How do you preach tolerance?

[Knightskye]

Whether it's the Texas GOP banning sodomy -- how would they enforce that, anyway? -- or people telling Egyptian men (who are Christians) protesting a mosque in New York, to "go home."

Heck, I tweeted that maybe calling millions of people names, isn't nice, and people got uuuuuuuuuuuuuupppppppppset.

So much for the Puritans coming to Plymouth Rock. :rolleyes:

[The Patriot]

Whether it's the Texas GOP banning sodomy -- how would they enforce that, anyway? -- or people telling Egyptian men (who are Christians) protesting a mosque in New York, to "go home."

Heck, I tweeted that maybe calling millions of people names, isn't nice, and people got uuuuuuuuuuuuuupppppppppset.

So much for the Puritans coming to Plymouth Rock. :rolleyes:

The Texas GOP says ,homosexuality “tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit and leads to the spread of dangerous communicable diseases.”

Doesn't heterosexuality such as say, adultery, lead to the breakdown of the family unit and doesn't heterosexual sex lead to STDs. So, by their own standards, they must ban any kind of sex, as it leads to the above things, otherwise they would be hypocrites. And "tearing at the fabric of society" is such a subjective phrase I won't even bother addressing it. But I will tell you this much, Dallas sure as hell wouldn't go for this platform. Dallas has the best strip clubs in the country which bring in a lot of revenue to the city and provide revenue for businesses surrounding sad establishments.

This is why I will never register a republican accept during primaries if there is a decent candidate. :mad:

[MelissaWV]

Whether it's the Texas GOP banning sodomy -- how would they enforce that, anyway? -- or people telling Egyptian men (who are Christians) protesting a mosque in New York, to "go home."

Heck, I tweeted that maybe calling millions of people names, isn't nice, and people got uuuuuuuuuuuuuupppppppppset.

So much for the Puritans coming to Plymouth Rock. :rolleyes:

Do you remember the case that went to the Supreme Court where people had been convicted on sodomy laws (and which eventually caused the law to be called unconstitutional)?

To the very best of my recollection, it was the police that were in error and executing an "oops" warrant, bursting into someone's house. They found... sodomy in progress, let's call it. This being against the law, and the police not wanting to totally waste the raid, there you go.

When the police bust into a house "accidentally" and see two people engaged in "unnatural sex" :rolleyes: they'll just arrest them on those charges and call it a day. That way they can cover up some of the embarrassment of having raided the wrong house.

[FrankRep]

Whether it's the Texas GOP banning sodomy -- how would they enforce that, anyway? -- or people telling Egyptian men (who are Christians) protesting a mosque in New York, to "go home."

Heck, I tweeted that maybe calling millions of people names, isn't nice, and people got uuuuuuuuuuuuuupppppppppset.

Maybe we need Big Government to enforce tolerance on people.

;)

[fisharmor]

I have no interest in preaching tolerance.

If I did, I would probably preach that we should tolerate vigilantes beating up ****.

I would probably preach that we should tolerate such incomplete understanding of Scripture as is necessary to use the state to try to curb self-destructive behavior.

I would probably preach that we should tolerate the government dictating to us what is and is not acceptable in the bedroom.

I would probably preach tolerance of the level of ignorance necessary to confuse Coptics with Muslims.


I am attracted to libertarianism because it is the least tolerant of the political theories out there.

[ChaosControl]

I don't really preach tolerance and find that most people who do are among the most intolerant people there are in existence.

Of course there is a big difference between tolerance and acceptance. I tolerate many things, but there are things I wont accept as perfectly okay.

I think it is best to live by example, that includes both in terms of tolerance of others as well as in promotion of any kind of moral lifestyle. Don't need to use government to force people to tolerate others, don't need government to force people to live a moral life.

[MelissaWV]

Right... the actual question. I kind of forgot to address it.

"Preach" is such a ridiculous word in this context. It implies a one-sided diatribe. It implies condescension.

I am who I am, and as long as you're not advocating violence against me or using the law on me, I probably won't have any uninvited words for you. Some people go out of their way to ask questions, and I answer them; sometimes that doesnt' change how they feel about people "like me."

If society were way freer, you'd be able to speak your mind. Wouldn't you rather know who's an actual racist, homophobe, or misogynist, rather than have all these organizations hovering around making it simultaneously impossible to be that in public, and yet also pointing fingers and accusing everyone? Those terms should be defined by one's own gut feeling, not the State. What I consider offensive is certainly not the same as what ChaosControl considers offensive or what Kludge considers offensive, and so on. If you're free to speak your mind, I'm going to be free to make up my mind. You'd be free to live in a "________s Only" community. Hell, you are now, it's just got to be the right kind of ______.

Preaching tolerance is preaching that people should swallow up their opinions and replace them with cliches. Having conversations that enlighten people and give them the opportunity to change their minds on their own works far better. Just remember: conversations are not one-sided.

[Elwar]

Those who do not support our tolerance will not be tolerated!

[Noob]

The Texas GOP says ,homosexuality “tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit and leads to the spread of dangerous communicable diseases.”

Doesn't heterosexuality such as say, adultery, lead to the breakdown of the family unit and doesn't heterosexual sex lead to STDs. So, by their own standards, they must ban any kind of sex, as it leads to the above things, otherwise they would be hypocrites. And "tearing at the fabric of society" is such a subjective phrase I won't even bother addressing it. But I will tell you this much, Dallas sure as hell wouldn't go for this platform. Dallas has the best strip clubs in the country which bring in a lot of revenue to the city and provide revenue for businesses surrounding sad establishments.

This is why I will never register a republican accept during primaries if there is a decent candidate. :mad:

The Idaho GOP says that only "Marriage is for "naturally born" men and women"

[Tend yer biscuits.]

Isn't tolerance always directed toward something that appears harmful? We tolerate apparent harm for the sake of a greater health. If you want to 'preach' tolerance of some particular thing, explain what that greater health is and how tolerance in this case serves it.

[ChaosControl]

The Idaho GOP says that only "Marriage is for "naturally born" men and women"

Well if you're going to restrict marriage to men and women, I think it kind of odd that you can legally change your sex and still get legally married. If you're so intent on preventing men from marrying men, it'd seem you wouldn't allow the loophole of sex changes. Just goes to show how stupid it is to have government involved.

[Acala]

I suggest "preaching" tolerance by the way you live - with love and compassion for all. Still working on it myself.

[fisharmor]

The Idaho GOP says that only "Marriage is for "naturally born" men and women"

So, it's apparently not applicable for people whose mothers had petocin, or epesiotomies, or c-sections.
Nice going, retards. You did what you keep saying the gay community is doing... destroyed marriage.

[Mahkato]

Preach the Philosophy of Liberty instead.

[someperson]

preach the philosophy of liberty instead.
+1 :)

[Theocrat]

Those who preach tolerance are always intolerant of the intolerant.

[Vessol]

Those who preach tolerance are always intolerant of the intolerant.

Except that when I'm "preaching tolerance" I'm not stating that I believe that all those whom hate (group of people here) should be put to death or have their rights taken away.

There's a big difference between disliking someone because of their views/actions and enforcing your dislike, with the law.

[osan]

Whether it's the Texas GOP banning sodomy -- how would they enforce that, anyway? -- or people telling Egyptian men (who are Christians) protesting a mosque in New York, to "go home."

Heck, I tweeted that maybe calling millions of people names, isn't nice, and people got uuuuuuuuuuuuuupppppppppset.

So much for the Puritans coming to Plymouth Rock. :rolleyes:

First of all, you do not "preach". Most people I've met do not like being "preached at". Approach is an important factor in getting people to listen.

That said, you have to begin at the beginning and start with the basics. When you introduce people to the most fundamental principles underpinning "liberty" and build from there, the truth becomes apparent to them. At that point they have a choice to make, and you should let them know this fact: to acknowledge and accept the truth and perhaps make changes in one's outward (if not inward) position and demeanor toward others' choices, or at least become aware that they are hypocrites.

When the basics are administered and accepted, the rest follows axiomatically. All exceptions are the products of hypocrisy and absolutely nothing else. At that point they choose either to comply with principle or be rank hypocrites. There is nothing in between, no matter how much they may wish otherwise.

If you can get a person to accept the equality between all individuals as living beings, you should be able to paint them into a corner - or preferably have them paint themselves into the corner so they will not feel "tricked" ;)

As for "sodomy" - I'd ask such a person if they'd ever enjoyed a blowjob, which falls under the definition.

Hypocrisy is rampant in the world, even among those spouting the virtues of freedom.

[osan]

The Idaho GOP says that only "Marriage is for "naturally born" men and women"

So those who came into the world via caesarean section cannot marry according to them? What about the products of artificial insemination?

Sounds like gross perversions of the basic Christian ethic.

[osan]

I have no interest in preaching tolerance.

If I did, I would probably preach that we should tolerate vigilantes beating up ****.

Gross nonsequitur. Tolerance == tolerance of legitimate choices. Tolerating those who get some kick out of beating *****s or whatever other "group" their monumental intellects manage to identify is not tolerance - it is idiocy. By your logic, we should tolerate those who rape and murder us, too. This is clearly not the case, would you not agree?



I am attracted to libertarianism because it is the least tolerant of the political theories out there.

THis is not really so. It is tolerant of the tolerable and intolerant of the rest. Perhaps this is what you meant.

[00_Pete]

Societies that accepted homosexuality were know for their tolerance, freedom and pacifism. Ancient Greece (in their final and decadent centuries), Roman Empire (in their final and decadent centuries) and Weimar/Nazi Germany.

Greece, Rome and Weimar/Nazi Germany were also known for their respect for women rights and feminine-homosexuals...

Homosexuality is good i tell you!

[osan]

If society were way freer, you'd be able to speak your mind. Wouldn't you rather know who's an actual racist, homophobe, or misogynist...

This is what I have been pointing out to people for nearly 30 years. Were I black, I would be glad to have someone call me "******", not because I would like being called such, but because the person hurling at me has given me invaluable information about who he is. I'd rather have him call me a ****** than cut my guts out as he smiles a warm but false greeting. This has been part of the training I would give to the other students at our dojo. New students would, in fact, be barraged with endless insults when they first join. By the time they are there six months, there is nothing you can say to them that will cause them to react. It is all about self control and sound threat assessment, skills that very few people possess. I have found that I can manipulate perhaps 75% of all the people I meet on the street just by choosing my words this way or that. On the whole, people are undiscliplined, ignorant, and wholly unaware of it or interested in changing this aspect of themselves. I call that "bizarre".

[MelissaWV]

Societies that accepted homosexuality were know for their tolerance, freedom and pacifism. Ancient Greece (in their final and decadent centuries), Roman Empire (in their final and decadent centuries) and Weimar/Nazi Germany.

Greece, Rome and Weimar/Nazi Germany were also known for their respect for women rights and feminine-homosexuals...

Homosexuality is good i tell you!

Oh good. It's back.

Rome was known for their pacifism. (Little known fact! They became an Empire by kindly asking neighboring nations to please, please, pretty please, let them take over.)


The Roman military was intertwined with the Roman state much more closely than in a modern European nation. Josephus describes the Roman people being as if they were "born ready armed." and the Romans were for long periods prepared to engage in almost continuous warfare, absorbing massive losses. For a large part of Rome's history, the Roman state existed as an entity almost solely to support and finance the Roman military.

The problem with Roman military in the later years was that it was spread too thin, was too expensive to operate, and the soldiers were professionals rather than citizen soldiers.

* * *

Nazi Germany was great towards homosexuals.


In the 1920s, homosexual people in Germany, particularly in Berlin, enjoyed a higher level of freedom and acceptance than anywhere else in the world. However, upon the rise of Adolf Hitler, gay men and, to a lesser extent, lesbians, were two of the numerous groups targeted by the Nazi Party and were ultimately among Holocaust victims. Beginning in 1933, gay organizations were banned, scholarly books about homosexuality, and sexuality in general, were burned, and homosexuals within the Nazi Party itself were murdered. The Gestapo compiled lists of homosexuals, who were compelled to sexually conform to the "German norm."

Weimar Germany was more tolerant, to be sure, in that they didn't enforce their own laws on the subject. This, however, leads straight into Nazi Germany proper. Was that really an improvement in your eyes, I wonder, once the purging of homosexuality as a normal activity began? Hmm.

[BlackTerrel]

There are Two Things I Can’t Stand in This World: People Who are Intolerant of Other People’s Culture, and the Dutch.

YouTube - The Dutch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ882QYzr-M)

[00_Pete]

Oh good. It's back.

Rome was known for their pacifism. (Little known fact! They became an Empire by kindly asking neighboring nations to please, please, pretty please, let them take over.)



The problem with Roman military in the later years was that it was spread too thin, was too expensive to operate, and the soldiers were professionals rather than citizen soldiers.

* * *

Nazi Germany was great towards homosexuals.



Weimar Germany was more tolerant, to be sure, in that they didn't enforce their own laws on the subject. This, however, leads straight into Nazi Germany proper. Was that really an improvement in your eyes, I wonder, once the purging of homosexuality as a normal activity began? Hmm.

I pointed out that i was reffering to Rome and Greece "in their final and decadent centuries" didnt i? Its very important this.

Greece was a pioneer in "democracy"and human rights (including womans rights). They were also very carefull about going into military adventures. Then came decadence, and the final stage of decadence -homosexuality-. Then the "Homosexual Civil War" came to the surface "Femmes+Lesbians vs Butch". Butch won (as always). Their politics, arts/culture, education and defense forces totally overrun by butch-homosexuals. Became a facist, militarist, warmongering, pedophile, woman and femme-homosexual repressing Civilization that eventually died a slow and painful death.

Rome was a pioneer in "democracy"and human rights (including womans rights). They were also very carefull about going into military adventures and took the art of diplomacy to a whole new level (as you pointed out). Then came decadence, and the final stage of decadence -homosexuality-. Then the "Homosexual Civil War" came to the surface "Femmes+Lesbians vs Butch". Butch won (as always). Their politics, arts/culture, education and defense forces totally overrun by butch-homosexuals. Became a facist, militarist, warmongering, pedophile, woman and femme-homosexual repressing Civilization that eventually died a slow and painful death.

Weimar Germany was a decadent society that accepted homosexuality. From the "butch" camp came the National-Socialist movement. The good old "Homosexual Civil War" started, "femmes+lesbians vs butch"...butch win (as always). Ernst Rohm, Hitler´s mentor and nº1 in the Nazi Party for many years was a proud in-your-face butch-homosexual. The Brown Shirts were notorious for their violence, homosexual depravity and their hatred of woman and femme-homosexuals, it was also a organization were ranks were based on how good you look and "sexual favours", their top ranks were completly full of "young blond ayrian studs". When the Brown Shirts were destroyed most of the leaders that escaped the "Night of the Long Knifes" were incorporated in the National-Socialist Party apparatus...as long as they kept their homosexuality to themselfs. The only homosexuals that were repressed in Nazi Germany were the "femmes" the feminine-homosexuals. As for the rest of the top Nazis...Rohm was Hitler´s mentor, Hitler was known for hating women and being completly assexual towards Eva Braun...and the Nazis sure loved art focused on handsome muscular male bodies...you do the math.

Unchecked homosexuality ALWAYS degenerates into facism, militarism and warmongering, repression of females and feminine-homosexuals, pedastry (if not downright pedophilia) and the eventual death of society. 3 out of 3...but this time its going to be different right? This time our Intel x86 will send a wave of "0" and "1" that is going to make us different from Greeks, Romans and Germans right?

"...the last 6 Roman emperors were f*gs, the last 6 Roman emperors were f*gs(...)Nero had a public wedding with a boy..." - Richard Nixon, Nixon Tapes

Nixon was starting to figure things out thats why he had to go.

[libertybrewcity]

practice it and teach your children that treating people with respect is good. if you are with friends, and someone makes a racially charged comment, say that is not very respectful. it starts small.

[Knightskye]

Well, that's depressing.

Okay, well, how would we stop legislation that would racially profile people who "look Muslim"?

YouTube - Dan Fanelli Ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umTITWQuXwY)

[Vessol]

I pointed out that i was reffering to Rome and Greece "in their final and decadent centuries" didnt i? Its very important this.

Greece was a pioneer in "democracy"and human rights (including womans rights). They were also very carefull about going into military adventures. Then came decadence, and the final stage of decadence -homosexuality-. Then the "Homosexual Civil War" came to the surface "Femmes+Lesbians vs Butch". Butch won (as always). Their politics, arts/culture, education and defense forces totally overrun by butch-homosexuals. Became a facist, militarist, warmongering, pedophile, woman and femme-homosexual repressing Civilization that eventually died a slow and painful death.

Rome was a pioneer in "democracy"and human rights (including womans rights). They were also very carefull about going into military adventures and took the art of diplomacy to a whole new level (as you pointed out). Then came decadence, and the final stage of decadence -homosexuality-. Then the "Homosexual Civil War" came to the surface "Femmes+Lesbians vs Butch". Butch won (as always). Their politics, arts/culture, education and defense forces totally overrun by butch-homosexuals. Became a facist, militarist, warmongering, pedophile, woman and femme-homosexual repressing Civilization that eventually died a slow and painful death.

Weimar Germany was a decadent society that accepted homosexuality. From the "butch" camp came the National-Socialist movement. The good old "Homosexual Civil War" started, "femmes+lesbians vs butch"...butch win (as always). Ernst Rohm, Hitler´s mentor and nº1 in the Nazi Party for many years was a proud in-your-face butch-homosexual. The Brown Shirts were notorious for their violence, homosexual depravity and their hatred of woman and femme-homosexuals, it was also a organization were ranks were based on how good you look and "sexual favours", their top ranks were completly full of "young blond ayrian studs". When the Brown Shirts were destroyed most of the leaders that escaped the "Night of the Long Knifes" were incorporated in the National-Socialist Party apparatus...as long as they kept their homosexuality to themselfs. The only homosexuals that were repressed in Nazi Germany were the "femmes" the feminine-homosexuals. As for the rest of the top Nazis...Rohm was Hitler´s mentor, Hitler was known for hating women and being completly assexual towards Eva Braun...and the Nazis sure loved art focused on handsome muscular male bodies...you do the math.

Unchecked homosexuality ALWAYS degenerates into facism, militarism and warmongering, repression of females and feminine-homosexuals, pedastry (if not downright pedophilia) and the eventual death of society. 3 out of 3...but this time its going to be different right? This time our Intel x86 will send a wave of "0" and "1" that is going to make us different from Greeks, Romans and Germans right?

"...the last 6 Roman emperors were f*gs, the last 6 Roman emperors were f*gs(...)Nero had a public wedding with a boy..." - Richard Nixon, Nixon Tapes

Nixon was starting to figure things out thats why he had to go.

So what if it is immoral or decadent?

I'd say it's more immoral for you to say who I can or cannot consensually stick my penis in.

What do you propose to do to me if I do have sex with another man?

[osan]

Societies that accepted homosexuality were know for their tolerance, freedom and pacifism. Ancient Greece (in their final and decadent centuries), Roman Empire (in their final and decadent centuries) and Weimar/Nazi Germany.

Greece, Rome and Weimar/Nazi Germany were also known for their respect for women rights and feminine-homosexuals...

Homosexuality is good i tell you!

More nonsense. If you don't like *****, then don't be *****. Don't hang with them. The only requirement is that you live and let live. To imply that ***** have brought down the empires of history is to attribute to them one hell of a lot of clout. I don't buy it. I've had a lot of ***** acquaintances and several ***** friends and I can assure you that the lot of them put together and multiplied by a million would be unable to decide where to eat breakfast, much less take down a nation. Some are smart, some dumber'n bricks. Some cool, some legendary assholes. Overall, they appear to reflect a fair cross section of the greater population, the only glaring difference being whom they fuck. That is none of my business, nor yours, nor anyone else's. They aren't going away any time soon, if ever, so you may as well get over yourself and get on with something in your life that holds some actual value.

What a waste of time.

[osan]

Isn't tolerance always directed toward something that appears harmful?

"Appears" being the operative term. "Appears" <> "is". This is a point many people seem to miss or gloss over, perhaps for the sake of convenience.

[MelissaWV]

So what if it is immoral or decadent?

I'd say it's more immoral for you to say who I can or cannot consensually stick my penis in.

What do you propose to do to me if I do have sex with another man?

I think he's missing the entire point of his own post, which is the societies weren't warmongering and in decline when they were "decadent" in regards to homosexuality. It was the ensuing repression that represented the decline, and that shouldn't shock anyone. The general climate became hostile in the times he was describing; the crackdown on sexuality was just a symptom.