this is a poll

I do not believe you can force people to be tolerant. I think if we avoid labels (“neo-con” and “bleeding heart liberal,” for example), if we respect the fact that we have different opinions, and if we realize that we can all be wrong, it would help. We could be civil.

Hard to do? Yes. Do I always do the above? No. I try, and I often fail. JMOH to your question.

Hey, thumper, do you live in Texas? Just wondering… :hmm:

I do not believe you can force people to be tolerant. I think if we avoid labels (“neo-con” and “bleeding heart liberal,” for example), if we respect the fact that we have different opinions, and if we realize that we can all be wrong, it would help. We could be civil.

Hard to do? Yes. Do I always do the above? No. I try, and I often fail. JMOH to your question.

Hey, thumper, do you live in Texas? Just wondering… :hmm:That's not good enough. How can we force people to adopt non-racist, non-sexist, non-ageist, non-homophobic, non-islamophobic, non-prejudiced values? There has to be a way :o

And no, not from Tejas. why do you ask.

He asks because he's from here,he's a decent guy and notices what's going on...

That's not good enough. How can we force people to adopt non-racist, non-sexist, non-ageist, non-homophobic, non-islamophobic, non-prejudiced values? There has to be a way

And no, not from Tejas. why do you ask.

I do not believe you can force people to adopt any values (force being the key word).

I got the impression you were from Texas. I was wrong.

I do not believe you can force people to adopt any values (force being the key word).

I got the impression you were from Texas. I was wrong.I'm trying to figure out the liberal mindset here. Isn't that what the purpose of government is? To force the rest of society to adopt our values? :cooldance

Thumper, have you read any Kymlicka? Rawls? Or Dworkin? (Mr, not Ms)

Statements like that make me wonder whether you would know modern liberal egalitareanism if you were drowned in a mountain of Dworkin's famed seashells.

Thumper, have you read any Kymlicka? Rawls? Or Dworkin? (Mr, not Ms)

Statements like that make me wonder whether you would know modern liberal egalitareanism if you were drowned in a mountain of Dworkin's famed seashells.I know Marxism when I see it. So why haven't you voted yet? Perhaps we could have a big book/cd burning of all things WN? I guess that'll fall under heresy law. :)

You know Marxism? Cool, please give me an account of the appropriation of surplus value, historical materialism and the Hegelian Dialectic, the Law of Diminishing Profits, Gramscian structuralism, world-systems theory and Lenin's theory of imperialism. Moreover, would you please explain to me how any one of those has influenced modern liberal egalitereanism in a manner which its theoretical founders, Rawls and Dworkin, have not? Moreover, would you explain how Kymlicka's application of multi-culturalism to the liberal individualist paradigm is remotely Marxist?

Face it, kid, you don't know what you're talking about.

You know Marxism? Cool, please give me an account of the appropriation of surplus value, historical materialism and the Hegelian Dialectic, the Law of Diminishing Profits, Gramscian structuralism, world-systems theory and Lenin's theory of imperialism. Moreover, would you please explain to me how any one of those has influenced modern liberal egalitereanism in a manner which its theoretical founders, Rawls and Dworkin, have not? Moreover, would you explain how Kymlicka's application of multi-culturalism to the liberal individualist paradigm is remotely Marxist?

Face it, kid, you don't know what you're talking about.http://pichold.com/Images/Smilies/ughjerkit.gif


please masturbate somewhere else.

I was trying to figure out what the poll was about because there weren't any opitons that made any sense whatsoever. Now I get it - you really need to abandon your way of stereotyping. Or at least come up with some ideas that reflect some intelligent processes.

None of the above was missing.

None of the above was missing.true. or an 'other' option.

Are you trying to tell us you want us to force you to become more tolerant?

"Tolerance" is another completely misused word. People "tolerate" a toothache, a headache, poverty, and anything else that they do NOT like, yet have to put up with. To tolerate someone automatically denotes dislike or disdain for that thing, person or group.

Tolerance and acceptance have now become interchangable when it comes to politicalspeak. People run arpund using words out of context, and bash others for not believeing in their idiotic views.

I wish that proponents of tolerance would (first of all) learn what it is, and try practicing their twisted view of it, instead of pointing fingers at everyone who disagrees with them, while believeing they're somehow morally superior because of their supposed "tolerance".

If the implication is that "tolerant" people arent really tolerant there's some truth to that...a lot of people pretend to be tolerant-it's hard to cross cultural lines and most whites dont have to and some dont even have the opportunity to.
I have 20 years of experience living and working with black people and I'm not going to a black neighborhood in another city without a blamed good reason.It makes sense for people to be careful about mixing but it's good to mix in a controlled context...

If the implication is that "tolerant" people arent really tolerant there's some truth to that...a lot of people pretend to be tolerant-it's hard to cross cultural lines and most whites dont have to and some dont even have the opportunity to.
I have 20 years of experience living and working with black people and I'm not going to a black neighborhood in another city without a blamed good reason.It makes sense for people to be careful about mixing but it's good to mix in a controlled context...


I can relate to that. You won't catch me in East Baltimore in broad daylight. There are murders down there almost every day. It's almost exclusively black on black crime, but they WILL attack white people just for being there. I've witnessed it more than once.

I just can't understand why people stay there. It's an absolute hellhole. I worked with a guy for years who lived there. He's black, and says that poverty is no excuse. There may not be much oppurtunity in the neighborhood, but there's lots of oppurtunity all around.

He rode the bus to work every day for three years before he got a car, and he's doing great. His brothers are doing great too. They never listened to people who told them that because they're poor, black, and lived in the hood they couldn't make it.

Are you trying to tell us you want us to force you to become more tolerant?I'm just trying to figure where CowPunk is coming from. He says forced tolerance is better for the 'collective' :shrug:

Oh, well, sometimes he confuses what he wants to be correct with what actually is.

Anecdote :

A baseball coach was having a difficult time leading his team because many of the players simply couldn't stand each other. The country players couldn't get along with the city slickers; and the Southerners had a problem playing with the 'damned' Yankees; and the Californians were looked down upon as 'surfers playing at being baseball players'. Their off-field animosity towards each other was so fierce that it impacted their on-field play. The owners of the team wanted a winning season and demanded the team play well. The coach feared losing his job over the internal problems.

So how does the coach get the team to work together ? He makes everyone hate him more than they hate each other. By getting the players to do something together (i.e. despise the coach), they began to realize some commonalities and start building team-work.

End Anecdote

How does this apply to your question ?

If you mean 'best' as in most 'most effective', then the answer is brute force tyranny. Get everybody hating the gov't more than they hate the others that they previously couldn't tolerate.

If you want to an answer that will still respect individual rights, then you are deluding yourself into thinking that such an answer exists.

I'm with Killzone on this. You can't force people to change thier hearts or minds. In fact, I'm not sure we should even want to. Why can't gays "tolerate" those people who don't like gays instead of the other way around? As long as no one hurts another person, I don't see that any crime has actually happened. We can't make thoughts a crime...well...that is...if we want to have a free society.

We can't make thoughts a crime...well...that is...if we want to have a free society.


Too late.

It's already here.

The 'unfree' society, that is.

I'm with Killzone on this. You can't force people to change thier hearts or minds. In fact, I'm not sure we should even want to. Why can't gays "tolerate" those people who don't like gays instead of the other way around? As long as no one hurts another person, I don't see that any crime has actually happened. We can't make thoughts a crime...well...that is...if we want to have a free society.[liberal rant]

but what about equality? Isn't that's what it's all about? I mean without a huge overarching government that has the power to regulate our thoughts, actions, and interactions, how do we achieve the communitarian* paradise on earth we have all dream about?

[/liberal rant]
















http://pichold.com/Images/Smilies/kekekegay.gif

When discrimination is acted out in personel policies and in limiting the rights of an individual there's a reason to say "you can't do these things!"

Stray comet.

You know Marxism? Cool, please give me an account of the appropriation of surplus value, historical materialism and the Hegelian Dialectic, the Law of Diminishing Profits, Gramscian structuralism, world-systems theory and Lenin's theory of imperialism. Moreover, would you please explain to me how any one of those has influenced modern liberal egalitereanism in a manner which its theoretical founders, Rawls and Dworkin, have not? Moreover, would you explain how Kymlicka's application of multi-culturalism to the liberal individualist paradigm is remotely Marxist?

Face it, kid, you don't know what you're talking about.

http://pichold.com/Images/Smilies/ughjerkit.gif
please masturbate somewhere else.


:rofl: :nice:



But where's the Justin option?? :shrug:

When discrimination is acted out in personel policies and in limiting the rights of an individual there's a reason to say "you can't do these things!"...we've went over this. you don't have a 'right' to what is mine, and vice-versa.

:rofl: :nice:



But where's the Justin option?? :shrug:what's the Justin option?

what's the Justin option?

Most polls have an option that says :

Justin is a dick.

There's a story behind it. I'm not too familiar with the details; but I know other DAers are.

Tradition.

...we've went over this. you don't have a 'right' to what is mine, and vice-versa.

You're ascribing to a medieval concept that the world belongs to the rich and all
nature,which was created by God, exists for their use.The concept of social responsibilty hasn't permeated to your primitive region of the world apparently...

The problem of intolerance in humanity is easy to fix:-

Shoot anyone who disagrees with you. Then shoot every one else. Then shoot yourself.

Easy peasy!

You're ascribing to a medieval concept that the world belongs to the rich and all
nature,which was created by God, exists for their use.The concept of social responsibilty hasn't permeated to your primitive region of the world apparently...libertarian crew back me up here :o

fatmike is right. :)

The easiest way to force such things would be simply to villify people who are againt multiculturalism. Works fantastically.

^ heresy laws? :)

lobotomy, but hey... you have to vote for something. I just made a whinge Poll about that if you may recall. :nice:

What's the best way to force everyone to be tolerant of eachother?

:| :| :|

I'm with Killzone on this. You can't force people to change thier hearts or minds. In fact, I'm not sure we should even want to. Why can't gays "tolerate" those people who don't like gays instead of the other way around? As long as no one hurts another person, I don't see that any crime has actually happened. We can't make thoughts a crime...well...that is...if we want to have a free society.
Because DUH, gays are the objects of discrimination and suffer grievous hardships that violate their rights on account of it & not the other way around.

What you're really saying is, "Why can't they just shut up about my screwing them, and depriving them of rights? It's my right to **** them because I belong to the majority group!"

The easiest way to force such things would be simply to villify people who are againt multiculturalism. Works fantastically.
They villify themselves with their words & actions & intolerant beliefs. You only have the right to HOLD your beliefs, & not to be respected for them. You can't deny tolerance to others & expect people to grant it to you - you get back what you put out.

CP, I really think you need a refresher course in poli sci if you still can't figure out the that the privileges and rights are two totally different things. :o

Marriage is a RIGHT in the United States, & not a privilege. Equal treatment under the law & by the state is a RIGHT in the United States, & not a privilege. Privacy is a RIGHT in the United States & not a privilege.

The list goes on & on.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v709/raichu4u/chowpuppies.jpg

CP, I really think you need a refresher course in poli sci if you still can't figure out the that the privileges and rights are two totally different things. :o

I think he's too preoccupied with "rights" that have been written into law-a lot of what he would call privileges are in fact "rights" regardless of what the law says.

I'm still getting the idea though that CP thinks certain rights are absolute. Well they are, but as long as they don't infringe on other people's rights. For example, you have every right to express yourself anyway you want. We call this Free Speech. This does not, however, mean that you can spray paint my garage, burn messages into my lawn, or demand the local newspaper to publish your letters. BUT. If said lawn, garage, and newspaper were all owned by you, you absolutely could.

Your freedom ends where my nose begins. This way we don't have to 'tolerate' anything we don't like, and we all get along. That's the libertarian way :)

What the state proscribes are ACTIONs, and not attitudes. You can be as intolerant an ******* as you want to be, but you must regard the law.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v709/raichu4u/chowpuppies.jpg


Multiple thumperz... now there's a scary thought! :eek:

Cute, though. :)

What the state proscribes are ACTIONs, and not attitudes. You can be as intolerant an ******* as you want to be, but you must regard the law.wow, great consolation. You don't have control over your private property or business, but you can still think bad thoughts! :p

Multiple thumperz... now there's a scary thought! :eek:

Cute, though. :)

:rofl: I also wondered if this wasnt some Alex Jones sanctioned mind control technique. Cowpunk,focus on the puppies!!!

wow, great consolation. You don't have control over your private property or business, but you can still think bad thoughts! :p
This is democracy, my friend - you weren't promised the right to racially discriminate in hiring or renting, & a vast majority of Americans doesn't agree that you should have one.

If they didn't, they'd vote in representatives that would overturn, say, the Civil Rights Act of '64. Most consider it a vast leap forward for our nation, & so do I.

This is democracy, my friend - you weren't promised the right to racially discriminate in hiring or renting, & a vast majority of Americans doesn't agree that you should have one.

If they didn't, they'd vote in representatives that would overturn, say, the Civil Rights Act of '64. Most consider it a vast leap forward for our nation, & so do I.Actually it's a constitutional republic. And if your way were more enlightened, it wouldn't have to be codefied in law, would it? Truth does not require force.

Kinda like saying "of course vanilla tastes better! ...all the other ones are illegal :|"