Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Donald Trump, US President #47, US President #45, convicted felon, twice impeached, four times indicted, liable of rape, convicted for financial fraud, guilty of hiding hush money payments to porn actress in attempt to influence 2016 elections
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 278 | 279 | 280 | 281 | 282 | 283 | 284 | 285 | 286 | 287 | 288 | ... | 2482
cadman
1014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557
Inactive user


  #1715732 5-Feb-2017 13:20
Send private message quote this post

Geektastic:

 

joker97:

 

I saw a meme on facebook yesterday, something about certain countries ban Israelis from entering for the last 60+ years, and suddenly one country bans certain people from entering and it's a problem.

 

I'm not saying right or wrong, just something I read.

 

 

 

 

Six of the seven countries on the US list ban people travelling on Israeli passports from entering them.

 

 

They don't like anyone shining too bright a light on the double-standard.

freitasm
BDFL - Memuneh
80662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41087

Administrator
ID Verified
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  #1715735 5-Feb-2017 13:24
Send private message quote this post

cadman:

freitasm:


Waiting to see. Until signed it's just a rumour. But "freedom of religion" shouldn't ever equate to "freedom to discriminate".



If you can only have freedom of religion on certain aspects, that's not freedom of religion.


It's funny how the left's claimed tolerance only extends to things they themselves tolerate. Where's their tolerance for other people's intolerance?



Freedom of religion is to allow everyone to their own, providing other people's rights aren't trampled on.

Freedom of intolerance is hiding under a rock and supporting said intolerance by inaction.




Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies 

 

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

 

Rikkitic
Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

  #1715738 5-Feb-2017 13:26
Send private message quote this post

@cadman: I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. Tolerance ends when the thing being tolerated hurts other people, just like your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Those considered ' leftist' by some (whatever that means) are generally quite tolerant of other beliefs and ideas, just not so tolerant when those beliefs and ideas sludge into bigotry and discrimination. 

 

 




Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

 


 

cadman
1014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557
Inactive user


  #1715739 5-Feb-2017 13:26
Send private message quote this post

jarledb:

 

Lets have some perspective here:

 

The US last year accepted 85,000 refugees.

 

Europe had more than a million that arrived.

 

Germany expected to take in 300,000 of those.

 

 

 

From what I can gather from the Trumps - the US is trying to make sure they don't accept anyone, unless they are good christians..

 

 

 

It's been such a resounding success in Europe, one can hardly understand why they wouldn't want them streaming in by the hundreds of thousands...

cadman
1014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557
Inactive user


  #1715740 5-Feb-2017 13:28
Send private message quote this post

Pumpedd:

 

jarledb:

 

Lets have some perspective here:

 

The US last year accepted 85,000 refugees.

 

Europe had more than a million that arrived.

 

Germany expected to take in 300,000 of those.

 

 

 

From what I can gather from the Trumps - the US is trying to make sure they don't accept anyone, unless they are good christians..

 

 

 

 

 

 

And what makes christians better than anyone else? I could discuss my experience but wouldnt dare...

 

 

It's not whether they're better - more whether their values are compatible.

cadman
1014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557
Inactive user


  #1715741 5-Feb-2017 13:32
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

@cadman: I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. Tolerance ends when the thing being tolerated hurts other people, just like your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Those considered ' leftist' by some (whatever that means) are generally quite tolerant of other beliefs and ideas, just not so tolerant when those beliefs and ideas sludge into bigotry and discrimination. 

 

 

 

Like I said - selective tolerance. They also readily accept and practice bigotry toward anyone that doesn't share their particular values.

 

There's a word for people like that - hypocrites.

cadman
1014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557
Inactive user


  #1715742 5-Feb-2017 13:37
Send private message quote this post

freitasm:
cadman:

 

freitasm:

 

 

 

Waiting to see. Until signed it's just a rumour. But "freedom of religion" shouldn't ever equate to "freedom to discriminate".

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you can only have freedom of religion on certain aspects, that's not freedom of religion.

 

 

 

It's funny how the left's claimed tolerance only extends to things they themselves tolerate. Where's their tolerance for other people's intolerance?

 



Freedom of religion is to allow everyone to their own, providing other people's rights aren't trampled on.

Freedom of intolerance is hiding under a rock and supporting said intolerance by inaction.

 

At least as long as you're only trampling on the right of freedom of religion. Or is that not a right?

dejadeadnz
2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user


  #1715743 5-Feb-2017 13:38
Send private message quote this post

freitasm: 

 


Freedom of religion is to allow everyone to their own, providing other people's rights aren't trampled on.

 

This and 1000 times this. The fundamental problem with any purported liberal democratic society interpreting freedom of religion in the manner espoused by Cadman is that it literally encourages the endless perpetuation of disputes which cannot ever be solved via rational dialogue in a manner that befits the nominal commitment to equality of all persons.

 

Take the classic "It's my religious belief that a marriage is between a man and a woman and, therefore, if you don't allow me to refuse to cater for a lesbian couple's wedding, you're violating my freedom of religion" argument that was doing the rounds in Ohio. If you agree with the bakery owner (and take the very expansive notion of freedom of religion espoused by Cadman seriously), you're also violating the religious freedom of those who interpret the bible or whatever other religious text as meaning that gay marriage is both permissible and moral. Then what are we going to do as a society? Just leave these two groups to scream and shout at each other and respectively assert the moral righteousness of their beliefs? If that is all people will do, that's probably okay but as human history tells us, people tend to do more than screaming and shouting.

 

Because these sorts of debates cannot ever be resolved by appeal to falsifiable evidence/propositions and tend to hinge on subjective beliefs/passions, disagreements can get violent or the social agenda simply set by the majority. Yet most civilised liberal democracies have constitutional provisions that are intended to prevent a tyranny of the majority. You can't sensibly have all this background and have the expansive definition of freedom of religion at once. All one can do is for the state to leave the practice of religion alone and to ensure that all social/political systems are non-secular, so as not to be seen or actually favour any particular metaphysical or religious worldview.

 

 

 

 

dejadeadnz
2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user


  #1715746 5-Feb-2017 13:48
Send private message quote this post

cadman:

 

 

 

At least as long as you're only trampling on the right of freedom of religion. Or is that not a right?

 

 

You're made a classic argumentation error. You've assumed, without critical justification and thought, that the right of freedom of religion has to be as expansive as you wish to be morally defensible. With a relatively short post, I've already shown you that this is impractical and conceptually difficult to defend.

 

 

 

 

cadman
1014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557
Inactive user


  #1715747 5-Feb-2017 13:48
Send private message quote this post

dejadeadnz:

 

Take the classic "It's my religious belief that a marriage is between a man and a woman and, therefore, if you don't allow me to refuse to cater for a lesbian couple's wedding, you're violating my freedom of religion" argument that was doing the rounds in Ohio.

 

 

And yet clearly taking away the choice to not cater for the lesbian 'wedding' itself tramples on the rights of that person to observe their stated religious beliefs.

 

For the record, I'm not in the slightest bit religious insofar as holding any belief in some all-knowing all-seeing entity.

cadman
1014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557
Inactive user


  #1715749 5-Feb-2017 13:51
Send private message quote this post

dejadeadnz:

 

cadman:

 

At least as long as you're only trampling on the right of freedom of religion. Or is that not a right?

 

 

You're made a classic argumentation error. You've assumed, without critical justification and thought, that the right of freedom of religion has to be as expansive as you wish to be morally defensible. With a relatively short post, I've already shown you that this is impractical and conceptually difficult to defend.

 

 

You don't get to label something freedom without it actually being free. What you're defending is restriction.

dejadeadnz
2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user


  #1715754 5-Feb-2017 13:57
Send private message quote this post

cadman:

 

 

 

And yet clearly taking away the choice to not cater for the lesbian 'wedding' itself tramples on the rights of that person to observe their stated religious beliefs.

 

For the record, I'm not in the slightest bit religious insofar as holding any belief in some all-knowing all-seeing entity.

 

 

If you would take away the emotive language like "tramples" and calmly reflect a wee bit, the exercise of all rights or purported rights has to be limited to some morally justified extent in order to have a peaceful and harmonious society. In theory, I might like to be able to say whatever the hell I want but the laws on defamation limit my freedom of speech. The extent to which one's freedom of speech is limited depends upon the mores, attitudes and social consensus in each polity. But unless you seriously subscribe to some kind of "free for all" there is nothing morally significant per se about someone's rights being limited, barring the clearest of cases like someone's right to life being denied because they have red hair.

 

So the real question always has to be this: are the limits upon an individual's rights morally justified in a free and democratic society. You can legitimately debate whether the bakery owners' rights in the wedding cake case were unreasonably denied or limited (I don't think so for the reasons that I've already expressed) but no matter how many times you assert it, having one's exercise of freedom of religion limited in most cases is not per se wrong.

 

cadman:

 

 

 

You don't get to label something freedom without it actually being free. What you're defending is restriction.

 

 

Again, stop getting emotive. The NZ Bill of Rights Act guarantees you the freedom of movement as against the state but the police can still arrest you for trespassing upon someone's private property. It guarantees freedom of religion but you can still be arrested for inciting violence against other religious groups even if you genuinely believe that your religious calling is for you to get enough people together and destroy adherents of X religion. Most rational people would consider this framework as one which reasonably enables the freedom of rational exercises of rights as much as possible whilst preserving a harmonious society. If you want to be bitter and twisted over the fact that there can't be a free for all, you're welcome to someone try and find a place on this earth that has a social system more befitting your beliefs.

Rikkitic
Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

  #1715758 5-Feb-2017 14:20
Send private message quote this post

cadman:

 

 

 

Like I said - selective tolerance. They also readily accept and practice bigotry toward anyone that doesn't share their particular values.

 

There's a word for people like that - hypocrites.

 

 

Would you care to substantiate this in any way? At the moment it is just uninformed opinion and there is already plenty of that on the Internet.

 

 




Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

 


 

cadman
1014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557
Inactive user


  #1715764 5-Feb-2017 14:56
Send private message quote this post

dejadeadnz:

 

cadman:

 

And yet clearly taking away the choice to not cater for the lesbian 'wedding' itself tramples on the rights of that person to observe their stated religious beliefs.

 

For the record, I'm not in the slightest bit religious insofar as holding any belief in some all-knowing all-seeing entity.

 

 

If you would take away the emotive language like "tramples"...

 

 

I was simply continuing with the same terminology that had been used by the person I had responded to. Perhaps take your concerns to them.

 

dejadeadnz:

 

...and calmly reflect a wee bit...

 

 

The implication being I'm not perfectly calm? Is that somehow not emotive language?

 

dejadeadnz: ...the exercise of all rights or purported rights has to be limited to some morally justified extent in order to have a peaceful and harmonious society. In theory, I might like to be able to say whatever the hell I want but the laws on defamation limit my freedom of speech.

 

They do but there's always the defences of truth or honest opinion to claims of defamation.

 

dejadeadnz:

 

The extent to which one's freedom of speech is limited depends upon the mores, attitudes and social consensus in each polity. But unless you seriously subscribe to some kind of "free for all" there is nothing morally significant per se about someone's rights being limited, barring the clearest of cases like someone's right to life being denied because they have red hair.

 

 

When did this come down to a free-for-all or denying people the right to life? It's simply about not forcing people to have to abandon their religious beliefs because some other people don't like them.

 

dejadeadnz: So the real question always has to be this: are the limits upon an individual's rights morally justified in a free and democratic society. You can legitimately debate whether the bakery owners' rights in the wedding cake case were unreasonably denied or limited (I don't think so for the reasons that I've already expressed) but no matter how many times you assert it, having one's exercise of freedom of religion limited in most cases is not per se wrong.

 

Not in the case it does physical harm. But in the case of removing your right to choose whom you deal with, absolutely, it is wrong.

 

 

 

dejadeadnz:

 

cadman:

 

You don't get to label something freedom without it actually being free. What you're defending is restriction.

 

 

Again, stop getting emotive.

 

 

There's nothing emotive about it. It's a statement of fact. Restriction is not freedom.

 

dejadeadnz:

 

The NZ Bill of Rights Act guarantees you the freedom of movement as against the state but the police can still arrest you for trespassing upon someone's private property. It guarantees freedom of religion but you can still be arrested for inciting violence against other religious groups even if you genuinely believe that your religious calling is for you to get enough people together and destroy adherents of X religion. Most rational people would consider this framework as one which reasonably enables the freedom of rational exercises of rights as much as possible whilst preserving a harmonious society.

 

 

Which comes back to harm, not freedom of choice to not associate with certain people due to your religious beliefs.

 

dejadeadnz:

 

If you want to be bitter and twisted...

 

 

There you go using emotive language again.

 

dejadeadnz:

 

...over the fact that there can't be a free for all, you're welcome to someone try and find a place on this earth that has a social system more befitting your beliefs.

 

 

Ergo decedo...

cadman
1014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557
Inactive user


  #1715765 5-Feb-2017 15:01
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

cadman:

 

Like I said - selective tolerance. They also readily accept and practice bigotry toward anyone that doesn't share their particular values.

 

There's a word for people like that - hypocrites.

 

 

Would you care to substantiate this in any way? At the moment it is just uninformed opinion and there is already plenty of that on the Internet.

 

 

Sure. Here you go.

 

Why aren't you tolerating my opinion? You must be a bigot if you don't.

1 | ... | 278 | 279 | 280 | 281 | 282 | 283 | 284 | 285 | 286 | 287 | 288 | ... | 2482
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic


Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Updates »

Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.


RSS feeds
Main feed
Forums feed
Copyright
©2002-2026 Geekzone®
Site features
Geekzone BI dashboard
Geekzone Badges
Geekzone Status Page

 

Site Information
Subscribe to Geekzone
Privacy Statement
Forum Usage Guidelines (FUG)
Advertising
Trademark and copyright