Would all you shad up and get back to talking about how dead struts 1.x is :)
Long live Shale and JSF!!! Brandon On 7/6/05, Nick Andros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > talk about an OT thread! > > > 1) The inconsistency in what is protected. For example everyone today > > talks about "tolerance." But what does this mean? What it ends up > > meaning is "There are no moral absolutes so the only valid belief system > > protected is one that doesn't espouse moral judgments." But what about > > being tolerant to the idea that someone might feel otherwise? Why is > > state sanctioned secularism the only valid religion (and yes secularism > > is a belief system - a religion). It's sort of funny that those whom > > often claim to be the most 'tolerant' are often the most vicious when it > > comes to attacking someone that disagrees with their view of > > "tolerance." There are many views I could state that would get me > > labeled as being 'intolerant,' yet, somehow it's supposedly not > > offensive to state "All views on X,Y,orZ are equally acceptable." To me, > > and many others, that later position can be considered extremely > > offensive. Why is only one view (secular humanism) considered 'non > > offensive' but other religious views are some how bigoted and > > intolerant. It's pure hypocrisy. > > > > The key difference here as I see it is how far some people want to > take these "disagreements." For many conservatives (granted, this is > a generalization here... so let's say "many conservative politicians" > instead), it is not enough to simply state "I find Y and Z to be > offensive" but they often want to take it to the next level and say > "not only are Y and Z offensive, X is the only legitimate option and > we should make Y and Z illegal." > > Consider if I was a vegan (I'm not) and you're a meat-eater. Let's > say that I'm passionate about it being morally offensive to kill and > consume animals. It's entirely my right to believe that and state my > opinion to you and anyone else I can find to try and spread my belief > system onto others (as it is your right to do likewise). However, it > would be ridiculous for me to try to pass legislation or, God forbid, > a constitutional amendment stating that meat consumption is illegal. > It would be wrong for me to try to impose my belief system on people > who have differing, but still legitimate, beliefs. > > To me, "tolerance" doesn't imply that I have to agree with what > everyone else says or does - it just means that I am willing to allow > them to believe what they want to believe. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
