude of us vs them, and could easily make the situation worse. Because instead of proposing arguments against ideas you're proposing an attitude in opposition to another attitude which is not always helpful or productive for the issue that is in disagreement.

Posted: **Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:43 am**

like i said, same idea, but more aggressive language. for lack of a better way to express it, thats what i call it. arguments against intolerant ideas to promote tolernance doesn't go against my thoughts on the matter, just the wording. opposition doesn't always have to be active, and in the context of this position, it doesn't mean the connotatively aggressive meaning it usually has. but yeah, it does make one infer that.

civil rights goes beyond the application of laws equally but rather to the courtesies and attitudes of people.

Posted: **Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:11 am**

Gearmond wrote:theres nothing new about it, but newness doesn't have anything to do with it now does it? no. it doesn't.

except that the beginning of your argument is that my views are irrelevant because i'm old. so you contradict yourself. you really don't understand logic or argument at all.

Posted: **Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:13 am**

Gearmond wrote:civil rights goes beyond the application of laws equally but rather to the courtesies and attitudes of people.

no. "civil rights" are and can only be rights granted under civil law, and cannot extend beyond the law to "courtesies and attitudes" which are not regulated by law. nobody has a legal right to be treated nicely, to be treated courteously, or not to be offended.

Posted: **Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:15 am**

Why the fuck do you guys have to ruin every thread?

Posted: **Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:23 am**

the guarantees of freedom of speech under the US Constutition have allowed the Communist Party USA to operate at the height of the Cold War, and allowed the pro-Nazi German-American Bund to operate openly right up until the US entered World War II. they have allowed the Black Panthers and Weather Underground to advocate violent revolution against the government of the US, and the KKK and the various American Nazi parties to hold mass rallies. they have allowed militant gay activists to disrupt services at Catholic cathedrals, and enabled the despicable anti-gay antics of the Westboro Baptist Church. and any and all of these are preferable to the backdoor to totalitarianism opened by "being intolerant to intolerance," which is an easy excuse to stamp out any opinion disagreeing with your own...after all, isn't refusing to compromise with "MY reasonable position" the definition of "intolerance"?

Posted: **Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:25 am**

Fuzzy Picklez wrote:Why the fuck do you guys have to ruin every thread?

because whether or not that kind of two-bit PC fascism prevails kind of matters. the scroll bar is right over there. ->

Posted: **Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:28 am**

dubkitty wrote:
Gearmond wrote:theres nothing new about it, but newness doesn't have anything to do with it now does it? no. it doesn't.

except that the beginning of your argument is that my views are irrelevant because i'm old. so you contradict yourself. you really don't understand logic or argument at all.

if you read it, i said that your argument isn't better than mine because your old or that you have more experience/knowledge because you are older. i said that old-ness doesn't have anything to do with having a more valid opinion on a matter, and i further asserted there that newness has nothing to do with an opinion. and my stance is logically consistent that age has nothing to do with ones opinion. no contradiction, in fact its quite the opposite.

dubkitty wrote:
Gearmond wrote:civil rights goes beyond the application of laws equally but rather to the courtesies and attitudes of people.

no. "civil rights" are and can only be rights granted under civil law, and cannot extend beyond the law to "courtesies and attitudes" which are not regulated by law. nobody has a legal right to be treated nicely, to be treated courteously, or not to be offended.

spirit vs. law, sparky. you're on law, i'm with spirit. and spirit of civil rights is equal treatment by others, and to promote said attitude. law is supposed to do this, but most people know that its not always successful, which is why its a limited vein to pursue, but one that should be pursued nontheless.

dubkitty wrote:the guarantees of freedom of speech under the US Constutition have allowed the Communist Party USA to operate at the height of the Cold War, and allowed the pro-Nazi German-American Bund to operate openly right up until the US entered World War II. they have allowed the Black Panthers and Weather Underground to advocate violent revolution against the government of the US, and the KKK and the various American Nazi parties to hold mass rallies. they have allowed militant gay activists to disrupt services at Catholic cathedrals, and enabled the despicable anti-gay antics of the Westboro Baptist Church. and any and all of these are preferable to the backdoor to totalitarianism opened by "being intolerant to intolerance," which is an easy excuse to stamp out any opinion disagreeing with your own...after all, isn't refusing to compromise with "MY reasonable position" the definition of "intolerance"?

of course, but as i said earlier in this thread; my position is worded aggressively despite a more passive stance. and as i said before this post, tolerance should extend to promote the idea that intolerance ain't cool. people are allowed to say they're racist and i'm allowed to call them bigots and show them the errors of that line of thinking. and refusing to compromise with you is the definition of disagreeing, not intolerance, silly guy. you're perfectly entitled for having an outdated opinion, and to argue it ineffectively.

i'm still wondering why you're still arguing after you said you'd leave. twice.

Posted: **Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:33 am**

Posted: **Fri Aug 26, 2011 2:00 am**

devnulljp wrote:

Posted: **Fri Aug 26, 2011 2:11 am**

Fuzzy Picklez wrote:Why the fuck do you guys have to ruin every thread?

Posted: **Fri Aug 26, 2011 2:48 am**

Gearmond wrote:i'm still wondering why you're still arguing after you said you'd leave. twice.

because you don't get to set the terms of the argument, or its duration. and because despite your attempts to gradually climb down, you still support the suppression of opinion contrary to your own under the guise of bogus moralism, and it's important to illustrate and discredit that position.

Posted: **Fri Aug 26, 2011 2:54 am**

i didn't set the terms of YOU YOURSELF SAYING YOU WERE GOING TO LEAVE. you did that. but you came back. twice.

and as i said before, its not bogus. there isn't a contradictory moralism to it once explained. i don't support suppression so much as dissolving of or turning of said opinion. theres a method to what you see as madness and its kind of how civil movements have been operating for quite a while.

Posted: **Fri Aug 26, 2011 3:17 am**

ilovefuzz.com

pffffffffffffffffft

Re: pffffffffffffffffft

Re: pffffffffffffffffft

Re: pffffffffffffffffft

Re: pffffffffffffffffft

Re: pffffffffffffffffft

Re: pffffffffffffffffft

Re: pffffffffffffffffft

Re: pffffffffffffffffft

Re: pffffffffffffffffft

Re: pffffffffffffffffft

Re: pffffffffffffffffft

Re: pffffffffffffffffft

Re: pffffffffffffffffft

Re: pffffffffffffffffft

Re: pffffffffffffffffft