Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2017 10:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/13/2017 8:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2017 5:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2017 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2017 3:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2017 3:15:00 PM (view original):
If only SSM was the only possible item to determine inclusion/exclusion. What a simplistic world you live in. Must be nice.

It's an example you've argued for several pages. Should I take this as an admission that SSM isn't "forcing beliefs on someone else?"

No, you should take it for what it is. Marriage was "invented" to bond a man and a woman together for procreation. Then, somewhere along the line, a specific group of people said "Why can't we get married?", they lobbied, along with their bleeding heart brethen, and had the law changed.

Changing laws is forcing beliefs on others. Laws, in general, do that.

Does changing a law to allow more people to participate "force beliefs?" I'd argue no. People that don't believe in gay marriage are free to not gay marry. They can believe whatever they want.

Of course it does. If you don't agree with the concept of SSM, you are ostracized by the left.

A couple of years ago, I commented in somebody's FB post about SSM, and was verbally attacked by a handful of her uber-liberal friends. If I was a pansy-assed snowflake millennial, one could argue that I was basically being bullied because I had a belief that went against the agenda. But since I'm not, I just shrugged it off as typical liberal intolerance.

You can argue that the left is not trying to force beliefs. You would be wrong. Very wrong.

I mean, at some point you're going to have to accept the fact that no one owes stupidity or ignorance an audience.

You can believe whatever you want. No one is forcing you to get gay married or even like gay marriage, but if you're going to venture out and express your opinion of gay marriage publicly, expect people to express their own opinion of you.

So you're OK with aggressively verbally attacking people who dare express opinions contrary to your own?

Do they teach that in lib school?

Liberalism 101.

We're open to other opinions. Until they disagree with me.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/13/2017 11:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2017 10:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/13/2017 8:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2017 5:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2017 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2017 3:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2017 3:15:00 PM (view original):
If only SSM was the only possible item to determine inclusion/exclusion. What a simplistic world you live in. Must be nice.

It's an example you've argued for several pages. Should I take this as an admission that SSM isn't "forcing beliefs on someone else?"

No, you should take it for what it is. Marriage was "invented" to bond a man and a woman together for procreation. Then, somewhere along the line, a specific group of people said "Why can't we get married?", they lobbied, along with their bleeding heart brethen, and had the law changed.

Changing laws is forcing beliefs on others. Laws, in general, do that.

Does changing a law to allow more people to participate "force beliefs?" I'd argue no. People that don't believe in gay marriage are free to not gay marry. They can believe whatever they want.

Of course it does. If you don't agree with the concept of SSM, you are ostracized by the left.

A couple of years ago, I commented in somebody's FB post about SSM, and was verbally attacked by a handful of her uber-liberal friends. If I was a pansy-assed snowflake millennial, one could argue that I was basically being bullied because I had a belief that went against the agenda. But since I'm not, I just shrugged it off as typical liberal intolerance.

You can argue that the left is not trying to force beliefs. You would be wrong. Very wrong.

I mean, at some point you're going to have to accept the fact that no one owes stupidity or ignorance an audience.

You can believe whatever you want. No one is forcing you to get gay married or even like gay marriage, but if you're going to venture out and express your opinion of gay marriage publicly, expect people to express their own opinion of you.

So you're OK with aggressively verbally attacking people who dare express opinions contrary to your own?

Do they teach that in lib school?

I'm ok with calling stupid people stupid.

But if one of your fb friends said, "you know, I really don't like the blacks." I'm sure you'd encourage acceptance of your friend's "opinion contrary to your own."

But there's soooooo much smoke, right taint?

He heard it on a golf course. Can't blame him. That's legit source.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2017 11:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/13/2017 11:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2017 10:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/13/2017 8:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2017 5:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2017 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2017 3:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2017 3:15:00 PM (view original):
If only SSM was the only possible item to determine inclusion/exclusion. What a simplistic world you live in. Must be nice.

It's an example you've argued for several pages. Should I take this as an admission that SSM isn't "forcing beliefs on someone else?"

No, you should take it for what it is. Marriage was "invented" to bond a man and a woman together for procreation. Then, somewhere along the line, a specific group of people said "Why can't we get married?", they lobbied, along with their bleeding heart brethen, and had the law changed.

Changing laws is forcing beliefs on others. Laws, in general, do that.

Does changing a law to allow more people to participate "force beliefs?" I'd argue no. People that don't believe in gay marriage are free to not gay marry. They can believe whatever they want.

Of course it does. If you don't agree with the concept of SSM, you are ostracized by the left.

A couple of years ago, I commented in somebody's FB post about SSM, and was verbally attacked by a handful of her uber-liberal friends. If I was a pansy-assed snowflake millennial, one could argue that I was basically being bullied because I had a belief that went against the agenda. But since I'm not, I just shrugged it off as typical liberal intolerance.

You can argue that the left is not trying to force beliefs. You would be wrong. Very wrong.

I mean, at some point you're going to have to accept the fact that no one owes stupidity or ignorance an audience.

You can believe whatever you want. No one is forcing you to get gay married or even like gay marriage, but if you're going to venture out and express your opinion of gay marriage publicly, expect people to express their own opinion of you.

So you're OK with aggressively verbally attacking people who dare express opinions contrary to your own?

Do they teach that in lib school?

I'm ok with calling stupid people stupid.

But if one of your fb friends said, "you know, I really don't like the blacks." I'm sure you'd encourage acceptance of your friend's "opinion contrary to your own."

So people who hold opinions contrary to your own are "stupid people"?

How inclusive of you! Do they also teach that in lib school?

Just to expand on that a little:

Two people are having a heated discussion in public. You don't know what they are arguing about, but because they obviously have different opinions about whatever it is, you just assume that one of them must be a "stupid person".

Is that correct?

Trump Russia..... Crickets.

Russia? Never heard of it. But you know there's something else.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/14/2017 6:52:00 AM (view original):
Just to expand on that a little:

Two people are having a heated discussion in public. You don't know what they are arguing about, but because they obviously have different opinions about whatever it is, you just assume that one of them must be a "stupid person".

Is that correct?

Not necessarily. Reasonable people can disagree.

You chose to speak out against gay marriage on Facebook and then you were offended by the reactions of the people you offended. You're stupid.

Opinions that are not socially acceptable exist. You would have encountered the same reaction if you had posted talking about how you think blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry whites or how women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

You're free to have those opinions. And other people are free to express their dislike for you and your opinions.

I wonder if it was a crazy lib that shot a republican congressman and two police officers this morning....

Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2017 8:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/14/2017 6:52:00 AM (view original):
Just to expand on that a little:

Two people are having a heated discussion in public. You don't know what they are arguing about, but because they obviously have different opinions about whatever it is, you just assume that one of them must be a "stupid person".

Is that correct?

Not necessarily. Reasonable people can disagree.

You chose to speak out against gay marriage on Facebook and then you were offended by the reactions of the people you offended. You're stupid.

Opinions that are not socially acceptable exist. You would have encountered the same reaction if you had posted talking about how you think blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry whites or how women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

You're free to have those opinions. And other people are free to express their dislike for you and your opinions.

Where did I say I was offended?

I said that the reaction of those who didn't like my opinion could be classified as "bullying", I was viciously and verbally attacked by a handful of libs who seemed to be intolerant of opinions that differed from their agenda. It was actually kind of fascinating to see how they were feeding off each other in their attacks against me, with the self-congratulating comments they were giving each other after each subsequent shot.

Offended? Hardly. I was amused at the level of hypocrisy being displayed by their intolerance towards somebody who doesn't have the same level of tolerance as they preach.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/14/2017 9:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2017 8:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/14/2017 6:52:00 AM (view original):
Just to expand on that a little:

Two people are having a heated discussion in public. You don't know what they are arguing about, but because they obviously have different opinions about whatever it is, you just assume that one of them must be a "stupid person".

Is that correct?

Not necessarily. Reasonable people can disagree.

You chose to speak out against gay marriage on Facebook and then you were offended by the reactions of the people you offended. You're stupid.

Opinions that are not socially acceptable exist. You would have encountered the same reaction if you had posted talking about how you think blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry whites or how women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

You're free to have those opinions. And other people are free to express their dislike for you and your opinions.

Where did I say I was offended?

I said that the reaction of those who didn't like my opinion could be classified as "bullying", I was viciously and verbally attacked by a handful of libs who seemed to be intolerant of opinions that differed from their agenda. It was actually kind of fascinating to see how they were feeding off each other in their attacks against me, with the self-congratulating comments they were giving each other after each subsequent shot.

Offended? Hardly. I was amused at the level of hypocrisy being displayed by their intolerance towards somebody who doesn't have the same level of tolerance as they preach.

You classified the response as "bullying" and a "vicious attack." Seems like you were offended.

And again, stupidity is not owed tolerance. You chose to voice your opinion. Others voiced theirs.