I’ve never heard anyone make that argument, and I have lots of very conservative friends. Can you give us a cite that this is common thinking among conservatives? Looks like a giant straw man to me. To be clear, I’d like to see cites supporting each of those examples in your OP.
Sorry, I was speaking in generalities. Mostly because I personally have never heard a conservative say that liberals should tolerate groups that hate gays, as suggested in the OP.
See, the OP was exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. The OP is framing the issue a certain way…that any group that opposes what he believes ought to be the final word on gay rights is a group that “hates gays.” Maybe the group doesn’t believe in gay marriage, for instance. I don’t necessarily agree with that opinion, but I don’t think that it has to automatically mean that the group “hates gays.” Being intolerant of that viewpoint, to me, means that you won’t even listen to the reasons for having the opinion, but instead automatically leap to the conclusion that the person hates gays/is a bigot.
I do agree that communication is the problem, but I point to your post as an example of the garbled consideration of the issue. The generalizations seem to come most clearly from the conservatives in this thread. Be specific! That was the point of my first post here, and it remains the case.
But to address the clarity of communication, explain your last sentence please. I am tolerant of conservatives having different values. I am hoping you can provide adequate examples of liberals trying to prevent conservatives from having conservative values. The problem comes about when those conservative values are put into discriminatory action against others.
I’m pretty sure, contra Sarafeena et al., here, that no liberal has ever proclaimed that they would tolerate all discriminatory actions. Please cite to the contrary.
Again, the generalizations are NOT being pushed by liberals here, but by conservatives in their straw man construction of what liberals believe about themselves.
Oh, I’m sure I’ve heard it several times on this board alone. Do you need a cite to that effect?
Which presupposes that there is an entirely reasonable and legitimate reason to withold such recognition from gay people. Any idea what that entirely reasonable and legitimate reason might be? If no such reason exists, then why should I listen respectfully, unless a new! improved! entirely legitimate reason is in the offing? If it doesn’t exist today, is it likely to exist tomorrow?
We wait with bated breath.
Sorry, I didn’t see that example. This is a great example, actually, to illustrate what I’m talking about. Many conservatives hold a philosophical principle that there should be no protected classes. Not because they believe that people ought to be discriminated against, but because they don’t think there’s a Constitutional basis for not allowing people to make hiring decisions based on whatever criteria they choose. This doesn’t mean that people who hold that position are bigots. I know many a conservative who wouldn’t think of patronizing a business that they knew to be discriminatory, while at the same time thinking that laws banning such businesses should not exist. This is a philosophical idea about the role of government, not an illustration of bigotry.
Better example is one I’ve discussed in my previous post, because it has a more clear-cut/direct answer than one that could be given in the defense of a marriage amendment.
Personal characteristics and private life decisions do not extend to activities that involve causing physical harm to others.
It’s precisely because such characteristics are superficial and because such choices have negligible effect on other that they should be tolerated. Liberal tolerance doesn’t extend to things are are truly wrong, like murder or suppression of human rights. And tolerance doesn’t mean that you are required to vote for people whose policies you disagree with. It means you don’t put them in jail or deny them a job or encourage people to hate them because of their policies.
You know, you can overexamine every word in the English language in order to make any statement nonsensical. And you can pretend to misunderstand a word forever but still never make a point.
Nonsense. Disagreeing with someone’s policy positions is not intolerance.
Liberals do tolerate conservative values. They just don’t agree with them and don’t believe that conservative values should represent a legal mandate on everyone or limit the workplace, political, or social prospects of those who violate conservative values.
You are allowed to be homophobe. You are just not allowed to operate a public organization that practices discrimination against homosexuals. That’s not intolerance.
While that might be a valid constitutional issue, it has nothing to do with liberal tolerance.
That would be a start. I’ll be floored, though, if someone posted on this board that liberals should “embrace” nuking Iran in the spirit of tolerance. But I could be wrong…
Sure it does - when the actions of the board go beyond advocacy for gays and turn instead to insulting Marines and endorsing actions to drive them from town.
While this point seems to be lost on you, it is crystal clear to others - I’m linking an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle.
I doubt anyone has ever said liberals must be tolerant of intolerance. Even back 45 years ago liberals were intolerant of those advocating segregation and race hatred. Tsk, tsk.
If the BCC passed an ordinance stating a desire to close down a hiring agency explicitly discriminating against Asians, Jews, or Republicans, would you be equally upset about this intolerance?
Got mugged, huh?
Anyhoo, if liberals not voting for Obama are violating their claimed ideals, I guess conservatives who don’t shoot abortion doctors are in the same boat. Or they’re just lazy.
Not me, just my paycheck! But that has nothing to do with my “conversion.” I turned conservative long before I made any money worth taxing.
I was responding to your stated criticism of the action, which was:
Which is a constitutional question that has nothing to do with tolerance. If this was not the basis of your argument that the action is an example of liberal intolerance, then why did you say it?
I do not expect to study the whole history of an action by the Berkeley City Council just because you reference it. If you are labeling it intolerant, then I expect that you will provide your reasoning in your posts, not make irrelevant statements and then make sarcastic statements implying that I am stupid. You think this action is intolerant – you post in this thread all the reasons why you think it’s intolerant.
They might be completely wrong about these things, they might be foolishly undiplomatic, they might be deluded conspiracy theorists, they might be mental cases, they might be constitutionally in error, but, again, I don’t see how this has anything to do with the liberal value of tolerance.
Notice, however, that the assumption was that one must produce a reason why your opinions should be tolerated. Which is pretty much the opposite of “tolerance”.
Right - ‘we will tolerate anything except intolerance’. Then one simply labels everyone who disagrees on selected issues as ‘intolerant’ and presto - all the advantages of sanctimony and none of the disadvantages of hypocrisy.
Regards,
Shodan
The top three reasons for apostasy are mugged, married, or bitten in the jugular by an Objectivist. Ronnie Reagan, for instance, cast aside his silly unionist and liberal leanings when he married the daughter of a rich guy who was just to the left of Otto Von Bismarck.
My own views haven’t changed much at all in about forty years. They used to be more radical, but they became gradually more centrist. Progress by stasis, stick to your guns and wait for them to catch up to you. Works for me.
Never mugged. Conservative before I was married. Don’t know any Objectivists.
My views changed because I started to understand economics a little better, and because I started to understand the Constitution a little better.
I’ve always said, “there’s nothing more intolerant than a tolerant liberal.”
Oh, please. There are plenty of conservatives that think liberals are “bad people”, too. You think the pro-lifers accusing pro-choicers of supporting baby murder don’t think they’re bad people? You think the hawks accusing anti-war activists of supporting terrorism don’t think they’re bad people?
If you go to a left-leaning message board like this one you’ll find people bashing conservatives, and if you go to a right-leaning message board you’ll find people bashing liberals.
There’s also plenty on both sides who recognize that “good people” can disagree on issues of politics. But they tend not to be the ones posting lengthy rants on messageboards.
Regarding the original post, I don’t know the name of the fallacy, but I will say it makes about as much sense as saying:
“If you support freedom, you should support my freedom to oppress people!”