Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

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


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: In case of a tie, who should win? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: In case of a tie, who should win? - 4/13/2015 10:52:13 AM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: In case of a tie, who should win? - 4/13/2015 11:11:04 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: In case of a tie, who should win? - 4/13/2015 11:15:16 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 4/13/2015 11:16:06 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: In case of a tie, who should win? - 4/13/2015 11:47:16 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
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.





< Message edited by Kirata -- 4/13/2015 11:48:57 AM >

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: In case of a tie, who should win? - 4/13/2015 12:37:24 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: In case of a tie, who should win? - 4/13/2015 12:50:12 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: In case of a tie, who should win? - 4/13/2015 12:50:15 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
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.




< Message edited by Kirata -- 4/13/2015 12:59:36 PM >

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: In case of a tie, who should win? - 4/13/2015 1:11:49 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: In case of a tie, who should win? - 4/13/2015 1:24:35 PM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
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.



_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: In case of a tie, who should win? - 4/13/2015 1:26:10 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: In case of a tie, who should win? - 4/13/2015 1:26:34 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline 		FR

Jeez.

OK, why don't we all move onto some 'rightthoughts', then?

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: In case of a tie, who should win? - 4/13/2015 1:28:47 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: In case of a tie, who should win? - 4/13/2015 1:34:58 PM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: In case of a tie, who should win? - 4/13/2015 1:39:16 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline 		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 ....

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: In case of a tie, who should win? - 4/13/2015 1:41:37 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
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.


(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: In case of a tie, who should win? - 4/13/2015 1:42:34 PM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: In case of a tie, who should win? - 4/13/2015 1:52:24 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: In case of a tie, who should win? - 4/13/2015 2:11:37 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
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.



< Message edited by Kirata -- 4/13/2015 2:12:01 PM >

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: In case of a tie, who should win? - 4/13/2015 2:23:49 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
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?


< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 4/13/2015 2:26:50 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: In case of a tie, who should win? - 4/13/2015 2:30:12 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
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.


(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: In case of a tie, who should win? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125