chuckv97 - Posted - 10/11/2019:  14:30:08

Quote : “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? “
Bill, you might be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

m06 - Posted - 10/11/2019:  14:48:47

Words can’t be ‘stolen’. Language is in a constant state of flux, borrowing and change.

What words do have is the potential to reveal more than the speaker realises or intends.

banjo bill-e - Posted - 10/11/2019:  15:27:18

Chuck, I'm not throwing out anything. I am just urging restraint on what can be accomplished by force. Hearts and minds are not subject to legislation and the attempt to force ideas upon a populace will result in unwanted consequences.

chuckv97 - Posted - 10/11/2019:  15:30:51

Well, you’re right, Bill. One of my favourite retorts used to be, “Don’t tell ME what to do!” (‘course that used to be when my ex yelled at me when I came home drunk at 2am)

banjo bill-e - Posted - 10/11/2019:  16:23:06

I am convinced that the now accomplished acceptance of gay marriage---which came about with amazing speed--- came from straight people coming to know and like some gay couples and realizing that they should be treated the same as everyone else. I do not believe that any amount of insult and ridicule of straights by gays or angry demonstrations outside of churches would have ever accomplished that. But when legal coercion is applied to the situation, like with the infamous cake bakers, we get understandable anger and push-back. Respect and tolerance are two way streets and those wanting to receive it should be willing to give it, not just because it is "fair" but because it is effective where strident demands and angry insults are not.

m06 - Posted - 10/12/2019:  00:06:55

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

I am convinced that the now accomplished acceptance of gay marriage---which came about with amazing speed--- came from straight people coming to know and like some gay couples and realizing that they should be treated the same as everyone else. I do not believe that any amount of insult and ridicule of straights by gays or angry demonstrations outside of churches would have ever accomplished that. But when legal coercion is applied to the situation, like with the infamous cake bakers, we get understandable anger and push-back. Respect and tolerance are two way streets and those wanting to receive it should be willing to give it, not just because it is "fair" but because it is effective where strident demands and angry insults are not.

---

‘If we like you’ is nowhere a basis for law change. In fact it is indicative of the presence of a discriminatory approach; because the obvious flip side is: ‘If we don’t like you’...

And the use of ‘we’ implies a dominant majority and dominance is the root of prejudice. Therefore ’tolerance’ is just a subjective state of mind of a person in that dominant majority. The law does not exist to enhance or maintain domination. It is our protection and sanction against domination. The very essence of freedom.

A right is a right whether people ‘like’ or not. The law is the law. And ‘tolerance’ is irrelevant; we have the choice to comply with the law or break the law and face the consequence.

Edited by - m06 on 10/12/2019 00:22:02

Dragonslayer - Posted - 10/12/2019:  01:07:58

quote:

---

Originally posted by mike gregory

PARTIAL quote

..............

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.....

............................



But if you were a missionary in an area where the Hootsies and the Tootsies were centuries-old enemies, and it got to the point where some of these'ns were slaughtering bunches of those'ns, and one side or the other, or some of BOTH, were members of your congregation, and it didn't seem to affect you, I'd be willing to GUESS that you're not missionarying quite the way Somebody seemed to have been hinting it SHOULD be done.

---

While that is definitely true, the hootsies and tootsies are several thousand kilometers north, and things here haven't gotten that bad... 

m06 - Posted - 10/12/2019:  01:21:26

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dragonslayer

quote:

---

Originally posted by mike gregory

PARTIAL quote

..............

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.....

............................



But if you were a missionary in an area where the Hootsies and the Tootsies were centuries-old enemies, and it got to the point where some of these'ns were slaughtering bunches of those'ns, and one side or the other, or some of BOTH, were members of your congregation, and it didn't seem to affect you, I'd be willing to GUESS that you're not missionarying quite the way Somebody seemed to have been hinting it SHOULD be done.

---

While that is definitely true, the hootsies and tootsies are several thousand kilometers north, and things here haven't gotten that bad... 

---

The actual socio-ethnic group names are: Hutu and Tutsi. It communicates respect when we take care to use the correct words and the opposite when we don’t. 

Something you may want to consider before criticising other people for their legitimate adaptation of the common usage of words.

Edited by - m06 on 10/12/2019 01:25:35

m06 - Posted - 10/12/2019:  01:35:51

quote:

---

Originally posted by m06

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

I am convinced that the now accomplished acceptance of gay marriage---which came about with amazing speed--- came from straight people coming to know and like some gay couples and realizing that they should be treated the same as everyone else. I do not believe that any amount of insult and ridicule of straights by gays or angry demonstrations outside of churches would have ever accomplished that. But when legal coercion is applied to the situation, like with the infamous cake bakers, we get understandable anger and push-back. Respect and tolerance are two way streets and those wanting to receive it should be willing to give it, not just because it is "fair" but because it is effective where strident demands and angry insults are not.

---

‘If we like you’ is nowhere a basis for law change. In fact it is indicative of the presence of a discriminatory approach; because the obvious flip side is: ‘If we don’t like you’...

And the use of ‘we’ implies a dominant majority and dominance is the root of prejudice. Therefore ’tolerance’ is just a subjective state of mind of a person in that dominant majority. The law does not exist to enhance or maintain domination. It is our protection and sanction against domination. The very essence of freedom.

A right is a right whether people ‘like’ or not. The law is the law. And ‘tolerance’ is irrelevant; we have the choice to comply with the law or break the law and face the consequence.

---

Many groups and organisations at all levels claim ‘legitimacy’ and ‘representative’ status when in fact their evident reliance on exactly that discriminatory approach and function completely invalidates any and all legitimate ‘official’ role. Their claim and raisin d’etre is transparently based on pretence. And a false claim based on nothing more than self-referential pretence is literally pretentious. And therefore worthless and entirely devoid of meaning.

What those type groups and organisations really are is cliques. And a clique is the home and hiding place in plain sight of prejudice.

Edited by - m06 on 10/12/2019 01:46:31

AndrewD - Posted - 10/12/2019:  02:12:12

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

I am convinced that the now accomplished acceptance of gay marriage---which came about with amazing speed--- came from straight people coming to know and like some gay couples and realizing that they should be treated the same as everyone else. I do not believe that any amount of insult and ridicule of straights by gays or angry demonstrations outside of churches would have ever accomplished that. But when legal coercion is applied to the situation, like with the infamous cake bakers, we get understandable anger and push-back. Respect and tolerance are two way streets and those wanting to receive it should be willing to give it, not just because it is "fair" but because it is effective where strident demands and angry insults are not.

---

Not very long ago, within our lifetime, in some States, it was illegal for a black person to marry a white person. The supporters of this often  gave scriptural authority for their views. Would you support a baker now who refused to bake a wedding cake for a mixed  race couple citing the bible as their authority ?   If not please tell me the difference. If this is just a matter of time then when will we reach a suitable elapsed time for these bigots to be treated with the contempt they deserve ?

And as for same-sex marriage coming about quickly. Here it took about 50 years from the legalisation of homosexuality to the legalisation of same sex marriage. Anger and demonstration may not have been a predominant factor here,  but they certainly helped, and have been in other extensions of rights such as your own civil rights movement and our suffragette movement. In fact progress in wresting rights from those that have them by those that don't have them has rarely been achieved without anger and protest.

Edited by - AndrewD on 10/12/2019 02:12:57

m06 - Posted - 10/12/2019:  03:01:57

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndrewD

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

I am convinced that the now accomplished acceptance of gay marriage---which came about with amazing speed--- came from straight people coming to know and like some gay couples and realizing that they should be treated the same as everyone else. I do not believe that any amount of insult and ridicule of straights by gays or angry demonstrations outside of churches would have ever accomplished that. But when legal coercion is applied to the situation, like with the infamous cake bakers, we get understandable anger and push-back. Respect and tolerance are two way streets and those wanting to receive it should be willing to give it, not just because it is "fair" but because it is effective where strident demands and angry insults are not.

---

Not very long ago, within our lifetime, in some States, it was illegal for a black person to marry a white person. The supporters of this often  gave scriptural authority for their views. Would you support a baker now who refused to bake a wedding cake for a mixed  race couple citing the bible as their authority ?   If not please tell me the difference. If this is just a matter of time then when will we reach a suitable elapsed time for these bigots to be treated with the contempt they deserve ?

And as for same-sex marriage coming about quickly. Here it took about 50 years from the legalisation of homosexuality to the legalisation of same sex marriage. Anger and demonstration may not have been a predominant factor here,  but they certainly helped, and have been in other extensions of rights such as your own civil rights movement and our suffragette movement. In fact progress in wresting rights from those that have them by those that don't have them has rarely been achieved without anger and protest.

---

Moral checkmate. 

nb - my addition of bold font to Andrew's post.

Edited by - m06 on 10/12/2019 03:07:06

OldBlindGuy - Posted - 10/12/2019:  03:28:00

quote:

---

Originally posted by m06

quote:

---

 Moral checkmate. 

 

---

... or possibly moral equivalency BS, depending on one's point of view.

Wyozark - Posted - 10/12/2019:  07:38:15

When I first began my career I worked in a prison designated in the national press as “the bloodiest 47 acres in America.” In my first weeks I worked closely with more experienced staff and one day one of my colleagues – a salty Vietnam combat vet who was almost ten years older than me – and I were walking across the main prison yard. Inmates were on all sides. He turned and said to me, “It looks ok now. But if you are ever in here and aren’t scared, then it’s time to get out.” I took his advice to heart.

A short time after that some of my office colleagues were discussing an inmate. Robie was the lead man on the warden’s ground crew. Whatever the warden wanted done in keeping the grass mowed or weeds pulled or cigarette butts picked up he did it, leading an inmate crew. Robie was friendly, boisterous, and respected by the other inmates – meaning he could take care of himself and did his job without being a snitch or compromising the “inmate code.” He had a friendly and joking relationship with my colleagues and they were speculating if something went down on the yard and they were attacked or in danger whether Robie would attempt to come to their aid. After all, Robie was a good inmate. . . wasn’t he?

Robie was on my caseload and time for his parole consideration came around and I received his file to prepare a report. Seems Robie was doing life for murder. He had killed his girlfriend’s baby. Seeing what he had done, he tried to hide all evidence by first discharging a shotgun into the baby’s face. He then took the body out to a rural pond. Using a pitchfork, he propelled the baby into the middle of the pond to be devoured by the fish and snapping turtles.

But he was a good inmate. . .

Many years later at a maximum security prison in another state I was in the segregation unit talking to the inmates through the cell doors. This one well known inmate was suffering the effects of pepper spray and had been put on strip cell status because of some violent action that I cannot now recall. He was indignant and actually shook his finger at me. “I don’t deserve this said the rapist/murderer of a 12 year old girl. . .

I have a point to these stories. But I’m on my cell phone and will have to post later - if the thread isn’t locked.

banjo bill-e - Posted - 10/12/2019:  07:47:31

Mike and Andrew
----"Would you support a baker now who refused to bake a wedding cake for a mixed race couple citing----"

To clarify, it's not "baking" a cake----nobody was refused service for what was freely offered to others----- it is the matter of putting a message on a cake. I would support anyone refusing to compose or design, in any media, ANY message which they oppose, for any reason or no reason at all. Religion should have nothing to do with it other than in this particular case explaining their reason, but no explanation should be required. Nobody should be so compelled. The shunned customer should also be free to broadcast their poor treatment and expose that merchant to public disfavor, but the merchant should not be legally punished. You would not require a Jewish baker to decorate a cake with swastikas under penalty of law. It is your opinion that doing one is proper and the other outrageous, but at one place and time it would have been very dangerous to refuse to decorate a cake with swastikas. My point is that opinions change over time and that opinions should not be compelled by law and that the attempt to do so is counterproductive. You misrepresent what I say about "liking". I am saying that hearts and minds cannot be changed by violence, which is what laws are, legalized violence. There is still a role for Persuasion, and I still maintain that the resistance to gay marriage, in this country, dropped very rapidly due to the number of brave individuals who "came out" and lived normal lives as neighbors and coworkers AND THAT CHANGED THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF THOSE WHO SAW GAYS AS "THE OTHER". I am saying that an attempt to cram that issue down the throats of those who had not yet had a change of heart would not have worked. You can't impose unwanted ideals upon a democracy, that is only possible through tyranny. The cause of gay rights in this country has taken a step back with portions of the public due to just this cake message fiasco. To fine an established business out of existence for being small-minded or old fashioned or committed to religious ideals not shared by the mainstream has been rightly seen as oppressive heavy handed social engineering by activists with a heart of tyranny who have zero tolerance for any dissent. The outrageous actions and demands of the Trans activists who insist that the world drop it's established concepts of Male and Female overnight just because they loudly demand it is doing nothing for their cause.

mike gregory - Posted - 10/12/2019:  09:08:40

PARTIAL quote by M06

-----------------------

The actual socio-ethnic group names are: Hutu and Tutsi. It communicates respect when we take care to use the correct words and the opposite when we don’t. 

Something you may want to consider before criticising other people for their legitimate adaptation of the common usage of words.

---------------------------------------------------

Point taken.

I was using similar-sounding names of FICTITIOUS tribes,  mostly because I didn't  FEEL like looking up the real spellings of the REAL people.

And it makes no difference where the real violence is.

Hutu & Tutsi, Serbs & Croats, Hatfields & McCoys,  Crips & Bloods, WE and THEY.

Of all the Major Virtues which ever  I may have had, HOPE, though horribly battered, is the one which remains.

I still HOPE that somewhere, somehow, rational people will be able to resolve their differences without slaughtering each other.

And it BOTHERS me when people imply that, as long as the violence doesn't affect THEM, personally, they don't much care that it occurs elsewhere.

Owen - Posted - 10/12/2019:  10:24:25

 

---

Originally posted by mike gregory.

<snip> ... I still HOPE that somewhere, somehow, rational people will be able to resolve their differences without slaughtering each other.

And it BOTHERS me when people imply that, as long as the violence doesn't affect THEM, personally, they don't much care that it occurs elsewhere.

---

I'm with ya, Mike.  To go off onto  a bit of a philosophical (?) tangent, is one of these any worse/better than another: a) those that imply they don't care?  or b) those that say they care, but show they don't?  or c) those that openly brag about not caring?  or d) ???

Dragonslayer - Posted - 10/12/2019:  11:03:12

quote:

---

Originally posted by m06

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dragonslayer

quote:

---

Originally posted by mike gregory

PARTIAL quote

..............

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.....

............................



But if you were a missionary in an area where the Hootsies and the Tootsies were centuries-old enemies, and it got to the point where some of these'ns were slaughtering bunches of those'ns, and one side or the other, or some of BOTH, were members of your congregation, and it didn't seem to affect you, I'd be willing to GUESS that you're not missionarying quite the way Somebody seemed to have been hinting it SHOULD be done.

---

While that is definitely true, the hootsies and tootsies are several thousand kilometers north, and things here haven't gotten that bad... 

---

The actual socio-ethnic group names are: Hutu and Tutsi. It communicates respect when we take care to use the correct words and the opposite when we don’t. 

Something you may want to consider before criticising other people for their legitimate adaptation of the common usage of words.

---

Point taken, I will admit I was lazily just quoting Mike, and not concerned about the spelling. Which is unsurprising, since almost no one spells any of my names right, (including myself for some years) so I don't expect much scribal accuracy 

Dragonslayer - Posted - 10/12/2019:  11:12:32

quote:

---

Originally posted by mike gregory

 

I still HOPE that somewhere, somehow, rational people will be able to resolve their differences without slaughtering each other.

And it BOTHERS me when people imply that, as long as the violence doesn't affect THEM, personally, they don't much care that it occurs elsewhere.

 

---

I understand your bother, but you misunderstood my "apathy". It's not that I don't care, but if there's nothing I can do about it, (or if it's historical) then I'm not gonna let it keep me up at night. If you hear about something like that happening, and you can't do anything, it doesn't make sense to worry about it, cuz all worrying does is makes you sick. If it's an obvious evil you could share it with your sphere of influence, but the violence that takes place in this country I can't comment on for legal reasons, and it's too far away for me to affect. The so called "violence" of speech that is supposed happening in the states already has too much press, and is not even obvious which "side" is right (they probably both wrong) 

Wyozark - Posted - 10/12/2019:  20:17:34

Not locked? Hmm. Maybe this will help. . .

Anyway, to continue my story from above, I found that in my nearly forty years of prison work that nearly every inmate considered himself to basically be a good fellow. Of course, he got to define what a good fellow might be. He would even admit that he may have made some mistakes, but he was young. Or he was raised poor. Or he was mistreated. Or he fell in with the wrong people. Or . . .

Generally an inmate would say (I am writing here a generic made-up discussion based upon hundreds of discussions with inmates across forty years) “I’m no criminal! I’ve never hurt a person in my life!” And it would be true. The inmate had never caused physical harm to a single person, And he would even likely lay down his life to protect your wife and children if given that responsibility. But beware to leaving your wallet or business dealings to his administrations. Or the inmate may say, “I’m no criminal! I’m honest and I’ve never stolen anything in my life!” And it would be true. The inmate could be left in charge of your checkbook and belongings and everything would be accounted for and he would tell you the truth. But beware, with his temper he may crack your skull; and dark urges would not allow him to be around women or children.

Here’s the kicker: every person I know, or have known, in prison, or has never seen the inside of a jail, has more than a little criminal in them. My late saintly grandmother. My precious grandchildren. Who taught my six year old granddaughter to lie? Was it me? And at the same time, most anyone who is asked would think about it and say something, “No, I’m not perfect; but I am basically a good person.”

And so when I see a loud italicized statement, “Would you support a baker now who refused to bake a wedding cake for a mixed race couple citing the bible as their authority?  If not please tell me the difference. If this is just a matter of time then when will we reach a suitable elapsed time for these bigots to be treated with the contempt they deserve?” what is my response? What if my point of view regarding marriage aligned with liberal politician B. Obama circa 2009? Would I be excoriated on an obscure banjo blog? “Moral Checkmate” is the declaration – and of course the morality is conveniently defined by the one making the judgment. . . .

Seems even an OldBlindGuy in Texas was still able to see clearly the moral equivalency BS. . .

And so my response is that in my mind’s eye what I see is a watery-eyed criminal yelling at me “How Dare You!" or “You Are the Bigot” or “Take Your Out of Date Morality and Stick It!” or “I’m No Criminal, You Are the Criminal!”

C. S. Lewis looked around at his fellow Englishmen and observed “Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.  It may be better to live under robber barons than under the omnipotent moral busybodies.  The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Someone somewhere some time ago said: “Take the log out of your own eye. . .”

chuckv97 - Posted - 10/12/2019:  20:36:49

wadr Michael, I don’t think Andrew’s argument was all that faulty; but it was the way he expressed it , as was Mike’s who chimed in. There’s an aggression and a uppity attitude that comes through which of course sends the discussion out of objectivity into the realm of emotions, namely anger and outrage.

I’m not sure politicizing (liberal stance of the 2009 Prez) the issue helps. The debate on both sides can stand on its own.

Edited by - chuckv97 on 10/12/2019 20:37:14

banjo bill-e - Posted - 10/12/2019:  20:59:52

The problem that I have with ---"bigots to be treated with the contempt they deserve?” --" is the idea that contempt is somehow noble. It is placing oneself on a higher moral plane than those you disagree with, and I have to ask if everyone holds the same opinions and values today that they held twenty years ago? Forty years ago? Didn't anyone besides me have to learn some lessons along the way? Were you born perfect? And if not, then right up until you reached your lofty state of moral superiority, just what role did the contempt of others play in your enlightenment? How effective was insult at changing your mind? Your neighbor deserves a basic measure of respect. Perhaps not your neighbor's ideas, but the person certainly does. The harsh disregard of another's values as if the person has no value because they disagree with you is not the sign of moral superiority. And to disregard what has been established morality for decades if not centuries and demand that it be replaced overnight with your own relatively new concepts that you are so very sure is infallibly right is to be consumed with arrogance and hubris and intolerance. And to call for one's opinions and values to be forced upon the unwilling without any regard for their own core values is the mark of the tyrant.

I am now convinced that countering hate with hate only increases the total hate in this world and that there is nothing noble about it. Attempting to counter intolerance with more intolerance does the same. It is also ineffective at changing hearts and minds, which has been the point of every post that I've made in this thread.

m06 - Posted - 10/13/2019:  02:05:28

If you you think contempt is 'noble' then again, that is your subjective interpretation. No-one else has suggested that interpretation. So it becomes an exercise in arguing with yourself: literally a straw man.



I can only speak personally; according to my faith actions may be contemptible, not people.  I will always resolutely defend the principle of equality and the belief that people can reject harm and open themselves to the capacity for love that exists within them.



Anyone is welcome to disagree. But it is a fundamental mistake to confuse or mislabel steadfastness as 'aggression'. That in itself is a form of self-deception and deflection by the accuser: blame. Aggression is expressed anger at those who hold different opinions. To reveal and present alternatives does not in any way indicate aggression. Look instead at those who instantly and unprovoked use abusive terms in response (one very clearly in this thread) and redirect your accusation more accurately and truthfully at those to whom it is warranted.

Are manifestations of racism and homophobia due our contempt? I think so. But not the people; racism and homophobia is learned hate not innate in our DNA. Therefore both are an abhorrence that are susceptible to change. And for change to occur requires that willful hate to be intelligently revealed and challenged and alternatives presented.

Edited by - m06 on 10/13/2019 02:23:07

m06 - Posted - 10/13/2019:  02:39:13

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

Mike and Andrew

----"Would you support a baker now who refused to bake a wedding cake for a mixed race couple citing----"



To clarify, it's not "baking" a cake----nobody was refused service for what was freely offered to others----- it is the matter of putting a message on a cake. 

---

Bill, do you not sense you own serpentine and transparent self-deception here? A cake business is bound by law to deliver the whole package advertised as commercially available to all customers. That includes any requested lawful message: Happy Birthday, Good Luck On Retirement, or a wedding message with two male or two female names. Anything else is discrimination. And a message or symbolism that is intended to or associated with the harm of others is not lawful. The cake shop owners in question are perfectly entitled to their views; they are not entitled to conduct their business outside the law without facing the legal consequence. That's their choice.

A garage mechanic doesn't go through the checklist but refuse to change the spark plugs when servicing a gay couple's car. The customer's sexuality is not relevant. All people's lawful requests are due to be met with equal service under the law.

As I tried, kindly and succinctly, to indicate previously the comparison Andrew made is a moral checkmate.

Edited by - m06 on 10/13/2019 02:52:20

Dragonslayer - Posted - 10/13/2019:  02:47:43

In response to Michael, do threads on this forum even get locked? Every other one I'm part of would have been shut down after the second post. But I agree with what you said for the most part. And I actually just heard a guy called Jordan Peterson saying the same thing yesterday.
I do believe that people should by default get a medium level of respect, but their words and actions will definitely change the amount of respect I have either for the better or worse. I also do not believe that all ideas should deserve respect by default. Ideas should be examined with a critical eye and put to test before given any credibility

m06 - Posted - 10/13/2019:  03:09:25

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dragonslayer

In response to Michael, do threads on this forum even get locked? Every other one I'm part of would have been shut down after the second post. But I agree with what you said for the most part. And I actually just heard a guy called Jordan Peterson saying the same thing yesterday.

I do believe that people should by default get a medium level of respect, but their words and actions will definitely change the amount of respect I have either for the better or worse. I also do not believe that all ideas should deserve respect by default. Ideas should be examined with a critical eye and put to test before given any credibility

---

That in itself, in relation to a perfectly adult and respectful discussion (apart from one person's use of the term 'BS') voluntarily opens you quite fairly to the question of antagonism or 'stirring'. Both of which are tacit forms of aggression.

The OP and the way the thread has evolved refer to one form or other of discrimination: our ability to choose to operate or close a business.

There are no political, overtly religious posts or flaming whatsoever. Moderators read the posts. So I'm interested which specific part of this thread are you referring to that moderators might've missed? Remember that your disagreeing with opinions expressed is not a reason to have a discussion closed. It may be a reason for you to consider whether reading off-topic posts is appropriate for you.

Invariably a person wants a topic locked when they disagree with the opinions expressed and/or the people expressing them. The huge irony here is that is an example of precisely the subject under discussion.

Edited by - m06 on 10/13/2019 03:10:32

m06 - Posted - 10/13/2019:  03:27:52

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wyozark

 

 

>C. S. Lewis looked around at his fellow Englishmen and observed “Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.  It may be better to live under robber barons than under the omnipotent moral busybodies.  The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

 

Someone somewhere some time ago said: “Take the log out of your own eye. . .”<

---

That's an interesting choice of quote given C.S. Lewis's own views. But again in relation to generalised comments to what are you specifically referring? Andrew's post contained historical fact, and expressed his personal view (which I share) that discrimination on the basis of race or sexuality is wrong. Hardly a contentious opinion in 2019. Given that Andrew's expressed view accords with the law in both the UK and the US what hypothetical 'log' are you referring to?

Tyranny is the condition of experiencing the inability to be who we are within the law. I've re-read his post and in every respect and interpretation Andrew's post upholds that principle of law.

In this context the inference of your use of this quote is that it is better to tolerate being exploited, than have equal respect for our fellow citizens. Speaking for myself, I utterly reject that dangerous assumption. And am puzzled at your use of it.

Edited by - m06 on 10/13/2019 03:39:28

m06 - Posted - 10/13/2019:  03:49:35

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dragonslayer

>I do believe that people should by default get a medium level of respect<

---

What is a 'medium level of respect'?

Compared to simply having respect. What are you withholding by default? And why?

Edited by - m06 on 10/13/2019 03:53:06

OldBlindGuy - Posted - 10/13/2019:  04:27:30

quote:

---

Originally posted by m06

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dragonslayer

>I do believe that people should by default get a medium level of respect<

---

What is a 'medium level of respect'?

Compared to simply having respect. What are you withholding by default? And why?

---

The statement seems rather self-explanatory.

A neutral level of respect is to be granted (rather than withheld) until a higher, or lower, level of respect is earned.  

Edited by - OldBlindGuy on 10/13/2019 04:31:32

chuckv97 - Posted - 10/13/2019:  07:17:57

Robber barons or tyrants? Good grief.....Is there a third choice?

banjo bill-e - Posted - 10/13/2019:  07:40:23

Homosexuality has been condemned as immorality by all three of the world's major religions for hundreds of years. I an not an adherent to any of those religions and am not opposed to homosexuality so I am not advancing my own cause here, but I am stating a clear fact.
To require by law that a religious person create a message which they feel is immoral is wrong, period. The harm done to the baker---a ruinous fine----far exceeds the inconvenience in requiring the gay couple to find an easily available alternative. And the scorn heaped upon the bakers is most selective. Islam is far harsher in it's treatment of homosexuals than Christianity, yet gets a pass from the liberal activists and the press. Atheistic communist countries such as Cuba have been jailing homosexuals for decades without any protest. But Christian beliefs are routinely condemned and ridiculed. And now these same Christians and others who hold traditional values are being told that they are WRONG in their belief that there are intrinsic differences between male and female. They are being told that their children MUST be taught that "gender" is whatever they choose, and that anything and everything is fine. What is NOT fine is saying that sex is binary, regardless of biology. Britain is now punishing advertisers for showing males and females in traditional roles, which is to say that the very idea of traditional sex roles is WRONG. Says who? On what basis? People are being required under threat of punishment to adopt these very new ideas. To punish is to use force which is legalized violence. To use violence against people for their beliefs is wrong, period. Fifty years is a very short period of time compared to centuries of tradition. And by what authority do you declare these traditional values to be wrong? It is nothing more than your opinion and you are happy to use legal violence to enforce your opinion. You are ready to see the very people who have been the bedrock of your society for decades crushed by the state in the name of your progressive ideals.

So what is EFFECTIVE in achieving social change? Well, here is a clue to what is counterproductive. When dangerous windbags come into power it is because they are the only ones pushing back against your progressive ideals which have been crammed down the throats of an unwilling populace. These demagogues always espouse and protect traditional values. Not everyone who supports them is stupid and blind to their defects but they are desperate for someone to champion their cause. And they have felt your contempt and ridicule and insult, for years, and are eager to push back in any way available. They are ready to do a little cramming down throats of their own. Brexit anyone? Stop shaking your heads in dismay and look in the mirror for the cause.

DC5 - Posted - 10/13/2019:  07:57:17

And let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.

I wish that OPs had to power to lock their own threads. It's not that I disagree with positions, or arguments or anything else in this thread, I just don't like the way it has been derailed and I wish all of this was put into another forum. The same thing has happened to mike gregory 's thread where he simply asked for people to post recordings of a song he wrote. The whole thing erupted into a historically/biblically correct bunch of nonsense.

chuckv97 - Posted - 10/13/2019:  08:03:04

I agree that the baker should not be fined - it’s his/her prerogative to operate their business as they see fit.
But I take issue with the “traditional values” folks feeling they’ve been ridiculed and insulted - I think that’s an exaggeration. They’ve held sway for many decades and now that they’re losing ground they play victim. As for supporting unsavory demagogues to advance their holy causes, I find that hypocritical.

banjo bill-e - Posted - 10/13/2019:  08:45:05

Chuck I agree that there has been intolerance on both sides I just disagree that returning intolerance is the best strategy.

banjo bill-e - Posted - 10/13/2019:  08:46:00

Sorry Dave, I'll bow out.

Dragonslayer - Posted - 10/13/2019:  08:48:03

quote:

---

Originally posted by m06

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dragonslayer

In response to Michael, do threads on this forum even get locked? Every other one I'm part of would have been shut down after the second post. But I agree with what you said for the most part. And I actually just heard a guy called Jordan Peterson saying the same thing yesterday.

I do believe that people should by default get a medium level of respect, but their words and actions will definitely change the amount of respect I have either for the better or worse. I also do not believe that all ideas should deserve respect by default. Ideas should be examined with a critical eye and put to test before given any credibility

---

That in itself, in relation to a perfectly adult and respectful discussion (apart from one person's use of the term 'BS') voluntarily opens you quite fairly to the question of antagonism or 'stirring'. Both of which are tacit forms of aggression.

The OP and the way the thread has evolved refer to one form or other of discrimination: our ability to choose to operate or close a business.

There are no political, overtly religious posts or flaming whatsoever. Moderators read the posts. So I'm interested which specific part of this thread are you referring to that moderators might've missed? Remember that your disagreeing with opinions expressed is not a reason to have a discussion closed. It may be a reason for you to consider whether reading off-topic posts is appropriate for you.

Invariably a person wants a topic locked when they disagree with the opinions expressed and/or the people expressing them. The huge irony here is that is an example of precisely the subject under discussion.

 

---

Well, I do not object to this thread not being shut down (yes, I regularly use double negatives) just on other forums I'm part of, they very quickly stop any discussion of "hot-button" topics, many of which have been mentioned here (homosexuality and it's legal status, religion and it's legal status as well as moral incompetence, and these issues are very political, as noted by the guy who mentioned a president. One other forum locked a thread for mentioning a current US president. I'm just slightly surprised cuz this isn't what I'm used to

Dragonslayer - Posted - 10/13/2019:  08:52:11

quote:

---

Originally posted by OldBlindGuy

quote:

---

Originally posted by m06

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dragonslayer

>I do believe that people should by default get a medium level of respect<

---

What is a 'medium level of respect'?

Compared to simply having respect. What are you withholding by default? And why?

---

The statement seems rather self-explanatory.

A neutral level of respect is to be granted (rather than withheld) until a higher, or lower, level of respect is earned.  

 

 

---

This exactly. If I meet a stranger on the street, for example, I'll give him a basic level of human respect, either by moving over to let him pass, or a smile, nod, or wave. If that person smiles, nods, or waves back, it slightly advances my respect. If they ignore me, it stays stationary. If they say or do something objectionable in return, my respect goes out the window. 

Dragonslayer - Posted - 10/13/2019:  08:55:20

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

.... The same thing has happened to mike gregory 's thread where he simply asked for people to post recordings of a song he wrote. The whole thing erupted into a historically/biblically correct bunch of nonsense.

---

Three posts counts as eruption? As I recall someone asserted a historical opinion that the events didn't happen, and I stated that I disagreed with his opinion. And then the thread continued on its path

Owen - Posted - 10/13/2019:  09:02:01

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

And let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.



I wish that OPs had to power to lock their own threads. It's not that I disagree with positions, or arguments or anything else in this thread, I just don't like the way it has been derailed and I wish all of this was put into another forum. The same thing has happened to mike gregory 's thread where he simply asked for people to post recordings of a song he wrote. The whole thing erupted into a historically/biblically correct bunch of nonsense.

---

I suppose your post and this reply are both "off the rails," but I see no harm in it, in the Off-Topic section.  I agree with staying 

"on topic" in  technical (?) threads where people are likely to use the "search" function to locate relevant material.   If nobody picks up on the drift. it will quickly fade from the scene [like in Mike's request for song recordings... a couple of posts that weren't on-topic... but I don't see any "eruption."]  If people do pick up on the drift, to my mind it's because people have lost interest in the OP has probably run it's course, and somebody finds the tangent more interesting. If a poster wants to get it back on-topic, he simply has to post his on-topic post... no fuss, no muss, no bother.   If I want to quit following a thread for any reason, or no reason, I just do so.   ... just my opinion, mind you; I acknowledge that others see it differently.

Does the "nonsense" about casting the first stone mean that only perfect people are free to comment. suggest improvement, etc., etc.?

Edited by - Owen on 10/13/2019 09:10:12

m06 - Posted - 10/13/2019:  09:03:01

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

>So what is EFFECTIVE in achieving social change?<

---

Bill, social change in regard to discrimination on the basis of sexuality has happened. Past tense.

As far as my understanding goes this discussion focuses on people's choice in relation to their beliefs. Beginning with the OP's admiration for business owners who put faith above profit, and latterly relating to business owners who contravene discrimination law.

It's therefore not remotely about changing people's thoughts; it's about behaviour and consequence. 

The law exists to deter and sanction what causes harm or detrimental treatment, whether from discrimination, arrogance, stupidity, by intention or by accident. As an analogy lets use traffic law: a person who owns a Ferrari may feel 'unfairly penalised' that they cannot legally take it up to 170mph on a clear, dry open public road; the law defines that for everyone it is an offence. That law exists for the care of other road users and the Ferrari owner's safety.  If the Ferrari owner behaves as if they are an 'exception' and disregards what society deems as appropriate and right and instead chooses to exceed the speed limit on a public road and are caught they suffer the consequence of breaking that law. An owner of a cake shop is subject to exactly the same process of scrutiny and liability in relation to the service they provide to the public. We don't get to opt in or out of the law in regard to our public behaviour.

That homosexuality was persecuted previous to the jurisdiction of our law - 50 years ago or 500 years ago - is a complete and quite bizarre red herring. It has as little relevance as referring to the fact that we once burnt heretics at the stake. 

We don't now because we are educated to know better.

Edited by - m06 on 10/13/2019 09:17:53

m06 - Posted - 10/13/2019:  14:12:59

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dragonslayer

quote:

---

Originally posted by OldBlindGuy

quote:

---

Originally posted by m06

quote:

---

Originally posted by    

>I do believe that people should by default get a medium level of respect<

---

What is a 'medium level of respect'?

Compared to simply having respect. What are you withholding by default? And why?

---

The statement seems rather self-explanatory.

A neutral level of respect is to be granted (rather than withheld) until a higher, or lower, level of respect is earned.  

 

 

---

This exactly. If I meet a stranger on the street, for example, I'll give him a basic level of human respect, either by moving over to let him pass, or a smile, nod, or wave. If that person smiles, nods, or waves back, it slightly advances my respect. If they ignore me, it stays stationary. If they say or do something objectionable in return, my respect goes out the window. 

---

It can’t be referred to as ‘self explanatory’ when some people have a different perspective on meaning.

I view respect as due equally to all; not as an earned ‘currency’ that Is negotiable or possible to withhold in part. Someone may earn my admiration. Someone may cause me to dislike them. Someone may act in a manner that disgusts me. In my view none of these affect the respect that person is due as a fellow human being.

It occurs to me that confusing respect with like or dislike is the source of much misunderstanding, division and conflict. 

But maybe a subject for another thread...

Owen - Posted - 10/13/2019:  14:34:46

Mike, methinks the meaning you're using might be somewhat narrow:

".....re·spect      /r??spekt/

noun

1. 
   

   1.

   
   
   

   a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

   
   
   

   "the director had a lot of respect for Douglas as an actor"

   
   
   

   Similar:

   
   
   

   esteem   regard    high regard    high opinion   acclaim   admiration    approbation    approval    appreciation

   
   
   

   estimation    popularity    recognition     veneration    awe     reverence     deference     honor      praise

   
   
   

   homage

   
   


2. 
   

   2.

   
   
   

   due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others.

   
   
   

   "young people's lack of respect for their parents"

   
   
   

   Similar:

   
   
   

   due regard      consideration     thoughtfulness     attentiveness     politeness     courtesy     civility      deference

   
   
   

    

   
   


3.  

verb

1. 
   

   admire (someone or something) deeply, as a result of their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

   
   
   

   "she was respected by everyone she worked with"

   
   
   

   Similar:

   
   
   

   esteem     admire      think highly of      have a high opinion of......"

   
   

m06 - Posted - 10/13/2019:  16:30:47

Owen, the two words in your list that are a closest match for how I apply the idea of respect are: 'consideration' and 'civility'. But probably more to do with acceptance of the integrity of a person separate from their words or actions. To a quaker that co-identification is non-negotiable. That is the reason for my/our applying that meaning to the concept of respect.



From that same perspective esteem, admiration, popularity are all personal judgements that we are free to bestow in greater or lesser amount based on our assessment of a person's character, talent and other qualities. They are judgemental whereas respect as we refer to it is not. But I'm in no doubt that others without that perspective may differ.



We find this distinction sharply brought into focus when in a role as a prison visitor. Without respect there would be no role or relationship. Yet the actions for which the inmate is serving time generally does not incline me to esteem. We also get to realise that these additional concepts are also more complex than a singular 'label'. Respect as we define it is a given. It is also possible to additionally admire aspects of a person while being repulsed by the actions for which they were sentenced. Kind've a follow-on comment from Wyozark's previous post.

In general too many folks grab at easy (and untrue) singular 'descriptions' and appoint themselves as arbiter. It takes less effort to simplistically label a person. In reality human beings are vastly more complex and contradictory.

Edited by - m06 on 10/13/2019 16:45:09

Paul R - Posted - 10/13/2019:  18:05:20

Several years ago I seemed to have offended a poster (long since disappeared) whose father, who had, I think, been a Marine, spoke about "earning respect". I responded by saying I freely grant respect until the person does something to lose that respect. I'm not sure if I said anything further, but I'd add now that I try to earn respect through my behaviour toward others. I know that at times I have lost respect, but I think I (maybe not every time) have also tried to earn it back.

An interesting juxtaposition - give it freely, try to earn it.

There have been times that personal friendship has been the spark that returned respect - knowing that my friend really isn't the way it seemed that one time.

figmo59 - Posted - 10/13/2019:  19:00:17

Oy'vay............ :0/

m06 - Posted - 10/14/2019:  01:33:44

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul R

Several years ago I seemed to have offended a poster (long since disappeared) whose father, who had, I think, been a Marine, spoke about "earning respect". I responded by saying I freely grant respect until the person does something to lose that respect. I'm not sure if I said anything further, but I'd add now that I try to earn respect through my behaviour toward others. I know that at times I have lost respect, but I think I (maybe not every time) have also tried to earn it back.



An interesting juxtaposition - give it freely, try to earn it.



There have been times that personal friendship has been the spark that returned respect - knowing that my friend really isn't the way it seemed that one time.

---

...or how about a small but crucial adjustment: give it freely, try to live daily in accord with our core beliefs.

That avoids the very human social and ego instinct to seek 'popularity' and 'acceptance' on the basis of other's 'assessment' (which may be false or corrupt). Relationships based on integrity and trust are a more solid foundation. And trust is something we do have to inspire and maintain; we cannot demand it.

Identifying and associating with those who can demonstrate trustworthiness is a more sure guide and compass in life than those more numerous vainglorious and narcissistic who put their effort into the vanity of 'admiration' and 'esteem' at any cost. 

Edited by - m06 on 10/14/2019 01:48:12

m06 - Posted - 10/14/2019:  01:52:26

And to come full circle to the OP...



There is trust and integrity implicit in the actions of a business owner who foregoes profit for consideration of that which has more meaning. 

It's the essential difference between chasing and living. 

Edited by - m06 on 10/14/2019 01:53:42

Dragonslayer - Posted - 10/14/2019:  03:49:46

quote:

---

Originally posted by m06

And to come full circle to the OP...



There is trust and integrity implicit in the actions of a business owner who foregoes profit for consideration of that which has more meaning. 

It's the essential difference between chasing and living. 

---

And for a business owner to forgo profits for the sake of their religion or integrity will earn my respect. Conversely, for a business owner to engage in dishonest business practices to increase profits, especially if they claim to adhere to a religion that would condemn those practices, will lose my respect for both their business and themselves. If respect was something universally given or received it would not be a virtue. 

OldBlindGuy - Posted - 10/14/2019:  05:48:13

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dragonslayer

quote:

---

Originally posted by m06

And to come full circle to the OP...



There is trust and integrity implicit in the actions of a business owner who foregoes profit for consideration of that which has more meaning. 

It's the essential difference between chasing and living. 

---

And for a business owner to forgo profits for the sake of their religion or integrity will earn my respect. Conversely, for a business owner to engage in dishonest business practices to increase profits, especially if they claim to adhere to a religion that would condemn those practices, will lose my respect for both their business and themselves. If respect was something universally given or received it would not be a virtue. 

---

Agree.  Unfortunately, some business owners have lost profits, lost their business, lost their freedom and, in other times or places, even lost their lives to maintain their integrity and uphold their religious convictions.  This treatment, of course, is not limited to business owners.  For thousands of years, people have been punished for voicing their religious beliefs. (One comes to mind right off the bat.)

Frisco Fred - Posted - 10/14/2019:  08:29:31

quote:

---

Originally posted by OldBlindGuy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dragonslayer

quote:

---

Originally posted by m06

And to come full circle to the OP...



There is trust and integrity implicit in the actions of a business owner who foregoes profit for consideration of that which has more meaning. 

It's the essential difference between chasing and living. 

---

And for a business owner to forgo profits for the sake of their religion or integrity will earn my respect. Conversely, for a business owner to engage in dishonest business practices to increase profits, especially if they claim to adhere to a religion that would condemn those practices, will lose my respect for both their business and themselves. If respect was something universally given or received it would not be a virtue. 

---

Agree.  Unfortunately, some business owners have lost profits, lost their business, lost their freedom and, in other times or places, even lost their lives to maintain their integrity and uphold their religious convictions.  This treatment, of course, is not limited to business owners.  For thousands of years, people have been punished for voicing their religious beliefs. (One comes to mind right off the bat.)

 

---

...and since religions are a social construct on which societies are built upon, it makes sense that the people who live by these constructs would want to defend those essential societal building blocks. 

For obvious reasons, whether or not this or that religious construct is divinely inspired is another subject, and is out of bounds for this forum.