DC5 - Posted - 10/10/2019:  07:54:45

I am not a religious person, and this is not intended to be a religious discussion. I hope I'm not, and do not intend to violate BHO rules.

That being said, I have always admired people who are honestly believers and practitioners, not only of their faith, but other convictions. I have a problem when these beliefs cause conflict, or harm to others, both in and out of their, for lack of a better word, organizations.

Last night I was searching the net for information and pricing and availability of the newly released Photoshop Elements 2020. In my search I went to the B&H Photo home page. I have purchased products from them in the past, and found them a good company to do business with. While on the page I noticed that they were not taking any orders due the celebration of Yom Kippur. You could add items to a wish list, or leave a message and they would email you when Yom Kippur ended, but you could not place an order. Given that web orders are automated, there is virtually no human intervention until the order is packed and shipped, and sometimes not even then, that you can place orders during hours when stores are closed and the fact that there are probably thousands of other sites where I could place an order, I was very impressed. Their faith was stronger than any of the money they may have lost during that 24 hour period. This impressed me.

In Shrewsbury, Massachusetts there used to be a store called Spag's. Shopping at Spag's was a great experience. This was long before big box stores, but there were lots of chain department stores. Spag's did not take credit cards, cash only. They did not give out bags, but you could pick up empty shipping boxes in the store to carry out your purchase. Every spring Spag's gave free tomato plants to customers, no purchase necessary. Spag's was able to undercut virtually anyone in price. I once sat next to a Delta Machinery sales rep on an airplane and he said he didn't know how, but Spag's was the single largest seller of Delta woodworking equipment in the Northeast. When Massachusetts eliminated the Blue Law that prohibited shopping on Sunday, Spag's remained closed. Signage and ads said that they were closed so that employees, and customers could spend time with their families. It didn't matter that they would lose business to the chain across the street, they were closed on Sunday. When the founder passed away, the family made changes, they began accepting credit cards, and they opened on Sunday. Spag's no longer exists. I doubt there is any causation-correlation, but either way, I always admired Mr Borgatti for his stance and keeping his doors closed one day a week, just as I admire B&H Photo.

rinemb - Posted - 10/10/2019:  08:16:47

Hobby Lobby and Chick Filet have been routinely blasted due to their "convictions". Like you, I also admire those that will stand by their convictions over increased profits.

I am not sure I would be as strong, if I were in a business like that. I routinely remain on a job through Easter, and other high holidays, except Christmas.

Then I believe any business should be able to choose when they are open, closed, for any reason...and mostly be able to choose their customers...if they are not taking gov money. Their choice, fail or prosper according to their choices.
Brad

mander - Posted - 10/10/2019:  08:51:09

Yes, it is admirable to see those stand by their convictions. Most of the folks I know abandon their "convictions" as soon as they no longer serve them. That said, there is a fine line between standing by convictions and just being bull headed. :-)

I, too appreciated a local store here for being closed one day a week, dispite it being their potentially best day. I was sad when they recently decided to be open that day. Now I do my best to shop on that day so that they don't feel bad about.

Edited by - mander on 10/10/2019 08:53:28

flyingsquirrelinlay - Posted - 10/10/2019:  09:07:05

Brad, I take exception to your third paragraph: Most retail stores today are not one-person operations and the owner may be of a different religious persuasion from some of his employees so I think it is easier to respect "holidays" (probably a consensus definition) rather than pick and choose. So, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, important Jewish and Muslim holy days, as well as US national days of "recognition" (Memorial Day, July Fourth) should be recognized "personal days," whatever the reason.
The vulgar importance of just making money became too important to us too long ago.

DC5 - Posted - 10/10/2019:  09:15:45

quote:

---

Originally posted by rinemb

Hobby Lobby and Chick Filet have been routinely blasted due to their "convictions". Like you, I also admire those that will stand by their convictions over increased profits.



I am not sure I would be as strong, if I were in a business like that. I routinely remain on a job through Easter, and other high holidays, except Christmas.



Then I believe any business should be able to choose when they are open, closed, for any reason...and mostly be able to choose their customers...if they are not taking gov money. Their choice, fail or prosper according to their choices.

Brad

---

Yes, sometimes it's hard to find where the line is.  Neither B&H, nor Spag's either ran afoul of government rules.  Not that I generally agree with government rules.  Certainly it would be within the rights of the public to not shop at Spag's because they didn't open on Sundays.  Hobby Lobby also closes on Sunday, but their refusal to allow certain health benefits is a different story.  Then again, employment is at will, and if you don't like the benefits, work someplace else.  As I said in my OP, as long as you don't harm others.  Chic-Fil-A, in word and deed has, IMHO, inflicted some harm.  If your belief says it is OK to fly airplanes into office buildings, that is a conviction that I can't agree with.  If B&H Photo, in addition to not taking orders on Yom Kippur, also refused to take orders from known gentiles, my respect would diminish.  Regarding HL and C-F-A, I simply don't shop there.  Clearly they are not hurt by my decision.  I don't think I'm hurting Levi Straus much either by not buying their product.   The line is different for different people.  Your mileage may vary. 

OldBlindGuy - Posted - 10/10/2019:  09:46:36

--"Hobby Lobby also closes on Sunday, but their refusal to allow certain health benefits is a different story."

HL is not "disallowing" anything. They are simply refusing to PAY for practices which are against their convictions.

--"Chic-Fil-A, in word and deed has, IMHO, inflicted some harm."

I am not aware of any harm that the Chik-Fil-A company has inflicted on anyone.

DC5 - Posted - 10/10/2019:  10:59:06

quote:

---

Originally posted by OldBlindGuy

--"Hobby Lobby also closes on Sunday, but their refusal to allow certain health benefits is a different story."



HL is not "disallowing" anything. They are simply refusing to PAY for practices which are against their convictions.



--"Chic-Fil-A, in word and deed has, IMHO, inflicted some harm."



I am not aware of any harm that the Chik-Fil-A company has inflicted on anyone.

---

Correct on both accounts.  As I stated, no one has to work for, or shop at either company.  If you don't like HL's benefit package go someplace else.  I should have probably used a different word than allow.

C-F-A, as a company, has not done anything, so I misspoke there too.  It is the comments of the CEO and founder, mostly in his condemnation of gay marriage.  On the other side of the coin, the (over)reaction to these comments have also been harmful.  His public condemnation of gay marriage sparked most of the controversy, which has led to many protests and counter protests.  The company itself does not discriminate.  They donate to organizations that some find offensive, but they are legal organizations.  

Still, I admire that both companies, in standing by their ideals, close on Sundays.  

OldBlindGuy - Posted - 10/10/2019:  11:19:05

--"It is the comments of the CEO and founder, mostly in his condemnation of gay marriage."

We seem to have a different perception of what "harm" means. I don't consider a peaceful, honest statement of one's beliefs to be inflicting harm on another.
I also find no fault in the PEACEFUL protests and boycotts of his detractors.

DC5 - Posted - 10/10/2019:  12:02:54

quote:

---

Originally posted by OldBlindGuy

--"It is the comments of the CEO and founder, mostly in his condemnation of gay marriage."



We seem to have a different perception of what "harm" means. I don't consider a peaceful, honest statement of one's beliefs to be inflicting harm on another.

I also find no fault in the PEACEFUL protests and boycotts of his detractors.

---

Life can be complicated, that's what makes it so interesting.  I don't consider the following quote by Dan Cathy to be peaceful, but you may. “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say ‘we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about,”  If I were the child of a gay couple this could raise questions about my parents that could be considered harmful.

Same on the peaceful protest front.  Carry all the signs you want in front of the store, but when a bunch of students can prevent the business from opening on campus, or when the mayor of Boston says he will do everything in his power to prevent the chain from opening a store, you cause harm to potential employees.  It the store opens and nobody shops there and it closes, that is one thing, but to block the opening is another.  

Chick Fil A is not a bad company, they don't have bad policies.  In fact, when the Orlando gay nightclub shooting took place, C-F-A broke their own no Sunday policy to provide food for free to all the first responders and emergency personal.  This, in fact, goes along with the founders belief systems.  Cathy did not intend his comments to be harmful, but he was in a position where they got a lot of publicity.  Not intending harm, and doing harm are not the same thing.  "I didn't mean to pull the trigger" does not absolve.  

Cathy was well within his rights to say what he did.  Protesters are well within their rights to peacefully protest and boycott.  Customers are within their rights to shop, or not shop where they wish.  

Wow, did this get far from the point I was trying to make.

banjo bill-e - Posted - 10/10/2019:  12:05:23

We now live in a world where somebody holding a different opinion is "harming" you. Same if they advocate for what you are against; that is now "hate".
Beware of those who change the meanings of words! It a subversive and most effective means of thought control.

Owen - Posted - 10/10/2019:  12:11:06

 

---

Originally posted by mander

<snip>... Most of the folks I know abandon their "convictions" as soon as they no longer serve them.  <snip>

---

Some might be wishy-washy as a matter of principle.  Doesn't that deserve some respect, too?   

rinemb - Posted - 10/10/2019:  12:12:19

Heck, I am just surprised the thread has lasted this long. I think it will be difficult to keep R&P out of it. But, lets give it a go, eh.

I don't care who owns B&H, back in my film camera days I too bought a lot of stuff from them. (how could you not when the took about twenty pages or so worth of ad space in the photography mags) Now if the owners were out there saying because I am a redhead and therefore, me and those like me should be eliminated, I would likely not buy from them.

Brad

donc - Posted - 10/10/2019:  12:21:10

Every human being has to be judged on their own merits. Religious labeling has become an undependable tool for evaluating anyone.

Mooooo - Posted - 10/10/2019:  12:31:37

When I lived in Germany, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the entire country was closed on Sunday. And, it seems Spags is a lot like Aldi, they don't give out bags, and provide boxes for free. They aren't closed on Sunday here, but they are in Germany. I wish companies would respect the workers enough to give everyone the same day off to rest with family and friends. There's no need for every store in the country to be open every single day of the week...but I guess Walmart would protest. Don't get me started on Black Friday...I'm not religious either but companies who force their workers to work overnight on Black Thursday/Friday should go to hell.

m06 - Posted - 10/10/2019:  12:52:16

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

>Their faith was stronger than any of the money they may have lost during that 24 hour period.<

---

Of course.

Regardless which major world faith, all are inherently a connection to and accordance with a philosophy that ensures false value is not attributed or elevated. That universal core element of faith is fundamental and, once truly recognised and accepted, is deeply calming and empowering.

The business owners you refer to would have no sense of relinquishing or foregoing anything. Because what they are attending and devoting their time and thought to is absolutely understood to have far greater value and a deeper guiding focus. Real meaning.

Edited by - m06 on 10/10/2019 13:02:54

m06 - Posted - 10/10/2019:  13:00:39

quote:

---

Originally posted by donc

>Religious labeling has become an undependable tool for evaluating anyone.<

---

True. But you wouldn't eat a yoghurt simply on the label, without confirming the contents hadn't gone off.

Labels are just labels.

DC5 - Posted - 10/10/2019:  13:06:32

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

We now live in a world where somebody holding a different opinion is "harming" you. Same if they advocate for what you are against; that is now "hate".

Beware of those who change the meanings of words! It a subversive and most effective means of thought control.

---

I agree.  The word "hate" is thrown around way too easily, and it is virtually impossible to defend against.  There is a major difference between disrespect, ignorance, and hate.  If I, unknowingly, offend you, that is ignorance.  If you calmly explain why what I say is offensive, and without anger or disrespect, listen to my questions, then we all learn and all improve.  If I continue, then I am disrespectful.  It is ONLY hate if I push to the point of inferring harm.  Orwell warned us of the power of the thought police, and the harm that can come.  I dislike it when people redefine words as their own, and then don't allow others to use them.  

Texican65 - Posted - 10/10/2019:  13:29:27

I thank my lucky stars that I barely missed growing up in this current society. I was confused enough trying to learn all the math, science, and literature in school without all the other personal non school related aspects kids are exposed to today. The world of everybody being offended because somebody else is offended sure is perplexing to say the least.

m06 - Posted - 10/10/2019:  17:02:18

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

We now live in a world where somebody holding a different opinion is "harming" you. Same if they advocate for what you are against; that is now "hate".

Beware of those who change the meanings of words! It a subversive and most effective means of thought control.

---

> Orwell warned us of the power of the thought police, and the harm that can come.<

---

Orwell's 1984 was a prophetic warning of the nature of totalitarianism and power's relentless dismantling of liberty in the quest for total control. Orwell showed us the consequence of that ultimate control; power with the means to insidiously define and disseminate it's own version of the 'truth'. It is a nightmarish vision of anti-society and life without meaning.

OldBlindGuy - Posted - 10/11/2019:  04:53:38

quote:

---

Originally posted by m06

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

 

> Orwell warned us of the power of the thought police, and the harm that can come.<

---

Orwell's 1984 was a prophetic warning of the nature of totalitarianism and power's relentless dismantling of liberty in the quest for total control. Orwell showed us the consequence of that ultimate control; power with the means to insidiously define and disseminate it's own version of the 'truth'. It is a nightmarish vision of anti-society and life without meaning.

---

... just one more reason why I don't watch television anymore.

Owen - Posted - 10/11/2019:  06:06:43

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

We now live in a world where somebody holding a different opinion is "harming" you. Same if they advocate for what you are against; that is now "hate".

Beware of those who change the meanings of words! It a subversive and most effective means of thought control.

---

It's just my observations, and I don't claim to be the most perceptive dude around, but in my part of the world, with the people I associate with, and the "news" I get, I've not noticed the first part of your statement [re. harming/hate] to be true.  ...maybe I don't get out enuff.

However I've encountered a fair bit of people being "creative" with words. .... maybe I should stay home, leave the radio/TV/laptop off,  and play more banjo. 

Edited by - Owen on 10/11/2019 06:15:27

banjo bill-e - Posted - 10/11/2019:  06:40:26

Owen, the disease is rampant on many college campuses these days. A proposed speaker will be cancelled because some students feel threatened by their ideas. It is claimed that a speaker's words and opinions would make them feel unsafe. Anyone threatened by ideas and opinions has shown themselves to be too immature and intellectually unfit for college. Any college that coddles and accommodates such notions is doing a grave disservice to those students---akin to graduating a high school student who remains illiterate---- and to society, and has lost all integrity.
"Harm" is also the rationale for calls for censorship of words, which are thoughts,--- in many arenas beyond the campus these days. Orwellian control doesn't have to imposed by force. Many will clamor for it.

DC5 - Posted - 10/11/2019:  06:44:45

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

"Harm" is also the rationale for calls for censorship of words, which are thoughts,--- in many arenas beyond the campus these days. Orwellian control doesn't have to imposed by force. Many will clamor for it.

---

Take the internet, cell phones, facebook, twitter, etc. for example.  Oh and don't forget all those "smart" appliances and speakers in your home.  

chuckv97 - Posted - 10/11/2019:  06:53:43

Unfortunately a speaker’s words and ideas can incite violence.

Owen - Posted - 10/11/2019:  07:48:13

Bill, I wonder if censorship [one example being canceling campus speakers] is much more rampant (?) today than in at some periods in the past.  I'm not aware of any reliable stats, and I don't know just what the basis should be, but I will acknowledge that in our era of "instant communications" we surely hear about such things much sooner, and the bleating [i.e. moronic "put downs" that social media seems to thrive on] is certainly more visible. 

My admittedly inexpert opinion is that chances are it's one of those societal traits that "pendulums" .... and currently the closed-minded faction* seems to be on the upswing, though in the long term, I trust the global society is becoming more tolerant rather than less tolerant.  

* = my layman's mind sees a correlation between closed-mindedness and an ideological mindset  we can't discuss here.

Edited by - Owen on 10/11/2019 07:54:08

Paul R - Posted - 10/11/2019:  07:50:32

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckv97

Unfortunately a speaker’s words and ideas can incite violence.

---

As someone wrote: "You are not only responsible for what you say, but for what people hear."

Too many people are not looking for enlightenment, ideas, or information, but for validation.

m06 - Posted - 10/11/2019:  07:59:33

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

Owen, the disease is rampant on many college campuses these days. A proposed speaker will be cancelled because some students feel threatened by their ideas. It is claimed that a speaker's words and opinions would make them feel unsafe. Anyone threatened by ideas and opinions has shown themselves to be too immature and intellectually unfit for college. Any college that coddles and accommodates such notions is doing a grave disservice to those students---akin to graduating a high school student who remains illiterate---- and to society, and has lost all integrity.

"Harm" is also the rationale for calls for censorship of words, which are thoughts,--- in many arenas beyond the campus these days. Orwellian control doesn't have to imposed by force. Many will clamor for it.

---

It's easy to generalise. But as with most things we need to examine specifics to be more precise.

In relation to most contentious issues that are within the law I agree that it does not further a person's education if the ability to counter beliefs with which we disagree is denied by shutting down the dialogue. That approach also removes those beliefs from critical analysis and being subject to counter argument in situ.

But...there are also beliefs that blur or cross the line into illegality that a body of people have every right not to wish to be subject to or to give air-time. And if we're talking about universities or other public spaces, the institution has a civic and social duty of care not to host speakers where it is anticipated that there is a real prospect of incitement leading to disorder which could open them to charges of neglecting their public responsibility. If a student died as a result of serious disorder on university property, that could be reasonably shown to be predictable, the university is liable.

And to take you up on a fundamental oversight; words are not thoughts (see my use of bold text in the quote from your post above) Any person is free to think whatever heinous or hateful concept they choose. However as soon as that thought is expressed in written or spoken words or deed it becomes an action external to that person with potential consequences for others for which that person is held accountable. Private Vs Public. Time and again the same misconstruing of internal thought process and concrete external action occurs in these discussions. We probably agree more than you realise, for sure I see we have a lot of common ground, but in regard to what is becoming a perennial topic (or thread drift) of 'hate crime', without an understanding and acknowledgement of that fundamental distinction there is no basis for a sensible discussion, it is condemned to remain circular like a dog chasing it's tail.

Edited by - m06 on 10/11/2019 08:14:21

chuckv97 - Posted - 10/11/2019:  08:48:06

I think it’s a friggin’ disgrace that a speaker/leader will stir up anger and hate to further his or her own selfish ends.

AndrewD - Posted - 10/11/2019:  09:08:38

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckv97

I think it’s a friggin’ disgrace that a speaker/leader will stir up anger and hate to further his or her own selfish ends.

---

I fully agree about stirring up hate. But it's often a speaker's   responsibility to stir up anger. (and I understand that you were avoiding the p word here). Is stirring up anger about opression, in it's many varied forms, or inequality something we should condemn ? Thinking something is a "friggin' disgrace" sounds pretty angry to me.

OldBlindGuy - Posted - 10/11/2019:  09:22:34

There is a HUGE difference between stirring up anger and inciting violence.
It is often the opposition to a speaker who instigate the violence.

chuckv97 - Posted - 10/11/2019:  09:34:48

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndrewD

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckv97

I think it’s a friggin’ disgrace that a speaker/leader will stir up anger and hate to further his or her own selfish ends.

---

I fully agree about stirring up hate. But it's often a speaker's   responsibility to stir up anger. (and I understand that you were avoiding the p word here). Is stirring up anger about opression, in it's many varied forms, or inequality something we should condemn ? Thinking something is a "friggin' disgrace" sounds pretty angry to me.

---

You seem to intimate it's not ok for me to be angry, but it is ok for a speaker to stir up anger. 

Owen - Posted - 10/11/2019:  09:42:14

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndrewD

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckv97

I think it’s a friggin’ disgrace that a speaker/leader will stir up anger and hate to further his or her own selfish ends.

---

I fully agree about stirring up hate. But it's often a speaker's   responsibility to stir up anger. (and I understand that you were avoiding the p word here). Is stirring up anger about opression, in it's many varied forms, or inequality something we should condemn ? Thinking something is a "friggin' disgrace" sounds pretty angry to me.

---

I see a BIG diff between "selfish ends" and working for the common good and/or basic human rights. 

Edit:  Chuck, where do the sheeple fit in?

Edited by - Owen on 10/11/2019 09:49:04

AndrewD - Posted - 10/11/2019:  09:46:43

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckv97

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndrewD

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckv97

I think it’s a friggin’ disgrace that a speaker/leader will stir up anger and hate to further his or her own selfish ends.

---

I fully agree about stirring up hate. But it's often a speaker's   responsibility to stir up anger. (and I understand that you were avoiding the p word here). Is stirring up anger about opression, in it's many varied forms, or inequality something we should condemn ? Thinking something is a "friggin' disgrace" sounds pretty angry to me.

---

You seem to intimate it's not ok for me to be angry, but it is ok for a speaker to stir up anger. 

---

Absolutely not. I'm accusing you  of stirring up anger. But this is a case where I completely agree with you. It is a friggin' disgrace, and should be countered with wrath, ire, even anger. Not sure which  friggin' disgrace you are referring to. We've got our own nowadays.

banjo bill-e - Posted - 10/11/2019:  09:47:51

I am not talking about instances of inciting violence. I am talking about such things as being morally opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds, for an example in which I do not share. The proponents of gay marriage in this example would not try to debate the issue, they would try to shut out and shut up those who disagree with their advocacy , and would say that those opinions are harmful to them and that they do not feel safe sharing a campus with people who hold such vile opinions AND THAT PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THAT WAY HAVE NO PLACE HERE.
The same holds for social issues such as pay disparity for women. One who tries to reason against a legal solution is accused of "violence against women". That degrades the concept of violence and turns their opponent into a monster to be shunned and silenced. And so forth.

As for incitement to violence, one cannot incite what is not already there. A cry to burn the witches has no power over those who do not believe in witches or those who would not burn anyone for any reason.

chuckv97 - Posted - 10/11/2019:  09:55:54

Everyone probably has some anger or frustration in them for a myriad of reasons. A speaker can misdirect that anger onto a peg that they can hang their anger on. And foment that anger into hate which leads to violence in some.

mike gregory - Posted - 10/11/2019:  09:59:54

I recall some philosopher being quoted, 30 or 40 years ago, as saying something along these lines:



"There is never a conflict between Right and Wrong. There is only a conflict between THIS right and THAT right."

Like my friend Sally Rogers (Talented singer/songwriter).

Her parents paid good money for a chunk of land on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan, with a great view of Sleeping Bear Dunes. Built a very nice, comfy home.

Then the State of Michigan decided the tourists had a right to see that same view, whipped out the State's right of EMINENT DOMAIN, bought the land, and tore down their home, built a Scenic Overlook.

Edited by - mike gregory on 10/11/2019 10:01:45

RB3 - Posted - 10/11/2019:  10:31:56

I can think of one hopefully pending conviction for which I would have great admiration!

banjo bill-e - Posted - 10/11/2019:  10:46:08

I just saw an example from last night's news:

"---A transgender woman who was being introduced ---- criticized CNN anchor Nia Mikayla Henderson for mispronouncing her name.
“I want to bring in ‘Shay Diamond"------Shay, what’s your question?” Henderson asked.------“Uhm, it’s ‘Shia Diamond,’” an irritated Diamond clapped back. “Put that on the record… It’s violence to misgender, or to alter a name of, a trans person so let’s always get that right first.”

Now claiming that it is violence to mispronounce a name. Not just a mistake, you are "misgenerdering" them. Put that on the record!
But even an intentional insult is not "violence", it is mere rudeness. Big difference, because one is punishable by law and the other is not. At least not yet, but tomorrow, who knows?

Owen - Posted - 10/11/2019:  10:59:40

Bill, I gather your example of Shay/Shia (?) Diamond is of changing a word's meaning to suit one's agenda.   I'm much less concerned about her (?) using it that way, than I am about people that apparently aren't astute enough to reject that usage, or even recognize the diff.   

But, OTOH, we get people saying [even on BHO threads] that the only thing that matters is that the speaker/writer and listener/reader can "understand" [each other].

m06 - Posted - 10/11/2019:  11:06:55

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

I am not talking about instances of inciting violence. I am talking about such things as being morally opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds, for an example in which I do not share. The proponents of gay marriage in this example would not try to debate the issue, they would try to shut out and shut up those who disagree with their advocacy , and would say that those opinions are harmful to them and that they do not feel safe sharing a campus with people who hold such vile opinions AND THAT PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THAT WAY HAVE NO PLACE HERE.

The same holds for social issues such as pay disparity for women. One who tries to reason against a legal solution is accused of "violence against women". That degrades the concept of violence and turns their opponent into a monster to be shunned and silenced. And so forth.



As for incitement to violence, one cannot incite what is not already there. A cry to burn the witches has no power over those who do not believe in witches or those who would not burn anyone for any reason.

---

There's two points I'd like to make before I bow out.

Firstly Person X is perfectly at liberty to hold views that disagree with gay marriage. If they run a business (as in a well-publicised case here in the UK a few years back) their personal conviction does not put them above the law. They have clear options:

1. Complete a gay couple's order for a wedding cake as they would for any other customer.

2. Choose to break the laws on discrimination and refuse the order on religious grounds as a public protest.

3. Decide that their beliefs make it impossible for them to continue in business without discriminating.

1 & 2 have consequences. There is no fundamental requirement for them to alter their personal belief. There is the universal requirement that they conduct their business in compliance with the law. Big difference.

And for the record I'm a quaker, a non-conformist christian, and one of the quaker testimonies is equality. That does not permit discrimination against people for any reason including sexuality. I only mention that because it highlights that the 'defence' of being a practicing christian is actually not watertight.  Even from the perspective of some other christians

banjo bill-e - Posted - 10/11/2019:  11:30:55

Mike, go back fifty years, in your country or mine, and see what would happen if a gay* couple ordered a wedding cake. The beliefs of the baker would be the beliefs of the majority and the wedding couple would be brought up on charges of indecency or immorality or perversion, depending upon the locale. Society changes, but not all together and not overnight. Just how quickly should attitude change happen? Who should decide? It was NOT the majority. Who gets to decide what is right?

But we were discussing words and their meanings. Fifty years ago, and for a few hundred years before that, "gay" meant light-hearted, carefree, happy. Google the definition today and you will find that the first meaning is now homosexual. Was there any discussion of this? Did anyone get to vote? "Homosexual" is a correct definition but would be probably considered hate speech today if one were to insist on referring to said couple as homosexual and refused to say "gay".
This was a change in the meaning of a word for the purpose of thought control. Should that be backed by the coercive power of the state?

I now propose changing the term for male banjo player to "studmuffin". And I shall claim violence from all who refuse!

m06 - Posted - 10/11/2019:  11:45:38

...in terms of discrimination it's very clear. The 'when' is determined by the date that the law changes.

In a democracy the laws on the statute reflect changes in society.

banjo bill-e - Posted - 10/11/2019:  12:06:27

---"In a democracy the laws on the statute reflect changes in society.---"

Only if the law itself was put to a vote. Representatives only represent a portion of society, and laws are passed as compromise packages with those seeking other ends and willing to go along to make a deal. Also, representatives are chosen by bare electoral majority. Should 50.1 enforce an unacceptable change on the 49.9?
Both of our countries are in the middle of making some regrettable decisions imo due to just such forcing of disputed issues and the resulting backlash built upon predictable resentments. Democracy works best when there is respect for differing opinions, or at least a basic respect for the people who hold them. That used to be called "tolerance" until the meaning of THAT word was changed!

DC5 - Posted - 10/11/2019:  12:54:32

Did I mention that I admired....

.... oh never mind.

Owen - Posted - 10/11/2019:  13:00:34

...just for starters:  ideas.ted.com/20-words-that-on...ifferent/

banjo bill-e - Posted - 10/11/2019:  13:46:06

Nice link, Owen!

Dragonslayer - Posted - 10/11/2019:  14:08:49

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckv97

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndrewD

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckv97

I think it’s a friggin’ disgrace that a speaker/leader will stir up anger and hate to further his or her own selfish ends.

---

I fully agree about stirring up hate. But it's often a speaker's   responsibility to stir up anger. (and I understand that you were avoiding the p word here). Is stirring up anger about opression, in it's many varied forms, or inequality something we should condemn ? Thinking something is a "friggin' disgrace" sounds pretty angry to me.

---

You seem to intimate it's not ok for me to be angry, but it is ok for a speaker to stir up anger. 

---

It's totally ok to stir up righteous anger in your speech, but you seemed to be angrily condemning anger? Which seems self defeating. 

I personally hate (wait, am I not supposed to say that?) That they stole the happy and lighthearted word "gay" to use for their own ends, and made a perfectly good Christmas Carol seem to advocate cross dressing. 

Last thought, I'm glad I live in Africa. There's problems and outrage here too, but the violence is mostly outright and physically, and it doesn't usually effect me..... 

Owen - Posted - 10/11/2019:  14:25:14

Gunnar, should people [they??], or groups of people, have no say if/when pejorative words are used in regards to them?    ... or in what should/shouldn't be considered pejorative?   

Edited by - Owen on 10/11/2019 14:32:21

chuckv97 - Posted - 10/11/2019:  14:28:08

Hi Gunnar,,,, no I’m not angrily condemning anger - I’m angrily condemning speakers/leaders who stir up anger and hate. Maybe my anger doesn’t lead to hate and violence; with many people it might.