Then the market should provide you with such bars. I do note that there are bars in Chicago where one cannot smoke. A jazz club I go to is no smoking, for instance, and has GREAT live jazz. However, I recognize that the market may fail to provide this on its own, so I have suggested a zoning rule that would require a certain % of bars be non-smoking. Dig?

You haven't reminded me of anything. You are completely incorrect.

Freedom FROM oppression vs Freedom TO oppress
Freedom FROM discrimination vs Freedom TO discriminate
Freedom FROM intolerance vs Freedom TO be intolerant.

If a nation has the freedom TO oppress, discriminate and be intolerant to itself, then individuals freedoms are seriously curtailed.

You're completely ignoring reason by insisting, against every logical understanding of human behaviour - that freedom FROM something is not freedom. Security in your town (freedom FROM crime), is the freedom TO leave doors unlocked, or let women and children walk around at all hours of the night.
Freedom TO commit violent crime, means other peoples freedoms to do certain activities are seriusly curtailed.

All a government is, is a collection of humans. Criminals are other humans. Laws use fear to prevent certain individuals from doing certain actions. Criminals actions use fear to prevent certain people from doing certain actions.

Same effect, different section of society.

Lose the right wing blind spot Night Stalker and see society for what it really is. ;) [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 04-02-2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[quote]Originally posted by Timber Loftis:

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick: [qb]You should have freedom from having to work or socialize in places that are smoke-free. However, if you translate that into requiring that ALL places be smoke free, you have completely removed my liberty to have at least some places where I can smoke and drink.

Right. At which point we look at which is the <font color=white>lesser of two evils</font>. The imposition on my freedom means my health is adversely affected by your freedom, or my work OPPORTUNITIES are less than yours, for a smoker can work in smoking or nonsmoking environments, wheras, a nonsmoker can only work in nonsmoking if they are to maintain their choice.

The unfortunate reality about smoking, is that you make choices not for just yourself, but also for anyone around you.

That is the problem. Hence the current solution. Smoke in private, or in the open air.

Except if you like a drink, but don't smoke, you're screwed. If you're a waiter, musician, bartender or hostess who doesn't smoke, you're also screwed. It's not a good system Felix.

sigh ... it shouldn't have to be so draconian as that. By letting market forces thrive while maintaining small minimum %s of both kinds of establishments, your work opportunities would not be limited. You may be limited to not play in club X, but probabilities are there would be a club that is just as prosperous for you to ply your trade.

In fact, by letting market forces dictate the scene, if many musicians decided to only play in smoke free venues, the market would adjust to the point where if someone wanted to see live bands, they would have to give up the cigs for a few hours.

The compromise proposed by Timber, and me, preseves choice for everyone's intrests. The only arguement you have left is quibbling over whether that choice is in your favor in a particular establishment, and that is just selfish.

Choice is preserved, opportunity is preserved. You just don't have infinite opportunity, but that is unrealistic to expect.

Again, we are back to the same position on this issue. Yorick wants it all his way -- he won't even give me a measley 20% of bars where I and people like me can enjoy life the way we like it. No one forced you to CHOSE Yorick, I offered both. And, while we're at it -- you chose to take away my 20% of bars because 80% wasn't enough for you. Greedy Git.

I offered up the lesser of two evils -- accomodating both prefences. You'd rather take my liberty away than simply avoid a small percentage of bars. You've got your own blind spots to consider. ;)

As I see it, in a bar you're already killing your liver. In a stripclub you're killing your soul, and in a government building you're killing your sanity. Why should lungs get special treatment? More importantly, the freedoms of the Smoker are in question. I believe a private property should have the legally protected power to ban smoking or consumption of alcohol or whatever they want on their premesis, but mandated state bans effectively rule what one can and cannot consume. I feel this is a direct violation of our natural rights. I feel a lot of things are in violation of our natural rights.

My God, no wonder I'm soulless and insane.

This quip is beneeth you. Considdering that Right Wingers are often viewed as [warning OTT comment ahead] greedy, intolerant, Bible Thumpers .... one would be hard pressed to attatch that label to one that is non-religious, advocates Liberty and tolerance for All, and seeks compromises in the best intrests of all instead of wanting everything for me only on my terms.

On the other hand ........ ;)

Stick to the topic and try to view the big picture of the individual. For I am much more than a woefully miopic two dimensional label.

sigh ... it shouldn't have to be so draconian as that. By letting market forces thrive while maintaining small minimum %s of both kinds of establishments, your work opportunities would not be limited. You may be limited to not play in club X, but probabilities are there would be a club that is just as prosperous for you to ply your trade.

In fact, by letting market forces dictate the scene, if many musicians decided to only play in smoke free venues, the market would adjust to the point where if someone wanted to see live bands, they would have to give up the cigs for a few hours.

The compromise proposed by Timber, and me, preseves choice for everyone's intrests. The only arguement you have left is quibbling over whether that choice is in your favor in a particular establishment, and that is just selfish.

Choice is preserved, opportunity is preserved. You just don't have infinite opportunity, but that is unrealistic to expect. </font>[/QUOTE]Ah yes... market choices. <font color=pink>If we let market choices have full sway unchecked we would still have slavery.</font> Sometimes people need to step in and say "you know what, the market can go screw itself. That's not RIGHT."

Think Child labour, think uaffordable health care... oh what am I wasting my breath for? Right wingers don't give a hoot about subsidised health care do they. Leave it to the market. Let the have nots wallow without, while those with money, create the demand for socially destructive supply.

When you have money, you have choices. When you do not, you don't. You are forced into situations to survive. Think prstitution. Desperate acts junkies make. Think people compromising their health daily, just to put food on their table. Choice. Some can choose more than others.

The fact is, the struggling single mother who want's to give up smoking so her unborn baby doesn't inherit her bad smoke related health, has no choice but to keep working in the only bar in town, because the population is too small to have a smokers bar, and nonsmokers bar. She has no options because she has no money to get an education, or better training because she's forking out all her money raising her kids.

Choice?

So society steps in and removes some of her bad luck, because she is a HAVE NOT. Now the only bar in town is smoke free. Now her child doesn't start life with a nicotene addiction or malformed lungs. Now she's not going to cut years off her life, or fork out more medical costs when she gets lung cancer or lung related illness. Now she has more choice and is in a slightly more even playing field.

Slightly.

Don't give me the market bullcrap. The market has no compassion. The market has no heart. The market would leave the poor, handicapped and insane on the streets... oh wait.. New York, the capital of world capitalism, has more beggars than anywhere else, and more billionaires(32) than anywhere else. How interesting.

This quip is beneeth you. Considdering that Right Wingers are often viewed as [warning OTT comment ahead] greedy, intolerant, Bible Thumpers .... one would be hard pressed to attatch that label to one that is non-religious, advocates Liberty and tolerance for All, and seeks compromises in the best intrests of all instead of wanting everything for me only on my terms.

On the other hand ........

Stick to the topic and try to view the big picture of the individual. For I am much more than a woefully miopic two dimensional label. </font>[/QUOTE]Reasons why Jesus was left wing:

1.Subsidised health care - he healed people for free, and on his day off (the sabbath)

2.No individual property ownership - he distributed loaves and fishes to all who were hungry. He had no posessions, and lived communally. He actually encouraged a rich young man to sell all he had, and follow him.

3.Peace activism. "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" he told Peter as he ordered him to NOT defend him as soldiers arrested him.

4.Egalitarianism. When asked by the disciples who was the greates among them, he pretty much levelled the playing field. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

5.Anti-death penalty. He died so we might live. He came to bring eternal life to all who accept it, nullifying the wages of sin - death. He also prevented the then legal excecution of a woman caught in adultery.

6.Free education. His parents found him at an early age lecturing in the temple. He never charged for his wisdm or teaching.

:D

I could go on. I would assert that a true "bible thumper" is most assuredly LEFT WING Night Stalker. ;)

You ATTACK liberty, by advocating oppression of the masses as they are held prisoner to individuals licenses to step all over the rights of other individuals. You preach tolerance, yet practice intolernce. TRUE TOLERANCE TOLERATES INTOLERANCE. If you cannot tolerate intolerant people, beliefs or religions, you are not truly tolerant. You tolerate only that which falls into your view of right or wrong. ;) :D :D Nyaa nyaa nyaa. :D

So should a man be allowed to murder, rape and molest in his own home? Some personal rights NEED to be restricted for others safety. Smoking around a woman with lung problems will kill her. Not immediately, but in time. Smoking around children hampers full growth. Smoke damages and kills. Fair enough if you want to do it to yourself. It is the innocent that need protection.

miopic again I see. It's easy to build Stawmen from partial arguements and beat up on them rather than address a full statement or even (heaven forbid) concede a point. ;) I will agree that the Market (consisting of both buyers and sellers) is self serving and does not always work to individual intrests. Often when a market is unadapted to including options, options become ignored. Sometimes markets need a little bit of outside steering, not full on banning or regulating, just redirection. Note that I said that a small % of establishments should be reserved for BOTH smokers AND non-smokers and let the market do the rest. By giving that little nudge, the system will normalize. That compromise also addresses everyones intrests with out letting one group trump the other.

The only response to this is:
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and WRONG!

I advocate neither individuals, nor "Society" steping on others rights or Liberty. I fully advocate that "My right's end where another's begin". How this applies to smoking is simple. I acknowlege your desire for a smoke free work environment. Therefore I advocate creating that sancturary for you. I also acknowlege Timber's desire for a place to socialize where smoking is accepted, and support creating that sanctuary as well. Seems pretty tolerant to me, without impinging on anyone's desires or liberties. As for the rest of your Ad Hom, I'll politely ignore it, but I do have a Kettle I'd like to introduce you to. ;)

On the point about Jesus (skates dangerously close to the Rules) I would not insult him or his teachings by labeling him Left Wing, as again, that is utterly miopic and simple minded. I would agree though that if He were alive today (in America), he would be labeled a Liberal, Hippy freak, and jailed under the PATRIOT ACT for sedition and terrorism.

And finally, I have found that of those that loudly proclaim to follow His teachings, few actually do. His name has been used way too often to support the most intolerant and horific injustices in history .... totaly counter to His teachings. ;)

[ 04-02-2004, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

I smoke CHEAP CIGARS!!! The cheaper and stinkyer the better, I own the air in my home and the air in my shop, if anybody doesn't like it. Don't come by and visit me, or buy anything from me. I'm not really interested in the company of busybodies or their business, evil smokefilled pregnant women and children killers money spends just find with me. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Incorrect. This is a line often used to dodge the many issues of intolerance. It is a phallacy of half-logic that implies doing nothing (tolerating) in the face of intolerance is somehow the moral high road to take. It is simply wrong. It is an excellent excuse to make if you are against giving basic equal rights to Gays, for example, and want to deflect critism away from yourself.No matter how often this errant line is repeated, it does not excuse intolerance and following this 'advice' will never bring an end to intolerance.

True tolerance stands up against intolerance, speaks out against intolerance, but does not fall prey to the hate and fear spread by those who do practice intolerance. True tolerance counters hate with Love and lies with Truth. True tolerance does not tolerate intolerance at all.

After all when good people do nothing in the face of evil, evil does flourish.

[ 04-03-2004, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Incorrect. </font>[/QUOTE]Ah... no Chewbacca. Quite correct. Think about it. Your post proved my point.

You said "True tolerance does not tolerate intolerance at all' Impossible. True tolerance in your world is INTOLERANT, ie does not tolerate intolerance.

This is simply not possible. It's a contradiction. Your version of tolerance is intolerant of things that fall outside your subjective ideas of what is "good". True tolerance tolerates everything. Inside or outside one's subjective morality.

Now, we can debate the moral justification for intolerance of certain things. I agree certain issues need to be stood against. But be self aware enough that you are in fact being intolerant. Intolerance of being killed in a time and place is essential to survival for example.

Therefore, intolerance itself is not "evil". It entirely depends what is not being tolerated.

Time and again Chewbacca I see you use broadly sweeping proclaimations appealing to some "higher morality" completely seemingly unaware that your subjective morality is no higher or lower than the rest of us. You view something as right or wrong, and someone disagrees with you. That's life. Your higher morality is no less subjective than anyone elses - even if it contradicts yours. Morality is subjective brother.

Cya.. out of time

[ 04-05-2004, 03:25 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

The building is on fire.
I enter the building and get burnt.
I then complain that my liberties have been affected by the fact that the building is on fire.

The idea that I have exercised my liberty and freedom of choice by entering the building never crosses my mind. The idea that, if a building is on fire, it would be sensible to go to a place where there is no fire does not cross my mind either. I then go on to choose a profession where fire is a normal occupational hazard. I become a fireman. I then complain bitterly about having to work with fire...

I live in the twilight zone of the ban-smoking in smoking venues brigade where my delusions have become a reality...

Oh the irony...

Exactly where have I stated that my personal sense of morality is better or worst than anyone elses, even if it differs? How exactly am I unaware. Prove these assertions about me. Prove them or retract.

Here, I will spell it out so it will be on the record: If you think that intolerance, bigotry, ethnic cleansing, segregation, inequality, ect. are some how morally high, then you've got me...I think my 'morality' , including the conscious practice of tolerance, is higher than people who have or support any of those qualities. Am I all alone in this perspective of being moral? I think not.


Lay off the ad hominems and personal commentary and quit changing the context of words mid-discussion (you know very well what context of the word intolerance I am using, and its not the same context of being intolerant to being killed) and maybe, just maybe, I will have a thoughtful reply that pertains to the topic. But if thats the best that can be offered, an accusation of being "holier than thou", with a lecture on the subjectivity of morality and some word twisting then I have nothing more to add in reply in this discussion beyond this post.


********************************************


If the spirit of the word tolerance included tolerating hate-speech, the KKK, Nazi death Camps, bigotry, segregation, and Ect. then we would not need the word intolerance at all. It wouldn't matter. There is a third state that should be described, and that is apathy. Apathy is what you get when intolerance is tolerated. Indifference to hate, ignoring bigotry- allows it to flourish.


The spirit of being tolerant is naturally against intolerance.


Another perspective: Tolerance is like water for illustrative purposes

It is like Ice and steam. Water can only be one form or the other at any give time. Apathy is like water that has stood too long: stagnant.

Not exactly a perfect metaphor, but tolerant is not a perfect word as evident by this very discussion.

For example: Someone can get so totally hung up on proving the literal defintion of a word, that they fail to grasp the spirit of its meaning from the perspective I have provide.

They even go so far as to assume that, because I find the focus on being totally literal incorrect, that I must think myself higher or better. When the truth is I have a different perspective, one that is correct for me. I'm willing to allow these two different ideas stand side by side, expressing my opinions that the literal perspective, is incorrect and why.

I tolerate the differing perspective, as it seems not to be rooted in intolerance,( though the ad hominem tactic used to reply to my disagreeance may skirt the border) but I disagree. Disagreement is not intolerance. Disagreement is not to automatically say I am morally better. Can you tolerate disagreement?

The other thing is I can grasp and understand the literal perspective, but I reject it for a perspective that has personal meaning and an inspired call for action that has demonstratably brought results for the betterment of society. After all Rosa Parks didn't just give her seat up to a white guy on the bus that day. I sure the hell wouldn't call her intolerant. You can if you want, if that perspective works for you fine. I disagree.

I can also formulate a literal perspective that differs: Tolerance doesnt tolerate intolerance because tolerance is the exact opposite of intolerance. Ideas that are mutually exclusive. Very much a paradox, but like i said I reject the narrow literalist perspective in this case even it if creates a concept that logic wants to deny. Even if it might give a big middle finger to the dictionary defintions. [img]graemlins/finger.gif[/img]

Are my perspectives understandable? Are they graspable? Are they tolerable? Will I get a reply that isn't a cheapshot-accusation that I think I'm better than thou? Will dictionary definition number three or four of the word get tossed in the mix? I guess I will find out next time....

[ 04-05-2004, 05:03 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

It's called "making a point". ;) Perfectly reasonable. You are further to the right than I am. So, to me you are a right winger. Yet you use terms such as "Christian Right", a term I find utterly nonsensical, given the presented facts about Jesus. A right winger can be Christian, just as a left winger can.

Yorick is right about the fact that true tolerance tolerates intolerance.

However, regarding the smoking ban, if his response to my proposal as to how we can both have our liberty protected is simply, "you should tolerate my intolerance," then my reply is a simple and big F-U. (I'm sure you understand, Yorick ;) ).

When trying to protect my liber-tay, my tolerance for your position only extends so far. It does not extend into the realm of your intolerence -- that, in fact, is the point at which I become intolerant as well. If a minimum % is unacceptable, then I'll go to the mat fighting for my right to smoke in bars, whether or not I destroy your lungs in the process. If we can't both have it our way, then I'll rip your head off fighting to have it my way. I think that most of us would. ;)

You have repeatedly spoken of a "higher morality", regarding human rights and equality.
Chewbacca, they are no more or less subjective than any other morality. You personally regard them as causes that justify going against other parts of your moral code, like following laws prohibiting gay marriages for example. However, that's your personal subjective value system, not some universal truth.


All you've done is argue reasons that justify intolerance in given situations. But your are wrong to believe you are being tolerant.

Why aren't you understanding this? INTOLERANCE is AMORAL. The morality hinges on what you tolerate or not. You can be intolerant of "evil" actions. You can be intolerant of murder, rape, abortion, homosexuality, bigotry, cigarette smoke, smoking bans, taxes, children, noise, injustice, rudeness, or anything else. Intelerance, like discrimination have become politically incorrect, yet, it's an absurdity. Those decrying intolerance itself - per se - are hypocritically engaging in the same judgemental process they are decrying.

Thanks for your support Timber. I was beginning to think I was in a mad house.

It's like someone being critical of criticism.

????

Or someone hating hatred.

???

Or someone refusing to refuse anything.

???

All completely impossible.

And Chewbacca, it's more than pertinent. All that's happening in American society, is that what is tolerated and intolerated is changing, rather than tolerance itself growing. Gibsons lynching by the media before TPOTC showed how far the "religious freedom/freedom of speech" barometre has swung to the other extreme, but equally as restrictive, intolerant and blind.

Take homosexuality. The United nations has been discussing enacting international laws regarding it. However, this directly runs over Islamic nations freedom of religion, and autonomy regarding national laws. By DECREEING tolerance of homosexuality, the Islamic, Jewish and Christian religions are not tolerated.

Same intolerance, just a different subject.

I will digress if I repeat the mantra, that the Bible (considering the New Testaments GRACE for all humankind) accepts homosexuals, but not homosexuality - making a distinction between the person, and the action - but so be it.

[ 04-06-2004, 05:47 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

I too will agree that true tolerance tolerates intolerance. Though it is a paradoxal concept. But it is one thing to tolerate intolerant ideas, and another to oppose intolerant actions that infringe upon the liberties of another. I can't speak for Chewie, but I think that is where he is going with his rant.

Also, without digressing too much - maybe this should be continued in a new thread, toleration of one idea does not follow that religions are automatically not tolerated. They ARE able to co-exist ya know. Live and let live and all that. ;)

*slips into Lennon reverie*

Thanks Nightstalker, [img]smile.gif[/img]

However, I don't know if they can. If you legislate it so that no writing can condemn homosexuality, that no writing can suggest homosexuality is somehow morally wrong, then you legislate against the Islamic, Jewish and Christian religions. You ban the works held sacred by the "big three". Certainly the Islamic nations are getting very upset by the proposals put forth by the "secular" west.

I'm for living and let living. Don't legislate against homosexuality, but don't swing the other way and legislate against condemning or criticising the practice.

Additionally, in legislating secularism, you legislate against religion also. I would say, legislating secularism is in effect legislating one worldview - atheism - over all others.

[ 04-06-2004, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

The problem gets complex concerning national sovereignty, democracy and human rights.

Take Iraq. Say the Iraqis voted Saddam Hussein back into power. Does the international community respect the "will of the people" to choose to be oppressed?

In prioritising and enforcing human rights, we step all over the concepts of democratic will, and national sovereignty.

We do need to address the issue, for it's happened before. History repeats. Athens, during it's "Empire" (albeit a comparitively small collection of cities compared with Russia, Britain or America) would force 'democracy' on rebellious city states, and forcibly change governments in recalcitrant cities.

How sacrosanct is democracy? How sacrosanct is international sovereignty? The collective "free will" of a nation.

Do we make suicide a punishable crime? Overriding an individuals free will to self harm? Do we internationally legislate against nations harming themself?

Who decides what is a nation anyway? The people themselves? Why are the Basques, Tibetens, Lapps, Quebecois, Kurds, Corsicans, Flemish, Chechnyans etc NOT handed their demands to be sovereign nations? Does the international community decide? The last time the UN gave a nation - Israel - sovereignty, all hell broke loose.

[ 04-06-2004, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

And what about a religion that demands you eat your dead? Or that you sleep with your children? Or that you murder if someone offends you? I think religions do not all peacefully co-exist. It entirely depends on the content of the religions declarations.

I don't agree with that. But maybe that's because I see Athiesm as just another religious viewpoint.

You don't agree with what I said, or you don't agree with legislating atheism above other religious views?

Secularism in not the antithesis of religion. It is a non positional stance, neither advocating nor decrying. Thereby legislating secularism and basing laws on concepts like liberty allows for the inclusion of all religions (as long as their practices don't violate standing laws). Atheism is the opposite of religion (though arguements could be made that it is itself a religion), but legislating secularism in not the same as legislating atheism.

Just because a secular nation has laws for the inclusion of ideas or lifestyles does not mean that a particular religion can't be morally opposed to particular ideas or lifestyles. They are entitled to Freedom of Speech and all that. Their forums for expressing those ideas are the Temples, Mosques, Churches, Glens ... whatever ... where they practice. Not in public law or in governmental buildings.

Clergymen, because of their belief that they answer to a higher power, very often forget that not all sheep are part of their flock, that they are the shepards of one particular flock only. (I know that this is a grand generalization and does not apply to all clergy or to this level of severity)

MOD REQUEST: Could the last few posts be moved to a new thread, up to and including my previous post? They get away from the topic of public smoking.

You have repeatedly spoken of a "higher morality", regarding human rights and equality.
</font>[/QUOTE]So?

You have not proven the remarks made about me, only repeated them.


So?

Why even comment like this Yorick? What does belittling my personal perspective of morality accomplish? Where have I stated that my value system is universal truth or even based upon it? Even if I think were, why is it any of your business to comment upon? Why are you continuing to discuss me like you have some secret valuable insight into my psyche? You DONT know me and quite frankly have no place in lecturing me in that "holier than thou" tone of yours. What is your point? Are you trying to bait me or something?

If you don't like my opinions and dont like that I disagree with you- fine I dont care. I myself enjoy disagreemnt and differing opinion. But, if you make it personal and belittle me rather than simply disagree my opinions then- bye bye.

I totally agree and stated more or less the same opinion in the "pledge case" thread.

More or less. The 'spirit' behind rejecting intolerance in the name of tolerance differs greatly from the 'spirit' of intolerance. In my humble opinion of course and based upon my expirience working with civil rights groups and encountering hate groups.

More or less. The 'spirit' behind rejecting intolerance in the name of tolerance differs greatly from the 'spirit' of intolerance. In my humble opinion of course and based upon my expirience working with civil rights groups and encountering hate groups. </font>[/QUOTE]The "spirit" when you break it down objectively, instead of applying a morality to it, is still exactly the same as any other form of intolerance. It is refusing to accept that which you find morally offensive.

Whether you find Jews morally offensive, gays, nazis, racists, murder, cannibalism, vegetarianism, dogs, christians, hetrosexuals or potatoes, the action, result and intent is the same. Seeking to remove that which is morally offensive from your world.

All that changes is that which is not tolerated. The SUBJECT MATTER.

You have repeatedly spoken of a "higher morality", regarding human rights and equality.
</font>[/QUOTE]So?

You have not proven the remarks made about me, only repeated them.

Quote:

Chewbacca, they are no more or less subjective than any other morality. You personally regard them as causes that justify going against other parts of your moral code, like following laws prohibiting gay marriages for example. However, that's your personal subjective value system, not some universal truth.

So?

Why even comment like this Yorick? What does belittling my personal perspective of morality accomplish? Where have I stated that my value system is universal truth or even based upon it? Even if I think were, why is it any of your business to comment upon? Why are you continuing to discuss me like you have some secret valuable insight into my psyche? You DONT know me and quite frankly have no place in lecturing me in that "holier than thou" tone of yours. What is your point? Are you trying to bait me or something?

If you don't like my opinions and dont like that I disagree with you- fine I dont care. I myself enjoy disagreemnt and differing opinion. But, if you make it personal and belittle me rather than simply disagree my opinions then- bye bye. </font>[/QUOTE]Because you engage in exactly the activity you deride. Only the object of your derision is what is different. Yet you refuse to see this, maintaining what appears to be a blind spot regarding a "holier than thou" element to your own arguments.

But that's like saying apathy is not the opposite of care or hatred, because it is the absence of passion.
Secularism is by definition the antithesis of religion precisely because of it's substance.

Islam is a lot closer to Christianity than secularism.

More or less. The 'spirit' behind rejecting intolerance in the name of tolerance differs greatly from the 'spirit' of intolerance. In my humble opinion of course and based upon my expirience working with civil rights groups and encountering hate groups. </font>[/QUOTE]The "spirit" when you break it down objectively, instead of applying a morality to it, is still exactly the same as any other form of intolerance. It is refusing to accept that which you find morally offensive.

Whether you find Jews morally offensive, gays, nazis, racists, murder, cannibalism, vegetarianism, dogs, christians, hetrosexuals or potatoes, the action, result and intent is the same. Seeking to remove that which is morally offensive from your world.

All that changes is that which is not tolerated. The SUBJECT MATTER. </font>[/QUOTE]Nope. Incorrect analysis of my meaning and intent.

You have repeatedly spoken of a "higher morality", regarding human rights and equality.
</font>[/QUOTE]So?

You have not proven the remarks made about me, only repeated them.

Quote:

Chewbacca, they are no more or less subjective than any other morality. You personally regard them as causes that justify going against other parts of your moral code, like following laws prohibiting gay marriages for example. However, that's your personal subjective value system, not some universal truth.

So?

Why even comment like this Yorick? What does belittling my personal perspective of morality accomplish? Where have I stated that my value system is universal truth or even based upon it? Even if I think were, why is it any of your business to comment upon? Why are you continuing to discuss me like you have some secret valuable insight into my psyche? You DONT know me and quite frankly have no place in lecturing me in that "holier than thou" tone of yours. What is your point? Are you trying to bait me or something?

If you don't like my opinions and dont like that I disagree with you- fine I dont care. I myself enjoy disagreemnt and differing opinion. But, if you make it personal and belittle me rather than simply disagree my opinions then- bye bye. </font>[/QUOTE]Because you engage in exactly the activity you deride. </font>[/QUOTE]Nope. Incorrect analysis and certainly not justification for your behavior.

Man, after all that... I need a cigarette! :D

[img]graemlins/smokybounce.gif[/img]

I mean really, after that .... what else is there to say? [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

I hope you're not in a public place right now. :D

FINALLY free from Quintesson hell!