Watch it jiggle.....
Opus, dont you know that the Delicatish Democratic Socialist Utopia we are building is run by those who will always find something about which to be insulted?
They will never be satisfied since they are built on phony outrage and the need to oppress and control all people at all times. The leaders only turn on themselves when they run out of peons to lock up.
Sir, I just would like to find what the principle is that you believe in. Pleasetell me if I have it wrong.
It sounds like you agree it is okay to destry apersons career if you or a group of people disagree with their beliefs.
We can compare atrocities all day. Bit cant you simply and succinctly clarify your position? If you dont believe the above, state so. If you do, then so be it.
Ok, then the baby with the heart beat in the womb (at 18 days)also would prefer not to be killed….if we gave her a chance to answer.
I promise you, the baby kicking in the womb does not want her life ended either. I agree..,let’s not force death upon them.
Absolutely yes. Can you please provide a few examples of this happening over the last few years?
If such a thing has happened (A Gay donor losing their job and having protests outside their office due to donating to planned parenthood) I would call for an end to the protests and boycott. However, this is a hypothetical situation that has never happened.
However the following people and states have suffered due to such boycotts and protests.
Brandon Eich. (read this defense of Eich by a gay blogger who deplores these tactics)http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-brendan-eich/
The State of NOrth Carolina over allowing men in women’s bathrooms
The State of Georgia over passing a law to limit abortions after the heart starts beating.
Gay owners of a Manhattan hotel for hosting a meeting with Ted Cruz.
Masterpeice Bakeshop attacked by state of Colorado for not baking a cust cake (art) for a gay “wedding”, stating that it would violate his conscience to do this (although he willing sold products to prebaked goods to anyone in his shop).
Oregon Bakers and florists attacked by government for not agreeing to be forced to perform their articistic services for a gay “marriage”.
The trend here is obvious. you offer a hypothetical .I offer what is actually happening.
So, I think this thread demonstrates the point of the cartoon. Despite attempts at trying to offer obvious facts for discussion and even asking for a simple statement of principle from another, many people these days (usually on the liberal side I am afraid) simply REFUSE to engage in any sort of effort to actually TRULY UNDERSTAND what the other person is saying.
With respect, I think we have found an area of disagreement. You seem to think it is ok to force someone out of their job or their business based on what you define (I am not sure how) as a “public” position. I could ask you the same question you asked me about a “mob” and ask you to define a “public” position or job held by someone. (To answer your question however, Eich was subjected to mass boycott action by online mobs pressuring his company (Mozilla) to remove him as CEO : https://socialnewsdaily.com/33426/okcupid-should-be-ashamed-of-its-call-to-boycott-firefox/ -for example).
Now, after this discussion I think I can discern your point of view and contrast it to mine.
Here is what I believe to be your view:Bookworm: It is okay to take group action to deprive a person of his/her livelihood or business if you think they are in a “public” position and somehow offend the sensibilities of a group of people.
Here is my view.“Brain_pudding: I believe society is greatly harmed by group action to attack a person’s JUST exercise of conscience by depriving him/her of their job or business.
If I have gotten your view right, let me know. If not, I think you should define it. I think we have had enough discussion to enable you to define your view with precision.
Mr. Bell, thanks for engaging.The attempt to take power through the hoax of man-made global warming (AGW – Antrhopgengic Global Warming) has been present for about two decades, based on a small amount of data (just over 100 years worth).
The type of control sought is to force people to stop using carbon based fuels. The goal is to harm the economy of the US while helping the economy of other countries that need not comply (e.g. China and India). The other goal is to enrich people in charge and with good connections. See the companies receiving large amounts of government subsidies for “clean” energy. See the governments who seek to collect massive taxes and impose massive regulations (green new deal and more). THe others seeking power are the “Agenda 21” crowd of the UN (now rebranded agenda 203). The AGenda 2030 crowd plainly seeks to depopulate the earth of humans, place us into, what are effectively, human containment zones while “re-wilding” the land around those human containment zones. People would not be allowed to drive, must work where they are told and do only those jobs they are allowed to have. It is the ultimate in collectivism and tyranny ( would be a fascist and socialist model, depending on the country).
The majority of scientists do NOT agree with AGW. See the many references above that I listed that debunk this myth of the “majority” of scientists agreeing (In fact only a small number of those polled agreed but were a subgroup called “scientists” to create the phony 97% number).
These climate “Scientists” agreeing with the hoax of AGW are VERY BIASED and have a strong conflict of interest. They get massive grants from organizations to create their models.
The models are phony because they are rigged to produce extreme results based on faulty assumptions.
Proof for all of these assertions is offered in the numerous references above. I humbly encourage you to read them.
I would suggest that when we allow mobs the ability to chase a person like Eich out of his job, then we are not tolerant society. We have instead become a country run by mob rule. There is nothing wrong with a large group of people speaking in opposition to a view. It is morally wrong however when society agrees that a person should lose their livelihood over something of this nature. I see we may not agree on that.
Let’s see if we can agree on this: “America is better when mobs are not in charge of what happens in society” IN other words “Individual rights to freedom the are more important than the rights of a majority to control them”. By mob, I mean a small, active, organized, aggressive group that seeks to achieve its goals by any means necessary (including depriving a person of their livelihood for exercising their conscience).
Being a “public person” is not an issue. A Person should be able to act on his/her religious belief without being driven out of their job as long as they are not harming anyone else or breaking the law. Mr. Eich broke no law. He harmed no one by donating to that campaign. He lawfully donated to a campaign. With the logic being offered on “public persona”, not small businessperson could choose to act on their faith. For instance, if they displayed a crucifix in the front of their sandwich shop, it could be argued they are “offending” or “harming” someone. Since that Sandwich shop is viewed as a “public place”, then opponents could justify a lawsuit or a mob action against them.
No, this is a slippery slope that we are already sliding down. No person should be driven out of their career as a private citizen (even in a “publicly held company”) because of their beliefs. WE have not seen such action s against Gay CEO’s by Christians and never should.