[QUOTE=Xyzzy;402818][URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/21/josh-duggar-apologizes-resigns-from-family-research-council-amid-molestation-allegations/[/URL][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;402819]Typical right wing retarded religious hypocrisy.[/QUOTE]
Also, his stated reason for discontinuing his molestation of underage girls, as quoted in that article, is quite interesting.
[QUOTE]I understood that if I continued down this wrong road that I would end up ruining my life.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;402831]Also, his stated reason for discontinuing his molestation of underage girls, as quoted in that article, is quite interesting.[/QUOTE]

Ah. His reason for quitting was based on self-interest, rather than the underlying moral principles
that are [i]claimed[/i] (but not observed in practice) by the RRR.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;402832]Ah. His reason for quitting was based on self-interest, rather than the underlying moral principles
that are [i]claimed[/i] (but not observed in practice) by the RRR.[/QUOTE]Hey, give him due credit for honesty rather than hypocrisy which would have been the easier way out.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;402615][QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;402606]:confused: You two know that civil marriage *is* a stamp of approval for bringing up children, don't you? Or are you unaware of that aspect of the whole movement?[/QUOTE]Since it isn't true, I am sure that they do NOT "know".[/QUOTE]It looks like you misunderstood my comment.

I didn't say that civil marriage means you have to have children.

What I was trying to say is that one of the reasons that GTLB people have pushed so hard for civil marriage is that it gives them a stamp of approval, from the government, to adopt and raise children. Because of their civil marriage, it would be an act of discrimination, purely on the basis of sexual orientation, to deny a couple to adopt a child. Without a civil marriage, there is no stamp of approval from the government.

[QUOTE=wblipp;402617]I suppose we will tolerate this rancor in the soapbox. But it's more accurate to say the Zeta-Flux's views are grounded in a religious viewpoint that is a minority here. Silverman shows less tolerance than Zeta-Flux.[/QUOTE]
Thanks William.

It's funny because once in a while I work up the nerve to try and discuss things here again. But when it becomes clear to me how few of my fellow posters can discern blatant intolerance from a difference of opinion, it gets a little discouraging.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;402889]Thanks William.

It's funny because once in a while I work up the nerve to try and discuss things here again. But when it becomes clear to me how few of my fellow posters can discern blatant intolerance from a difference of opinion, it gets a little discouraging.[/QUOTE]

You are intolerant. Calling it a "difference of opinion" is just word sophistry.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;402905]You are intolerant. Calling it a "difference of opinion" is just word sophistry.[/QUOTE]

Maybe, but Zeta-Flux's posts haven't struck me that way. I suppose the distinction between intolerance an difference of opinion becomes harder to discern in matters of public policy; the differences of opinion are about what public policy should permit other people to do, so I suppose that ANY opinion on public policy could be labelled intolerant. Certainly your approach to Zeta-Flux qualifies as intolerant - this is clearly an ad-hominem rather than a rebuttal of his views.

[QUOTE=wblipp;402907]Maybe, but Zeta-Flux's posts haven't struck me that way. I suppose the distinction between intolerance an difference of opinion becomes harder to discern in matters of public policy; the differences of opinion are about what public policy should permit other people to do, so I suppose that ANY opinion on public policy could be labelled intolerant. Certainly your approach to Zeta-Flux qualifies as intolerant - this is clearly an ad-hominem rather than a rebuttal of his views.[/QUOTE]

Another moron who does not understand what an "ad-hominem attack" is.

What makes you a moron? Simple. You use words whose meaning you do not understand.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;402913]What makes you a moron? Simple. You use words whose meaning you do not understand.[/QUOTE]

Mr. Siverman...

We are trying to build bridges here.

We understand that you are incapable of "making friends" with anyone who does not bow down before you because of your brilliance, and/or don't understand specific things which you consider fundamental.

There are many, however, which don't fall within this set.

Deal with it.

In my opinion, Zeta-Flux's posts are welcome and an asset. I find his point of view to be interesting and appreciate that he articulates his reasons beyond merely stating them. I haven't been paying particular attention but in general have felt his posts have also been well-mannered.

When I put my stamp on this forum, I added specific permissiveness of forming or defying a consensus here or with the internet at large. One of the reasons I have been a wet blanket on direct profanity beyond what is generally necessary among adults is because it is all too easy to turn that profanity on a forum participant. This is a simple way to make it easier for me to quell many personal attacks. It is actually personal attacks and labeling individuals with negative attributes that I am most interested in preventing.

I am repeating the first post of the Soap Box sticky thread guidelines here for your convenience and will be copying this current message to that thread. From the time that I have been granted the courtesy of lower moderation abilities for this this forum, my task has been made very easy by the reasoned and polite discourse of all parties communicating here and I thank everyone for that restraint. The high signal-to-noise ratio of the intelligent messages here is also nice.

TLDR; the rest of this post is merely a repeat of the first post of Soap Box guidelines and then a showcase of some of the smilies for the forum that involve cats. I adore cats and want use some of them in the future. They seem very cute.
[QUOTE=only_human;392837]Need to discuss current events, form or defy a consensus, or just unwind?
Is someone wrong on the internet? [SUP][1][/SUP]
Then you might be in the right place.

To keep things rolling without too much roiling:
"Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others." [SUP][2][/SUP]
Be kind to humans because sometimes you're human too. [SUP][3][/SUP]

[1] [URL="http://xkcd.com/386/"]Duty Calls[/URL] - xkcd
[2] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle"]Robustness Principle[/URL] - Wikipedia
[3] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(social_psychology)"]Reciprocity[/URL] - Wikipedia.
"Be excellent to each other! Party on dudes!" - Bill & Ted[/QUOTE]
:ross: :cat:
:thread:
:poke:
:confus:
:moderator kitteh:
:never again:
:your opinion:

I appreciate the kind words on my behalf. Thank you!

I'd like to take a minute to discuss intolerance. It is entirely possible that this might just be more "sophistry" on my part, but I hope it will be useful.

The dictionary defines intolerance as "unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own", "unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect persons of a different social group, especially members of a minority group", or simply "lack of tolerance". (Tolerance is then defined as "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, beliefs, practices, racial or ethnic origins, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry". And a bigot is "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion".)

I freely admit that there are some things in my life that I do not tolerate. I don't tolerate disrespect towards my wife from my children. [The consequence is that they must immediately apologize.] I don't tolerate lying in our home. If I find a mistake in my mathematics, I don't let it continue to exist, but exorcise it from my work. And the list goes on.

So let's ask the very simple and basic question: Does this make me intolerant? And if so, is that a bad thing?

I would hope that people would say no, that these things (by themselves) don't make me intolerant. I hope that any person would look at themselves and say "I too do not tolerate certain things". And no, it isn't bad to lack tolerance for those behaviors/errors.

Rather, the type of intolerance we seek to eliminate is unjust/personal intolerance. The blatant kind, which *oppresses* people for their skin color, or *ridicules* the poor for their lack of material goods, or *persecutes* others for their differing religious beliefs, or *mocks* someone because of differing genetics, and so forth.

To give an example, I have an uncle who left his wife and their five kids for a younger woman. I find his behavior utterly repugnant. I do not condone, approve, or look at it with any degree of permissiveness. I have no respect for his act, and I do have a lot of disrespect. But I still love my uncle, I hope that his new marriage works out well, and I don't personally persecute him for his choice. Again, I believe this is not what we would call intolerance. But it could have easily become so if I did persecute him.

So the question then really boils down to: Is my opposition to gay marriage intolerance?

Some would say yes, because my position does not allow the (legal) existence of a certain practice, different than my own, affecting a specific minority group. I understand this position. But I would argue that these facts are not sufficient to establish that I am intolerant.

[B]Point 1:[/B] Not everything that disallows the legality of a practice/behavior, affecting a certain minority, was [B]designed[/B] to do so.

Let me give some examples. Laws against smoking in public places certainly affect smokers. But they were not designed to punish smokers; rather, to protect the non-smokers.

Laws requiring people to pass driving tests before getting a driver's license certainly affects the blind. But they were not designed to punish the blind; rather, to protect the public.

In order to judge whether my support of traditional marriage is unjustly intolerant or discriminatory, one [B]must[/B] know the reasons for my support. One cannot simply judge me intolerant because my position affects a minority. That is a necessary component, but not a sufficient one.

[B]Point 2:[/B] Disallowing/disagreeing with a practice/behavior is not the same as persecution, oppression, or ridicule.

I don't think much more needs to be said here.

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

Now, with that all said, I think I should make it a bit more clear where my support for traditional marriage stems from. It is not my religious belief. It is not my political party (in fact, I have none). Rather, it started from a single experience I had when I was about 12 years old. My parents divorced each other. This was an incredibly difficult time for me and my two younger brothers. Over the years, I have had many more experiences confirming to me the impact marriage has on children. I have now been married for 15 years (in two weeks), and have five children of my own. I support traditional marriage, not because I want to persecute homosexuals, bisexuals, transgendered individuals, bigamists, and whoever else wants to change it. I support traditional marriage because I believe it is the best way to [B]protect the interests of children[/B]. I am more convinced of this today, than I was those many years ago when this thread started. Changing marriage is not in the best interest of children.

Marriage was not originally designed to exclude the non-heterosexual. Wanting to keep its[B] primary defining feature[/B] in place is not an act of persecution.