Social Question

ETpro's avatar

Is tolerance a positive or negative value?

Asked by ETpro (34202 points ) August 26th, 2010

Religious tolerance, sexual orientation, marriage equality, racial makeup, ethnic background, male versus female, conservative versus liberal, South versus North, rural versus urban… I could go on and on listing ways people divide themselves. Some seem to actively encourage these divisions, while others busy themselves tearing them down. Who do you think has the higher moral ground?

Lest someone go there, I am not talking here about anything goes versus reasonable limits. No reasonable person should tolerate behavior that damages others needlessly. Being a tolerant person does not mean condoning child abuse, rape, murder, theft, etc. Claiming you must oppose all diversity outside your own group or you embrace every behavior no matter how evil is an obvious false dichotomy set up to excuse intolerant behavior. What we are talking about here is tolerance of things that are not crimes and have no victims.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

189 Answers

kess's avatar

Tolerance a somewhat confusing term i think.

To me it mean learning/trying to cope with something that you consider as negative.
A better way is to see things from another perspective, while trying to see the good in all things, whether they be negative or positive.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

Mostly I think of it in a negative way because I believe that people shouldn’t simply tolerate that which they’re uncomfortable with (like if they’re homophobic) because that’s condescending and instead they should practice acceptance or at least voice their true opinions and not be cowards.

MRSHINYSHOES's avatar

It’s only positive until what’s being tolerated becomes intolerable, and sometimes it doesn’t take much to tip the scale in favor of intolerance. For example, I can tolerate and even enjoy Canadian winters most years, but when they drag past April some years they become a curse. Lol. And I’m sure even the most level-headed individual can apply this analogy to some of the human rights issues you mentioned. ;)

Trillian's avatar

I put it in the category of “live and let live”. I won’t try to impose my views on you and force you to live according to my ideals, and you grant me the same courtesy.

rebbel's avatar

@ETpro is the first Jelly who is going to receive the Tag Award!

marinelife's avatar

Imbuing the views and outlooks of others with the same consideration as you do your own is a positive trait.

It breaks down the divisions that fear of differentness imposes.

TexasDude's avatar

Tolerance != Acceptance or validation

Many people tend to forget this.

That said, I will tolerate anyone as long as they extend the same benefit to me.

Dr_Lawrence's avatar

I tend to avoid the confusion between the notion of putting up with other’s behaviour versus accepting that other’s are free to choose any behaviours that do no harm to others by emphasizing my respect for others and their ability to choose what is right for them. It is a sad commentary that tolerance should ever have come to suggest something other than a positive thing.

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

You can chalk up one more for tolerance being a positive thing. Like @Trillian, I believe in live and let live. Tolerance not only allows lawful diversity of ideas and expression. It also opens the door to acceptance.

CaptainHarley's avatar

We have always been tribal, and if we can’t be genetically tribal, we will find some other way. This has both positive and negative implications.

BoBo1946's avatar

Tolerance is the secret to all relationships. a good thing is to be tolerant!

Pandora's avatar

Without tolerance we would never get anything done. We would be too busy pushing our own agendas and beliefs all the time to do anything else, like living. And talk about stress levels going through the roof.
It would be impossible to have full acceptance on any issue by all. We would all have to be clones of each others. Plus hate is easy, love for the world, not so easy.
So tolerance is neither good nor bad. Its just limbo.

CaptainHarley's avatar

“Plus hate is easy, love for the world, not so easy.”

That depends upon what you allow to take up residence in your own heart.

Pandora's avatar

@CaptainHarley True, but loving everyone is an impossible task. You will always find some people who are just not lovable. You may not even hate them but you can’t find it in your heart to love hateful people. That is where tolerance comes in.

CaptainHarley's avatar

Nothing living is un-beautiful. Loving those who hate comes with practice.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

ET, why oh why do you ask such dangerous questions that will ultimately get me into a lot of trouble? I thought we were friends.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard “Tolerance != Acceptance or validation… Many people tend to forget this.”

I see it differently. I tolerate my alcoholic uncle, but acceptance comes in two flavors. I tolerate him out of love and respect for my family, and in this way I accept that he is a part of my family legacy. But I do not in any way accept his behavior as beneficial to society. If I did, it would validate his alcoholism. I will not validate his alcoholism because alcoholism cannot validate itself. Alcoholics seek the validation of others because they cannot validate themselves upon their own merit. If everyone was an alcoholic, we wouldn’t function as a society. So fine, be an alcoholic, but don’t expect me to tolerate or accept drunk driving just so he can validate his life choices.

OK, here’s where I get into trouble. But before I do, let me make a prediction that I will be vulgarly attacked simply for voicing my opinion, in the very same way that others cry intolerance against those who attack them for their lifestyle choices.

This is not an attack. It is merely an observation.

The issue of Gay Marriage has been completely misrepresented by both sides of the issue. Gay Marriage is leap frog issue that seeks to provide validation to a lifestyle that cannot validate itself upon its own merit.

Let the hate mail begin. But in the process, consider the merits of what I propose. I tolerate and accept my homosexual friends. I provide employment for them. I socialize with them and was never once concerned with having them babysit my children. I’ve had lifelong relationships with many homosexuals and have worked with terminal AIDS patients. But the fact of the matter is, no matter how good of friends we are, I cannot come to an admission that homosexuality has any ability to validate itself upon its own merit. If we were all homosexuals, then none of us would be here. That’s why Gay Marriage is sought so desperately. Homosexuality cannot validate itself and thus seeks the validation of another established longstanding institution. And that’s why comparing Homosexuality to a Race issue is a convenient but invalid argument. If we were all Chinese, or Black, or even Muslim, we would all be surviving just fine. Homosexuality cannot make that claim.

Let the hate mail begin. That’s all I have to say about it. No replies will be offered for debate. Just remember that your hate mail will turn you into a parody of the fanatics that you cry intolerance from.

My duty and gift as a human being is to tolerate and accept that there are homosexuals in this world who deserve my love as a fellow human being. But that love does not require me to deceptively validate a lifestyle which cannot validate itself upon its own merit. It’s nothing to do with morals or authority of G whatsoever. It’s a simple observation that we never hear discussed openly from this perspective. I sincerely hope not to have offended anyone. I’m quite sure however, that I have. Sorry.

I wonder how much tolerance will be shown for an opposing point of view.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

No hate mail from me, just questions. How does something validate itself? And what constitutes validity?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

From my perspective, validation must be self perpetuating with no reliance upon outside influence or aid.

Actions and Conditions are validated by their end result of benefiting society at large. Healthy eating is a self validating action. Charity is a self validating action. Exercise is a self validating action. Tan skin is a self validating condition for certain climates. They need not muster validation from other actions or conditions which do validate themselves upon their own merit.

CaptainHarley's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

Inner-directed are we? : D

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Not sure what you mean by that. My position is based upon actions and conditions that validate themselves for society at large, not the individual. I certainly have some personal inclinations that I don’t feel are valid either. Nobody is perfect… especially me.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Okay, I admit it… I have no idea what you’re talking about. :-)

It’s almost midnight here, and I think I need to get some sleep…

CaptainHarley's avatar

cf. David Riesman’s The Lonely Crowd

DominicX's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

Oh, stop being so pretentious. We get it. You’re controversial and edgy and you like it. Why don’t you wait for people to actually respond to you before you predict what their responses will be like?

CaptainHarley's avatar

Inner directed: “Guided in thought and behavior by one’s own set of values rather than societal standards or norms.”

ETpro's avatar

To all who have answered, thank you very much. Many GA awards handed out.

Your answers have opened my eyes to how important definitions are. I probably should have started with a dictionary definition of “Tolerance” in the details of the question. Those who know me will know that I believe that we should rely on a good dictionary for what words mean. I believe communication breaks down completely when each of us holds to our own pet meaning for our words.

So The Merriam-Webster Dictionary says (With meanings within the scope of this context emphasized):
Definition of TOLERANCE
1
: capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina
2
a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own
b : the act of allowing something : toleration
3
: the allowable deviation from a standard; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece
4
a (1) : the capacity of the body to endure or become less responsive to a substance (as a drug) or a physiological insult especially with repeated use or exposure <developed a tolerance to painkillers>; also : the immunological state marked by unresponsiveness to a specific antigen (2) : relative capacity of an organism to grow or thrive when subjected to an unfavorable environmental factor
b : the maximum amount of a pesticide residue that may lawfully remain on or in food

Now, within that meaning, you can either be pro tolerance, pro intolerance, or have no opinion.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies You must know me well enough to know I can disagree without being disagreeable. I reject your assessment that an Earth populated by homosexuals would fail to reproduce. Most homosexuals feel the same pangs for children that heterosexuals do, and they are certainly aware of how to arrange to have children. I have known many that did. So by your own definition of self validation, they can and do self validate.

I further disagree that what they are looking for is validation from others. They are looking for what our Constitution guarantees, equal treatment under the law. Marriage confers tax, property inheritance, visitation and other rights that all committed couples should legally be able to enjoy.

Finally, I disagree that tolerance for GLBT rights is completely different from tolerance of ones race. This assumes that race is determined at birth but homosexuality is a conscious decision. Everything we have learned about homosexuality says that is not the case. People seem to be born gay just as certainly as they are born white or black or Asian.

Finally, I think you tolerate your alcoholic uncle per the 1st meaing, which I deemphasized. Alcoholism is not a benign behavior. At best, it slowly kills the alcoholic even if they never venture outside their home drunk and never hurt anyone else except through their diminished capacity due to alcohol abuse. Getting behind the wheel of a car drunk is certainly not a victimless crime.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@DominicX Because I’ve seen how others respond to this issue in the past. I most often avoid it altogether.

@CaptainHarley Is that a bad thing?

DominicX's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

What criteria does a lifestyle have to meet in order for it to be considered “valid”? Celibate people don’t propogate the species. If we were all celibate, society would not be able to continue. Does that mean that a life of celibacy is not “valid”?

Furthermore, you make the assumption that if we were all homosexual, none of us would be here. Why? Homosexuals can still reproduce. They have the capability of reproducing. If we were all homosexual, we would still have male and female reproductive organs that could reproduce and we would.

TexasDude's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, you misunderstood me. != is a symbol representing “does not equal to”

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@ETpro Though I’m unaware of a Gay gene, I do not propose to know or even care if Homosexuality is a choice or condition of birth. I don’t think that even matters. I’ve stated in the past that Homosexuals should be given every right that Hetero Marriage provides. No problem with that. An Earth of today could possibly survive, and thus there is an argument there. Perhaps an evolution of humanity.

One of my friends believes that Homosexuality is actually required and Natural Selection brings it to the forefront during times of overpopulation. There are many deep scientific considerations beyond what we hear on sound bites and adhoc arguments.

But you cannot deny that the possibility for a self perpetuating Homosexual species would have never gotten us this far. Only very recent science could provide that solution, and I wonder if it really could actually. Worth considering.

@DominicX No, celibacy is not a permanent valid lifestyle. Yet it is definitely a choice which can be changed. I’m an example of that. Regardless, those who pursue celibacy are not attempting to validate their life choice/condition upon the merit of any other established institution.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard Thanks for clearing that up. My apology.

DominicX's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

I don’t know about you, but I don’t care about “validating” homosexuality. My support for gay marriage derives from the fact that there is no reason why gay marriage should not be allowed beyond religious arguments of sentiment. We are not a theocracy and marriage is not strictly a religious institution, therefore the religious argument holds no water for me.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I agree. I don’t argue against Gay Marriage from a religious stance.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

In fact, you can find many quotes from me that directly accuse religion of being pure evil. I’ve certainly never made those claims about anyone else… meh, perhaps corporations and gov.

ETpro's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies “But you cannot deny that the possibility for a self perpetuating Homosexual species would have never gotten us this far. Only very recent science could provide that solution, and I wonder if it really could actually. Worth considering.”

No, I don’t have to admit that at all. Even for homosexuals, the same perennial nasty dance that heterosexuals use to make babies works just fine. Most are quite capable of “doing it” just to make a baby, not for love. And that is how all the friends I know that had babies did it. No modern fertility clinics needed. The missionary position and a few tries, and they were on their way to parenthood.

Also, the idea that allowing gay marriage would suddenly cause gayness to become epidemic is specious and I am sure you know this. Such an argument was made here in Massachusetts in the attempt to use a voter referendum to undue the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage. We have enough history behind us now to know that was a bald-faced religious lie. It hasn’t changed the percentages of gav to straight people one iota. I certainly didn’t divorce my wife of 35 years and go marry some guy just because I suddenly could.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

How does a homosexual male become aroused with a female enough to ensure inception? That’s an argument for bisexuality in reality, and homosexuality in name only.

DominicX's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

Not really. The physical act of stimulating the genitalia feels good, no matter who is doing it. It doesn’t mean that you are sexually attracted to the female, it just means that the physical feeling is arousing.

ETpro's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies How do all those heterosexual guys who are incarcerated suddenly find the asshole in the next cell attractive? Necessity, my good friend, is the mother of invention.

I think in truth we may have branched off from the progenitors of the bonobos and not the chimpanzees. Given the necessity, most of us are actually bisexual. Only those with a severe hatred of a particular form of sexual congress seem to chose celibacy over opportunistic breeding.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@DominicX
So, you believe that I could arouse myself to have sex with a male that I wasn’t attracted to?

@ETpro
That’s not necessity. What you describe is desire.

DominicX's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

You could, yes. I read a disturbing passage about a woman feeling sexual pleasure while being raped and hating herself for it. It doesn’t mean that she enjoyed being raped, just that the physical feelings caused by that kind of stimulation are undeniable. I’m gay. Very gay. Women do not sexually arouse me. But I can still be aroused by dirty dancing with a girl. Not because I’m attracted to them, but because the feeling itself arouses me physically.

I’m not saying it would be easy for it to happen, but it also depends on what your purpose is and what your attitude is. If a gay guy’s attitude is “the idea of having sex with a woman disgusts me and I’d rather do anything else but this”, it’ll probably be more difficult for him to be aroused enough to actually go through with it. If his attitude is “I’m not attracted to women, but I really want to make a baby”, it will probably be easier. Getting aroused by the sexual action doesn’t mean you’re necessarily attracted to the person, as I’ve said, it’s just the physical response to physical stimulation.

ETpro's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Call it whatever you like. The fact remains that in the general population, well less than 10% are gay, but in prison populations around 75% prefer homosexual relations to masturbation or abstinence..

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I remember seeing a movie about suffering Jewish Homosexuals in Nazi Germany. They were executed immediately upon not being capable of performing intercourse with a Jewish girl. They would line up the suspects, and force them to have sex with the woman on the spot. Those that couldn’t were shot.

I always wondered if this were true or not. I can’t imagine, even as a virile Hetero, being forced to perform at gunpoint with my life on the line.

Thanks for the conversation fellas. Your comments are considered with the greatest respect.

Good night.

ETpro's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I think in those circusstances as much as I like the opposite sex I would be a dead duck. I am sure many of the people they shot were heterosexual. But of course, to Nazis, they didn’t really care about their gender preference, they cared only that they were Jewish.

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies : You wrote, “Gay Marriage is leap frog issue that seeks to provide validation to a lifestyle that cannot validate itself upon its own merit.”

1. Leap frog issue to what end?

2. Using the word lifestyle implies that you believe homosexuality is a choice and not innate. I can assure you from personal experience of 47 years that I didn’t choose to be gay. I tried not to be. It didn’t work. I’ve heard innumerable stories like my own. Why would I choose to be part of a group that can be legally discriminated against in employment and housing in vast areas of the US and hunted and killed in many countries around the world?

3. About validation on its own merit you went on to write: “From my perspective, validation must be self perpetuating with no reliance upon outside influence or aid. Actions and Conditions are validated by their end result of benefiting society at large. Healthy eating is a self validating action. Charity is a self validating action. Exercise is a self validating action. Tan skin is a self validating condition for certain climates. They need not muster validation from other actions or conditions which do validate themselves upon their own merit.” All the actions you cite—healthy eating, charity, exercise, tan skin,—receive outside influence and aid, thus they fail your own criteria. While the perfectly natural act of love between two persons of the same sex does not rely on any outside influence or aid, and having two people love each other provides great benefit to society. It fits your definition of validation on its own merit.

Your opinion seems to be that homosexuals are somehow less than equal and should not enjoy all the freedoms and rights of US citizenship. You write that you tolerate and accept homosexuality, but that it’s an unworthy lifestyle because it cannot validate itself in your eyes. And you list all your good deeds.

You write that you tolerate and accept your homosexual friends, but I see none of that here. In fact, I see bigotry masquerading as lofty language. I see narrow-mindedness parading as careful thought. I also see bias, prejudice, and chauvinism. I see all these things wrapped in the flag of freedom of thought.

You tell us of a movie about the persecution of homosexual Jews by the Nazis, and their forced copulation or failure and execution, a horrific scene to be sure. You yourself, “a virile Hetero,” can’t imagine having to perform sexually under such conditions. Why “virile Hetero”? Can’t homosexual men also be virile? But I digress, we were discussing the Nazis whom every good person reviles. You had to bring in the Nazis. Is it to distract us?

You mask your hatred of homosexuals with words, and that mask is very thin.

augustlan's avatar

To the original question, I’m going to throw away the word ‘tolerance’ in my answer because we’ve just seen how ‘tolerance’ can be construed.

Instead, I’ll replace it with words like love, compassion, and empathy for your fellow human beings. Would anyone argue that those are negative traits? I can’t imagine they would. If one possesses these values, how does one deny anyone the right to pursue happiness which does no harm? Honestly, it baffles me.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Fact from fiction, truth from diction. As you were rightly so, as presented by a recent question of mine freedom of speech is not really free. Certain things like Gay issues and marriage you can’t mention unless to validate it as for lack of a better word normal.

But before I do, let me make a prediction that I will be vulgarly attacked simply for voicing my opinion, in the very same way that others cry intolerance against those who attack them for their lifestyle choices. Logically I could have bet my donuts to someone’s dollars that you could not say what you believed and have understanding. Now your words might be tolerated only because they can’t physically get at you or because the moderators will kill off any attacks.

Gay Marriage is leap frog issue that seeks to provide validation to a lifestyle that cannot validate itself upon its own merit. At its core that can be a very logical statement. In nature mating happen way more often between male and female of the species, there might be exceptions where male has sex with males or visa versa but it is all chemical not love or passion. If we were all homosexuals, then none of us would be here. Another valid point. The only way life would continue if in the morning everyone all over the world was Gay and there were no heterosexual people would be for some to many Gays to act heterosexual, but as a straight man I don’t have to act Gay to have a relationship that will produce children. Surely that logic is as clear as Mt Rushmore on a bright sunny day.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies My duty and gift as a human being is to tolerate and accept that there are homosexuals in this world who deserve my love as a fellow human being. But that love does not require me to deceptively validate a lifestyle which cannot validate itself upon its own merit. To not accept anything does not lend itself to saying what or who you disagree with is in some way grotesque. People seem to think that if you disagree with homosexuality that somehow Gays are hated. One may not like guns but the Constitution says you can have them so those who hate guns have to put up with it, it don’t mean those who have guns are murderous thugs simply because they own them.

@DominicX Why don’t you wait for people to actually respond to you before you predict what their responses will be like There are some things you can logically deduct without having to wait. If I walked into a mosque and yelled “You %&$* rag heads are all terrorist!” I know what the response will be and it won’t be pleasant. I hardly think any of them will ask me to sit and explain it over tea.

My support for gay marriage derives from the fact that there is no reason why gay marriage should not be allowed beyond religious arguments of sentiment. One could say that Gay marriages should be supported _only when everyone has a seat at the table. As Dick Cheney said and he hardly ever says anything that makes sense that he favored “Any kind of union they wish. Any kind of configuration they wish”. So, to be totally fair siblings who choose to couple up as well as polygamous unions have to have a seat at the relationship buffet or leave it be.

The physical act of stimulating the genitalia feels good, no matter who is doing it. You certainly got better junk than I do. The only reason it will even rise, and stay rose, is if there is some excitement or titillation in the brain and if certain women I never found attractive couldn’t raise the mast NO man could, and he could not get near it unless I was tied down and could not move.

@ETpro Most homosexuals feel the same pangs for children that heterosexuals do, and they are certainly aware of how to arrange to have children. I have known many that did. So by your own definition of self validation, they can and do self validate. Again, if just off the mechanics of it they can’t, they would have to engage the opposite sex to procreate, now one can say it is just a mechanical act same as a John with a hooker, no love just a means to an end, but straight couples do not have to break ranks, if even just soulless mechanically to bring forth a child. That would be calling a car that has an electric engine but needs a gas engine to provide the power to the batteries a valid electrical car in the full sense it needs nothing but electric to run, no help of anything else.

Everything we have learned about homosexuality says that is not the case. People seem to be born gay just as certainly as they are born white or black or Asian. 1st off I respect most of what you say because you are a straight shooter and quite logical, however, I disagree with that and even though I am also offended by it I laud your freedom to say it. There is a difference. There have been many unions that produced kids or lasted many years where all of a sudden one of the people in it discovered the reason they could not fully be happy was because they really wanted to be with the same sex and not the opposite sex they married. Or they date the opposite sex, then the same sex, then go back to the opposite sex and visa versa; Anne Heche quickly comes to mind, but I could not one day believe my life was left unfulfilled because I was really Hispanic and decided to live like that and be believed biologically and societally as a Hispanic, Asian or anything else. I could in my head and mind but never could switch up and change because I felt who or where I am no longer suited me; it is not the same and if I could have you walk through my life’s shoes you would know what I am talking about.

How do all those heterosexual guys who are incarcerated suddenly find the asshole in the next cell attractive? I guess some figure they can’t get the real thing anymore so in their mind muster enough imagination to make some guy’s anus equal to a vagina; the mind can be made to do many things if pushed. People don’t grow up to be torturers but they acquire the skill for it.

Neutral's avatar

Tolerance is a self-contradictory principle. It is self-contradictory because it is reflexive. That is, as a principle it acts upon itself, or it includes itself in its scope. As a principle, tolerance dictates that we must be tolerant of everything. We cannot pick and choose what we will tolerate and what we will not. If this is so, then tolerance requires us to tolerate even intolerance. Thus, if somebody is preaching or practicing intolerance, the tolerant person cannot, in principle, speak out against what the intolerant person is doing, since speaking out against intolerance would itself be an act of intolerance. In other words, the principle of tolerance requires us to grant intolerant people the right to be intolerant. This is clearly self-contradictory, since tolerance cannot condone what it specifically sets out to be against (intolerance), but it nevertheless requires itself, logically, to do just that. Tolerance as a principle, then, is clearly illogical, and therefore, irrational.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@hawaii_jake “leap frog to what end?”

To the end of achieving validation for a lifestyle which cannot validate itself upon its own merit.

I’d be happy to exchange the word “lifestyle” for one of your suggestion. No reason to read so much into my wording beyond what I stated. What would you have me classify Homosexuality as if not a lifestyle? A disposition perhaps? An inclination? How about an orientation?

You will note that I never used the word preference. As I said before, it doesn’t matter to me if it’s a choice or not. However, although I appreciate the assurances from your personal experience that Homosexuality is indeed innate, I’m not quite ready to accept that conclusion as fact until there is scientific evidence to support it. Nor am I willing to accept that an innate condition/orientation is automatically validated upon its innateness. Science has in fact shown us this is false, for some people are innately born with AIDS or as Addicts. Certainly this does not validate AIDS or Addictions merely on the basis of being born onto it.

You are more concerned with the cause of Homosexuality than I ever will be. That in itself may be a subconscious search for validation. You are entitled to search for validation. We all do. I search for validation all the time in numerous arenas in my life from how the children are raised to what business decisions I’ve made. I’m not always pleased with the answers I get.

I will entertain your accusations of my masked hatred against Homosexuals when you can provide me with an example of where I have spoken out against them in hatred. I give you all of my comments on fluther since I’ve been a member. You will find numerous examples of me defending Homosexuals, but none where I spoke badly of them. Just because I’m against Gay Marriage doesn’t automatically ensure my supposed hatred for anyone.

Alas, your inclination to isolate my comments of “virile hatero”, and leaping to tacit assumptions of non inclusive “virile homo” acts only to unviel your own intollerance against those who would deny you of what you seek. It reminds me of how downright mean my alcoholic uncle gets when I refuse to allow him to drive home when drunk.

ETpro's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central You seem to be in argumentive mode. First you clearly tell @RealEyesRealizeRealLies that you never decided to be gay, that you were born that way. Then when I make the case that sexual preference appears to be an inborn trait and not a decision, you get offended and maintain that no, it is a decision. You can’t have it both ways.

@Neutral I debunked the false dichotomy of being tolerant requiring that we welcome murder and mayhem right in the explanation of the question. I further provided the dictionary definition of the word here. Reading that, you should see that your premise is a false dichotomy. Finally, if tolerance is bad, is intolerance then good? I am not persuaded by your argument, but welcome you to Fluther, nonetheless. :-)

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies : You ask me to supply you with a word to substitute for lifestyle to describe homosexuality, and you offer some examples. I’ll take orientation. Then in the next paragraph, you tell me you are not “willing to accept that an innate condition/orientation is automatically validated upon its innateness,” because you go on to talk about diseases that some people are born with. Do you realize that you are implying homosexuality is a disease one is born with?

In the next paragraph, you psychoanalyze me. Thank you. I’ve been in therapy for years and have never had it put so succinctly. Once again, let me assert that I have no reason to wonder about the cause of homosexuality. I know what causes it. I was born this way.

In the penultimate paragraph, you assure me that you don’t hate homosexuals despite your opposition to gay marriage. And in the final paragraph, I become intolerant against those who would deny me what I seek. Yes, I am intolerant—as the OP writes—against “behavior that damages others needlessly.” My inability to marry in my own state damages me needlessly. Denial of my right to work solely based on my sexual orientation in great swaths of the US damages me needlessly. Denial of housing in the same areas damages me needlessly. Denial of rights to make medical decisions for my partner in emergencies damages me needlessly. There are more than 1100 rights given to married couples at the federal level alone that I am denied because I can’t marry. That fact damages me needlessly.

Neutral's avatar

@ETpro,

Your interpretation of tolerance is that it’s conditional? Whenever you feel like it?

Dictionary.com

tol·er·ance –noun

1.a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.

2.a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.

3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one’s own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

4. the act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited.

Princeton

tolerance (the power or capacity of an organism to tolerate unfavorable environmental conditions)

permissiveness, tolerance (a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior)
tolerance (the act of tolerating something)

tolerance (willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others)

allowance, leeway, margin, tolerance (a permissible difference; allowing some freedom to move within limits)

Now, that we have definitions, everything I said makes perfect sense, and thus, you didn’t debunk anything because it can’t work that way. Why else do you think many philosophers, for example, such as Karl Popper, and John Rawls, tried to tackle this issue? Are you saying they’re all naive? It’s a well known paradox

ETpro's avatar

@Neutral The meaning of tolerance in this discussion was fixed in the details provided with the OP. We are not talking, for instance, about drug tolerance, or endurance to pain. We are talking about tolerance as defined in definitions 1 -3 of Dictionary.com but specifically excluding tolerance of behaviors or idea that cause harm to others. And thus, if you insist you stand against tolerance, then you stand for intollerance, as in:

Not being fair, objective, or having a permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; being a bigot.

Not being fair, objective, or maintaining a permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.

Not having an interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one’s own; Having an illiberal, dogmatic viewpoint

You can not have it both ways. The choice is yours.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@hawaii_jake You’re reading way too much into my comments. I said “some people” and used examples which defeated arguments of innateness being justification for validation. “Some people” are also born with super intelligence or specific gene mutations that decrease the likelihood of contracting specific diseases. But those examples don’t support the premise I was arguing against so there was no reason to mention them. I did however suggest that everyone searches for validation, and gave non offensive examples to support that. However, those examples are matters of choice, and less valid to compare with your position of innateness.

And as I’ve said previously, I’m all for granting equal rights. I don’t want you to suffer. I’m all for you creating another institution that ensures even more rights than traditional Marriage. But let it be based upon its own merit and earned heritage. Develop your own traditions. Set your own standards. But call it something else, because it is something else.

Neutral's avatar

Intolerance as a principle does not require us to be consistently and universally intolerant. It affords us the option of being tolerant if we so choose, and intolerant whenever it pleases us to be so. This is straightforward and clear-cut, and one has no difficulty following this principle in living one’s life. The intolerant person’s simple motto is: “I like the things I like and I hate the things I hate, and I will hate the people who like the things I hate, and I will make that hate known to them in no uncertain terms.”

DominicX's avatar

@Neutral

Tolerance is not irrational, because isn’t an “all-or-nothing” concept. I bring this up every time someone brings up the concept of intolerance. I’m intolerant of genocide. I don’t support it. I will never condone it. People responsible for it should die to save the lives of the people they would kill. I’m completely and 100% intolerant of genocide. Does that make me a horrible person? Everyone is intolerant of something. What tolerance means to me is putting up with those you disagree with. I can put up with conservatives and religious fanatics as long as they don’t try to infringe upon my freedom. I can tolerate them until they cross the line where they try to push their freedom further than where their fist strikes my nose.

@Hypocrisy_Central

So, to be totally fair siblings who choose to couple up as well as polygamous unions have to have a seat at the relationship buffet or leave it be.

Please explain how you come to this conclusion. Homosexuality does not logically imply incest and polygamy follow next. Where do you get the idea that incest and polygamy must be allowed if gay marriage is allowed? We are talking about two consenting unrelated adults. Straight marriage and gay marriage both fall under those categories. Polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage, bestial marriage, pedophile marriage, etc.—none of those fall under that category.

The only reason it will even rise, and stay rose, is if there is some excitement or titillation in the brain and if certain women I never found attractive couldn’t raise the mast NO man could, and he could not get near it unless I was tied down and could not move.

Do you have any scientific evidence to support that? I’m basing this off my own personal experience dirty dancing with girls that I am not attracted to, but the physical action allows me to be aroused. Of course it would be much better if it was a guy. You know that sometimes people actually fantasize about the sex they are attracted to in those situations. Hence the homosexual acts in prisons. These people are not homosexual. But they are still engaging in these acts. Some of them are probably pretending they’re having sex with a woman.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

I still don’t understand your argument against gay marriage. It shouldn’t be allowed because homosexuality can’t validate itself? What kind of argument is that? It should be allowed on principle. There is no reason not to allow two consenting unrelated adults to marry each other. Why do you believe they should not marry?

You say it’s not the same thing so we need to call it something else. That’s a traditionalist argument. It is the same thing. The only difference is the gender of the persons involved. We are not asking any church to perform gay marriages if they want to. Marriage is not exclusively a religious institution; this is not a theocracy. Marriage can be secular and we are asking for gay marriages to be allowed.

Should marriage exist to propagate the species? Marriage is not needed for procreation. People can still procreate outside of marriage. Additionally, there are straight couples out there who do not have children once they marry. Should they not be allowed to marry? Then it could just be about the potential to have kids. Why? Why does marriage need to be tied to the potential for procreation? Why do you set this arbitrary distinction? What negativity will come if we allow gay people to marry? It sounds like me that you just don’t want to change a long-standing tradition. Trying to fit biological science into this is not really working. Marriage is a secular social issue.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

“It is the same thing. The only difference is…”

So it’s not the same thing.

Marriage is intended to promote and propagate bloodlines and family lineage. It is an institution designed around that one specific foundation. Again, it is not a religious argument whatsoever. Homosexuality by definition is the end of bloodline and family lineage. It does not meet the qualifications for the institution of marriage.

But that is no reason to deny equal rights to Homosexual unions. If it is a rights issue, then equal rights should be enough. But it’s not enough, because Homosexuals want more than equal rights. They want validation.

DominicX's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

But what negativity would come of allowing gay marriages? Institutions change. Why can’t this one? Some states and areas around the world have already decided they can change it and they have. Why are they doing wrong?

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@ETpro *that you never decided to be gay, that you were born that way. Perhaps I was not quite clear the two basic points I was making was that as a straight man to procreate and have a child in my union I do not have to resort to doing a Gay act. If I were Gay I would have to resort to doing an unGay act of having sex with the opposite sex to conceive one. That Gay procreation cannot happen totally in the mechanical or clinical sense of homosexuality.

2nd, Gay is not like race at all. I can take 6 guys and toss Gray flannel suits on them and no one who did not know them could tell which was Gay or straight. You might get a hint who was depending which bar they went into and who they had on their arm when they did it. Take 5 Hispanic guys or Asian guys etc and myself and toss Gray flannel suits on us and no one would mistaken me for Asian or Hispanic. I could not “pass” for Asian just because I learn Cantonese. A Gay Asian, Hispanic, or white man, etc, could pass for straight, he has some leggy arm candy and don’t kiss other men in public no one would know his secret until he “came out”. If he wanted to perpetuate the ideal he was straight he could even marry the arm candy and use her as his beard. If I married a white woman, Hispanic woman, etc I would still be seen as Black and not mistaken for anything else. I have no choice in appearance or race and can’t mask or hide it to “fit in” at the office or the bowling league, etc. I have no beards I can use. Being Gay is far from being a particular race. Sorry if that seem like an argument, it wasn’t just a clarification of the glaring differences. Its all good……..

DominicX's avatar

Laws are created in a rational manner to keep citizens from doing something that would be detrimental to the society. There is not a rational reason why gay marriage deserves to be illegal. Gay marriage is not detrimental to society. If gay marriage were allowed, straight people would still marry, still have children, and still pass on their bloodline.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Because people typically buy into the emotional side of any argument if forced to endure it long enough. Society is suffering from some strange inclination of thinking that “tolerance” is a way of doing my good deed for the day. It’s the easy way out.

Empathy is a powerful tool, yet misguided empathy is false empathy.

Harm comes in many flavors. Sure hetero’s would still marry, but when society promotes Homosexual Marriage as the same as Hetero, when it does not result in the same essential benefit to society at large, then that is a deception that society has put upon itself.

We learned this at a very early age on Sesame Street. Remember the skit, “Two of these things are not like the other…”. We would do well to continue to acknowledge that base foundation of logic and reason. Otherwise society becomes unreasonable.

Keep in mind, that SS skit never once stated that any of those things was any worse or better than another… just different.

DominicX's avatar

but when society promotes Homosexual Marriage as the same as Hetero, when it does not result in the same essential benefit to society at large, then that is a deception that society has put upon itself.

So? How does that negatively affect society in the long run?

We are changing the definition of marriage to say that it need not have the capability of procreation.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Society should not have to exist under any form of deception whatsoever. Deception is the very foundation for most of the problems we endure to this day.

In the long run, if society claims that Homosexuals and Heterosexuals are exactly the same, I’ll make an unqualified prediction that our youth will be more inclined to experiment with sexual orientations they would not otherwise have pursued. There are signs of this already, as young minds trying to find themselves are seduced by by lure of being set apart as unique in a false identity of Homosexuality, thus ending bloodlines and family heritage which otherwise would have survived.

As well, every stanchion of equality that the Homosexual yearns for should also be offered to Polygamy and Incestual Marriage. Why not?

Equal but not the same. It’s simple math. Even Einstein didn’t like how the math worked out sometimes. Homosexuals are free to establish their own institution based upon the merits of Homosexuality. I will fight for your freedom to do that. Anything more is deception masquerading as tolerance.

Sorry, I must go to work now and may be camping for the weekend. I’ll get back to this when I can.

DominicX's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

Oh dear. Here we go with the “gay marriage makes people gay”. Teenagers can experiment all they want, but unless they are truly gay, they are not. You don’t get to choose your sexual orientation. Many teens who label themselves as “bisexual” to be cool soon realize that they cannot keep up the charade. What they say cannot shape what their body feels. You can tell yourself you’re straight or gay all you want, but unless your body agrees with you, you won’t be. Straight children calling themselves “bi” or “gay” to seem “cool” are not going to become gay or bi. They are what they are. Most kids begin to figure their sexuality out during puberty. For some kids, it’s more obvious and for others, it isn’t. Some also argue that sexuality is on a scale and that we are all bisexual in some way. Some people are just closer to one end of the scale than the other. It’s during puberty that kids figure out where they fall on the scale. Saying you’re gay will not make you gay.

Again, if marriage is to continue the bloodline, then what of straight couples who choose not to have children? What of barren couples? You haven’t answered my question in that regard.

Separate but equal. The emphasis is on separate. Separate is a reminder of segregation.

I should probably drop this discussion as we have a fundamental misunderstanding.

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies : “In the long run, if society claims that Homosexuals and Heterosexuals are exactly the same, I’ll make an unqualified prediction that our youth will be more inclined to experiment with sexual orientations they would not otherwise have pursued.”

So the truth is out in plain sight. There is something wrong with being homosexual, and our children are to be protected from it in your opinion. If there was nothing wrong with it, then youthful experimentation, which has happened for millenia already, would be not be wrong.

Your ideas that marriage is for procreation are laughable. Times have changed. In the 21st century, marriage is about love. Love is the same between 2 consenting adults whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.

Neutral's avatar

@DominicX, @ETpro,

Alright, I thought about the paradox. The only way you can promote tolerance is to be intolerant of intolerable. In that case, I consider tolerance a negative value. Why should I have to tolerate the intolerable? Just as you don’t have to tolerate the intolerable. We can pick and choose freely. Personally, I would rather go with intolerance. It also affords us the option of being tolerant if we so choose, and intolerant whenever it pleases us to be so. “I like the things I like and I hate the things I hate, and I will hate the people who like the things I hate, and I will make that hate known to them in no uncertain terms.”

augustlan's avatar

I never understand this whole “marriage is for having children, therefore no gay marriage…blah blah blah” argument. Plenty of straight people marry with no intention or no ability to bear children. If that’s ‘allowed’, isn’t that hypocrisy?

ETpro's avatar

@Neutral I don’t know that you are a conservative or perhaps libertarian, but I am guessing you may be. I have noticed that conservatives often view things as absolutes. Something must be 100% or 0% and there is no middle ground. If you tolerate other races, or ethnic groups, then you must tolerate torture and war crimes and genocide and every other evil known to man. That’s obviously not true. I said in the original question and at numerous other points in this discussion that I am not asking if we should be tolerant of behaviors that harm others. Intolerance in the form of bigotry, racism, sexism, misogyny and so on all have victims. Such intolerance does harm others.

I respect your right to be intolerant if you wish, so long as you don’t act on that intolerance in ways that harm other people who have done you no wrong. So that undoes your supposed paradox. I can tolerate the intolerant while pointing to the fault of their stance. If you, let’s say, prefer to be a bigot, I can live and let live. I feel no need to have you arrested for your belief, or pass laws against you feeling that way. But I can also call out that bigotry and can try to persuade you that it you judge others unjustly, you are being unjust, and that the injustice will reflect back on you.

@Hypocrisy_Central You wrote: “So, to be totally fair siblings who choose to couple up as well as polygamous unions have to have a seat at the relationship buffet or leave it be.” Accepting same-sex marriage no more implies we must then accept incest and polygamy than accepting currently approved one-man-one-woman marriage does.

Incest tends to lead to birth defects being inbred. There is a victim—a very innocent victim—the potentially deformed child. Polygamy I personally can’t justify banning. In past times, it may have been associated with misogyny, as it was generally one man with many women, and often the women were not treated well. So perhaps women are the victim such a ban was meant to protect. But I suspect outlawing it in the US had more to do with religious prejudice toward Mormons than with any real danger it posed to any victim.

But still, allowing same-sex marriage does not equal having to allow polygamy. Denying homosexuals the right to marry leaves them treated unequally under the law. Denying the right to have multiple wives or husbands applies to all equally. They are not one and the same.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies :I have to agree with @hawaii_jake. The idea that we have to procreate as much as possible may have held merit even in the rather recent past, when infant mortality claimed most children before they reached their teens and death in childbirth ended many women’s breeding ability. But we are fast approaching 7 billion people on Earth. Our challenges now are more in how to feed all the hungry mouths and find enough clean water and arable land for them. Our challenges are how to keep them all from killing one another in wars of ruthless competition for resources.

Granted there is more than enough wealth on Earth to keep all in comfort, but we haven’t found any equitable, maintainable way to manage doing that. So long as single families like the Rothschilds and the Saudi Royal Family have a trillion dollars in their hands and feel they must have much more, I don’t see why we need to lobby for child manufacturing to be our top priority.

You know very well that permitting same-sex marriage is not going to cause the whole world to suddenly catch the gayness. With or without same-sex marriage, we’ll continue to breed far more than we can feed, and you know that just as well as I do.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

ETpro Accepting same-sex marriage no more implies we must then accept incest and polygamy than accepting currently approved one-man-one-woman marriage does. It doesn’t? Because there are civil unions no more implies that a community accepts a shake up of traditional marriage; but many beg to differ. Just because those who chose or desire to marry close relatives or have more than one wife (or maybe husband) are not heavily funded and politically savvy enough to garner the attention and support of vote whoring politicians who see them as a bloc of votes that will keep them in office or ascend them to higher office they be left from the banquet?

Incest tends to lead to birth defects being inbred. There is a victim—a very innocent victim—the potentially deformed child. To me that is a weak argument people have been using for years. If there was perpetual inbreeding over generations certain bad traits would be amplifies, but then again maybe desirable traits in some as well. That is the reason breeders inbreed to accentuate favorable coloring, markings etc. I had seen years ago on some news show like 20/20 (no I don’t remember which, but then again I am not a stat Nazi either) of the dilemma of sperm banks because 2 women in the same region used the same sperm bank and had children sired by the same man unknowing. Their kids grew up, met in college and fell in love though they were half siblings (they did not know) They married and had several healthy children when they discovered while one was trying to treat an illness, I think they needed an donor, that they were related. Shows that one generation at least there will be no baby with 3 heads or webbed feat, etc.

Denying homosexuals the right to marry leaves them treated unequally under the law. Denying the right to have multiple wives or husbands applies to all equally. They are not one and the same Traditionally over the course of time polygamous marriages were quite the norm, same sex marriages were not even on the radar. Not having Gay marriages is not treating them unequal when they have the equal equivalent on Domestic Partnerships. Polygamous have no equal at all. In the end polygamist have it worse because they not only have no equal equivalent but they can’t really ”come out of the closet” or risk being arrested. If Gays were threaten with jail (as in some other nations) there would be an uproar, even if shouted from off shore. Even though polygamist are denied their marriage though theirs are more traditional over the course of history even up to today. The arrangement is not the same, true, but the mechanics and tenants of it is totally the same.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies As well, every stanchion of equality that the Homosexual yearns for should also be offered to Polygamy and Incestual Marriage. Why not? I have some interesting thoughts on that. Years now I have yet to find any Gay person that wanted to stand shoulder to shoulder with their polygamous and incestuous brothers and sister to all gain the equality they feel they lack. Why not, you say? Because as much as people would want to leave the church or religion out of it, the only thing that would make them no want to embrace them is the ”yuck factor” the one the church as planted in the minds of most because incest is sinful, and polygamy is for heathens. Gay people seem to be grossed out seeing Sue and Ryan sharing pecks and caresses on a park bench when both are known to be brother and sister but don’t think the same yuck factor applies to others when Steve and Jake are doing the same. Because of this yuck factor I believe many Gays distance themselves from incestuous relations and from polygamy because of the press hype that many are created with young girls forced into arranged marriages with men old enough to be their father or almost grandfather (another layer of “yuck factor”). That is what I come to believe.

augustlan's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central While I personally would have no problem with any consenting adults marrying one another (whether it is two related people – as long as they don’t have children- or 16 unrelated people), it is still not the same issue as gay marriage. What @ETpro is saying is that all of us are denied polygamous/incestuous marriage, whether we are straight or gay. But right now only gay people are denied the right to marry the one person they love above all others, whom they are not related to. That is what makes it unequal treatment under the law.

ETpro's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central I cannot say it any clearer than @augustlan has. Same sex marriage does not compare directly to incest or to polygamy. Baring same sex marriage violates the most fundamental precept of our Constitution, that the laws be applied equally to all people. Baring incest and polygamy applies to everyone equally.

Baring same sex marriage compares much more directly to the archaic apartheid laws against “miscegenation” and I certainly hope none of us would defend such foolishness as that.

I tend to agree that the arguments against incest are weak. As I said earlier, if it were up to me, I’d permit both incest with limits on birth guided by modern genetic testing, and polygamy. I personally wouldn’t want more than one mate. Just getting along with one is challenge enough. But if someone else wants their own male or female harem, I don’t see how it harms me. But neither of these issues can rightly be conflated with the debate on same-sex marriage. Trying to link them is a persistent lie used by Christian leaders, who ought to pay more attention to the 9th of the Ten Commandments.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@hawaii_jake You seem set on exposing my secret hatred for Homosexuals. I fear you will not be satisfied until I am undone. It’s difficult having an intelligent discussion with one who accuses me of hatred by default of disagreement. Your reaction fits nicely with my earlier prediction.

If what you say is true, then no experimentation is necessary to discover one’s sexual orientation. You claim to be born that way, remember? Why would I encourage experimentation for someone’s sexuality when it has supposedly already been established? I certainly wouldn’t want to encourage experimentation at the risk of peer pressure misguiding a young mind either way. Am I also evil because I don’t promote Homosexuals to experiment with Heterosexuality? I couldn’t care less.

Love? Since when does marriage have anything to do with love? They used to be arranged without ever even meeting the partner. Marriage is a bloodline institution at its core foundation.

Far too many couples love one another without marriage to make anything close to that claim. And far too many married couples absolutely hate and despise one another. Justifying Homosexual Marriage in the name of love only serves to expose your true intentions friend… You want it in name only. You must, for I’ve promoted having completely equal or greater rights and still that’s not good enough (although that’s what you said you wanted at first). Now it’s love?

OK you got it! Instead of Homosexual Marriage, let’s create a new institution built completely upon the merits of how Homosexuals validate their sexual orientation to society. Let’s give them equal or greater rights as every Heterosexual Marriage on the planet, and while we’re at it, let’s present this new institution as the most sanctimonious expression of love that two people could ever convey towards one another, above and beyond traditional marriage.

Let’s call it Love Bond… or Love Union… or Love Unity… or whatever you like.

I’ve given you everything you request and more. But if that’s not good enough, and you still require the title of Marriage, then truly you want that institution for other reasons besides what I’ve offered you. If a Love Union is not good enough, then the only possible reason you would still insist upon Marriage is to glean the title, for that title validates a sexual orientation that cannot validate itself.

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies : I truly believe that my sexual orientation can and does validate itself. I believe that same-sex marriage benefits society. It promotes tolerance and feelings of good will between individuals. When persons previously opposed to same-sex marriage see that it works, they change their minds, as evidenced in the recent polls which now place support for same-sex marriage or civil unions at 70%.

ETpro's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Reversing the direction of discrimination does not right the wrong. When we finally got rid of the wrong of miscegenation laws, we didn’t do it by elevating interracial marriages above all others, nor did we do it by creating a “separate but equal” institution of mixed marriage. I am glad we did not go either of those directions, because both would have only changed one old wrong for a new one.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

DominicX's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

So, then what is the problem with experimentation? If experimentation is not going to change their orientation, what is the problem with it? You implied that gay marriage is bad because it “normalizes” homosexuality and would encourage poor innocent straight children to start experimenting with the “dark side”. I’m sorry, but that is what you implied and why @hawaii_jake responded the way they did. You circumvented explaining yourself by going along with @hawaii_jake‘s premise, but you didn’t explain yourself. So please do it.

You were implying that being gay is a choice and gay marriage’s “normalization” of homosexuality would cause more kids to choose to be gay because they think it’s cool, thus ending bloodlines. I explained that it doesn’t work that way.

And again, it’s not about “validation”. It’s about the government severing groups of people by the majority whim. The fact that you could have civil unions and marriage parallel one another while reserving one label, socially construed as being the worthier of the two labels, having one label for one group and the other label for the other group is no different than having separate facilities for people of different races. If private organizations want to discriminate, they are entitled to it, but not governments that are supposed to represent all of us.

And for the third time: What of couples that do not have children? What of barren couples?

ETpro's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I expect you can look for the Iniversal Declaration of Human Rights to eventually get updated to exclude gender specificity in marriage, but there will be a long wait before the more theocratic nations sign on to that.

We are, however, not governed by that document. We are governed by the US Constitution. the 14th Amendment of which states; “no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

All of us must bear the expense of government. If called, all of us must be willing to serve in its defense, even if that means laying down our lives for it. So all of us should be treated equally by government.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@DominicX “normalize” “dark side”... those are your words, not mine.

Experimentation in the truest sense must have a methodology. Experimentation seeks first to remove or account for all variables. Peer pressure, ego, and a search to distinguish one’s self as unique amongst peers are all variables that would be nearly impossible to remove. So in a social environment, the experimentation that you promote is not true experimentation. And the results of such an impure pursuit with no methodology should not be considered as reliable or trustworthy to base a sexual orientation upon. The word itself, “experimentation”, is used as a metaphor only.

I would be all for someone designing a genuine experiment that accounted for the variables mentioned above. This could truly do some good to assist young individuals in establishing and embracing their sexual orientation at an earlier age. It would most likely go a long way to setting collective consciousness of society at ease when attempting to judge this issue upon dogmatic perceptions. Genuine experimentation and real data could help in many ways. Perhaps first addressing commonly held notions of guilt and shame for those who discovered their sexual orientation was different from their family heritage.

@hawaii_jake “I truly believe that my sexual orientation can and does validate itself.”

Believe it or not, so do I, but not upon anything that addresses bloodline issues of traditional marriage.

I befriend and employ Homosexuals specifically because of their unique perspectives and talents. I am a fashion photographer of 30 years self employed. I can confidently say that the Homosexual men that I have had the pleasure of working with make the very best make up artists, hair stylists, clothing stylists, clothing designers and models beyond any group of Heterosexual men I’ve worked with.

The relationships I’ve built with Gays are specific to my industry. But society has benefited as well from great Homosexual Artists, Writers, Orators… And I cannot help but believe (without any real data to support it) but I cannot help believe that their sexual orientation has provided them with a most unique perspective on the world in which we live in, beyond the Hetero Male dominated viewpoint.

I believe that Homosexuals play a vital role in our society and the world in general is better off for them.

@hawaii_jake “It promotes tolerance and feelings of good will between individuals.”

Well, this entire thread is designed to determine if tolerance is a good thing or bad. And I’m sorry, but feelings are nothing to base changing society upon. Feelings come and go with the wind. Feelings are very unreliable.

DominicX's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

A person’s sexual orientation is not based upon that experimentation. The “experimentation” is how someone arrives at their sexual orientation. Whether or not people are born gay, a person’s sexuality is not necessarily set in stone from a young age. I didn’t have to “experiment”. I knew I was gay from the moment I was able to feel sexual attraction. It was very obvious to me. I’d never felt sexual attraction to females; I knew what my sexuality was from the get-go. But many kids do not. Many are told by society that they must feel attraction to the opposite sex to be “normal”, so they ignore feelings of attraction to the same sex. But when those feelings become too strong to ignore, they “experiment” with them and through that, they can determine what their true orientation is (and many of those people do not pick a “side” to be on. Many of them are bisexual).

My point is that gay marriage does not increase the amount of homosexuals. The amount of homosexuals does not change. What changes is the amount of homosexuals who are willing to admit it. In centuries past, admitting to being homosexual was akin to a death sentence or a life of being a pariah. That is no longer the case, in many areas of the world.

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies : The traditional marriage argument was recently decimated by the ruling in California that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. It simply doesn’t hold water in the 21st century America. Just because we’ve always done it that way is not a legal argument with any validity. It’s an opinion without law to back it up.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

augustlan While I personally would have no problem with any consenting adults marrying one another (whether it is two related people – as long as they don’t have children- or 16 unrelated people), it is still not the same issue as gay marriage. I applaud your thinking and candor on many issues I have seen you weigh in on, however, to suggest ”as long as they don’t have children” if I or anyone said that of Gays we would be labeled a bigot or something. If Gays should have the right to parent when it cannot be fully known what psychological impairments might come to some kids raised in a Gay household one cannot conclude a traditional appearing family where the parents are related or have 5 mommies can be that much worse.

_ But right now only gay people are denied the right to marry the one person they love above all others, whom they are not related to. Polygamist cannot legally marry the 2 or more people they want to marry so how are they gaining more on the legal front than Gays? And just because Gay people want to marry the _one person they believe to be in love with whether or not they are related as incestuous ones would be makes no difference. Trying to use the fact that “they are related” as to disqualify their desire to be with the one they love is really no different than what is proposed for Gays.

ETpro Baring same sex marriage violates the most fundamental precept of our Constitution, that the laws be applied equally to all people. Baring incest and polygamy applies to everyone equally. But if you strip away all the BS and get to the core of the logic it does. Because I have never heard the official name being ”Gay Marriage”, unless that was missed in the fine print. Same Sex Marriage applies to all. Nothing says two hetero men or women could not marry if the reason were as many allude to in male/female marriage that it was to consolidate power, wealth, status or position and not really for love; that means straight people could chose it if they wanted to, many I suspect just don’t want to. Gay people have married into traditional marriages. I believe Sir. Elton John married a woman once why, I don’t know, but he did and I figured it was not going to work. He as well as other Gays were never barred from marrying into the existing marriage configuration. So, not having same sex marriages even stops same sex hetero couples who might choose to use it.

As @ RealEyesRealizeRealLies says even now many marriages have little or no love so just to say we should have Gays under marriages because of love would mean that they are the de facto kings of a loving marriage. But the lynch pin is ”Marriage” there is really no validation of it unless the badge of marriage is affixed to the union. Susan Lucci is a great actress, nominated many years for an Emmy but never won it, she was always at the top of the heap and a frontrunner BUT until she won it she was not validated as being the great actress she always was, same with John Elway. He would have gone down as another Dan Fouts had he not won a Super Bowl. Dan was one of the greatest quarter backs to ever stop out on the gridiron but because he never got a Super Bowl ring he was never seen as the Hall of Famer he always was. If Gays were given every legal status of marriage but not the name then it is about the name validating the love that is suppose to need no validating.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@DominicX “Whether or not people are born gay, a person’s sexuality is not necessarily set in stone from a young age.”

You’ve lost me with that one. @Hypocrisy_Central suggests, that sexual orientation is determined at birth. So how is it that you claim, “The “experimentation” is how someone arrives at their sexual orientation.”? You guys should work this one out between yourselves.

As I said, I’m all for a genuine experiment conducted in the scientific method, from which a test could be developed and administered to youth to assist in determining sexual orientation from an early age. This test should be based upon experimentation that fully accounts for peer pressure, ego, and desire to distinguish one’s self as unique. Anything less is not a genuine experiment, and therefor would prove incapable of producing any reliable data to assist in the determination of sexual orientation.

I’m surprised you didn’t find my suggestion attractive, for it would settle all arguments and debates that claim Homosexuality is proportionally related to a boys relationship with his father, or how he copes with an overprotective mother in a fatherless upbringing. A test like this would also undermine the accusations that Homosexual influences can sway a naive youth one way or another. But the kind of experimentation that you suggest is quite unreliable as it is subject to too many external variables which are so often brushed aside as trifle.

DominicX's avatar

Lol, okay, we are on two different wavelengths…

Neutral's avatar

@ETpro,

Yes, I’m conservative and you seem to not understand how freedom of speech works. You can call me out and persuade all you want, but it doesn’t matter. You’re making freedom of speech into something conditional(“as long as it doesn’t harm”). The beauty of freedom of speech, is that I can simply hate for hates sake, or, perhaps out of personal distastes. If I choose otherwise, I can use logic, rationale, or even statistics to justify my bigotry which would then rule out any “calling out of me” or “injustice” I would do. Verbal harm is allowed. Physical harm is not. There is a difference. If you wish to fight the alteration of our freedom of speech, well, by all means, fight away, but expect me to be on the other end opposing you. Furthermore, I can call you out on the same unjustly judging behavior as you would to me. There is no end here. If you’re already fighting me over my ideology then you’re intolerant of the intolerable(me). Thus, if you’re going to be intolerant then so will I, in the same manner as you or any other of my choosing. You want to talk about unjustly, well, my dad is one of these corporations you so conspiratorially accuse of being unjust, when, it regards to legal terms, is perfectly allowed. What do you say further? “Oh, he’s keeping the the rest of the “poor”, “unfortunate” society down,” right?

ETpro's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Forgive me for butting into your debate with @augustlan but I had to answer this quote of yours. “If Gays should have the right to parent when it cannot be fully known what psychological impairments might come to some kids raised in a Gay household…” If it were true that we had reason to fear the impact of same-sex parenting, I would give credence to your point. However, it is false. Outcomes of parenting styles, healthy adjustment of children, grades in school, success in life are all measurable. They have been measured. Children reared by same sex parents do just fine. In fact, one recent study found children raised by lesbian couples were actually better adjusted than those from heterosexual households. I’ve no idea why. Perhaps they try harder.

I do not know if there are studies regarding polygamous households. Throughout most of history polygamy was acceptable. The Bible covers numerous examples, but also details household jealousies and difficulties with the children competing with one another. But since numerous lands still permit polygamy, it should be possible to study its impact of child adjustment as well.

Are you anxious to have the right to marry more than one person? If so, make the case for that being a reasonable thing for society to allow. Find out how kids in such families fare compared to those with two parents. But I stand my ground. It polygamy is verboten for all, and so cannot be viewed as an issue of inequality in the way prohibition of same-sex marriage is.

I cannot make sense of the dance of do they love each other or not. It’s spin and confusion, not a legitimate part of the issue of equal rights. Of course, if same-sex marriage is permissible, two heterosexuals may take advantage of it should they wish. Why should I or anyone but the two of them care? If two people want to marry each other because they dispise each other, again, I couldn’t care less. I see no reason to pass laws preventing it.

@Neutral I understand perfectly how freedom of speech works. I have done nothing to even attempt to infringe on yours. You are putting your words in my mouth, setting up a straw man to then skewer. Here is exactly what I said above.

“I respect your right to be intolerant if you wish, so long as you don’t act on that intolerance in ways that harm other people who have done you no wrong. So that undoes your supposed paradox. I can tolerate the intolerant while pointing to the fault of their stance. If you, let’s say, prefer to be a bigot, I can live and let live. I feel no need to have you arrested for your belief, or pass laws against you feeling that way. But I can also call out that bigotry and can try to persuade you that it you judge others unjustly, you are being unjust, and that the injustice will reflect back on you.”

Where in that did I say anything to even suggest I would threaten your freedom of speech? It isn’t there.

I only said that if you defend bigotry and hate, I will use my freedom of speech to expose that behavior to the world. Feel quite free to make your case for why you are so much better than other people. Feel free to define what group’s otherness you despise or find distasteful, and what rights you feel people just like you should enjoy that should be denied to them. I won’t try to stop you. In fact, I will welcome it.

As to your father being a corporation, that’s rather interesting. I own a business as well. I am not anti business. I am anti corporatocracy. I am against huge, multinational corporations taking over our government and shaping law to tilt the playing field only in favor of a handful of monopolies. I am against the return of the British East India company.

I am not sure what I wrote that led you to feel that I “conspiratorially accuse [corporations] of being unjust. Since you seem disposed to use straw man fallacies, this may be yet another of those. But If I did write something somewhere that suggested all corporations are evil please provide a link to it, because I do not believe any such thing and would like to correct anything I have written that would leave such an impression.

Neutral's avatar

@ETpro,

Are you blind?

“I respect your right to be intolerant if you wish,so long as you don’t act on that intolerance in ways that harm other people who have done you no wrong.

“So long you don’t act” << You don’t call that conditional?

You’re intolerant of the American legal system because my father and the other multinational corporations are legally considered individuals. Where do you come up with this “taking over” story and “shaping law”. All is done within legal means. You see anyone getting arrested? Thus, you’re unjust for speaking out such nonsense, hence, you’re intolerant. You’re answering your own question here. You choose tolerance as you see fit. Sometimes it serves a positive value to you, while other times intolerance is a more suited approach.

ETpro's avatar

@Neutral Regarding my ability to see, I refuse to get into a name calling contest with you. Would I be answering your questions if I were blind? You accuse me of saying, “So long you don’t act” << You don’t call that conditional?” Why did you edit out “so long as you don’t harm others who have done you no wrong”.

I am not intolerant of the American legal system unless it is perverted to do harm where it should do good. Perverting it for selfish ends I am most definitely intolerant of. I have said again and again and again that the things I am not willing to tolerate are behaviors that harm others unjustly. And every time I have said that, you have ignored it and re-erected your straw man of intolerance of benign behavior.

So let me ask you bluntly. Do you defend harming others unjustly? In what ways do you wish to have the right to harm others unjustly? Who is it you feel you have a right to hurt without just cause?

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@ETpro I welcome your 2 cents even if responding to another conversation are we not all in the same train station so to speak?.

If it were true that we had reason to fear the impact of same-sex parenting, I would give credence to your point. However, it is false. I never said that any child with Gay parents would have mental stress or issues because the parents did it, at least not directly. I also said some” not all. How they are treated by peers because of who their parents are would be equal to saying that kids who have parents who have dwarfism or albinism or some other thing that sets them apart from most of the rest of the student body. Kids who have medical conditions or conditions that set them apart have to deal with being teased and treated different so parents would not be immune.

The Bible covers numerous examples, but also details household jealousies and difficulties with the children competing with one another. I won’t get into the fact that many believe the Bible to just be works of fiction or history when it is not, and say I have read many of those accounts. As in any large family and maybe smaller ones jealousies and in fighting happens if there is family wealth at stake or a pecking order to be established. I don’t think the presents of 2 or 6 mothers will have anything to do with it unless the mothers cannot get along which would be the mistake of the man that married them of not doing his due diligence as to how well they would all work together or not handling business keeping order.

Are you anxious to have the right to marry more than one person? If so, make the case for that being a reasonable thing for society to allow. I am engaged to one woman and that is all I need. Others might feel they need more. But as you pointed out trying to quell fighting and envy in the household with more than one mate is not easy. IMO it is like driving a car, you can only be behind the wheel of one at a time. Someone has the potential to feel neglected then you have troubles. Some parts of polygamy are great and other parts are just a headache, for the economy polygamy can be quite disastrous.

I cannot make sense of the dance of do they love each other or not. It’s spin and confusion, not a legitimate part of the issue of equal rights. That I agree, so people who try to say their should be Gay marriages over Civil unions or Domestic Partnerships because 30, 40, or 50% of hetero marriages end in under 8 years has no barring. The ideal is the community, there are places that passed Gay marriage laws but no one jumped in and told them they had to knock it off because we over here don’t like it, the votes were in and allowed to stand.

Neutral's avatar

How did I edit it out? I quoted you and bolded the details to display your limitations of freedom of speech.

“I respect your right to be intolerant if you wish,so long as you don’t act on that intolerance in ways that harm other people who have done you no wrong.

“So long as you don’t act” << You don’t call that conditional?

You still didn’t answer this question. Please do. You just told me not to do something when I’m clearly allowed to do it (freedom of speech). I don’t remember anywhere in the freedom of speech saying the words you just told me “so long as you don’t harm others who have done you no wrong”? Why are you editing this human rights law? I asked you another question. If multinational corporations are doing things within legal means, then what gives you the right to call it perverted? If it’s legal then it’s just. Likewise in regards to freedom of speech. So, all this rant about injustice is nothing but fallacy on your end. It doesn’t matter about my opinions. I’m telling you everything from legal terms. If you don’t agree with the legal terms then you’re by definition being unjust, since law is just, and thus, your statement regarding being intolerant of unjustly harm to others is falsehood. You’re clearly intolerant of more things then just unjustly harm.

Neutral's avatar

@ETpro,

Forgot to tag your name for the above reply. ^^^

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

@Neutral : I’m curious. Just what kind of harm do you want to do and whom do you want to harm? And how is that protected by freedom of speech?

Neutral's avatar

@hawaii_jake,

Seems I have to quote myself.

“It doesn’t matter about my opinions. I’m telling you everything from legal terms.”

If something is legal then it’s not harmful, since law is just. Therefore, if you, or @ETpro, have a problem with that, tough luck. You have your freedom of speech to oppose all laws, but in doing so, you’re now violating your conditional principles of tolerance, by being intolerant of matters other then unjustly harm, for as I said, law is just, thus, not harmful.

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

@Neutral : Many laws are unjust. Slavery was legal and guarded by the Constitution until passage of the 13th Amendment outlawed it. Women were barred from voting until passage of the 19th Amendment. Those are only 2 examples, and they are taken from US law. There are many countries and many laws. The list of unjust laws could be expanded exponentially.

Neutral's avatar

@hawaii_jake,

When slavery was legal, then it’s just, since law is always just. When the law was overruled, slavery became unjust, and now punishable. I am talking about current laws in current times. Freedom of speech is still free and not based on conditions, as well as, corporations are considered as individuals. If these legal terms ever get overturned, only then can you call such an act harmful, or perverted, until that happens, and I hope it never does, you cannot go around calling a law unjust when law means just. So I say again, your intolerance towards unjust harm, is not limited to just that, but to other things as I just pointed out.

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

@Neutral : Just for the record, slavery was never just. If it was just, then it would have been practiced worldwide, and it wouldn’t have been irradicated. That’s logic.

By the way, you still haven’t answered my questions.

Neutral's avatar

@hawaii_jake,

Wrong. America allowed slavery. That is just. When civil war broke out and it was no longer tolerated as something just, it became unjust. I did answer your questions. If you fail to understand, then that is your problem. Marijuana is just in Amsterdam, yet, in America, it’s unjust, thus, punishable.

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

@Neutral : No, you didn’t answer the questions above, so I’ll put them here again:

Just what kind of harm do you want to do and whom do you want to harm? And how is that protected by freedom of speech?

Neutral's avatar

@hawaii_jake, “No, you didn’t answer the questions above, so I’ll put them here again. Just what kind of harm do you want to do and whom do you want to harm? And how is that protected by freedom of speech?”

I’ll put you the same answer again. Seems I have to quote myself.

“It doesn’t matter about my opinions. I’m telling you everything from legal terms.”

If something is legal then it’s not harmful, since law is just. Therefore, if you, or @ETpro, have a problem with that, tough luck. You have your freedom of speech to oppose all laws, but in doing so, you’re now violating your conditional principles of tolerance, by being intolerant of matters other then unjustly harm, for as I said, law is just, thus, not harmful.

ETpro's avatar

@Neutral Slavery was NEVER just. It was an odious, hideous institution. Had you been a slave, you would know that. Enslaving others is a perfect example of an action that has a victim and does that victim great harm. It unjustly deprives someone of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Freedom of speech most certainly does not extend to using speech to harm others unjustly. That is why I have constantly been coming back to that issue of harming others unjustly.

You are not free to yell fire in a crowed theater or risk causing a cardiac arrest by telling people on a transatlantic flight you have a bomb on board and they all are going to die. You are not free to slander or libel. You are not free to issue murder threats or use your speech for the purposes of extortion. You aren’t free to tell a business owner he must pay you a large sum of money or his business “may” catch on fire. Limits on freedom speech are written all through our laws, and all are aimed at preventing innocent people from being harmed by speech used with evil intent.

So I ask you again, what unjust harm do you think you should have the right to do with your speech? Who is it you wish to harm, and why? Or is all this just being argumentative?

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

@Neutral : You have stated over and over again that “law is just.” You’re wrong. If all laws were just, then law would be static (that means unchanging, by the way), but laws change as you yourself have noted. At one point, slavery was legal in parts of the US, and then it was outlawed. It changed. Your logic is silly.

Neutral's avatar

@ETpro,

Wrong. America allowed slavery. That is just. When civil war broke out and it was no longer tolerated as something just, it became unjust. I did answer your questions. If you fail to understand, then that is your problem. Marijuana is just in Amsterdam, yet, in America, it’s unjust, thus, punishable.

Thank you for listing me some legal terms. You’re just supporting what I’ve been saying… “Within the rights of freedom of speech, whatever they may be.” That’s all I was saying. Whatever is legal is allowed and thus, just. Why didn’t you give me an answer about corporations being individuals. Perhaps because it’s allowed by all courts? You call their legal rights unjust when they are just, and now you step back from that subject to hide your falsehood conditional “tolerance”. Interesting tactic.

@hawaii_jake,

No, your logic is silly. If the law hasn’t changed right now then it’s just. I don’t know the future, do you? I didn’t think so. Then I stand corrected. You’re are hypocrite of your own principle.

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

@Neutral : How old are you?

Neutral's avatar

@hawaii_jake,

Trying to wing away from your hypocrisy now by asking me irrelevant questions? Or are you going to counter now with some smart ass remark?

ETpro's avatar

You have a very distorted, sick idea of justice if you think slavery was just because it was legal. Do you also think that stoning people to death for being Christians is just in lands ruled by Shariah Law. That is the law of the land there. Do you think the 9/11 terrorist had a perfect right to level the World Trade Center because some Muslim Cleric issued a Fatwa saying it was just and legal?

Let me be clear. When I said speech that hurts others I was not talking about hurting their feelings..I meant speech that does real harm. If you want to call people ugly names, if you want to claim slavery was good, if you even want to burn the American Flag, or if you want to stand on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on the 50th anniversary of the “I have a Dream” speech and repeatedly use the “N” word, be my guest. I may use my free speech to denounce those actions, but I certainly won’t try to interfere with your right to speak. In those instances, I would feel as Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who said, “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

If you moved from blurting out the “N” word to encouraging a crowd to start lynching people, that would be moving into the unprotected speech zone. You would have crossed over from simply voicing ideas to advocating and potentially triggering action that does have a victim. That is what I do not tolerate.

Neutral's avatar

@ETpro,

That’s exactly right. Slavery was just because it was legal. “I will abide by the laws of the land” Why would I think terrorism is legal in America when it’s clearly not? Oh, I see. You’re trying to make things dramatic, that don’t relate to the legal topic at all to support your rant. Another interesting tactic. You keep listing me legal terms which I’m aware of and in no way discredit. I keep telling you a simple statement. Whatever is legal is just. That’s it. You’re missing the point here. You called the corporations unjust when it’s legal. Thus, in regards to the topic of your question, and your clear intention of only being intolerant of unjust harm, is falsehood. This makes you and @hawaii_jake hypocrites of your own conditional “tolerance” principle.

Neutral's avatar

@ETpro, @hawaii_jake,

To simplify my answer to your questions. I’m going to be intolerant as much as I can within my legal rights. Details are not necessary and most likely not allowed if abiding by fluther guidelines. The answer for the thread question is your conditional “tolerance” hypocrisy.

Neutral's avatar

@ETpro,

Here is another hypocrisy of yours. You condemn terrorists but you’re allowing an imam who has been tied to terrorists and money funded from terrorists to build a mosque in ground zero or “2 blocks away”. You allow this because freedom of religion is just. However, a terrorist threat supersedes freedom of religion rights, and so, imam shouldn’t be allowed to build one. As with the similar example you gave me with crossing lines by incitement to immediate violence or defamation in regards to freedom of speech rights.

I’m sure your counter will be that “imam has not been tied to terrorists and the money is also not being funded by terrorists. This is simply conservative propaganda. All sources are right wings, thus, “bias”.”

Am I right?

augustlan's avatar

Legal does not equal just. Just sayin’.

Neutral's avatar

@augustlan,

If you say legal does not equal just, then why don’t you let the murders out of prison? They have been unjustly served by the legal court system. Let me guess, “oh, no, the prisoners caused harm. In this case legal is just.”

So, we should make laws based on your personal tastes and distastes?

Laws are setup for the majority, not for individuals. Therefore, legal is just. Justice has been served.

ETpro's avatar

@Neutral Debate is like UFC fighting. You don’t get to declare yourself victor after every wild punch you throw. Doing so is premature showboating and only makes you look like a fool in the eyes of the crowd. Declaring the victor is up to the judges, not one of the combatants. On this forum, each reader will judge for themselves who is making sense and who is spouting nonsense.

If you are so amoral that you firmly believe slavery is moral right so long as it is legal, then there is little point in discussing morality with you. You won’t have the foggiest notion what morality is. Small wonder you challenge @augustlan‘s assertion that legal does not equal moral. Small winder you equate that view with having to condone murder. The concept of empathy, of not unjustly hurting others, of caring about your fellow man seems to completely escape you.

In the legal-equals-moral world view, Hitler was perfectly justified in carrying out genocide because he ran the government of Germany at the time and he made it legal. Likewise, per legal-equals-moral philosophy, there was nothing at all wrong with Chairman Mao killing 50 million of his own people for such high crimes as wearing eye glasses, because Mao made the laws and it was all legal. It may be legal in America today for corporate leaders in command of great wealth to bribe their way to the federal spigot and suck on our tax dollars till they drain dry the wealth of this nation, and then to move on. But it certainly is not moral or right or good for America. If that’s the business your dad is in, may God have mercy on his soul.

Regarding the building of an Islamic Cultural Center two blocks from Ground Zero, that is off topic here. If you would like to discuss it, please pose a separate question and I will be glad to share my thoughts.

I wanted, here, to understand how you could manage to equate tolerance with hypocrisy, and you have made that convoluted thought process very clear. Thank you for having been so frank. Feel free now to erect whatever additional straw-man fallacies you need in order to declare yourself the great victor. I’ve learned what I wanted to know.

Neutral's avatar

@ETpro,

Thank you for the religious rant. If you don’t like the system, then leave. :)
As you said, my dad and the other corporations will choke you out anyways, so to speak. You have to know how to work the system, not cry about it. Just have a look at that massive welfare line, those guys are the height of human enlightenment.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Everyone, especially corporations and those who run them, knows very well that leaving a system that doesn’t function for the best interests of society at large is not the only solution.

Crying is the first outward sign of suffering. Suffering can make you very very strong, often bringing one, as you say, to “the height of human enlightenment”. And enlightenment is a most horrible monster to those who plot in the shadows.

Neutral's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies,

When I said that the massive welfare line is the height of human enlightenment, I meant that those people know how to work the system, making them smarter then those who don’t. I was suggesting @ETpro to do the same, rather then cry about what’s unjust. The rich have mastered the system and that bothers @ETpro very much. If he doesn’t know how to, or feels bad for those that don’t how to, well tough luck? Time to ship out and try elsewhere. I know plenty of people who have failed here and ended up being successful elsewhere.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Tough luck? I don’t believe in luck, good or bad. There is only one “System”. I Am the System, the Human System. Corporations suck off of my teat, not the other way around as they would have me believe. All other systems are sub-systems of the Human System.

A fundamental property of the Human System is that when one of us cries, we all cry. When one of us suffers, we all suffer. Unfortunate that the many sub-systems of corporations, advertisers, religions, and power struggles attempt to deceive us into believing that they are The System when in fact they are nothing more than what I allow them to be.

I cannot leave The System for I Am The System. I cannot let anyone deceive me into believing otherwise.

I cannot allow those in need to be brushed aside and told to “ship out and try elsewhere”. How does one “ship out and try elsewhere” when they are on their last leg with no means to do so? Where is “elsewhere” other than another sub-system of The System?

I Am The System. When you suffer, I suffer. Why would I want us to suffer needlessly?

Shall I bailout the banks, auto makers, big business, and not my hungry sister? Shall I awe the corporate scandal yet pass self righteous judgment upon my alcoholic brother? Shall I trust these small paper tigers as Gods who demand human sacrifice upon an alter of egotistical consumerism? They sacrifice me in the process. I cannot allow that. For if they continually devour me, there will be none of me left to support the sub-systems.

ETpro's avatar

@Neutral Right. A perfect analysis from one who lives in the alternate universe of far right authoritarianism. The wealthiest 1% are being soooo unfairly restricted in getting richer because the world is full of people living in poverty owing to the fact they know how to “work the system.” It’s just depressing to those who get all the no-bid contracts for billions to see this filth sucking away a few hundred dollars they might otherwise have for themselves. Yep, that’s what is wrong with America’s economy. The poorest Americans know how to work the system, and the wealthiest do not.

Now back to the real world where up is actually up and where evil is still evil if someone grabs power and makes it legal to do it.

Neutral's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, @ETpro,

Wow, that was quite the inspirational rant for the poor and unfortunate. Now, come back to the plane we humans call reality and see how your perspectives lie in the dust. Look at Luther’s I have a dream speech. How far did that get him? Straight in to the grave. You’re following the footsteps of a broken ideology. My advice to both of you, is switching from empathy to something that actually works, like narcissism. How do I know narcissism works? Easy, I live like a king.

ETpro's avatar

@Neutral And Marie Antoinette said, “Let them eat cake.”

Neutral's avatar

@ETpro,

In popular culture, the phrase “Let them eat cake” is often attributed to Marie Antoinette. However, there is no evidence to support that she ever uttered this phrase, and it is now generally regarded as a “journalistic cliché” source

Lady Antonia Fraser, Marie Antoinette: The Journey, p.xviii, 160; É. Lever, Marie-Antoinette: The Last Queen of France, pp. 63–5; Susan S. Lanser, article ‘Eating Cake: The (Ab)uses of Marie-Antoinette,’ published in Marie-Antoinette: Writings on the Body of a Queen, (ed. Dena Goodman), pp. 273–290

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Like a king?

“What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?”
Luke 9:25

I would however, promote a return of the Sage King. A true King is a servant. And if it takes me straight to the grave, what may a selfish king do to avoid the same fate?

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
Matt. 6:19–21

You may have your kingship. Perhaps you’ve earned it. Perhaps it was bequeathed to you. Regardless, you may have it all to yourself. It is nothing to me. Thus, the argument it supports is nothing to me.

Neutral's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies,

Fair enough, but empathy isn’t working for you either. Have a look out the window and you will not see that which you preach.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

That’s why I preach.

ETpro's avatar

@Neutral You obviously my meaning, whether you want to split hairs about the authenticity of the quote or not. Nobody disputes the arrogance and narcissism of the later French Royalty. Martin Luther King had a dream, and white supremacist James Earl Ray killed him for it. But Ray didn’t kill the dream. King could already see the freedom he dreamed of coming before he died 5 years after the famous speech. And his legacy lives on 42 years later.

The French aristocracy had their narcissism, and it cost them their heads. Their legacy is shame and the French Revolution.

Here’s another saying of unknown source. “Take whatever you want in the world, says God. And pay for it.”

Neutral's avatar

What can I say, preach away…I was merely suggesting you an alternative and we’re not the french. By the way, the very same ethnic race preaching civil rights, is not being very civil. Have yourself a tour around the FBI and CIA websites for details. The dream has turned into a nightmare.

ETpro's avatar

@Neutral I certainly agree things are terrible in inner city ghettos. We’ve done a good deal of that quite deliberately. But there are now opportunities open for any black or Hispanic young people who don’t let themselves get dragged into the nightmare of gang violence and drugs. Our President, our Attorney General and two of our Supreme Court Justices are living proof the dream isn’t dead—just in very bad need of improvement.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

@Neutral Law and justice are definitely not the same thing. One does not define the other. Otherwise, how could Justice Scalia say something like this: ”...Considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.” Do you think it is morally right to put to death someone who is innocent?

When has justice ever been as simple as a list of laws?

Neutral's avatar

@Dr_Dredd,

What you’re bringing up has already been discussed. I’ll give you the same answer I gave @augustlan.

If you say legal does not equal just, then why don’t you let the murders out of prison? They have been unjustly served by the legal court system. Let me guess, “oh, no, the prisoners caused harm. In this case legal is just.”

So, we should make laws based on your personal tastes and distastes?

Laws are setup for the majority, not for individuals. Therefore, legal is just. Justice has been served.

Furthermore, it’s morally wrong to murder, but it’s morally right to murder during war?

Neutral's avatar

Say you give someone some money, for no reason whatsoever. They are weakened because they did not go and get that money themselves.

Let’s say you make fun of some random person, for no reason. They will work on getting strong, and then they will start picking on the weak.

The proximity entailed by empathy increases the potential vulnerability of either party.

Neutral's avatar

@ETpro,

They’ve been trying to improve for more then hundred years now. How long does it take to get your act together?

Someone on another thread pointed it out, the Jews have been persecuted since as long as they were Jews. That didn’t stop them from being civil and productive? They take up what, less then 1% of the population in the world? What about the Russian refugees that came here after the fall of communism. They turned this country around. Nobody has excuses. Obama’s half black. :)

Dr_Dredd's avatar

@Neutral I did read what you said to @augustlan. I didn’t get it, just like I’m not sure where you’re going now. If someone causes harm (e.g murders someone), justice (moral rightness) and the law (legal rightness) demands punishment. How would a murderer be unjustly served by the legal system, assuming you could know with 100% certainly that the person actually did commit the crime?

And why do you automatically assume that laws are set up for the majority?

Neutral's avatar

@Dr_Dredd,

You’re only supporting the legal system when it suits you. When it doesn’t, as with corporations being legally recognized as individuals, you call it injustice.

Are you trying to tell me that you have your own laws, and I have my own laws, and each individual in this world has their own laws?

Still didn’t answer my question. It’s morally wrong to murder, but it’s morally right to murder during war?

Neutral's avatar

@Dr_Dredd,

If slavery was unjust before the civil war, then why wasn’t anyone getting punished?
If corporations are being unjust why are they not getting punished?

Could it be because what is legal is just? Until it becomes illegal to be unjust?

Neutral's avatar

Look, but don’t touch. Touch, but don’t taste. Taste, but don’t swallow?

ETpro's avatar

@Neutral It is sophomoric to argue that Legal = Just and then claim that if that is not so, murder must be allowable. Murder is unjust, and therefore the law against it is just. Fortunately, our Founding Fathers were not a group of supercilious egotist intent on setting up a system that would be perfect and just for all time. They recognized that they might institute laws that would later prove unjust, or that conditions might change and demand new laws or changes to existing ones in order to preserve justice in the law. So they set up a system wheereby we could Amend the Constitution.

It is likewise sophomoric to argue that laws are enacted by the majority. For most of the history of the USA, women and most or all blacks could not even vote. Well over half the population had no say in the laws that governed them. In many other nations, laws are established by a tiny minority or by a tyrant. We came into existence as a nation because we rebelled against laws enacted by a tyrant. Now I know you have ignored such facts in previous discussion because you say that is there and this is here. But what if the conditions here change, and we fall under the rule of a tyrant. Lord knows the far right has been claiming that’s already the fact since the election of a black President.

If all laws are just, then they are just here and there and everywhere. Words don’t conveniently change their meanings just because you move from America to Myanmar or North Korea.

And by the way, thinks for confirming how you regard black people. Small wonder you see no injustice in slavery.

Neutral's avatar

@ETpro

“Sophomoric”, nice word. You didn’t even answer my question. Just gave me another speculative excuse, history rant. Speculation upon speculation with you. Excuse upon excuse. Conditions upon conditions. Predicting the future? Try being realistic. I keep telling you, no one has excuses. If Jews and Russian refugees maintained being civil and successful after the hell they lived through over many years, then why should any other ethnic race have an excuse on why they can’t?

Your ideology falls in with communism. Maybe you should try communism then? I think it would be paradise for you.

Ahm, It’s morally wrong to murder, but it’s morally right to murder during war?

Dr_Dredd's avatar

@Neutral You seem to be fixated on that particular example (murder during war). Some of the killing in war is self-defense. Agreed that other killing may not be just. Now, I still don’t follow how that advances your argument of legal=just.

Neutral's avatar

@Dr_Dredd,

You ever heard of the expression “KISS”? “Keep it simple stupid”. Or Occam’s razor in science? I don’t need to give you a million examples if you can’t even understand the three different types of explanations I gave you, thus far. No sense to keep repeating it. You still can’t answer my questions without being hypocritical. Looks like you’re on your own on this one.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

No need to invoke Occam’s razor. Your examples just didn’t make sense, that’s all.

Neutral's avatar

@Dr_Dredd,

Makes sense to @ETpro, and @RealEyesRealizeRealLies. They just happen to not agree with the perspective because it disagrees with the bible’s teachings, but currently, we don’t live in a Utopian world where empathy is glorified. I can’t force them to be realists and abandon all their dreams. I merely suggest an alternative approach, a practical one.

Neutral's avatar

@Dr_Dredd,

String theory doesn’t make sense to me. It’s theoretical approaches are crossing into a non-scientific realm, such as religion. Does that mean that since I don’t think it makes sense, it must not make sense to anyone else?

Neutral's avatar

@Dr_Dredd,

Law Making

After looking at this entire process of how law is made, how is it that legal doesn’t mean just?

Is the entire law making process unjust for making unjust laws?

Why is it that, whatever you claim to be unjust, is not being punishable?

I would say it is unjust of you to call something legal to be unjust.

Any answer you give me won’t change what is currently happening in the United States. It will only make you a hypocrite, but please, go ahead an answer these questions.

History is history. It repeats itself more then once, and France is not the United States.

The only thing that is relevant is what is current. This is why your arguments fail because you’re mixing apples and oranges and using words from a fable over action and practicality.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

OK, one more time, and then I’m done. Justice implies fairness (e.g. not executing an innocent man). I suspect that laws aim for this, but can’t always achieve. Is it legal for someone who admits to murder have the confession be tossed on “technicality”? Sure. Is it fair? That’s another story.

How is it unjust to call something legal unjust? Lawmakers are human beings, flawed. Everything they pass doesn’t suddenly have a magical quality of justice.

Neutral's avatar

@Dr_Dredd,

If the man is executed then he is not innocent. He was found guilty by the legal court system. It is all fair until proven otherwise.

According to what you just said, we should throw away all the science and education since human beings are flawed. I don’t even have to listen to you since you’re a flawed human being, as you say.

Did I call it? Hypocrisy at it’s finest.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

No, you didn’t call it. One thing that humans have is an innate ability to reason. And reasonable men do the best they can with the ability they have at any given time, realizing that tomorrow they may be proven wrong. And when that happens, reason allows us to view the previous laws as unwarranted for then, as well as now.

I give you the Wayward Son in the Old Testament. He was to be stoned before the people for public drunkenness. I’m often called to defend this law against short sighted perspectives of biblical doctrine. For if we would read the entire passage in contrast to the time of its litigation, we realize that the Wayward Son was given no less than three opportunities to mend his ways, and also understand that he lived in a time and land where brother killed father for kingship, and a loose tongue amongst enemy spies could destroy a nation over night.

It seems just for the times when viewed against the ramifications. However, justice promotes us as fellow human beings to be right and just in all affairs. The punishment of a Wayward Son was not right and just. It was simply the harsh consequences of breaking the laws of a harsh time and place. But reasonable men who are right and just in all affairs will understand that the ways of a Wayward Son could be addressed just as effectively with counceling, incarceration, time, patience, and love.

Neutral's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies,

The reasonable men did use their reason.

“It was simply the harsh consequences of breaking the laws of a harsh time

“counceling, incarceration, time, patience, and love.”

Well, since we are not using these methods currently, it must be that we’re all unreasonable people? I think not for reason was used back then in the same manner as now.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

“We” are not all using the same methods. “We” are greatly varied in our methods. “We” are not all reasonable men.

Neutral's avatar

“We” is the law making system which uses a consistent method. Reasonable men and women deemed it just.

You better watch out on your commentary. You’re going to get hounded by the feminists for being sexist, by not putting in men and women. That goes for me too. :)

Neutral's avatar

See, you were already being unjust to women by not crediting them in your reply while trying to justify that legal is unjust.

Or is being sexist just?

That’s a hypocrisy within a hypocrisy.

augustlan's avatar

I’m done feeding this individual.

Neutral's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies,

“Though gender discrimination and sexism refers to beliefs and attitudes in relation to the gender of a person, such beliefs and attitudes are of a social nature and do not, normally, carry any legal consequences.”

Looks like you’re in the clear legally or is it still unjust, since human beings are “flawed” and “unreasonable”?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

What pray tell, is the “consistent method” of law making between two nations on opposite sides of the planet and separated by 4000 years? Did you not claim that “we are not using these methods currently”? Why do you suppose that is?

Reasonable women understand the context of how I use the word men, as in mankind. Unreasonable people demand political correctness in all affairs when political correctness has not been standardized by any means.

Reasonable men stay on topic and don’t move the goal posts to purported offenses of sexism mid conversation.

ETpro's avatar

What @augustlan said.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Don’t mind me if I stick around for a while longer and play Mind Sweeper with our friend @Neutral… ;)

Neutral's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies,

You wrote “we” are greatly varied in our methods.

“We” as individuals are, but currently, law making in the United States is not varied, but consistent. Regarding sexism, it wasn’t off topic, since we’re discussing legal being just or unjust and I was merely looking out for your well being.

“our friend”

How thoughtful of you to consider me a friend, however, I don’t think anyone else agrees with you.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Did I not use the term “our friend” in the above post? I enjoy mental gymnastics immensely.

And I fail to see how your accusations of sexism have anything to do with the current discussion, when sexism is a vague political correctness. If anything, it supports my proposition that “We” are not all unified in our notions of law making. How otherwise could someone be offended at what you claim I am in the clear legally?

So again, what pray tell is consistent about our law making between nations of this world even today currently? And within this nation, currently with Judges capable of overriding the will of popular vote, where is this consistency you claim to know?

Yet just and justice is always consistent, with all things known and accounted for in reason. Just because all things cannot be known and accounted for is no reason to claim that justice changes. Only our ability to administer justice justly changes.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Down in the Ozarks we dealt out some justice merely upon the notion of a man violating another man’s woman. No law or courts required.

Neutral's avatar

Sexism, although legal, is seen by feminists as something unjust. As I said, what is legal is just. According to feminists, although sexism is legal, they say it’s unjust. Thus, their conditional tolerance is a hypocrisy, since legal is just.

I don’t think we’re on the same page here with consistency. Currently, how is the law making system in the United States varied? With a quick Google search, I gave you this link Law Making

How is this a varied method? This is how laws are made..

Laws govern us, no one is above the law. Law is just.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Sexism is vaguely defined and more often used to claim martyrdom or change the course of a conversation. Justice and Injustice are not applicable to that which has not been clearly defined. Bringing it up in this discussion only serves to promote an individual perspective at any given moment, with nothing verifiable to back it up. Straw man… or woman if you prefer.

Why so narrow minded to stick with laws in the U.S.? I’ve already let you off the hook to explain the differences in time between Israel 4000 years ago and the U.S. today. So let’s stick with today, and I’ll even let you off the hook for other nations.

Please explain the inconsistencies between State to State laws, and also please address the inconsistencies of a Judge overturning popular vote. It’s no secret that many view Judges as only being responsible for interpreting the law, rather than making it by overriding democratic vote. Some view it differently. So which is it and why is it inconsistent if laws are supposedly crafted by consistent standards?

Neutral's avatar

Sexism is about lack of equal rights to women. When you discredit them in your writing that is considered an injustice. This has been pointed out to me before. However, since it is legal to do so, and I consider legal to be just, then it’s a non-issue. I was asking you if you feel the same way because this is the same thing that was being done to me when @ETpro was calling corporations unjust when they’re legally considered individuals.

I’m a realist and a narcissist. I am only concerned about the current United states.
Anything else is irrelevant since it doesn’t change the way things are now. You keep going of topic, I’m trying to stay on it, especially with tolerance.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Please explain the inconsistencies between State to State laws, and also please address the inconsistencies of a Judge overturning popular vote. It’s no secret that many view Judges as only being responsible for interpreting the law, rather than making it by overriding democratic vote. Some view it differently. So which is it and why is it inconsistent if laws are supposedly crafted by consistent standards?

Sexism is different than Womens Rights. And I will work with all my power for the rest of my life to change the legality of corporations being legally considered as individuals. I do this because I feel it is unjust.

Neutral's avatar

Why should I go out of my way explaining it to you, if you’re the one bringing it up, not me. I am sticking to how law is made in the united states. The same law making system is used for all laws, yet, you pick and choose which are just and unjust, when all law has deemed to be just. It goes back to the question I asked you.

If something you consider to be unjust, why isn’t anyone getting punished?

I was only talking about sexism?

Have fun fighting the corporation issue you have, I’ll be the other end opposing you.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Third strike an you’re out… Last chance to explain the inconsistencies in your supposed consistent and just law in the United States.

Gay Marriage is legal in some states and illegal in others. Where is the consistency and which one is just?

Or how about something easier… like speed limit or income tax…

Some states have judges that overturn popular vote while others have judges which support popular vote. Where is the consistency and which system is just?

How can opposites be equally just?

I’ve already bent over backwards to remove laws from other countries and past history. Why should you go out of your way explaining it to me? To support the proposition that you made that laws and justice are somehow synonymous or somehow intertwined.

If you cannot then please retract your statement and concede that point in this discussion.

As well, still within the U.S., please explain the Justice Served to the fella who gets dumped into the Mississippi River with concrete shoes because he ratted out his friends or slept with the Mafioso’s wife… No laws required with that one, but as far as they’re concerned, he got what he deserved and justice was indeed served.

Neutral's avatar

Looks like you struck out first. You didn’t answer my question… I asked you why isn’t anyone getting punished for the injustice you keep mentioning? You answer a question with a question? Well, I’ll play the same game. As for the fella getting drowned… The law is in place to punish the guilty, but the guilty must first be caught and must be proven guilty. Innocent until proven guilty, ring a bell?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

What injustice do I keep mentioning?

Please explain the numerous inconsistencies that I’ve asked you about for the so called just and consistent law you promote.

This is the fourth time I’ve asked you to address the issue that you brought up about law and justice.

Neutral's avatar

This is the hundredth time I’m asking the same question. You keep telling me that corporations treated as individuals is unjust. If you say it’s unjust, then explain why they’re not getting punished?

I don’t even understand what consistencies you’re talking about. I said whatever the law is, is just. If it’s subject to change, then that is what is just or unjust. The law is what penalizes one, hence, justice is served. If gay marriage was allowed in CA, then that is just. If the speed limit is 30 in N.Y, that is just. If you violate it, you get punished.

Neutral's avatar

Ah, I see the issue. You misunderstood me on what I said about consistency. I was saying that law being just is always consistent, no matter what each state to state laws are, it’s always just. If public stoning becomes legal tomorrow in N.Y, then no one can say it’s unjust because the law will protect those who are being accused of stoning. Just like you, who accuses a corporation to be unjust, the corporations shall be protected. One who calls something legal to be unjust is a hypocrite of his conditional tolerance by saying that he/she is only being intolerant of unjust harm, when clearly, he/she is not, since they’re calling something legal, unjust.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Errr uh… Methinks you have mistaken me for someone else… I don’t “keep telling” you that corporations as individuals is unjust. I said it once in whisper mode. And I certainly don’t remember you asking me a hundred times… I better find my ginseng.

Hhmmmm… I remember us talking about reason, and justice, and, oh yeah, we also talked about sexism, and inconsistent consistency, and I do remember something about you wishing me to have fun with my corporate issue and how you would oppose me.

Oh… Here it is! The one time you mentioned it, I missed the other 99…
“I was asking you if you feel the same way because this is the same thing that was being done to me when @ETpro was calling corporations unjust when they’re legally considered individuals.”

How odd… This statement was a follow up to our discussion about sexism. It had nothing to do with just or unjust corporations for three sentences before that. You were comparing my comments about sexism to ET’s comments about corporations. And although I made one whispered statement about it, you never directly asked that specific question to me.

Now, I have some things to consider. Either one of us is confused, or you are a liar. A liar that avoids answering direct questions while accusing others of doing the same.

But I’ll play along. I never said corporate citizenship was illegal. We both know it’s legal. But I don’t conflate legality with justice, and therefor, seeing injustice in corporate citizenship, I will work towards changing the laws that support it. Did that answer your 100 questions?

Now for the fifth time… Will you please answer mine.

1 – Gay Marriage is legal in some states and illegal in others. Where is the consistency and which one is just?

Or how about something easier… like speed limit or income tax…

2 – Some states have judges that overturn popular vote while others have judges which support popular vote. Where is the consistency and which system is just?

3 – How can opposites be equally just?

Please don’t avoid these direct questions that have been directed specifically to you @Neutral. This is the fifth time. Please don’t divert the subject to sexism or accuse me of not answering your questions that haven’t even been asked of me.

If you cannot do this, then I must conclude that you are an unreasonable liar. I cannot be truthfully reasonable with unreasonable liars.

Neutral's avatar

I answered you chief, before your massive rant.

Ah, I see the issue. You misunderstood me on what I said about consistency. I was saying that law being just is always consistent, no matter what each state to state laws are, it’s always just. If public stoning becomes legal tomorrow in N.Y, then no one can say it’s unjust because the law will protect those who are being accused of stoning. Just like you, who accuses a corporation to be unjust, the corporations shall be protected. One who calls something legal to be unjust is a hypocrite of his conditional tolerance by saying that he/she is only being intolerant of unjust harm, when clearly, he/she is not, since they’re calling something legal, unjust.

Neutral's avatar

Unjust: Not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.

What is morally right and fair? Law. It governs us. No one is above it. It settles everything.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

“the corporations shall be protected”

Only by the law… Not by justice. Justice can change the law. But the law can either serve justice or injustice. When it serves injustice, then justice has a responsibility to change it. The corporations cannot hide from nor be protected by justice. Only the law protects them. And laws change. Justice doesn’t.

Neutral's avatar

Whatever they’re doing right now is just. If it wasn’t, they would be prosecuted. Thus, calling any action of a corporation unjust is hypocritical. Also, corporations sue individuals who bad mouth a company without any evidence.

Neutral's avatar

If you call something unjust, expect a lawsuit. Have a look at this. Defamation

There goes your limitation of freedom of speech.

I’m sorry, but your conditional tolerance is a hypocrisy.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I prefer conditional intolerance. And right there is your evidence that a law can be unjust, when it contradicts a liberty of freedom.

Neutral's avatar

That’s your opinion, duly noted. It’s still doesn’t change the fact that it’s allowed and thus, just.

I think Gay marriage in CA was totally unjust, especially with the judge being openly gay. Does it matter what I say? No. It’s allowed, end of story.

I don’t need to be conditional. I stay intolerant to the maximum limit of my legal rights. This spares me from being a hypocrite like yourself and others, with your conditional tolerance and conditional intolerance.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Are you honestly telling me that a law that contradicts a civil liberty is just?

You must, for you are mistakenly conflating laws and justice. There is no reason to do that.

It’s simply legal. But that in no way justifies conflating it as justice.

You’re stuck in a paradox here. If law and justice is conflated as synonymous, then which is the just and which is the unjust, the law or the civil liberty?

Neutral's avatar

Again,

Unjust: Not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.

What is morally right and fair? Law. It governs us. No one is above it. It settles everything.

My freedom of speech is on condition as @ETpro, pointed out. I can’t encourage a crowd to start lynching people. Freedom of speech is limited more in order to protect corporations, thus, Defamation. No paradox here. No injustice issue. It’s still all just because the opposite of unjust is just, what is morally right and fair? Law, hence the expression, justice is served.

Neutral's avatar

The mere fact that defamation is not allowed, is proof that what corporations do is just.
Justice is being protected by not allowing defamation on corporations from people like you and others who try and turn something just to injustice through means of preaching injustice.

ETpro's avatar

@Neutral I was going to stay out of this, just enjoying the popcorn while you and @RealEyesRealizeRealLies debated. But I cannot watch you charge me with defamation and let that go unchallenged. Actually, it would be libel because this relates to a written statement of mine.

To commit libel, what one writes must be proven to be false and must be shown to have damaged the claimant. I’ve said nothing that damaged any corporation. I have spoken against a US law that I feel is unjust. I expressed that as my opinion and not as an established fact. My right to freedom of speech does allow me to express my opinion about US laws. I have not written that any corporation broke the law, just that I think the law as it is now being interpreted is unjust and should be changed. How can you prove that this is not truly my opinion? Are you able to prove I committed libel by lying about my own opinion, or might I actually have a stronger case against you for having claimed I committed a serious crime I did not commit?

Neutral's avatar

@ETpro,

I wasn’t accusing you… I was saying in general.

ETpro's avatar

@Neutral Thanks. I personally consider lying about someone so as to damage their character or reputation both illegal and unjust.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

Simply denying that unjust laws don’t exist, is denying reality—a symptom of psychosis. They do exist and always have. Our revolution was fought against unjust laws, laws that attempted to seperate us from our inalienable rights. Laws preventing citizens from full American franchize based on race were unjust, recognized as such, and eliminated. Anyone who intentionally broke those laws in the past are vindicated and heroic.

To ignore the fact that unjust laws do not exist is to submit to tyrrany. I’m with these guys:

“An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.”
Mohandas Gandhi

“One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.”
Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them?”
Henry David Thoreau

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Neutral Your position relies upon conflating Law and Justice as synonyms.

I’ve already demonstrated that Justice may exist where there is no Law present. Justice may exist in a state of Lawlessness. Thus, it is a separate agent from Law altogether.

Does it not figure then, that since Justice may exist where there is no Law to be found, that likewise, Laws may exist with no regard for Justice?

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

@Neutral Your argument that all Laws are Just simply because they are Laws and therefore Just is cyclical, fallacious. Unlike RealEyesRealizeRealies’ thoughts on human validation, an argument cannot logically validate itself. Yours is illogical and therefore invalid. You have a faith here, not a valid arguement. And like the argument that God exists because the book that he wrote says he exists, no matter how many times repeated, the argument won’t work. However, you have every right to your faith, no matter how reprehensible it may be.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Law is a set of rules that humans author to interpret or bend Justice. Laws change because humans don’t always interpret Justice in the same manner, by region or time. Humans also create deceptive Laws which benefit their own personal agendas, and hide behind a false mask of Justice to support them.

Laws are written rules. Justice is a concept. Throughout history, mankind has attempted to uncover this concept and describe it with the written rule of Law. But that in no way suggests that we are always successful at doing so.

Justice, as a concept, is more akin to Karma, in that, at its core foundation, it is conceived upon the premise of Getting what you or they deserve. Laws may be designed to illustrate Justice in this manner. But they are often insufficient for such a monumental task. They are also often deviant in their intentions.

For instance, a few years ago, Missouri had to vote on Embryonic Stem Cell Research funding. It was an amendment to the Missouri Constitution.

Injustice #1 – The proponents of Embryonic Stem Cell Research spent more money on their cause than all other propositions in Missouri history combined. Those opposed mustered a meager half million dollars against it.

Injustice #2 – Cloning was carefully redefined in order for the proposition to be put forth. The proponents literally redefined a word with no regard to its established meaning.

Injustice #3 – The ballot amendment did not mention the redefinition of the word Cloning. And the ballot amendment was widely spread and available to all. But the actual amendment was very hard to come by and extremely lengthy with legaleese than most people couldn’t take the time for, or didn’t understand.

Injustice #4 – Deep within the actual amendment was a clause that made it illegal to speak out against Embryonic Stem Cell Research . It is literally a crime in Missouri to speak out against ESCR. That was not mentioned in the ballot amendment.

The proponents were quite clever in crafting this law. It passed by a very narrow vote. I can understand why the proponents went to such lengths. Missouri is now established as the Silicon Valley of ESCR. A lot of investment was spent on this. They certainly didn’t want to risk that investment by having someone being able to speak out against it and ruin it all.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

@Neutral, @RealEyesRealizeRealLies and @Espiritus_Corvus said it better than I could. You are conflating law and justice.

As for your previous post, “If the man is executed then he is not innocent. He was found guilty by the legal court system.
Person A = Executed for murder
Person B = Confesses to the crime after the first guy is already dead
Person A = Didn’t actually do the crime = Innocent

How does this qualify as justice, which you define previously as “Based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair”?

Neutral's avatar

Alright, good points people. My mistake.

ETpro's avatar

In point of fact, both legal and just are sufficiently defined in the dictionary. There is one minor sub-meaning of the adjective, just that connects it to legal but that is a tenuous connection. In reading the full definitions of both words, it is abundantly clear they cannot be conflated.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Wow @Neutral. Nice one! Your mistake? You know what that means?

It means, You Win.

Nicely done friend. Very nice indeed.

Neutral's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies,

Since when is defeat a victory for the defeated?

ETpro's avatar

@Neutral I will leave @RealEyesRealizeRealLies to speak for himself, but see this question and let me know what you think of it. Perhaps it and the ensuing discussion of it will help explain how that seeming contradiction might actually be true.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Just to clear up a point made in the past in simple terms; Freedom of speech is still free and not based on conditions, as well as, corporations are considered as individuals. Freedom of speech is only free in theory but not in actual practice. To use free speech totally free exact a very heavy price. As someone said I could have the freedom to utter “Fire” in a crowded theater causing chaos and bedlam but I can be sued for it or thrown in jail because of the chaos caused (especially if there were injuries or death because someone would feel wronged by my use of free speech)

Also noting the Civil War did not break out because slavery became no longer tolerable but because the South was trying to do what the US did to England many, many years before, become independent. Ending slavery was just a byproduct of the Civil War. If the union could have been kept whole at the expense of slaves it would have. Slavery would have ended at some point, the Industrial Revolution would have made slave running factories and plantations too costly and people would have dumped them. What came after for the former slaves might not have been no where good, but slavery would have died.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther