3 ms·

Are you aware of anyone in this thread, or of any major national movement, advocating for a tolerance-based right to perform sexual acts in public in front of c

Are you aware of anyone in this thread, or of any major national movement, advocating for a tolerance-based right to perform sexual acts in public in front of children? Looking past the strange and extreme strawman you've propped up, the reasons for tolerance in society are multitudinous. It prevents misunderstanding, fear, and hatred from festering and potentially giving rise to violence. As a simple thought experiment ask yourself the following question. How many individuals hailing from tolerant communities or organizations have you seen commit mass shootings? Contrast that to the number of individuals committing public violence who hold intolerance as a virtue. Public violence is a serious negative for everyone and its prevention should be reason enough to support tolerance as a basic tenet of societal health. The fact of the matter, no matter who might dislike it, is that modern societies are, for the most part, very diverse. Without tolerance for differences violence is a forgone conclusion in the modern world.

HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>Without tolerance for differences violence is a forgone conclusion in the modern world. What makes you think that violence is not a foregone conclusion if you start prohibiting people from expressing their genuinely held political beliefs or advocating for what they see as their interests?
- Brain_Thief 7y ago
  I encourage you to look twice at your question - I believe that, under close scrutiny, you will see that it contains its own answer. No one is advocating for prohibiting people from peacefully expressing their genuinely-held political beliefs in ways that do not infringe on the rights of others in public (unless you want to count the multitudes of minority voters who are regularly removed from voting rolls by GOP lawmakers or subjected to onerous identification requirements and other intimidation tactics...). If a person's "genuinely-held political beliefs" involve racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., and if said person "genuinely believes" that the appropriate way to exert their opinion upon society is to discriminate against the people they hate or even inflict violence upon them, then they are crossing a line established by our societal norms and threatening the stability of society itself. If a person's genuinely held political beliefs lead them to enact discrimination or violence upon others then they have placed themselves outside of society and are by definition not valid input sources for determining societal norms and laws.
  - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
    >No one is advocating for prohibiting people from peacefully expressing their genuinely-held political beliefs in ways that do not infringe on the rights of others in public OK, but some people are arguing for an expansion of some of those "rights of others" to include not being offended by political speech. >If a person's "genuinely-held political beliefs" involve racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., and if said person "genuinely believes" that the appropriate way to exert their opinion upon society is to discriminate against the people they hate or even inflict violence upon them I'm not talking about anyone actually discriminating against anyone or inflicting violence on them. I'm talking about people merely expressing their beliefs, which may include advocating for discrimination or the use of physical force. >If a person's genuinely held political beliefs lead them to enact discrimination or violence upon others then they have placed themselves outside of society Right, if they've broken the laws against such behavior, they've placed themselves outside of society. However, advocating for, for example, changing laws to allow such behavior is not currently against the law, and I don't think it should be.

HBKXNCUO 7y ago

>Without tolerance for differences violence is a forgone conclusion in the modern world. What makes you think that violence is not a foregone conclusion if you start prohibiting people from expressing their genuinely held political beliefs or advocating for what they see as their interests?

Brain_Thief 7y ago
I encourage you to look twice at your question - I believe that, under close scrutiny, you will see that it contains its own answer. No one is advocating for prohibiting people from peacefully expressing their genuinely-held political beliefs in ways that do not infringe on the rights of others in public (unless you want to count the multitudes of minority voters who are regularly removed from voting rolls by GOP lawmakers or subjected to onerous identification requirements and other intimidation tactics...). If a person's "genuinely-held political beliefs" involve racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., and if said person "genuinely believes" that the appropriate way to exert their opinion upon society is to discriminate against the people they hate or even inflict violence upon them, then they are crossing a line established by our societal norms and threatening the stability of society itself. If a person's genuinely held political beliefs lead them to enact discrimination or violence upon others then they have placed themselves outside of society and are by definition not valid input sources for determining societal norms and laws.
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  >No one is advocating for prohibiting people from peacefully expressing their genuinely-held political beliefs in ways that do not infringe on the rights of others in public OK, but some people are arguing for an expansion of some of those "rights of others" to include not being offended by political speech. >If a person's "genuinely-held political beliefs" involve racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., and if said person "genuinely believes" that the appropriate way to exert their opinion upon society is to discriminate against the people they hate or even inflict violence upon them I'm not talking about anyone actually discriminating against anyone or inflicting violence on them. I'm talking about people merely expressing their beliefs, which may include advocating for discrimination or the use of physical force. >If a person's genuinely held political beliefs lead them to enact discrimination or violence upon others then they have placed themselves outside of society Right, if they've broken the laws against such behavior, they've placed themselves outside of society. However, advocating for, for example, changing laws to allow such behavior is not currently against the law, and I don't think it should be.