RE: In case of a tie, who should win?

RE: In case of a tie, who should win? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Aylee -> RE: In case of a tie, who should win? (4/13/2015 10:52:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: smileforme50 I think if these people are so hell bent on following their religion....which they have the right to....then they should be the ones who jump through some extra hoops to do it....not anyone else on the plane. Meaning: If you absolutely insist on not sitting next to any women, then you need to buy yourself a window seat AND the seat next to it to ensure that it will be vacant and not occupied by a woman. If YOU don't want to sit next to a particular kind of person, it is YOUR responsibility to see that it doesn't happen. Yes. Absolutely. If someone insists on imposing their Neanderthal attitudes on the rest of us, then the obligation to arrange matters so that there is no inconvenience to others is entirely theirs. It doesn't matter what religion or ideology compels this behaviour, the costs and other inconveniences necessitated by their primitive views is their responsibility and theirs alone Ya just gotta love the flaming rage nozzles of tolerance! You will have to explain to me how my attitude is "intolerant". I didn't say that people shouldn't be allowed to follow the tenets of their religion. I did say the the obligation is upon them to meet any costs that arise when those tenets inconvenience others. People are free to behave like Neanderthals if they please (and it's legal). I am free to describe their behaviour as Neanderthal if I please, and the desription is accurate as it is in this instance. Mustn't inconvenience other people with their wrongthought! The collective effort to control and dictate what is and is not permissible to say, or to think, or to feel, including who you can and cannot associate with; lest you be hauled before the commissars* to be tried for guilt-by-association shows your tolerance. *Commissars being the progs that WILL do their best (and have) to destroy your career, safety, and have you be shunned.

PeonForHer -> RE: In case of a tie, who should win? (4/13/2015 11:11:04 AM)
FR Once people have fully satisfied themselves that they've exhausted all their bellyaching about minority rights and/or Political Correctness Gone Mad, etc, etc ... we can start to work on the problem of contradictory freedoms and how and why one set of freedoms trumps another.

tweakabelle -> RE: In case of a tie, who should win? (4/13/2015 11:15:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: smileforme50 I think if these people are so hell bent on following their religion....which they have the right to....then they should be the ones who jump through some extra hoops to do it....not anyone else on the plane. Meaning: If you absolutely insist on not sitting next to any women, then you need to buy yourself a window seat AND the seat next to it to ensure that it will be vacant and not occupied by a woman. If YOU don't want to sit next to a particular kind of person, it is YOUR responsibility to see that it doesn't happen. Yes. Absolutely. If someone insists on imposing their Neanderthal attitudes on the rest of us, then the obligation to arrange matters so that there is no inconvenience to others is entirely theirs. It doesn't matter what religion or ideology compels this behaviour, the costs and other inconveniences necessitated by their primitive views is their responsibility and theirs alone Ya just gotta love the flaming rage nozzles of tolerance! You will have to explain to me how my attitude is "intolerant". I didn't say that people shouldn't be allowed to follow the tenets of their religion. I did say the the obligation is upon them to meet any costs that arise when those tenets inconvenience others. People are free to behave like Neanderthals if they please (and it's legal). I am free to describe their behaviour as Neanderthal if I please, and the desription is accurate as it is in this instance. Mustn't inconvenience other people with their wrongthought! The collective effort to control and dictate what is and is not permissible to say, or to think, or to feel, including who you can and cannot associate with; lest you be hauled before the commissars* to be tried for guilt-by-association shows your tolerance. *Commissars being the progs that WILL do their best (and have) to destroy your career, safety, and have you be shunned. This collection of sad right wing cliches might find favour with the more gullible amongst us. However it doesn't have any connection to anything that I posted. I note that you failed to posit any connection, which tends to confirm my suspicion that it's just another boring copy and paste from some right-wing talking point memo specially designed for the intellectually challenged - IOW pure drivel.

Kirata -> RE: In case of a tie, who should win? (4/13/2015 11:47:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle You will have to explain to me how my attitude is "intolerant". I would think that brazenly anointing yourself the moral and intellectual superior of others, whom you characterize as "neanderthals," might qualify as an intolerant attitude. K.

PeonForHer -> RE: In case of a tie, who should win? (4/13/2015 12:37:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle You will have to explain to me how my attitude is "intolerant". I would think that brazenly anointing yourself the moral and intellectual superior of others, whom you characterize as "neanderthals," might qualify as an intolerant attitude. K. So ... hmm. We're up against the paradox of having to tolerate - as believers in equality and freedom, an intolerance - then. Specifically, that of an ultra-Orthodox Jewish male's intolerance of being near a woman. It would help if we could this case of an intolerance of female proximity as at least a reasonable one. Do you see it as reasonable, K? If so, on what basis?

joether -> RE: In case of a tie, who should win? (4/13/2015 12:50:12 PM)
How about we just take all the intolerant assholes and put them on the plane, rather than in the plane? Last I checked, the pilot (i.e. captain of the flight) has final say to things. Where was this individual when these people were having problems? That person would say "your sitting here. Dont like that, wait until the plane has its passengers and offer your seat to someone else." If they have problems still, the pilot could inform them they should take another flight, and purchase other seats to make sure no women might accidentally tempt a bunch of undeserving assholes with something nice; like a kind word.... No real excuse for that sort of behavior.

Kirata -> RE: In case of a tie, who should win? (4/13/2015 12:50:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer So ... hmm. We're up against the paradox of having to tolerate - as believers in equality and freedom, an intolerance - then. No we're not. Maybe you should try reading the thread? (hint: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4801813) K.

PeonForHer -> RE: In case of a tie, who should win? (4/13/2015 1:11:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer So ... hmm. We're up against the paradox of having to tolerate - as believers in equality and freedom, an intolerance - then. No we're not. Maybe you should try reading the thread? (hint: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4801813) K. Yes we are, K. [:)] I'm sorry if the question forces you away from framing the whole thing the way you want it framed, but you'll just have to get used to people doing that.

Aylee -> RE: In case of a tie, who should win? (4/13/2015 1:24:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: smileforme50 I think if these people are so hell bent on following their religion....which they have the right to....then they should be the ones who jump through some extra hoops to do it....not anyone else on the plane. Meaning: If you absolutely insist on not sitting next to any women, then you need to buy yourself a window seat AND the seat next to it to ensure that it will be vacant and not occupied by a woman. If YOU don't want to sit next to a particular kind of person, it is YOUR responsibility to see that it doesn't happen. Yes. Absolutely. If someone insists on imposing their Neanderthal attitudes on the rest of us, then the obligation to arrange matters so that there is no inconvenience to others is entirely theirs. It doesn't matter what religion or ideology compels this behaviour, the costs and other inconveniences necessitated by their primitive views is their responsibility and theirs alone Ya just gotta love the flaming rage nozzles of tolerance! You will have to explain to me how my attitude is "intolerant". I didn't say that people shouldn't be allowed to follow the tenets of their religion. I did say the the obligation is upon them to meet any costs that arise when those tenets inconvenience others. People are free to behave like Neanderthals if they please (and it's legal). I am free to describe their behaviour as Neanderthal if I please, and the desription is accurate as it is in this instance. Mustn't inconvenience other people with their wrongthought! The collective effort to control and dictate what is and is not permissible to say, or to think, or to feel, including who you can and cannot associate with; lest you be hauled before the commissars* to be tried for guilt-by-association shows your tolerance. Commissars being the progs that WILL do their best (and have) to destroy your career, safety, and have you be shunned. This collection of sad right wing cliches might find favour with the more gullible amongst us. However it doesn't have any connection to anything that I posted. I note that you failed to posit any connection, which tends to confirm my suspicion that it's just another boring copy and paste from some right-wing talking point memo specially designed for the intellectually challenged - IOW pure drivel. Now you attack me because of my wrongthought*. There is a surprise.

Kirata -> RE: In case of a tie, who should win? (4/13/2015 1:26:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer So ... hmm. We're up against the paradox of having to tolerate - as believers in equality and freedom, an intolerance - then. No we're not. Maybe you should try reading the thread? (hint: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4801813) Yes we are, K. [:)] I'm sorry if the question forces you away from framing the whole thing the way you want it framed, but you'll just have to get used to people doing that. The way I framed it, it's not a paradox. Is your preference for the latter religious? K.

PeonForHer -> RE: In case of a tie, who should win? (4/13/2015 1:26:34 PM)
FR Jeez. OK, why don't we all move onto some 'rightthoughts', then?

PeonForHer -> RE: In case of a tie, who should win? (4/13/2015 1:28:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The way I framed it, it's not a paradox. Is your preference for the latter religious? The way I framed it, it's about competing rights and freedoms. If you don't see it this way, what's your reasoning?

MercTech -> RE: In case of a tie, who should win? (4/13/2015 1:34:58 PM)
The bottom line would seem to me; "What is a reasonable accommodation to specialized religious beliefs?" I would think airlines would want special seating requirements to be brought to their notice before boarding the plane. It is much easier to shuffle seat assignments before the boarding passes are processed. They make seating accommodation for persons with leg prostheses that I would consider reasonable. So, if a person wants "not next to a woman" let him sit next to the garlic smelling alcoholic I seem to get plunked down next to all too often. But, bring it up before boarding and quit blocking the aisles acting like a putz. What is reasonable accommodation? Ok, I'm going to pick on Islamic women's headgear a bit. Wearing a hijab at the grocery - no problem Wearing a hijab in a bank - questionable (you even have to take off your hat these days) Wearing a hijab for an ID photo - not reasonable Wearing a hijab while accessing a security facility - not going to happen

PeonForHer -> RE: In case of a tie, who should win? (4/13/2015 1:39:16 PM)
If we're talking about a Western country, we'd be on slightly clearer ground re religions, built as such countries are on accommodating religions. But we're talking about planes travelling between countries, one of which has a big ultra-orthodox Jewish demographic ....

Kirata -> RE: In case of a tie, who should win? (4/13/2015 1:41:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The way I framed it, it's not a paradox. Is your preference for the latter religious? The way I framed it, it's about competing rights and freedoms. If you don't see it this way, what's your reasoning? I'll try this again. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4801813 K.

Aylee -> RE: In case of a tie, who should win? (4/13/2015 1:42:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer FR Jeez. OK, why don't we all move onto some 'rightthoughts', then? Well. . . that is why there is hate campaigns against those with quote: wrongthought . Doxxing, death threats, and destroying livelihoods are all efforts to suppress such in favor of correct thinking.

PeonForHer -> RE: In case of a tie, who should win? (4/13/2015 1:52:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The way I framed it, it's not a paradox. Is your preference for the latter religious? The way I framed it, it's about competing rights and freedoms. If you don't see it this way, what's your reasoning? I'll try this again. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4801813 K. K, seriously. Yes, that should help, but we know it won't. It's not going to stop at a question of freedom of speech. It's bound to go to one about freedom itself.

Kirata -> RE: In case of a tie, who should win? (4/13/2015 2:11:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The way I framed it, it's not a paradox. Is your preference for the latter religious? The way I framed it, it's about competing rights and freedoms. If you don't see it this way, what's your reasoning? I'll try this again. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4801813 K, seriously. Yes, that should help, but we know it won't. It's not going to stop at a question of freedom of speech. It's bound to go to one about freedom itself. I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. You claim, "it's about competing rights and freedom". But how can that be? How can that be, when one of the parties doesn't have a competing right or freedom? The Constitution does not provide religious conduct with a warrant to violate civil law. K.

tweakabelle -> RE: In case of a tie, who should win? (4/13/2015 2:23:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle You will have to explain to me how my attitude is "intolerant". I would think that brazenly anointing yourself the moral and intellectual superior of others, whom you characterize as "neanderthals," might qualify as an intolerant attitude. Good of you to try. But the intolerance in this issue is clearly coming from those people who cannot tolerate sitting next to a woman for what they claim are religious reasons. Not a problem that might ever come your way. Precisely why shouldn't this be considered a case of overt misogyny? Are we supposed to give religions a free pass on bigotry?

Kirata -> RE: In case of a tie, who should win? (4/13/2015 2:30:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Not a problem that might ever come your way. And why would that be, precisely? quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Are we supposed to give religions a free pass on bigotry? Do you ever bother to read what people actually post? K.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875