timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)

[bostonfred]

I don't question whether people are able to make good moral decisions on their own without religion. Of course they can. I do question the motive of anyone who tries to denigrate others based on the foundation of their ethics.

The reason freedom of religion is a good and necessary thing isn't that is good for everyone to be religious, or for people to have lots of religions. It's because it's deeply offensive to tell someone that their entire ethos is wrong, and to suggest or force them to adopt something else. It's no more offensive for someone to tell a Christian that their religion is bunk than for someone to tell an atheist that they're soulless heathens or to tell me that my dad was full of #### and a drunk and everything he ever taught me was a lie.

There are always people who are going to try to press their religious beliefs or ethical systems on others. That's not cool imo. Its way worse when its done through threat of violence, but it's bad either way.

What if someone's beliefs lead them to think that, for example, gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry? Or, that they should even be executed? Is it still deeply offensive to question their ethos?

Yes. It's also inappropriate to try to legislate what other people can do simply because you think they shouldn't. That's how liberty and freedom of religion work.

So, is that how you reconcile? It's ok for someone to say they think that all gay people should be executed, but we should have laws to prevent acting on this belief.

Yes.

Well then it's a good thing the people that hold those beliefs don't get to make the laws!

right, that would be tyranny of the majority, which is a major flaw in democracy. But even then there are checks and balances, including the supreme court which could strike down an unconstitutional law. Still, I would rather risk someone voting for things I don't like, than have the government legislate what I'm allowed to think. I'd be interested in your purposed legislation relating what people are allowed to think or say, but I doubt I'd vote for it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The story out of New York is just terrible.

However there seems to be, in this forum, an eagerness to blame the Michael Brown protestors, Al Sharpton, and Mayor Di Blasio, none of whom had anything to do with this. I would think the conservatives would know better. They get pissed off, rightfully so, when some progressives try to blame the insane acts of right wing nut jobs on talk radio or conservative rhetoric. Yet here some of them are returning the favor.

You didn't do that when Giffords was shot?

Political murders are just that, based on political actions. Sad but true, our country should not have these things happen.

Try describing what has happened in NYC without describing the killer's motives with any sort of political background. Give it a shot.

First off, the answer is I did do it after Giffords, and I eas ashamed of myself, and I apologized here. It was wrong,Second, yes this guy had a political motive; also possibly a religious one. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out. It's wrong though to attempt to blame other people who share his resentment against police. It's OK to mistrust police; sometimes, especially in the case of minorities, it is absolutely justified to do so. It's not OK to murder policemen for revenge, obviously.

Why would looking at the political motivations of Giffords' killer be wrong? Why apologize for that, as long as you were being intellectually honest? There was debate over those motivations, but that was the motive (aside from being plumb crazy).

I don't think "resentment" is the word here, do you? He wasn't a protestor or speaking out or holding some grudge, no. This is something else.

 

[timschochet]

OK you're still not getting it. It wasn't wrong for me to suggest that the guy who shot Giffords was motivated by a crazed version of right wing ideology (though I don't think that turned out to be true); it was wrong for me to suggest that Sarah Palin inspired the shooter, and therefore Palin deserved part of the blame. That's what you and others are doing here: you're blaming the protestors, Di Blasio/ anyone who spoke out against the Brown or Garner deaths as partially responsible for this. I think that sucks. Now some people in that thread (not you) are arguing that this sort of thing justifies how cops react in situations like Brown and Garner/ I think that sucks too.

 

[timschochet]

It's the collective simple mindedness of so many people that frustrates me the most. This idiot thinks "all cops are scum" so he goes put and shoots a couple of innocent cops. People react to this by saying "This means all cops are justified" and they will end up cheering on the next time cops unjustifiably kill somebody. It seems we all have to be loyal to our own side. I hate it.

 

[timschochet]

And what's with calling the guy a coward again? Guy's a murderer, a scumbag, evil, unhinged. We know nothing about his bravery or lack of it. Why is it so inportant for some people to focus on this one element?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And what's with calling the guy a coward again? Guy's a murderer, a scumbag, evil, unhinged. We know nothing about his bravery or lack of it. Why is it so inportant for some people to focus on this one element?

Shooting or stabbing someone in the head or back without warning is inherently cowardly.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I don't question whether people are able to make good moral decisions on their own without religion. Of course they can. I do question the motive of anyone who tries to denigrate others based on the foundation of their ethics.

The reason freedom of religion is a good and necessary thing isn't that is good for everyone to be religious, or for people to have lots of religions. It's because it's deeply offensive to tell someone that their entire ethos is wrong, and to suggest or force them to adopt something else. It's no more offensive for someone to tell a Christian that their religion is bunk than for someone to tell an atheist that they're soulless heathens or to tell me that my dad was full of #### and a drunk and everything he ever taught me was a lie.

There are always people who are going to try to press their religious beliefs or ethical systems on others. That's not cool imo. Its way worse when its done through threat of violence, but it's bad either way.

What if someone's beliefs lead them to think that, for example, gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry? Or, that they should even be executed? Is it still deeply offensive to question their ethos?

Yes. It's also inappropriate to try to legislate what other people can do simply because you think they shouldn't. That's how liberty and freedom of religion work.

So, is that how you reconcile? It's ok for someone to say they think that all gay people should be executed, but we should have laws to prevent acting on this belief.

Yes.

Well then it's a good thing the people that hold those beliefs don't get to make the laws!

right, that would be tyranny of the majority, which is a major flaw in democracy. But even then there are checks and balances, including the supreme court which could strike down an unconstitutional law. Still, I would rather risk someone voting for things I don't like, than have the government legislate what I'm allowed to think. I'd be interested in your purposed legislation relating what people are allowed to think or say, but I doubt I'd vote for it.

Agree. I don't want the government telling people what they're allowed to believe either. I just want to be able to criticize bad ideas.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's the collective simple mindedness of so many people that frustrates me the most. This idiot thinks "all cops are scum" so he goes put and shoots a couple of innocent cops. People react to this by saying "This means all cops are justified" and they will end up cheering on the next time cops unjustifiably kill somebody. It seems we all have to be loyal to our own side. I hate it.

He didn't shoot Baltimore cops, he shot NYPD cops.

We had the exact same situation in NO in teh French Quarter a couple years ago as what happened to Garner in NYC. I don't recall anyone outside NO riding to the defense of the guy who died. So much of those protests and "anger" has been driven by politics, power and dollars.

 

[timschochet]

And what's with calling the guy a coward again? Guy's a murderer, a scumbag, evil, unhinged. We know nothing about his bravery or lack of it. Why is it so inportant for some people to focus on this one element?

Shooting or stabbing someone in the head or back without warning is inherently cowardly.

its inherently evil.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

OK you're still not getting it. It wasn't wrong for me to suggest that the guy who shot Giffords was motivated by a crazed version of right wing ideology (though I don't think that turned out to be true); it was wrong for me to suggest that Sarah Palin inspired the shooter, and therefore Palin deserved part of the blame. That's what you and others are doing here: you're blaming the protestors, Di Blasio/ anyone who spoke out against the Brown or Garner deaths as partially responsible for this. I think that sucks. Now some people in that thread (not you) are arguing that this sort of thing justifies how cops react in situations like Brown and Garner/ I think that sucks too.

That's because Palin did not in fact have an impact on what the Giffords killer did. Farrakhan, Sharpton and De Blasio may have ultimately increased the tone of hate that impacted this killer, though we don't know that yet. What is ultimately known though is that they have been wrong to varying degrees and they should be very saddened by what has happened here.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And what's with calling the guy a coward again? Guy's a murderer, a scumbag, evil, unhinged. We know nothing about his bravery or lack of it. Why is it so inportant for some people to focus on this one element?

Shooting or stabbing someone in the head or back without warning is inherently cowardly.

its inherently evil.

Yeah guess what they go hand in hand.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

And what's with calling the guy a coward again? Guy's a murderer, a scumbag, evil, unhinged. We know nothing about his bravery or lack of it. Why is it so inportant for some people to focus on this one element?

Shooting or stabbing someone in the head or back without warning is inherently cowardly.

its inherently evil.

It's both.

 

[timschochet]

And what's with calling the guy a coward again? Guy's a murderer, a scumbag, evil, unhinged. We know nothing about his bravery or lack of it. Why is it so inportant for some people to focus on this one element?

Shooting or stabbing someone in the head or back without warning is inherently cowardly.

its inherently evil.

Yeah guess what they go hand in hand.

I disagree.

First off, shooting a policeman in the back is inherently evil. It is not inherently cowardly. An evil person could want to assassinate a policeman and not be caught doing so. Just because he desires to get away afterwards without being seen doesn't mean he's a coward. The fact that this scumbag killed himself with a gun afterwards seems to suggest, at least to me, that he is NOT a coward. Personally if I wanted to die I don't think I would have the guts to shoot myself in the head.

Next, I strongly disagree that cowardliness and evil go hand in hand. Truth be told, it's not that big an argument for me, except that I have never understood why people feel it's so important to tie the two together.

 

[mr roboto]

You're doing it again...

And what's with calling the guy a coward again? Guy's a murderer, a scumbag, evil, unhinged. We know nothing about his bravery or lack of it. Why is it so inportant for some people to focus on this one element?

Shooting or stabbing someone in the head or back without warning is inherently cowardly.

its inherently evil.

Yeah guess what they go hand in hand.

I disagree.First off, shooting a policeman in the back is inherently evil. It is not inherently cowardly. An evil person could want to assassinate a policeman and not be caught doing so. Just because he desires to get away afterwards without being seen doesn't mean he's a coward. The fact that this scumbag killed himself with a gun afterwards seems to suggest, at least to me, that he is NOT a coward. Personally if I wanted to die I don't think I would have the guts to shoot myself in the head.

Next, I strongly disagree that cowardliness and evil go hand in hand. Truth be told, it's not that big an argument for me, except that I have never understood why people feel it's so important to tie the two together.

 

[timschochet]

OK you're still not getting it. It wasn't wrong for me to suggest that the guy who shot Giffords was motivated by a crazed version of right wing ideology (though I don't think that turned out to be true); it was wrong for me to suggest that Sarah Palin inspired the shooter, and therefore Palin deserved part of the blame. That's what you and others are doing here: you're blaming the protestors, Di Blasio/ anyone who spoke out against the Brown or Garner deaths as partially responsible for this. I think that sucks. Now some people in that thread (not you) are arguing that this sort of thing justifies how cops react in situations like Brown and Garner/ I think that sucks too.

That's because Palin did not in fact have an impact on what the Giffords killer did. Farrakhan, Sharpton and De Blasio may have ultimately increased the tone of hate that impacted this killer, though we don't know that yet. What is ultimately known though is that they have been wrong to varying degrees and they should be very saddened by what has happened here.

No, it's because Palin was not responsible. Let's suppose the Gifford killer came out and said afterwards, "I shot her because that's what I thought Sarah Palin wanted." Would Sarah then have blood on her hands? Of course not. And Di Blasio and Sharpton don't have blood on their hands either. It's a ludicrous thought. Now I despise Al Sharpton as you know. And I think he does bear responsibility for much of the Crown Heights incident. But that was 20 years ago. He has said and done nothing with regard to the Brown and Garner incidents that would merit such blame.

What's really surprising to me is that this argument is being made by conservatives. Usually it's progressives who look for outside parties to blame. Conservatives are all about individual responsibility- don't blame the parents, or talk show hosts, or books or music- blame the guy who did it. That's a traditional conservative attitude, and I've always agreed with it (at least, when I bothered to think.)

 

[timschochet]

You're doing it again...

And what's with calling the guy a coward again? Guy's a murderer, a scumbag, evil, unhinged. We know nothing about his bravery or lack of it. Why is it so inportant for some people to focus on this one element?

Shooting or stabbing someone in the head or back without warning is inherently cowardly.

its inherently evil.

Yeah guess what they go hand in hand.

I disagree.First off, shooting a policeman in the back is inherently evil. It is not inherently cowardly. An evil person could want to assassinate a policeman and not be caught doing so. Just because he desires to get away afterwards without being seen doesn't mean he's a coward. The fact that this scumbag killed himself with a gun afterwards seems to suggest, at least to me, that he is NOT a coward. Personally if I wanted to die I don't think I would have the guts to shoot myself in the head.

Next, I strongly disagree that cowardliness and evil go hand in hand. Truth be told, it's not that big an argument for me, except that I have never understood why people feel it's so important to tie the two together.

What am I doing again?

 

[mr roboto]

Making a thread a semantic pissing contest featuring you.

It corresponds to a comment or two I made in earnest earlier in this thread.

 

[timschochet]

Making a thread a semantic pissing contest featuring you.

It corresponds to a comment or two I made in earnest earlier in this thread.

Yes.

If I want to have a semantic pissing contest, as you call it (I wouldn't) in my own thread, is there something wrong with that? Am I preventing you from discussing this issue?

 

[mr roboto]

Making a thread a semantic pissing contest featuring you.

It corresponds to a comment or two I made in earnest earlier in this thread.

Yes.If I want to have a semantic pissing contest, as you call it (I wouldn't) in my own thread, is there something wrong with that? Am I preventing you from discussing this issue?

You started this thread asking why people tend to grow tired of your postings. I've enjoyed this thread so far and think you have a lot to contribute intellectually to this board. Whether or not a cold blooded killer is really a 'coward' or not isn't really the point.

 

[timschochet]

Actually Mr. Roboto, I appreciated your advice given earlier in this thread when I was seeking it. I think you were right. If I were involved in the main thread on the shootings, I would never have complained about the word "cowardly," because that really would have been framing the conversation there about MY thoughts, and I would have dominated the debate, not in a good way. I had resolved not to do that sort of thing again. Your criticism and others about that was dead on.

But now that I've decided to stick to my own thread, I feel kinda free to simply express my thoughts without fear that I'm going to dominate the conversation. If somebody doesn't want to discuss the word "cowardly" they don't have to. They can always go to the main thread to discuss other aspects of the situation.

 

[mr roboto]

Sorry I thought it was from the main thread. I got lost in which thread I was reading.

 

[timschochet]

Making a thread a semantic pissing contest featuring you.

It corresponds to a comment or two I made in earnest earlier in this thread.

Yes.If I want to have a semantic pissing contest, as you call it (I wouldn't) in my own thread, is there something wrong with that? Am I preventing you from discussing this issue?

You started this thread asking why people tend to grow tired of your postings. I've enjoyed this thread so far and think you have a lot to contribute intellectually to this board. Whether or not a cold blooded killer is really a 'coward' or not isn't really the point.

But it's a point that's interesting to me. Not the debate actually; I don't much care. But the question of why it's important to people to designate this guy a coward- that's interesting. I suspect there's something deeper going on here, though I'm not sure what it is. Perhaps it's simply a reluctance on most people's part to attribute any kind of positive to evil behavior.

But just because it's interesting to me, it doesn't have to be interesting to anyone else. If nobody replies to this question, then of course I'll drop it as I've already expressed my opinion.

 

[timschochet]

Sorry I thought it was from the main thread. I got lost in which thread I was reading.

Ah. Gotcha. No worries.

 

[timschochet]

I don't follow UCLA basketball as closely as I do football, but the rest of my family does. I haven't spoken to them today but I can't imagine they're going to be very happy about the way the Bruins lost. UCLA basketball fans expect to be on a part with teams like Kentucky and Duke. I don't know how long this new coach has...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim I think you're giving the evil far too much credit.

 

[Reginald Cornsilks]

I don't follow UCLA basketball as closely as I do football, but the rest of my family does. I haven't spoken to them today but I can't imagine they're going to be very happy about the way the Bruins lost. UCLA basketball fans expect to be on a part with teams like Kentucky and Duke. I don't know how long this new coach has...

Kentucky is practically an NBA team. I wouldn't worry too much.

One of my brothers graduated from UNC, my mother works at Duke, I went to Uconn. We live college basketball, in other words and no one seems to care this season with Kentucky in the mix in my family.

 

[timschochet]

Despite the fact that our friends' daughter was on stage for all of 2 minutes, I enjoyed The Nutcracker today. The dancing and costumes were very impressive. The music, of course, is brilliant. I might actually enjoy seeing other ballets now.

Am I gay?

 

[Reginald Cornsilks]

Despite the fact that our friends' daughter was on stage for all of 2 minutes, I enjoyed The Nutcracker today. The dancing and costumes were very impressive. The music, of course, is brilliant. I might actually enjoy seeing other ballets now.

Am I gay?

Naw.

There's some great ballets out there. Plus it's an awesome jeopardy category to know if you make it one day is how I look at it.

I have season tickets to the theater to see musicals

It's something to do other than drinking, gambling and watching sports. And chicks dig it.

 

[timschochet]

Despite the fact that our friends' daughter was on stage for all of 2 minutes, I enjoyed The Nutcracker today. The dancing and costumes were very impressive. The music, of course, is brilliant. I might actually enjoy seeing other ballets now.

Am I gay?

Naw.

There's some great ballets out there. Plus it's an awesome jeopardy category to know if you make it one day is how I look at it.

I have season tickets to the theater to see musicals

It's something to do other than drinking, gambling and watching sports. And chicks dig it.

I'm on ICC right now as Psycho. Challenge me to a game.

 

[Reginald Cornsilks]

Despite the fact that our friends' daughter was on stage for all of 2 minutes, I enjoyed The Nutcracker today. The dancing and costumes were very impressive. The music, of course, is brilliant. I might actually enjoy seeing other ballets now.

Am I gay?

Naw.

There's some great ballets out there. Plus it's an awesome jeopardy category to know if you make it one day is how I look at it.

I have season tickets to the theater to see musicals

It's something to do other than drinking, gambling and watching sports. And chicks dig it.

I'm on ICC right now as Psycho. Challenge me to a game.

K

Let me log in

 

[Reginald Cornsilks]

Jesus H.

You're over 2000 in Blitz?



Holy crap. This won't be very much fun then.

Challenge sent but I dont think I got an answer

 

[timschochet]

Jesus H.

You're over 2000 in Blitz?



Holy crap. This won't be very much fun then.

Challenge sent but I dont think I got an answer

I'm 1537

 

[Reginald Cornsilks]

update

Tim wooped my ### in chess

 

[timschochet]

update

Tim wooped my ### in chess

Not really. I got lucky in a few games, but you had me beat more than once.

 

[Reginald Cornsilks]

update

Tim wooped my ### in chess

Not really. I got lucky in a few games, but you had me beat more than once.

ya but that's blitz. If I can't close the deal in the time limits, you still whooped my butt

 

[jon_mx]

I don't question whether people are able to make good moral decisions on their own without religion. Of course they can. I do question the motive of anyone who tries to denigrate others based on the foundation of their ethics.

The reason freedom of religion is a good and necessary thing isn't that is good for everyone to be religious, or for people to have lots of religions. It's because it's deeply offensive to tell someone that their entire ethos is wrong, and to suggest or force them to adopt something else. It's no more offensive for someone to tell a Christian that their religion is bunk than for someone to tell an atheist that they're soulless heathens or to tell me that my dad was full of #### and a drunk and everything he ever taught me was a lie.

There are always people who are going to try to press their religious beliefs or ethical systems on others. That's not cool imo. Its way worse when its done through threat of violence, but it's bad either way.

What if someone's beliefs lead them to think that, for example, gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry? Or, that they should even be executed? Is it still deeply offensive to question their ethos?

Yes. It's also inappropriate to try to legislate what other people can do simply because you think they shouldn't. That's how liberty and freedom of religion work.

So, is that how you reconcile? It's ok for someone to say they think that all gay people should be executed, but we should have laws to prevent acting on this belief.

Yes.

Well then it's a good thing the people that hold those beliefs don't get to make the laws!

right, that would be tyranny of the majority, which is a major flaw in democracy. But even then there are checks and balances, including the supreme court which could strike down an unconstitutional law. Still, I would rather risk someone voting for things I don't like, than have the government legislate what I'm allowed to think. I'd be interested in your purposed legislation relating what people are allowed to think or say, but I doubt I'd vote for it.

Agree. I don't want the government telling people what they're allowed to believe either. I just want to be able to criticize bad ideas.

Criminalizes bad ideas?

I really liked how you went from being against gay marriage and changing it to killing gay people earlier as if they are the same thing. What if people in charged believed atheisism was a bad idea. Using your logic there would be legitimate grounds to lock them up.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

this thread needs an acronym..

 

[Mister CIA]

this thread needs an acronym..

You mean to say it needs a title change that lends itself to a better acronym, like Tim's Incredible Thread? Or Tim ROLLS?

 

[jon_mx]

I am not sure the acronym, but my suggested title:

Tim's unabridged ramblings discussion space.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim I think you're giving the evil far too much credit.

No, UCLA basketball really is that bad.

Sure, fine, but Kentucky BB is both evil and cowardly.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I don't follow UCLA basketball as closely as I do football, but the rest of my family does. I haven't spoken to them today but I can't imagine they're going to be very happy about the way the Bruins lost. UCLA basketball fans expect to be on a part with teams like Kentucky and Duke. I don't know how long this new coach has...

Kentucky is practically an NBA team. I wouldn't worry too much.One of my brothers graduated from UNC, my mother works at Duke, I went to Uconn. We live college basketball, in other words and no one seems to care this season with Kentucky in the mix in my family.

Could be a very boring year for non-UK fans.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I don't question whether people are able to make good moral decisions on their own without religion. Of course they can. I do question the motive of anyone who tries to denigrate others based on the foundation of their ethics.

The reason freedom of religion is a good and necessary thing isn't that is good for everyone to be religious, or for people to have lots of religions. It's because it's deeply offensive to tell someone that their entire ethos is wrong, and to suggest or force them to adopt something else. It's no more offensive for someone to tell a Christian that their religion is bunk than for someone to tell an atheist that they're soulless heathens or to tell me that my dad was full of #### and a drunk and everything he ever taught me was a lie.

There are always people who are going to try to press their religious beliefs or ethical systems on others. That's not cool imo. Its way worse when its done through threat of violence, but it's bad either way.

What if someone's beliefs lead them to think that, for example, gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry? Or, that they should even be executed? Is it still deeply offensive to question their ethos?

Yes. It's also inappropriate to try to legislate what other people can do simply because you think they shouldn't. That's how liberty and freedom of religion work.

So, is that how you reconcile? It's ok for someone to say they think that all gay people should be executed, but we should have laws to prevent acting on this belief.

Yes.

Well then it's a good thing the people that hold those beliefs don't get to make the laws!

right, that would be tyranny of the majority, which is a major flaw in democracy. But even then there are checks and balances, including the supreme court which could strike down an unconstitutional law. Still, I would rather risk someone voting for things I don't like, than have the government legislate what I'm allowed to think. I'd be interested in your purposed legislation relating what people are allowed to think or say, but I doubt I'd vote for it.

Agree. I don't want the government telling people what they're allowed to believe either. I just want to be able to criticize bad ideas.

Criminalizes bad ideas? I really liked how you went from being against gay marriage and changing it to killing gay people earlier as if they are the same thing. What if people in charged believed atheisism was a bad idea. Using your logic there would be legitimate grounds to lock them up.

:whoosh: I think you should re-read what I said.

 

[jon_mx]

I don't question whether people are able to make good moral decisions on their own without religion. Of course they can. I do question the motive of anyone who tries to denigrate others based on the foundation of their ethics.

The reason freedom of religion is a good and necessary thing isn't that is good for everyone to be religious, or for people to have lots of religions. It's because it's deeply offensive to tell someone that their entire ethos is wrong, and to suggest or force them to adopt something else. It's no more offensive for someone to tell a Christian that their religion is bunk than for someone to tell an atheist that they're soulless heathens or to tell me that my dad was full of #### and a drunk and everything he ever taught me was a lie.

There are always people who are going to try to press their religious beliefs or ethical systems on others. That's not cool imo. Its way worse when its done through threat of violence, but it's bad either way.

What if someone's beliefs lead them to think that, for example, gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry? Or, that they should even be executed? Is it still deeply offensive to question their ethos?

Yes. It's also inappropriate to try to legislate what other people can do simply because you think they shouldn't. That's how liberty and freedom of religion work.

So, is that how you reconcile? It's ok for someone to say they think that all gay people should be executed, but we should have laws to prevent acting on this belief.

Yes.

Well then it's a good thing the people that hold those beliefs don't get to make the laws!

right, that would be tyranny of the majority, which is a major flaw in democracy. But even then there are checks and balances, including the supreme court which could strike down an unconstitutional law.Still, I would rather risk someone voting for things I don't like, than have the government legislate what I'm allowed to think. I'd be interested in your purposed legislation relating what people are allowed to think or say, but I doubt I'd vote for it.

Agree. I don't want the government telling people what they're allowed to believe either. I just want to be able to criticize bad ideas.

Criminalizes bad ideas? I really liked how you went from being against gay marriage and changing it to killing gay people earlier as if they are the same thing. What if people in charged believed atheisism was a bad idea. Using your logic there would be legitimate grounds to lock them up.

:whoosh: I think you should re-read what I said.

Sorry....I may need glasses. I should have waited 6 months for the iPhone 6. It is almost to the point I can't read the damn iPhone 5.

 

[bostonfred]

I don't think anyone is stopping you from criticizing bad ideas. I do think it's offensive to criticize people's religions because you disagree with their ideas. If you choose to offend people, that's your call.

You have the right to be an atheist. You have the right to believe that religious people are wrong. You have the right to say so. You don't have the right to prevent them from doing what they want to do.

They have the right to believe things you don't like. They have the right to say so. They have the right to criticize you for doing things they don't like. They don't have the right to stop you.

 

[otello]

1. e4 d5

2. exd5 Qxd5
3. Nc3 Qa5
4. d4 Nf6
5. Nf3 Bg4
6. h3 Bh5
7. g4 Bg6
8. Ne5 c6

9. h4

 

[GrandpaRox]

Tim's first great idea, win/win.

 

[gianmarco]

I don't think anyone is stopping you from criticizing bad ideas. I do think it's offensive to criticize people's religions because you disagree with their ideas. If you choose to offend people, that's your call.

You have the right to be an atheist. You have the right to believe that religious people are wrong. You have the right to say so. You don't have the right to prevent them from doing what they want to do.

They have the right to believe things you don't like. They have the right to say so. They have the right to criticize you for doing things they don't like. They don't have the right to stop you.

Right.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I don't think anyone is stopping you from criticizing bad ideas. I do think it's offensive to criticize people's religions because you disagree with their ideas. If you choose to offend people, that's your call.

You have the right to be an atheist. You have the right to believe that religious people are wrong. You have the right to say so. You don't have the right to prevent them from doing what they want to do.

They have the right to believe things you don't like. They have the right to say so. They have the right to criticize you for doing things they don't like. They don't have the right to stop you.

The bolded is the only part I disagree with. The rest is spot on.

 

[Slapdash]

Who's alias is Reginald?

 

[bostonfred]

I don't think anyone is stopping you from criticizing bad ideas. I do think it's offensive to criticize people's religions because you disagree with their ideas. If you choose to offend people, that's your call.

You have the right to be an atheist. You have the right to believe that religious people are wrong. You have the right to say so. You don't have the right to prevent them from doing what they want to do.

They have the right to believe things you don't like. They have the right to say so. They have the right to criticize you for doing things they don't like. They don't have the right to stop you.

The bolded is the only part I disagree with. The rest is spot on.

That's pretty tone deaf of you if it's true, but I think you're just misspeaking. Of course it's offensive to crocuses someone's religion. Offense is taken by the receiver of the message, whether it's intended by the sender or not. And I assure you that most religious people take offense to criticism of their firmly held beliefs.(note that last bit as I don't mean all Christians are offended by all criticism of Christianity, but would be offended if you criticized the things they actually believed. You can criticize new earth creationism all day and not bother most Christians I've met)

I think what you mean to say is that you know you're offending people, but you don't care because you look down on them. I would agree with that statement and defend your right to say so, but that doesn't make it much less offensive than your example of someone who doesn't believe homosexuals should exist.

It's human nature for people to think they're better than one another. Sad but true.