3 ms·

>Questions? Yes, are you willing to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with everyone on this earth (except perhaps bigots)? In other word

>Questions? Yes, are you willing to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with everyone on this earth (except perhaps bigots)? In other words, do you think it's intolerant for a country to have any immigration system other than open borders (except that bigots don't have to be allowed in) or any exclusive political benefits for its citizens, such as the right to vote? Because if so, you've just declared the majority of people in this country to be bigots, who in your view should not be tolerated according to the second definition, i.e. you don't want to grant them equal freedoms or share social, political, or professional rights with them.

FussyZeus 7y ago
> Yes, are you willing to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with everyone on this earth (except perhaps bigots)? Yes. > In other words, do you think it's intolerant for a country to have any immigration system other than open borders (except that bigots don't have to be allowed in) or any exclusive political benefits for its citizens, such as the right to vote? I think it's perfectly acceptable for a country to have a reasonable set of requirements and a well documented and transparent process to attain citizenship of a country, and the benefits which citizenship confers, i.e. state benefits, school attendance, the right to vote, and safety protections. > Because if so, you've just declared the majority of people in this country to be bigots, who in your view should not be tolerated according to the second definition, i.e. you don't want to grant them equal freedoms or share social, political, or professional rights with them. I hope you had a protein bar or something after making all those leaps. I have said nothing of the sort. Not being a citizen of the United States doesn't make anyone a bigot. Conversely, being a citizen of the Unites States also doesn't mean you aren't a bigot. These terms are completely unrelated from each other and I have no idea how you think this tortured logic is supposed to work. Perhaps instead of coming up with bizarre theories on how the people intolerant of intolerance are the REAL intolerant ones, maybe you should reflect on why you feel so personally attacked by the idea that intolerance shouldn't be tolerated?
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  >a reasonable set of requirements OK, so you are unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with the people that don't meet those requirements, and who happen to have been born outside of your country. Sounds to me like you're intolerant of them, according to the second definition. Do you disagree? Would you like to revise your definition once more so that it more narrowly refers to the right people? >Not being a citizen of the United States doesn't make anyone a bigot. Conversely, being a citizen of the Unites States also doesn't mean you aren't a bigot. These terms are completely unrelated from each other and I have no idea how you think this tortured logic is supposed to work. I said nothing along those lines. >how the people intolerant of intolerance are the REAL intolerant ones I said nothing of the sort. >maybe you should reflect on why you feel so personally attacked by the idea that intolerance shouldn't be tolerated? I know very well why I dislike the idea that some of my countrymen should be suppressed under the law for expressing their genuinely held beliefs and advocating for what they see as their own interests, whether or not some dictionary definition calls their ideas intolerant. I think telling people they can't express their beliefs or advocate for what they see as their own interests is the first step toward a shooting war. If you tell people they can't express their beliefs, you are telling them you can't live peacefully alongside them as countrymen. In the case of many of the people you are calling intolerant, I don't believe that's how it is.
  - FussyZeus 7y ago
    > OK, so you are unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with the people that don't meet those requirements, and who happen to have been born outside of your country. Sounds to me like you're intolerant of them, according to the second definition. Do you disagree? Would you like to revise your definition once more so that it more narrowly refers to the right people? You're deliberately misconstruing what I'm saying. I have no problem with a country instituting an immigration policy, nor am I intolerant of people not born in my country. You're trying to put forth that I cannot both respect the rule of law of a civil society while still respecting human rights on a larger scale. These ideas are not at odds, and won't be no matter how many times you try and make it sound that way. At it's core your example is bad because there are tons of other variables involved in an immigration process that have nothing whatsoever to do with culture, speech, views, religion, etc. (and, taken further, a properly designed immigration policy in my mind wouldn't take any of those into account anyway.) In short, it's apples and oranges. > I know very well why I dislike the idea that some of my countrymen should be suppressed under the law for expressing their genuinely held beliefs and advocating for what they see as their own interests, whether or not some dictionary definition calls their ideas intolerant. "Genuinely held beliefs" are a terrible basis from which to derive law. We don't make murder illegal because people think it's mean to kill people, or because a divine deity said not to. We do it because it infringes on their right to live. If 2016 should teach you anything, it's that genuinely held beliefs by large amounts of people, no matter how large they are and no matter how much they believe them, do not constitute reality. End of. Reality is reality and beliefs are beliefs, and while they occasionally agree, one is real, and the other is not.

FussyZeus 7y ago

> Yes, are you willing to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with everyone on this earth (except perhaps bigots)? Yes. > In other words, do you think it's intolerant for a country to have any immigration system other than open borders (except that bigots don't have to be allowed in) or any exclusive political benefits for its citizens, such as the right to vote? I think it's perfectly acceptable for a country to have a reasonable set of requirements and a well documented and transparent process to attain citizenship of a country, and the benefits which citizenship confers, i.e. state benefits, school attendance, the right to vote, and safety protections. > Because if so, you've just declared the majority of people in this country to be bigots, who in your view should not be tolerated according to the second definition, i.e. you don't want to grant them equal freedoms or share social, political, or professional rights with them. I hope you had a protein bar or something after making all those leaps. I have said nothing of the sort. Not being a citizen of the United States doesn't make anyone a bigot. Conversely, being a citizen of the Unites States also doesn't mean you aren't a bigot. These terms are completely unrelated from each other and I have no idea how you think this tortured logic is supposed to work. Perhaps instead of coming up with bizarre theories on how the people intolerant of intolerance are the REAL intolerant ones, maybe you should reflect on why you feel so personally attacked by the idea that intolerance shouldn't be tolerated?

HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>a reasonable set of requirements OK, so you are unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with the people that don't meet those requirements, and who happen to have been born outside of your country. Sounds to me like you're intolerant of them, according to the second definition. Do you disagree? Would you like to revise your definition once more so that it more narrowly refers to the right people? >Not being a citizen of the United States doesn't make anyone a bigot. Conversely, being a citizen of the Unites States also doesn't mean you aren't a bigot. These terms are completely unrelated from each other and I have no idea how you think this tortured logic is supposed to work. I said nothing along those lines. >how the people intolerant of intolerance are the REAL intolerant ones I said nothing of the sort. >maybe you should reflect on why you feel so personally attacked by the idea that intolerance shouldn't be tolerated? I know very well why I dislike the idea that some of my countrymen should be suppressed under the law for expressing their genuinely held beliefs and advocating for what they see as their own interests, whether or not some dictionary definition calls their ideas intolerant. I think telling people they can't express their beliefs or advocate for what they see as their own interests is the first step toward a shooting war. If you tell people they can't express their beliefs, you are telling them you can't live peacefully alongside them as countrymen. In the case of many of the people you are calling intolerant, I don't believe that's how it is.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  > OK, so you are unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with the people that don't meet those requirements, and who happen to have been born outside of your country. Sounds to me like you're intolerant of them, according to the second definition. Do you disagree? Would you like to revise your definition once more so that it more narrowly refers to the right people? You're deliberately misconstruing what I'm saying. I have no problem with a country instituting an immigration policy, nor am I intolerant of people not born in my country. You're trying to put forth that I cannot both respect the rule of law of a civil society while still respecting human rights on a larger scale. These ideas are not at odds, and won't be no matter how many times you try and make it sound that way. At it's core your example is bad because there are tons of other variables involved in an immigration process that have nothing whatsoever to do with culture, speech, views, religion, etc. (and, taken further, a properly designed immigration policy in my mind wouldn't take any of those into account anyway.) In short, it's apples and oranges. > I know very well why I dislike the idea that some of my countrymen should be suppressed under the law for expressing their genuinely held beliefs and advocating for what they see as their own interests, whether or not some dictionary definition calls their ideas intolerant. "Genuinely held beliefs" are a terrible basis from which to derive law. We don't make murder illegal because people think it's mean to kill people, or because a divine deity said not to. We do it because it infringes on their right to live. If 2016 should teach you anything, it's that genuinely held beliefs by large amounts of people, no matter how large they are and no matter how much they believe them, do not constitute reality. End of. Reality is reality and beliefs are beliefs, and while they occasionally agree, one is real, and the other is not.