|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 3, 2011 4:37:35 GMT -5
Step 1: Enter topic denouncing bigots. Step 2: Deliver unwarranted reminder that bigots have their rights to expression too. Step 3: Act confused when people accuse me of defending bigotry. Step 4: ? Step 5: PROFIT!
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Dec 3, 2011 13:23:59 GMT -5
LHM, mind finally addressing this point: You're going to have to provide a quote here, LHM, because I read the first page and I don't see anyone saying something like "People with racist opinions should be thrown in jail." All I see are a bunch of people being disgusted (and rightfully so) at the church's actions. Indeed, which implies they don't have the right to their opinions. If disagreeing/strongly disagreeing with someone means restricting this someone's rights, (and restricting someone's rights is usually bad, we agree on that), then you can't disagree with someone, which makes any political discourse impossible. Your premise is wrong! And please, no 'I said, you said' posts anymore. They're not constructive. (Holy fuck, I almost made a they're/there error there. I thought these only happen to native speakers)
EDIT: Yes, Yla, I know you're looking for an official statement from him, but look over the thread from the beginning if you already haven't. I was actually just miffed that he seconded Distind's post without adding any own thoughts. In retrospect, even I can't see what is wrong with that (in this context), so... nevermind.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Dec 3, 2011 15:26:59 GMT -5
I'm tempted to ask whether 1+1=2 for realz, but I don't want a ban. So I'll say this.
There IS a way to rank subjective opinions by order of "best" to "worst" using objective criteria, LHM. As so many people have pointed out, telling someone that zie's inferior purely because of skin color and therefore isn't allowed to participate with "polite" company restricts that person for no objectively good reason; therefore, that person's opinion is NOT just as good as the opinion that it's stupid to restrict people's activities based only on skin color. Why? The second opinion allows for more rational freedom, since a person's character cannot be determined based on that person's skin color.
I would go so far as to say that very, very few humans should not be allowed to participate in society due to their actual character.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Dec 3, 2011 15:44:06 GMT -5
Its dancin lock jelly time, dancin lock jelly time!
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Dec 3, 2011 16:03:18 GMT -5
If it's dancing, won't it be hard to lock the thread with it?
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Dec 3, 2011 17:20:36 GMT -5
I'm tempted to ask whether 1+1=2 for realz, but I don't want a ban. So I'll say this. There IS a way to rank subjective opinions by order of "best" to "worst" using objective criteria, LHM. As so many people have pointed out, telling someone that zie's inferior purely because of skin color and therefore isn't allowed to participate with "polite" company restricts that person for no objectively good reason; therefore, that person's opinion is NOT just as good as the opinion that it's stupid to restrict people's activities based only on skin color. Why? The second opinion allows for more rational freedom, since a person's character cannot be determined based on that person's skin color. I would go so far as to say that very, very few humans should not be allowed to participate in society due to their actual character. Basically, this. Hey, if other people can simply quote other users without contributing anything meaningful to the discussion, so can I.
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Dec 3, 2011 21:23:24 GMT -5
Step 2: Deliver unwarranted reminder that bigots have their rights to expression too. Step 3: Act confused when people accuse me of defending bigotry. You can often let the racist's logic speak for itself, especially where racism is becoming less and less prevalent as time foes on. If you don't give them enough rope, they can't hang themselves. It just becomes tiring to watch these guys start thread after thread of "races other than my race are inferior and here's another load of "information" about why!" Remember Defensor Fidei, who had 700 posts of antisemitic bullshit over on the pink boards? We entitled him to his opinion, and the only one who wasn't convinced he was full of shit was Defensor? Entitling bigots to their opinion is sometimes the best way to demonstrate that. Given certain limits, that is.And I'm pretty sure that the Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church is really taking flak for that decision. If I'm not mistaken, the pastor who made that decision resigned citing "health reasons" and the following pastor has said that they can attend any time. LHM didn't say that we had no right to an opinion. And if he did, where did he say that?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 3, 2011 21:36:07 GMT -5
LHM didn't say that we had no right to an opinion. And if he did, where did he say that? It's moreso a logic trap than him directly saying it. Racism happens. People show disgust toward racism. According to LHM, this is us saying "they have no right to an opinion." LHM shows disgust towards people who show disgust towards racism because of this. By his own logic, this is him saying we don't have a right to an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 3, 2011 22:28:11 GMT -5
I don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Nor why this is so hard to understand. But what I particularly do not understand is why you aren't bothering him with these questions. Where did anyone say racists don't have the right to be racist, & if no one actually SAID that, why is he bitching about it?
|
|
|
Post by ohjohnno on Dec 4, 2011 5:25:05 GMT -5
Well... this church does have the right to do this, unfortunately. In an ideal world, everybody would stop attending their church because of this - but of course, this isn't an ideal world.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 4, 2011 7:39:49 GMT -5
Well... this church does have the right to do this, unfortunately. No one is disputing this.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Dec 4, 2011 7:57:15 GMT -5
Well... this church does have the right to do this, unfortunately. No one is disputing this. Looks like it on the first page.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Dec 4, 2011 8:11:35 GMT -5
LHM, no one is saying they don't have the right to hold the beliefs. They're saying they shouldn't have the right to infringe on others' rights.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 4, 2011 10:01:28 GMT -5
No one is disputing this. Looks like it on the first page. Maybe if you're from Bizarro Earth.
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on Dec 4, 2011 10:20:39 GMT -5
Well... this church does have the right to do this, unfortunately. In an ideal world, everybody would stop attending their church because of this - but of course, this isn't an ideal world. There was an item about this on one of the local (central NC) TV news shows this week. According to that, there is beginning to be a bit of negative backlash in their local community about this. IIRC, of there approximately 40 members, over half walked out of the church due to this decision.
|
|