Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => Prospective Participants => Topic started by: dalebert on February 09, 2011, 01:23:28 pm

Title: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on February 09, 2011, 01:23:28 pm
I just had another tiresome and long conversation with Keith where he says that bigotry doesn't matter, the FSP is just a bus.  What's the big deal if people in fairly public FSP positions express bigoted positions regarding government policy, etc.  I argued that we don't want to encourage bigots to hop on the bus, and in fact that the FSP at least has expressed significant rhetoric that bigotry is to actually be discouraged.

So I guess my question to the readers of the forum but especially people in public positions in the FSP is, does bigotry matter?  Should the comment in the FAQ about bigotry be removed?
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Andvari on February 09, 2011, 01:53:17 pm
Bigot---Hmm dont know if it should be taken out or not but that word has gotten so watered down i hardly pay attention whenever its used. Whats intereting is the 'group' that i see most belittled and mocked in libertarian circles are Christians, and its usually the same ppl that tend to throw that word (bigot) around. Ive noticed this for awhile on  ron paul forums as well.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: rossby on February 09, 2011, 02:21:26 pm
"Bigotry" is the prejudice expressed by a person who is intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions (perhaps even suggesting that no other opinions exist).

What's the big deal if people in fairly public FSP positions express bigoted positions regarding government policy, etc.

Is someone doing this?

Moving on then...
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: MengerFan on February 09, 2011, 02:50:37 pm
I am bigoted against people who reject logic and the scientific method. Should I be kicked out of NH?
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on February 09, 2011, 04:32:18 pm
"Bigotry" is the prejudice expressed by a person who is intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions (perhaps even suggesting that no other opinions exist).

In fact, this seems to me to be a core defining principle of libertarianism.  We tend to be fairly tolerant of differing opinions as long as people don't try to impose their views on others through force, particularly by entrenching their views into government policy so as to impose them on others violently.

Quote
Is someone doing this?

Moving on then...

It's my opinion that they are, yes.  Clearly you disagree and are being pretty dismissive about my opinion (again), basically implying that my opinion is not even worth a discussion.  All I'm really trying to do is get Keith, a moderator on this forum and active with the FSP in a fairly public fashion, to have a public dialogue about where he stands on government policies of discrimination and see if that dialogue can expose his true motives so people can form their own opinions based upon that open dialogue.  And if he would just answer some really straight-forward questions, maybe the discussion would already be over.

Because my opinion is that the policy is there for good reason and that we shouldn't be dismissive about it.  He's already expressed that he would support having the Loving decision rolled back because it was an expansion of government (and raised his taxes) but then changed what he said when asked to share that opinion publicly.

How would you feel if you were black, and this person in the FSP made a point at EVERY POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY to remind you that they don't support the government acknowledging inter-racial marriages as valid and when you tried to get them to rationally defend their support for a policy of government discrimination, said "Why does this issue matter to you?  It's so trivial and unimportant.  Why do you dwell on this subject so much?  It's not a big deal if people are racist.  The FSP is just a bus anyway."?

So I'm allowed to have my opinions, but just keep them to myself and don't rock the boat.  Is that it?  We wouldn't want to scare away any bigots because we need to hit 20k.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on February 09, 2011, 04:44:20 pm
Oh, I left out one -- "See, this is why black people are so annoying!"

I sense that I'm annoying you too with my issues, aren't I B.D.?
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: rossby on February 09, 2011, 05:48:39 pm
Oh, I left out one -- "See, this is why black people are so annoying!"

I sense that I'm annoying you too with my issues, aren't I B.D.?

I'm not annoyed. I just don't see where/what you're complaining about. You're turning a private conversation into a public one. Seems unkind to me.

Clearly you disagree and are being pretty dismissive about my opinion...

I am being dismissive. Lack of evidence. Show.

All I'm really trying to do is get Keith, a moderator on this forum and active with the FSP in a fairly public fashion, to have a public dialogue about where he stands on government policies of discrimination and see if that dialogue can expose his true motives

Sounds to me like you're not really interested in a public dialogue; sounds like you want a witch hunt. Are you angry at him? How about frustrated?

And if he would just answer some really straight-forward questions, maybe the discussion would already be over.

Looks like he responded to your very general question.
You have not responded to him.

Because my opinion is that the policy is there for good reason and that we shouldn't be dismissive about it.

One of the biggest reasons for the policy is because we get angry racist-types that show up and it makes the whole project look bad. For some reason--don't know why--the media makes this idiotic leap from "the FSP wants liberty activists in one state" to "Oh, well they must be racists." Obviously, that doesn't make a damned bit of sense. But when you have Stormfront-types showing up, it doesn't like good.

The point is that people in the Project should play well with others. Fortunately, most FSP types are quite tolerant and peaceful, so this isn't normally an issue. it's just when intolerant people show up and start making a mess of things.

He's already expressed that he would support having the Loving decision rolled back because it was an expansion of government (and raised his taxes)

And did he go on to say that interracial marriages should be illegal?

How would you feel if you were black, and this person in the FSP made a point at EVERY POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY to remind you that they don't support the government acknowledging inter-racial marriages as valid and when you tried to get them to rationally defend their support for a policy of government discrimination, said "Why does this issue matter to you?  It's so trivial and unimportant.  Why do you dwell on this subject so much?  It's not a big deal if people are racist.  The FSP is just a bus anyway."?

I would not try to change his mind. I cannot do that. If he had a serious problem, first, I would listen. What is his problem?
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: ONLYWAY on February 09, 2011, 06:03:25 pm
all ridiculous answers for so called freedom folks!!!!!!!!!   Who is to determine what is bigotry?  BD Ross seems to think anyone who really believes they are right is a bigot...so we should all be "open-minded"...there is no right or wrong and you shouldn't ever be domatic...ridiculous!  I have read some very bigoted statements about people or faith on this site.  People who believe the Bible literally...even in this thread someone said they are bigoted against people who don't ues sicence method to solve their questions.

Why don't you people worry about free speach on not bigoted statements.  the def for bigotry is simple...if someone comments on anthers ACTIONS...no matter what the comment, it is not bigotry.  For example, if I called a child molester a pervert no one would object.  but if i called a homosexual a pervert people wold freak out...everyone is entitled to their own opinons...

The reason why you guys get stuck on such simple things is because you have no foundation...no basic sense of absolute right and wrong.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Russell Kanning on February 09, 2011, 06:28:10 pm
I am bigoted towards fluff and other stuff
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: MengerFan on February 09, 2011, 07:32:20 pm
I am also mildly bigoted against folk who disrespect others with excessive misspellings, mispunctuation, and general disregard for proper English syntax.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on February 09, 2011, 07:36:32 pm
but if i called a homosexual a pervert people wold freak out...everyone is entitled to their own opinons...

Don't worry.  The FSP is probably already considering making you a mod and might even elect you to the board.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on February 09, 2011, 09:41:06 pm
Sounds to me like you're not really interested in a public dialogue; sounds like you want a witch hunt. Are you angry at him? How about frustrated?

Yes.  I'm angry because he's a bigot and frustrated because he's relentlessly insulting and won't engage in a rational discussion about it.  He calls me a fag on a regular basis and constantly reminds me that he supports government discrimination that would impact me, often bringing up the subject himself out of the blue and then getting hypocritically annoyed if I actually try to talk about it.

And trying to get specific people in public positions to be open and transparent about where they stand with regards to subjects of relevance to their position(s) is hardly a witch hunt.  Is that what you call it when reporters ask politicians probing questions to get at the truth while the politician dodges any position of substance and gives safe ambiguous answers full of happy buzz words?

Quote
Looks like he responded to your very general question.

Are you referring to calling an end to government discrimination "affirmative action" and saying he doesn't support AA?

Quote
You have not responded to him.

Are you referring to his accusation that I support affirmative action?  I've never, to my knowledge, expressed support for anything remotely akin to AA.  I don't know how to explain how ending discrimination by the government is not AA other than to say to learn your definitions of words.  It seems to me that the comparison is erroneous and he needs to explain how he comes to such an absurd conclusion.  Otherwise, can you quote exactly what you're referring to where I've not responded to him because I'm sincerely baffled.  I wrote an entire article debunking his cover story for supporting government discrimination.

Quote
One of the biggest reasons for the policy is because we get angry racist-types that show up and it makes the whole project look bad. For some reason--don't know why--the media makes this idiotic leap from "the FSP wants liberty activists in one state" to "Oh, well they must be racists." Obviously, that doesn't make a damned bit of sense. But when you have Stormfront-types showing up, it doesn't like good.

The word "racism" is there in the same sentence in the FAQ about what's unwelcome in the FSP.  That covers the Stormfront crowd.  Is that the only form of bigotry that the FSP cares about, and if so, why add "bigotry"?  Why aren't you worried about Fred Phelps types?  We do get those around here too, in case you haven't noticed.  Oh, but when that subject comes up, FSP spokespeople start throwing around "big tent" and other buzz words.

Quote
The point is that people in the Project should play well with others. Fortunately, most FSP types are quite tolerant and peaceful, so this isn't normally an issue. it's just when intolerant people show up and start making a mess of things.

That sounds like empty rhetoric to me.  Actions vs. words.  I will admit that I don't play well with others when they're bigots.  Normally I just avoid them.  That's what I'll start doing with Keith, I s'pose.

Quote
He's already expressed that he would support having the Loving decision rolled back because it was an expansion of government (and raised his taxes)

And did he go on to say that interracial marriages should be illegal?

Yes.  He wants all marriages to be illegal (an end to "government marriage" (http://flamingfreedom.com/2011/02/04/what-is-government-marriage/)) and he has expressed that discrimination by the government with regards to which marriages it recognizes as valid is an acceptable form of incremental progress toward that goal.  I quoted him and he hasn't denied that the quote came from him, even though he changed his answer because he didn't think the general public would get it and therefore would be upset by his answer.  Keith...  Ya think so?

Quote
How would you feel if you were black, and this person in the FSP made a point at EVERY POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY to remind you that they don't support the government acknowledging inter-racial marriages as valid and when you tried to get them to rationally defend their support for a policy of government discrimination, said "Why does this issue matter to you?  It's so trivial and unimportant.  Why do you dwell on this subject so much?  It's not a big deal if people are racist.  The FSP is just a bus anyway."?

I would not try to change his mind. I cannot do that. If he had a serious problem, first, I would listen. What is his problem?

I've stopped trying to change his mind too.  I have listened.  Oh... have I listened, far longer than I should have.  I have theories about what his problem is, but I won't say it here because I don't feel it adds to the conversation.  But I presume you mean a problem with regard to his involvement in the FSP.  I would say his problem is not sharing certain goals of the FSP and having stated as much such as "bigotry is not a big deal", but if you can't change his mind, maybe teach him to keep his bigotry to himself, especially around the people he has decided to arbitrarily take issue with.

See, my friends may call me "fag" occasionally and I laugh with them, because it's so obviously in jest.  My friends are mostly liberty-lovers who want me treated as an equal.  Keith is not my friend.  I suggest you convince him that he's a face of the FSP in my presence and many others and he should conduct himself accordingly, i.e. in a professional manner.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Dreepa on February 10, 2011, 07:25:48 am
Dalebert has some good points.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: freedomroad on February 10, 2011, 10:14:56 am
Um, sorry everyone, I guess I was caught off guard by all of this.  I thought this thread was created because my good friend wanted to have a public debate on an issue.  It looks like this is just drama dealing with the ending of a multi-year friendship.  I deleted all of my posts because I feel this is a wholly inappropriate way and place for such things.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: rossby on February 10, 2011, 03:14:00 pm
BD Ross seems to think anyone who really believes they are right is a bigot...so we should all be "open-minded"...there is no right or wrong and you shouldn't ever be domatic...ridiculous!

Not at all. I gave a definition above.

but if i called a homosexual a pervert people wold freak out...everyone is entitled to their own opinons...

You are entitled to your opinions. The guidelines don't say you can't have opinions. Certain areas, it says not to promote them.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: rossby on February 10, 2011, 03:36:20 pm
Yes.  I'm angry because he's a bigot and frustrated because he's relentlessly insulting and won't engage in a rational discussion about it.

Again, where?

Quote
Looks like he responded to your very general question.

Are you referring to calling an end to government discrimination "affirmative action" and saying he doesn't support AA?

He's now deleted his post. But I don't recall anyone discussing AA here. AA seems irrelevant to this particular discussion.

Quote
You have not responded to him.

Are you referring to his accusation that I support affirmative action?

No idea what you're talking about.

The word "racism" is there in the same sentence in the FAQ about what's unwelcome in the FSP.  That covers the Stormfront crowd.  Is that the only form of bigotry that the FSP cares about, and if so, why add "bigotry"?

First, no, it does not "take care" of them. You can be racist and not be a bigot. Bigotry is more than just, consciously or unconsciously, having beliefs in an accordance with some discriminatory ism. Bigotry is more of an ignorant stubbornness that your opinion must be right--nothing else is possible. It is a close-mindedness. Typically, negatively judgmentalism directed at other people. We ask people not to promote that kind of behavior.

I thought Keith's answer about what bigotry is was pretty good: it could mean a number of things, and it depends on who's doing the deciding. 'Course, I didn't get the impression that the latter part of the answer was entirely sincere. But there appears to be more behind this "dispute" than either you or Keith are stating.

Do I think people that actively hate homosexuals are bigots? Yes. But I cannot speak for everyone.

Quote
Quote
He's already expressed that he would support having the Loving decision rolled back because it was an expansion of government (and raised his taxes)

And did he go on to say that interracial marriages should be illegal?

Yes. He wants all marriages to be illegal.

Where did he say this? (pointing to your own blog doesn't count.)

I have theories about what his problem is, but I won't say it here because I don't feel it adds to the conversation.  But I presume you mean a problem with regard to his involvement in the FSP.

I meant the former.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Alex Libman on February 10, 2011, 04:33:17 pm
Bigotry is an essential component of self-improvement, which in turn is an essential component of survival.  Collectivism is unfortunate and irrational, bigotry is not.  Bigotry is how I don't get drunk, because I am bigoted against drunk people, even though sometimes drinking is perfectly acceptable and a little bit won't kill you.  Etc.  One cannot be resolute without also being bigoted, at least I can't.  All of my bigotry is ultimately directed at myself.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: rossby on February 10, 2011, 04:35:16 pm
Here's a follow-up thought so maybe we can move this in a productive direction.

Assuming bigotry matters, how can the FAQ be changed to inform people of the kind of behavior that is unwelcome? Should we be aspirational or realistic?
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: ONLYWAY on February 10, 2011, 07:41:48 pm
Not to promote your opinions???  How exactly can anyone have a discussion then?  You have to promote your opinions or should we all just say i agree with b d ross? 

I consider a bigot to be someone who judges another for the way God made them.  Commenting, in any tone, on their actions or beliefs is not bigotry.  (ie. Maybe some people are born with a predispostion to molest children but if they act on that impulse then they are sick perverts).

apparently, a bigot is just someone who disagrees with the person who is in power.



BD Ross seems to think anyone who really believes they are right is a bigot...so we should all be "open-minded"...there is no right or wrong and you shouldn't ever be domatic...ridiculous!

Not at all. I gave a definition above.

but if i called a homosexual a pervert people wold freak out...everyone is entitled to their own opinons...

You are entitled to your opinions. The guidelines don't say you can't have opinions. Certain areas, it says not to promote them.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: ONLYWAY on February 10, 2011, 08:04:24 pm
If someone is making you feel guilt for being a sodomite then maybe you should think about why that is and rethink your actions.   Also, you should calmly explain to your "friend" that the word "faggot" means a bundle of sticks for a fire and promotes the idea of killing homosexuals.   I think he should be able to use whatever words he wants to describe your lifestyle and actions and still be a member in good standing with the FSP but if he really hates you so much why would you be friends with him?


Sounds to me like you're not really interested in a public dialogue; sounds like you want a witch hunt. Are you angry at him? How about frustrated?

Yes.  I'm angry because he's a bigot and frustrated because he's relentlessly insulting and won't engage in a rational discussion about it.  He calls me a fag on a regular basis and constantly reminds me that he supports government discrimination that would impact me, often bringing up the subject himself out of the blue and then getting hypocritically annoyed if I actually try to talk about it.

And trying to get specific people in public positions to be open and transparent about where they stand with regards to subjects of relevance to their position(s) is hardly a witch hunt.  Is that what you call it when reporters ask politicians probing questions to get at the truth while the politician dodges any position of substance and gives safe ambiguous answers full of happy buzz words?

Quote
Looks like he responded to your very general question.

Are you referring to calling an end to government discrimination "affirmative action" and saying he doesn't support AA?

Quote
You have not responded to him.

Are you referring to his accusation that I support affirmative action?  I've never, to my knowledge, expressed support for anything remotely akin to AA.  I don't know how to explain how ending discrimination by the government is not AA other than to say to learn your definitions of words.  It seems to me that the comparison is erroneous and he needs to explain how he comes to such an absurd conclusion.  Otherwise, can you quote exactly what you're referring to where I've not responded to him because I'm sincerely baffled.  I wrote an entire article debunking his cover story for supporting government discrimination.

Quote
One of the biggest reasons for the policy is because we get angry racist-types that show up and it makes the whole project look bad. For some reason--don't know why--the media makes this idiotic leap from "the FSP wants liberty activists in one state" to "Oh, well they must be racists." Obviously, that doesn't make a damned bit of sense. But when you have Stormfront-types showing up, it doesn't like good.

The word "racism" is there in the same sentence in the FAQ about what's unwelcome in the FSP.  That covers the Stormfront crowd.  Is that the only form of bigotry that the FSP cares about, and if so, why add "bigotry"?  Why aren't you worried about Fred Phelps types?  We do get those around here too, in case you haven't noticed.  Oh, but when that subject comes up, FSP spokespeople start throwing around "big tent" and other buzz words.

Quote
The point is that people in the Project should play well with others. Fortunately, most FSP types are quite tolerant and peaceful, so this isn't normally an issue. it's just when intolerant people show up and start making a mess of things.

That sounds like empty rhetoric to me.  Actions vs. words.  I will admit that I don't play well with others when they're bigots.  Normally I just avoid them.  That's what I'll start doing with Keith, I s'pose.

Quote
He's already expressed that he would support having the Loving decision rolled back because it was an expansion of government (and raised his taxes)

And did he go on to say that interracial marriages should be illegal?

Yes.  He wants all marriages to be illegal (an end to "government marriage" (http://flamingfreedom.com/2011/02/04/what-is-government-marriage/)) and he has expressed that discrimination by the government with regards to which marriages it recognizes as valid is an acceptable form of incremental progress toward that goal.  I quoted him and he hasn't denied that the quote came from him, even though he changed his answer because he didn't think the general public would get it and therefore would be upset by his answer.  Keith...  Ya think so?

Quote
How would you feel if you were black, and this person in the FSP made a point at EVERY POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY to remind you that they don't support the government acknowledging inter-racial marriages as valid and when you tried to get them to rationally defend their support for a policy of government discrimination, said "Why does this issue matter to you?  It's so trivial and unimportant.  Why do you dwell on this subject so much?  It's not a big deal if people are racist.  The FSP is just a bus anyway."?

I would not try to change his mind. I cannot do that. If he had a serious problem, first, I would listen. What is his problem?

I've stopped trying to change his mind too.  I have listened.  Oh... have I listened, far longer than I should have.  I have theories about what his problem is, but I won't say it here because I don't feel it adds to the conversation.  But I presume you mean a problem with regard to his involvement in the FSP.  I would say his problem is not sharing certain goals of the FSP and having stated as much such as "bigotry is not a big deal", but if you can't change his mind, maybe teach him to keep his bigotry to himself, especially around the people he has decided to arbitrarily take issue with.

See, my friends may call me "fag" occasionally and I laugh with them, because it's so obviously in jest.  My friends are mostly liberty-lovers who want me treated as an equal.  Keith is not my friend.  I suggest you convince him that he's a face of the FSP in my presence and many others and he should conduct himself accordingly, i.e. in a professional manner.

Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: rossby on February 10, 2011, 08:06:17 pm
Not to promote your opinions???  How exactly can anyone have a discussion then?

Perhaps you're forgetting the "bigotry" part. Bigots don't generally "discuss" or have much interest in discussion. Typically, they simply declare simply The Way It Is. And, when challenged, make no attempt at discussion. Typically, they instead play name-calling games and "I'm the victim".

I consider a bigot to be someone who judges another for the way God made them. Commenting, in any tone, on their actions or beliefs is not bigotry.  (ie. Maybe some people are born with a predispostion to molest children but if they act on that impulse then they are sick perverts).

I don't think either of those things is bigotry.

In your specific example, note--in fact--you did not comment or characterize the person's actions or their beliefs. You're still commenting on the person--the way God made them. By your standard above, that would make you a bigot.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: ONLYWAY on February 10, 2011, 08:20:39 pm
you are missing my point...just because someone is born with a certain inclination or even socialized into a certian direction that doesnt justify THEIR ACTIONS.  They are not a pervert until they act on their impulse.  Commenting on someones actions is not bigotry.  

everyone is born with a desire to sin...all kinds of sins.  Everyone has different and similar temptations, but they are not a "sinner" until they act on that "sin". 


Not to promote your opinions???  How exactly can anyone have a discussion then?

Perhaps you're forgetting the "bigotry" part. Bigots don't generally "discuss" or have much interest in discussion. Typically, they simply declare simply The Way It Is. And, when challenged, make no attempt at discussion. Typically, they instead play name-calling games and "I'm the victim".

I consider a bigot to be someone who judges another for the way God made them. Commenting, in any tone, on their actions or beliefs is not bigotry.  (ie. Maybe some people are born with a predispostion to molest children but if they act on that impulse then they are sick perverts).

I don't think either of those things is bigotry.

In your specific example, note--in fact--you did not comment or characterize the person's actions or their beliefs. You're still commenting on the person--the way God made them. By your standard above, that would make you a bigot.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: rossby on February 10, 2011, 08:25:22 pm
you are missing my point...just because someone is born with a certain inclination or even socialized into a certian direction that doesnt justify THEIR ACTIONS.  Commenting on someones actions is not bigotry.

Pretty sure I got your point. As I pointed out, you're not really commenting on someone's actions at all.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on February 10, 2011, 08:42:31 pm
Again, where?

He works very hard to keep his more controversial behavior and statements off the record.  Calling me a fag and spouting "fucking faggots" is something he does frequently and in person.  It might be as simple as just asking him what I've said that he denies.  Ask him if I mis-quoted him on the other thread and if he actually typed that.  It was a copy & paste.  It still has my typing errors.  Ultimately people will just have to judge for themselves who's being the more open and honest person here.  I don't expect anything to happen.  I just want a light shined on this bullshit and for people to see him as he really is and not as this carefully-crafted paper cutout he presents to the world.

My guess is he won't lie outright.  He'll bend over backwards to avoid saying anything, then he'll avoid a direct answer, and then he'll have a cover story.  That's the familiar pattern.

Quote
I thought Keith's answer about what bigotry is was pretty good: it could mean a number of things, and it depends on who's doing the deciding. 'Course, I didn't get the impression that the latter part of the answer was entirely sincere. But there appears to be more behind this "dispute" than either you or Keith are stating.

It's not nearly as complicated as you might think.  He calls me a fag and to loves to say "fucking faggots" angrily under the pretense of humor only no one laughs but him.  I know a barrage of gay jokes that are actually funny and I'm all for hearing new ones, but insulting people isn't funny.  It ought to be clear it's not funny dozens of times later when no one else is laughing.  He's been TRYING to get a rise out of me for quite some time, and my patience just finally wore thin.  He got what he wanted.

Quote
Quote
Yes. He wants all marriages to be illegal.

Where did he say this? (pointing to your own blog doesn't count.)

JUST ASK HIM.  Experience the same run-around that I always experience when I challenge his bullshit answers.  Meanwhile, try to figure out why he's singling out ONE type of marriage when it makes no sense, even under his own cover story for it.  Don't bother doing it here.  He doesn't want the public to know who he really is.

Note: I took the end part of this out.  It's getting too much into my personal speculation about Keith's motives for here.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on February 10, 2011, 09:08:00 pm
If someone is making you feel guilt for being a sodomite then maybe you should think about why that is and rethink your actions.

The Sodomites were violent rapists.  That doesn't describe me so it doesn't make me feel guilt.  But I've already explained why I went a step past just ignoring Keith.  I was writing my post at the same time as 4 other posts came up.

Quote
Also, you should calmly explain to your "friend" that the word "faggot" means a bundle of sticks for a fire and promotes the idea of killing homosexuals.   I think he should be able to use whatever words he wants to describe your lifestyle and actions and still be a member in good standing with the FSP but if he really hates you so much why would you be friends with him?

I'm not anymore.  The words are hateful and imply violence exactly for the reasons you described.  "Fag" and "faggot" were words used to describe witches historically, something good only for burning, as well as a number of other types of people who were particularly hated at various times.  And trying to enshrine your personal views into government policy, or keep them enshrined there, is also violent.  It's that violent element which I believe makes the leap from expressing an opinion to bigotry.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: freedomroad on February 10, 2011, 09:48:55 pm
Again, where?

He works very hard to keep his more controversial behavior and statements off the record.  Calling me a fag...

OK, I will not try to escalate by including anything else as the last thing I want discussed here are the details of a messy break-up of a good friendship.  You have brought this up 3 times and I think it may be character assassination, which I cannot support.  Dale and I have both called each other a fag more than one time in more than one year.  I've also been called a fag by several other people and likewise said similar things to them.  Much of my circle of friends has watched South Park (which even did an episode based around the word) and understands this as acceptable interact b/t this particular group of good friends.  The same is true for the gay jokes (both dale and I and some my circle of friends...)

No matter what you people feel about the word or this drama, I'm sorry you were needlessly exposed to this drama.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: ONLYWAY on February 10, 2011, 10:06:46 pm
actually the sodomites didnt get a chance to rape the angels and there is no evidence that they raped anyone else.

I agree that faggot is not a good word to use and I don't...at least try very hard not to...can't even think of that time I did.   BUT it is only a word and I don't think most people using it want to burn anyone.

Of course the govt has no right to speak on the subject.

If someone is making you feel guilt for being a sodomite then maybe you should think about why that is and rethink your actions.

The Sodomites were violent rapists.  That doesn't describe me so it doesn't make me feel guilt.  But I've already explained why I went a step past just ignoring Keith.  I was writing my post at the same time as 4 other posts came up.

Quote
Also, you should calmly explain to your "friend" that the word "faggot" means a bundle of sticks for a fire and promotes the idea of killing homosexuals.   I think he should be able to use whatever words he wants to describe your lifestyle and actions and still be a member in good standing with the FSP but if he really hates you so much why would you be friends with him?

I'm not anymore.  The words are hateful and imply violence exactly for the reasons you described.  "Fag" and "faggot" were words used to describe witches historically, something good only for burning, as well as a number of other types of people who were particularly hated at various times.  And trying to enshrine your personal views into government policy, or keep them enshrined there, is also violent.  It's that violent element which I believe makes the leap from expressing an opinion to bigotry.

Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: ONLYWAY on February 10, 2011, 10:31:07 pm
Don't think you are getting it...let me try again.

people are born with dessire to sin but until they sin they are not a "sinner"...let's take a simple one...lying.  People are born with a desire to lie but until they lie they are not a liar.  it is the action, the choice, the decision that changes things.   Commenting on someone's actions is NOT bigotry.  NOR is it discrimination to judge someone based on what they choose to do.

it some one is born black they don't have to make any decision or do anything to be black.  It wasn't their choice...it was God's.  Making judgement calls about that person is bigotry and a slap in the face of God.

you are missing my point...just because someone is born with a certain inclination or even socialized into a certian direction that doesnt justify THEIR ACTIONS.  Commenting on someones actions is not bigotry.

Pretty sure I got your point. As I pointed out, you're not really commenting on someone's actions at all.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on February 10, 2011, 11:03:41 pm
OK, I will not try to escalate by including anything else as the last thing I want discussed here are the details of a messy break-up of a good friendship.

What do you suggest is my motivation if not this?  Are you implying that I arbitrarily, for no reason whatsoever, decided I don't want to be friends with you, and that I just chose to fuck with you all of a sudden?  This is THE REASON we can't be friends, Keith.  When one person is consistently rude, disrespectful, and dishonest to another person, that's not a good friendship.

I don't deny I have used the word "fag" casually some time in the past in the way that openly gay people have a tendency to do to describe other gay people.  There's an analogy here between other minorities using a word casually that is otherwise consistently understood to be a very hateful word to defuse the power of the word.  But I don't subscribe to that tactic anymore.  I've made a concerted effort for some time now to avoid using the word to describe gay people.  I only use it to describe guys who ride Harleys. (http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s13e12-the-f-word)  I acknowledge it's possible, but I honestly don't recall ever calling you that.  I know I have on many occasions implied that you're probably gay and eventually just outright suggested it, but that's not an insult coming from me and it was almost always as a response to your hate talk.  I have sincerely tred to explain on multiple occasions that anti-gay bravado does not make you seem more masculine.  Many people have the common sense to see it for what it is.  If I've tolerated it this long, it's only because I held out hope you would work through whatever personal issues are driving you to this behavior and eventually stop, but I don't have any reasonable amount of hope for that any longer.

I still wish you luck in working through this, but it is not healthy for me and my own self-esteem to endure your abuse and act like we are friends.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on February 10, 2011, 11:16:38 pm
Don't think you are getting it...let me try again.

people are born with dessire to sin but until they sin they are not a "sinner"...let's take a simple one...lying.  People are born with a desire to lie but until they lie they are not a liar.  it is the action, the choice, the decision that changes things.   Commenting on someone's actions is NOT bigotry.  NOR is it discrimination to judge someone based on what they choose to do.

it some one is born black they don't have to make any decision or do anything to be black.  It wasn't their choice...it was God's.  Making judgement calls about that person is bigotry and a slap in the face of God.

you are missing my point...just because someone is born with a certain inclination or even socialized into a certian direction that doesnt justify THEIR ACTIONS.  Commenting on someones actions is not bigotry.

Pretty sure I got your point. As I pointed out, you're not really commenting on someone's actions at all.
So the biblic 'Judge not, lest thee be judged' means what?
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: ONLYWAY on February 10, 2011, 11:35:03 pm
you are confused...you are taking that verse out of context.   telling what God says plainly in His word is not judging.

We are told to judge, discern and even take corrective actions     John 7:24 judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment

Don't think you are getting it...let me try again.

people are born with dessire to sin but until they sin they are not a "sinner"...let's take a simple one...lying.  People are born with a desire to lie but until they lie they are not a liar.  it is the action, the choice, the decision that changes things.   Commenting on someone's actions is NOT bigotry.  NOR is it discrimination to judge someone based on what they choose to do.

it some one is born black they don't have to make any decision or do anything to be black.  It wasn't their choice...it was God's.  Making judgement calls about that person is bigotry and a slap in the face of God.

you are missing my point...just because someone is born with a certain inclination or even socialized into a certian direction that doesnt justify THEIR ACTIONS.  Commenting on someones actions is not bigotry.

Pretty sure I got your point. As I pointed out, you're not really commenting on someone's actions at all.
So the biblic 'Judge not, lest thee be judged' means what?

Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Rebel on February 11, 2011, 12:13:39 am
Wow, liberty is alive, well and moving forward I see.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: rossby on February 11, 2011, 01:44:54 am
Commenting on someone's actions is NOT bigotry.

Then you're still missing the point by a mile. When you call someone a "sick pervert", you're not commenting on actions; you're commenting on a person.

You can split hairs all you'd like to justify your behavior to yourself. I'm just pointing out you're not even doing what you say you're doing.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: ONLYWAY on February 11, 2011, 12:59:07 pm
NO you are not getting the point.   IF you call someone a sick pevert based on THEIR ACTIONS that is not bigotry.  It the basis of your comment that matters.  if you call someone a sick pervert because God made them with a skin color darker then your skin color then that is bigotry.

You are the one who is splitting hairs to justify your moral relativism...in the real world there is right and wrong /good and bad.  People are responsible for their actions.  You want to say that person is "acting" like a sick pervert but he is a good person...no he isn't!  a child molester is a 'sick pervert'.

if you lie then you are a liar.  if you steal then you are a thief if you sin then you are sinner.



Commenting on someone's actions is NOT bigotry.

Then you're still missing the point by a mile. When you call someone a "sick pervert", you're not commenting on actions; you're commenting on a person.

You can split hairs all you'd like to justify your behavior to yourself. I'm just pointing out you're not even doing what you say you're doing.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: greap on February 21, 2011, 09:19:02 am
NO you are not getting the point.   IF you call someone a sick pevert based on THEIR ACTIONS that is not bigotry.

Actually it is, you are according their actions a specific moral stance without according them an opportunity to challenge your notions on the issue. Consider: If you like it in the pooper and I call you a sick pervert then that is prejudice, if you then spend time telling me how liking it in the pooper is different but is still part of a loving relationship and I still call you a sick pervert then that is bigotry.

Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: rossby on February 21, 2011, 12:38:13 pm
Commenting on someone's actions is NOT bigotry.

IF you call someone a sick pervert...

I consider a bigot to be someone who judges another for the way God made them.

Q.E.D.


if you lie then you are a liar.  if you steal then you are a thief if you sin then you are sinner.

Is a liar, thief, or sinner a sick pervert?
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: ONLYWAY on February 24, 2011, 11:21:25 pm
I didn't prevent anyone an opportunity to challenge anything.   My position is based on teh words of God (aka The Bible)...what are your positions based on?  who is the arrogant, self righteous one?   who is the bigot?

NO you are not getting the point.   IF you call someone a sick pevert based on THEIR ACTIONS that is not bigotry.

Actually it is, you are according their actions a specific moral stance without according them an opportunity to challenge your notions on the issue. Consider: If you like it in the pooper and I call you a sick pervert then that is prejudice, if you then spend time telling me how liking it in the pooper is different but is still part of a loving relationship and I still call you a sick pervert then that is bigotry.


Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: freedomroad on February 24, 2011, 11:25:59 pm
It is kinda hard to tell if things are getting heated here again, but please continue to do a good job and keep things civil folks.  Thank you.  If I am out of line, please excuse this message.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: ONLYWAY on February 24, 2011, 11:33:13 pm
NO - God didn't make anyone have homosexual sex or molest children or steal or lie...all those things are actions, choices those people made.  Everyone is born with a sin nature - desire to sin all sorts of sins - everyone has their own struggles but having a struggle doesnt justify sinning...nice try with the qed.  

the unchangeables that God picks for us are things like, race, counntry, time in history, body things, etc etc.  

The issue here is you have no moral compass...you dont believe anything is wrong (aka sin) and you think anyone who has a moral comapss and actually dares to speak what they think is a bigot.  YOU ARE THE BIGOT.  For example, you have no problem condeming or banning somene for sharing their faith which you call proselytizing but it is no problem if some homosexual wants to preach their belief system and try to get others to agree with them.  Or for you to ramble on with your made-up, make believe intellectual ramblings and try to get others to come to your clueless world view.


Commenting on someone's actions is NOT bigotry.

IF you call someone a sick pervert...

I consider a bigot to be someone who judges another for the way God made them.

Q.E.D.


if you lie then you are a liar.  if you steal then you are a thief if you sin then you are sinner.

Is a liar, thief, or sinner a sick pervert?
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on February 25, 2011, 12:08:15 am
But through Christ, he did restrict us from judgement upon others.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: rossby on February 25, 2011, 12:50:20 am
Everyone is born with a sin nature. . . .

Did you not tell us, "I consider a bigot to be someone who judges another for the way God made them"?

The issue here is you have no moral compass... you dont believe anything is wrong (aka sin)

Naaah.

and you think anyone who has a moral comapss and actually dares to speak what they think is a bigot.

Oh no, not at all. I know a lot of people have a strong moral compass and would "dare" speak their minds who I would never call bigots.

YOU ARE THE BIGOT.  

That's certainly possible. Which, by definition, I suppose would make me not a bigot... a minor technicality, I'm sure.

For example, you have no problem condeming or banning somene for sharing their faith which you call proselytizing but it is no problem if some homosexual wants to preach their belief system and try to get others to agree with them.

You're free to do as you wish here so long as you follow the forum guidelines. That includes keeping general religious discussion in the Religion section and following the rules stickied there. If you choose not to follow those rules and people complain, you know the consequences.

Or for you to ramble on with your made-up, make believe intellectual ramblings and try to get others to come to your clueless world view.

We call that "debate" and "discussion". And I understand if you feel threatened by it. But there's really no need for incivility.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on February 25, 2011, 09:57:47 am
who is the arrogant, self righteous one?

Dood...  with a handle like "ONLYWAY" in all caps, you seriously just asked that with a straight face?
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on February 25, 2011, 10:52:54 am
For example, you have no problem condeming or banning somene for sharing their faith which you call proselytizing but it is no problem if some homosexual wants to preach their belief system and try to get others to agree with them.

While on the subject of bigotry, in particular, it's absurd to argue that these are just two different points of view of equal value.  I am arguing tolerance for others based on choices which do not infringe on the rights of others (definitely not bigotry) and you are arguing intolerance* for others based on their choices which do not infringe on the rights of others (bigotry IMHO).

None of that speaks to whether there really is a God who proclaims certain behaviors as wrong.  That doesn't mean it's not bigotry.  It just means that particular form of it is enshrined into your worldview as an unchangeable constant of the universe.  I would agree that we need to embrace that bigotry if your worldview is in fact reality, and that's a really long debate that I think people should be welcome to have (somewhere else).

When you're having a discussion with someone to find some agreed-upon truth, you have to start with some shared foundation which you already agree on.  Your particular worldview of a Creator who proclaims homosexual behavior to be a sin is not a shared foundation for most of the people in this thread.  To continue arguing (logically at least) that others should embrace this particular form of bigotry as a constant of the universe, you need to first back up to some shared foundation of belief and argue for those others to share your beliefs in that very specific view of God.  Meanwhile what free-staters ought to have as a shared foundation from which to continue a discussion is some degree of small "l" libertarianism, and at the foundation of libertarianism is tolerance which is antithetical to bigotry.  It's why we're here, after all.

To sum up, I feel that your arguments provide no support for these views not being bigotry.  Your arguments are that this particular form of bigotry is completely justified because (your) God says so.  And that's incredibly analogous to historical arguments for racism and slavery.  That was still bigotry then even as it was more accepted and this is still bigotry now.  I really do think such speech is out of place here.

* It's important to note before you respond that bigotry is an attitude toward others, not necessarily based on action.  For instance, you can be a very outspoken racist who believes blacks and whites and other races should segregate and never marry for their own good, but who doesn't want to enshrine racism into law or go out and burn crosses in people's lawns.  You'd still not be welcome here (I think.  Maybe I'm wrong and a moderator can correct me.) due to the atmosphere of intolerance that you would create on this forum with such outrageously bigoted opinions.  And who knows if there aren't some people like that here?  But they'd know to keep those opinions to themselves or at least to go have that discussion on the Stormfront forum where that kind of discussion is welcomed.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: WendellBerry on February 25, 2011, 02:19:55 pm
Quote
Meanwhile what free-staters ought to have as a shared foundation from which to continue a discussion is some degree of small "l" libertarianism, and at the foundation of libertarianism is tolerance which is antithetical to bigotry.

The foundational tenet is the absolute right of self-ownership of which the non-aggression principle is derived for what is considered just or unjust action.

A round about way of formalizing what you wrote...

Quote
tolerance for others based on choices which do not infringe on the rights of others



Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on February 25, 2011, 03:05:18 pm
Don't hijack this thread and try to steer it in the direction of your pet subject like every thread you ever touch, TROLL.  I really don't have a big beef with you other than how you do that.  Is it so much to ask that you find a spot to have your debate and continue to have it THERE with anyone who cares to discuss it?  We don't need every thread to be about you.

Moderators, heads up--  if you see him try to take this thread completely off subject, will you please split the topic?  I've known this guy for years and I can smell his trolling from a mile away.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: WendellBerry on February 25, 2011, 03:10:38 pm
Don't hijack this thread and try to steer it in the direction of your pet subject like every thread you ever touch, TROLL.  I really don't have a big beef with you other than how you do that.  Is it so much to ask that you find a spot to have your debate and continue to have it THERE with anyone who cares to discuss it?  We don't need every thread to be about you.

Moderators, heads up--  if you see him try to take this thread completely off subject, will you please split the topic?  I've known this guy for years and I can smell his trolling from a mile away.


Geez Dale - I was actually supporting your position by trying to clarify.

Take a chill pill...
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: rossby on February 25, 2011, 04:07:59 pm
Don't hijack this thread and try to steer it in the direction of your pet subject like every thread you ever touch, TROLL.  I really don't have a big beef with you other than how you do that.  Is it so much to ask that you find a spot to have your debate and continue to have it THERE with anyone who cares to discuss it?  We don't need every thread to be about you.

Moderators, heads up--  if you see him try to take this thread completely off subject, will you please split the topic?  I've known this guy for years and I can smell his trolling from a mile away.

I don't necessarily agree with his comment, but I do think he was trying to be helpful :)
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: MaineShark on February 25, 2011, 04:54:39 pm
Everyone is born with a sin nature - desire to sin all sorts of sins - everyone has their own struggles but having a struggle doesnt justify sinning...

Speak for yourself.  I have no desire to sin.

the unchangeables that God picks for us are things like, race, counntry, time in history, body things, etc etc.

"Body things," like who someone is sexually attracted to?

Joe
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: WendellBerry on February 25, 2011, 05:00:18 pm
Quote
"Body things," like who someone is sexually attracted to?

Plumbing "things" Joe...you know - that then "naturally" lead to "insert tab A into slot B"!

LOL
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on February 25, 2011, 06:45:28 pm
Geez Dale - I was actually supporting your position by trying to clarify.

Take a chill pill...

Okay, I prolly did need to take a chill pill, at least with the "TROLL"-- all caps and all.  There IS quite a history of you hijacking many threads and steering them toward one subject.  I apologize and now wish I had just asked moderators to keep an eye out to see if that starts happening again.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: WendellBerry on February 25, 2011, 07:45:36 pm
Geez Dale - I was actually supporting your position by trying to clarify.

Take a chill pill...

Okay, I prolly did need to take a chill pill, at least with the "TROLL"-- all caps and all.  There IS quite a history of you hijacking many threads and steering them toward one subject.  I apologize and now wish I had just asked moderators to keep an eye out to see if that starts happening again.


you don't think the moderators don't keep on eye on me?
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on February 25, 2011, 09:16:55 pm
you don't think the moderators don't keep on eye on me?

I honestly don't know.  I don't spend that much time on this forum.  There are just a couple threads that I'm following lately and that's more than usual.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Andvari on February 27, 2011, 01:51:27 pm
So if you dont accept what the fasco-gay movement says, you're a bigot. Ha.

What i really would like to see is hetero marriage abolished and ONLY gays be allowed, they and the State deserve eachother. They need to appeal to Mommy Govt because they know in a real free market their mission would fail miserably.

The gay movement is no different from other collective 'rights' advocates who wanna shove their agenda down everyone's throat (feminists, environmentalists, etc and all those groups who cling to the fictictious idea of 'minority rights').

If this Dalebeart character stated he doesnt think one man and one woman is how he defines marriage, the natural response by everybody here would be...Ok fine, your opinion. But someone who doesnt agree with his definition and views...Oh no, no, no. You cant say that, you're a bigot ! LoL
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on February 27, 2011, 01:57:59 pm
How would same sex marriage/union fail in a free market?
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dyne313 on February 27, 2011, 03:51:06 pm
dalebert, I'm completely on your side on this one. After hearing you talk about it on the FTL extra (whatever thats called), I had to see whats going on.

I used to be like you others. And I used all the same language to justify my position. But the more I truly bought into the idea's of liberty, the more accepting I became. And it also helped when I realized that I was not completely straight either.

On the question of is it a choice or are you "born" that way. It doesn't matter to me. Literally, I don't give a flying ****. Because even if it is just a choice, there's nothing wrong with it morally. The only justification I've ever heard is, "it's against my religion, or god says its wrong." I don't care what your god says.

And as far as "what is marriage?" Doesn't matter to me either. Personally I don't believe in marriage, and I wouldn't suggest anybody get married. But I wouldn't ever dream of telling anybody they can't.

-edited for grammer, changed "Because even if it was just a choice" to " Because even if it is just a choice"
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: creaganlios on February 27, 2011, 04:47:53 pm
Of course dalebert is right.

Just as that speech which is most offensive is PRECISELY that speech that must be protected...so are those 'choices' that MOST offend the Theocrats the ones that must be protected if Liberty is to be real.  ONLYWAY's approach to this issue has been is pure theocracy, and anti-liberty.    Liberty means I can marry whoever the hell I want, I can live with two husbands or six wives if I want, and the state must treat me the same as anyone else - no better, no less.  THATS liberty. 

Anyone who doesnt like it can avoid my house parties & pig roasts, never darken my doorstep, avoid my church (which conducts same-sex ceremonies), and pray for my soul or call on heaven to rain down fire and brimstonbe, as they feel compelled...but to embrace liberty also means to accept that I should be allowed to ive unrestrained and unfettered by State Prohibition of my life and home.

Tully, a liberty-minded Christian who lives openly in a gay Triad.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dyne313 on February 27, 2011, 06:25:25 pm
I think for Liberty Lovers, the issue isn't "should they be able to," but more of, "should others accept it." Quite frankly, I don't care. You have every right to "think it's wrong" or even refuse to associate with people that practice/accept/advocate for it. But I think you do yourself a huge disservice. You miss out on getting to know some good people.
. . .who wanna shove their agenda down everyone's throat . . .

Nice choice of words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z49FPpdTrU&feature=related
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Mind wide open on February 27, 2011, 06:31:05 pm
I'm still having trouble understanding why one mans "sin" is another mans business. True liberty will come when men would never even presume to have an opinion on such matters.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: eh? on February 27, 2011, 07:05:48 pm
Consenting adults1 <shrug>.

1For reasonable definitions of consent and adult.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Dreepa on February 27, 2011, 07:47:33 pm
Consenting adults1 <shrug>.

1For reasonable definitions of consent and adult.

i like this comment.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on February 28, 2011, 07:45:34 am
So if you dont accept what the fasco-gay movement says, you're a bigot. Ha.

That's debatable, but calling someone a fasco-gay for saying the government itself should not discriminate on the basis of gender while then explicitly pointing out that the government should not tell private businesses what to do sure seems like bigotry.

Quote
What i really would like to see is hetero marriage abolished and ONLY gays be allowed, they and the State deserve eachother. They need to appeal to Mommy Govt because they know in a real free market their mission would fail miserably.

Private businesses have been way ahead of the government in this department.  Major corporations have been rapidly extending domestic partnership benefits to their employees and far more are extending their own non-discrimination policies to sexual orientation without any pressure from government.  It's all market pressure and wanting the best employees.

Quote
The gay movement is no different from other collective 'rights' advocates who wanna shove their agenda down everyone's throat (feminists, environmentalists, etc and all those groups who cling to the fictictious idea of 'minority rights').

How do you equate equal treatment by the government to minority rights?  Rights are the same for everybody or they aren't rights.

Quote
If this Dalebeart character stated he doesnt think one man and one woman is how he defines marriage, the natural response by everybody here would be...Ok fine, your opinion. But someone who doesnt agree with his definition and views...Oh no, no, no. You cant say that, you're a bigot ! LoL

Well, you can say that, obviously.  You're still here.  You can also equate someone who hasn't harmed anyone to a sodomite, a liar, a thief, a child molester, or call them a fasco-gay, and still be welcomed here because the FSP is trying to be a "big tent" and doesn't want to seem intolerant to anyone who would loudly express those offensive things about a large group of people on the public record.  What would be the reaction to someone who joined the forum and started a thread to politely express their opinion that races should voluntarily segregate and should never intermarry or reproduce and did so without using any comparably offensive racial terms?

BTW, "you're a bigot" is an opinion also.

"Dalebert, stop being intolerant of him just because his opinion is that you're a fascist for believing in equal treatment by the government!"
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on February 28, 2011, 09:29:50 am
In addition to the extra 1.5 hours on FTL Friday night (http://traffic.libsyn.com/ftl/FTL2011-02-25.mp3), This was discussed on our show Sunday (http://flamingfreedom.com/2011/02/27/episode-%e2%80%93-2011-feb-27th/) and then briefly on FTL Sunday evening (http://traffic.libsyn.com/ftl/FTL2011-02-27.mp3) later in the show.  Stephanie co-hosted and wanted to chime in with her thoughts.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Mind wide open on February 28, 2011, 09:42:38 am
Hey Dale-I just wanted to say that was great radio on Friday night! I actually listened to the extended part of the show twice. Very thought provoking to say the least. Turning wrenches gets really boring! Thanks for making my day go by faster. I enjoy your civility, and intelligence when you host. Great new show, too!!
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: davidinkeene on February 28, 2011, 07:27:24 pm
    that moderator guy keith  ... did more bobbing and weaving than mohamed ali ..........did you  ever hear the expression "if you don't stand for SOMETHING you will fall for anything"
  Plus i thought the fsp's  whole idea was to stand on important principals   MAN UP BRO!
  I just heard the    free talk live podcast (the extended one)
  as a matter of fact  that is why im chiming in and  have a  fsp account now
 peace
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: freedomroad on February 28, 2011, 07:42:09 pm
    that moderator guy keith  ... did more bobbing and weaving than mohamed ali ..........did you  ever hear the expression "if you don't stand for SOMETHING you will fall for anything"
  Plus i thought the fsp's  whole idea was to stand on important principals   MAN UP BRO!
  I just heard the    free talk live podcast (the extended one)
  as a matter of fact  that is why im chiming in and  have a  fsp account now
 peace

I was not answering any question in any official way.  I was merely giving my own opinions in a rushed way.  I am sorry if you felt my opinions were bobbes and weaves but I was trying to be completely genuine.

The goal of the FSP is to "The Free State Project is an effort to recruit 20,000 liberty-loving people to move to New Hampshire. We are looking for neighborly, productive, tolerant folks from all walks of life, of all ages, creeds, and colors who agree to the political philosophy expressed in our Statement of Intent, that government exists at most to protect people's rights, and should neither provide for people nor punish them for activities that interfere with no one else. "

Welcome to the FSP Forum!
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: davidinkeene on February 28, 2011, 09:20:58 pm
  Ok Keith,
    well   I only heard you that one time so...........It's not like i  KNOW you.
  so .
 ok
 peace
  thanks :)
  But i did   think Ian  was right when he said you were squirming out of some questions
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: freedomroad on February 28, 2011, 09:52:08 pm
 Ok Keith,
    well   I only heard you that one time so...........It's not like i  KNOW you.
  so .
 ok
 peace
  thanks :)
  But i did   think Ian  was right when he said you were squirming out of some questions

And I still have no idea what he was talking about.  I had very little time to think of the answers and was trying as quickly as I could to answer them.  Honestly, I'm not even sure if I have ever banned anyone on this forum.  I don't really look to do that.  I usually message people in private or sometimes post on the forum asking for people to be nicer and move stuff around that I think would perhaps be better placed in a different section of the forum.  I do ban spambots, but that is something entirely different.  There are other mods on this forum, and they can ban people all they want but I'd rather try to just encourage people to be nice and get along. 

I do thank you for your feedback though.  Please stick around, even if it is just to encourage me to improve :)
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: ONLYWAY on February 28, 2011, 10:58:34 pm
It seems to me that the word bigot gets thrown around here a lot.  I am curious, how do you define a bigot?

As I have explained earlier...I consider a bigot to be someone who condemns another because of the way God made them (ie skin color, ethnicity, language, family, etc etc)...having an opinon of another's actions is not a bigot.   Generalizing or even judging based on someone's actions is not bigotry.  For example, would you let a child molester babysit your child?  Of course not!  but if you said I would never let a black person babysit my child then you are a bigot.

Since it is part of the FSB statment there should be a definition from the "leadership" (or enforcers/judges) so let's hear it?
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on March 01, 2011, 12:26:02 am
Bigotry : http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry?db=dictionary

Doesn't generalizing or judging based on someone's actions violate the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount?
In Leviticus, (Old Testament Judaic), condemnation to stoning is prescribed... while in John (New Testament) Jesus Christ suggests otherwise.

7:53 And every man went unto his own house. 8:1 Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives. 2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they who heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

The question is do we follow Christ? Or Moses?
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: freedomroad on March 01, 2011, 01:02:02 am
It seems to me that the word bigot gets thrown around here a lot.  I am curious, how do you define a bigot?

According to the definition just posted

"a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

or

"a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race"

According to those definitions, I haven't seen any posters that have expressed bigotry on this forum recently.  However, there may be other definitions for the word so I am not sure if the people that have used to term here to describe others are necessarily wrong.  Additionally, I haven't read all of the posts here, either.  If those definitions are accurate, it seems based on what I've seen that this whole discussion isn't even needed, though maybe it is welcomed.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on March 01, 2011, 01:19:56 am
It seems to me that the word bigot gets thrown around here a lot.  I am curious, how do you define a bigot?

According to the definition just posted

"a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

or

"a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race"

According to those definitions, I haven't seen any posters that have expressed bigotry on this forum recently.  However, there may be other definitions for the word so I am not sure if the people that have used to term here to describe others are necessarily wrong.  Additionally, I haven't read all of the posts here, either.  If those definitions are accurate, it seems based on what I've seen that this whole discussion isn't even needed, though maybe it is welcomed.

QFKFBDL (Quoted for keeping from being deleted later)
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Andvari on March 01, 2011, 02:08:35 am
It seems to me that the word bigot gets thrown around here a lot.  I am curious, how do you define a bigot?

Apparently, if you're not for state-granted fictions like gay marriage it applies. I wonder if opposing corporations and intellectual property also qualifies as bigotry.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on March 01, 2011, 03:28:47 am
Bigotry would only apply to discrimination of State privilege.

Bigotry:
Synonyms
1.  narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.

I would guess if you oppose it for some, but support it for others... it would.


Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on March 01, 2011, 06:52:50 am
It's refreshing to see the irony of this discussion is not lost on most.

Whether it's over their nature or their behavior which harms no one, a segment of society is being insulted, disrespected, and condescended to, some are even openly advocating discrimination by governments, a few people are trying to make the question about whether saying that's intolerant is actually intolerant.   That's the question?  Srsly?  :-\
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Andvari on March 01, 2011, 12:12:17 pm
Bigotry would only apply to discrimination of State privilege.

Then, you cant exclude it from anybody. Period. And however one wants to define marriage must have access to this so-called state privilege. So if a 50 year old wants to marry a 13 yr old, they cant be denied. If a father wants to marry his daughter, ditto. If you want 20 wives or husbands... And on and on. Im sure there are some wackojobs out there that would wanna extend this 'privilege' to marrying animals too, beastiality is quite the popular hobby.

And if you oppose any of this, you are a bigot. Remember, you cant discriminate against anyone LoL !

Obviously, this is all beyond absurd.

Getting the State out of marriage is the only solution. Giving them MORE power, no matter how 'fair' it might seem on the surface, is never a good thing. It only creates more problems down the road.

Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: MaineShark on March 01, 2011, 02:39:39 pm
Then, you cant exclude it from anybody. Period. And however one wants to define marriage must have access to this so-called state privilege. So if a 50 year old wants to marry a 13 yr old, they cant be denied. If a father wants to marry his daughter, ditto.

Repeat after me: "consenting adults."

If you want 20 wives or husbands...

Why not?  I wouldn't mind having 20 wives...

And on and on. Im sure there are some wackojobs out there that would wanna extend this 'privilege' to marrying animals too, beastiality is quite the popular hobby.

Good for them.  Does it harm me, if they do so?

Getting the State out of marriage is the only solution. Giving them MORE power, no matter how 'fair' it might seem on the surface, is never a good thing. It only creates more problems down the road.

The only way to get the State out of marriage is to eliminate the special privilege that heterosexual couples have.  So long as they have a special privilege that no one else can get, most of them will fight tooth-and-nail to keep it all for themselves.  No one should have "special rights," be that heterosexuals who get to marry, to the exclusion of all others, or minorities who are protected by "hate crime" laws.  Every person has the same rights as every other person, and the government needs to recognize that.  When no one gets special benefits that others can't have, then we can actually  get the State out of marriage and other things.

Joe
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Andvari on March 01, 2011, 04:06:20 pm
Then, you cant exclude it from anybody. Period. And however one wants to define marriage must have access to this so-called state privilege. So if a 50 year old wants to marry a 13 yr old, they cant be denied. If a father wants to marry his daughter, ditto.

Repeat after me: "consenting adults."

If you want 20 wives or husbands...

Why not?  I wouldn't mind having 20 wives...

And on and on. Im sure there are some wackojobs out there that would wanna extend this 'privilege' to marrying animals too, beastiality is quite the popular hobby.

Good for them.  Does it harm me, if they do so?

Getting the State out of marriage is the only solution. Giving them MORE power, no matter how 'fair' it might seem on the surface, is never a good thing. It only creates more problems down the road.

The only way to get the State out of marriage is to eliminate the special privilege that heterosexual couples have.  So long as they have a special privilege that no one else can get, most of them will fight tooth-and-nail to keep it all for themselves.  No one should have "special rights," be that heterosexuals who get to marry, to the exclusion of all others, or minorities who are protected by "hate crime" laws.  Every person has the same rights as every other person, and the government needs to recognize that.  When no one gets special benefits that others can't have, then we can actually  get the State out of marriage and other things.

Joe

This is the same flawed and inconsistent stance the anarcho-communists take.....temporarily increase the scope and power of the State in the name of 'fairness' until we get our eutopian society. Since the State is already involved with A, B and C....lets manipulate it to do D, E and F. Those are all excuses to pursue your flavor of Statism. I take a much more black and white stance, either you are with or against it.

Sorry-- but being pro State sanctioned gay marriage is NOT the libertarian view, despite what these hypocrites might say.

Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: MaineShark on March 01, 2011, 05:42:34 pm
This is the same flawed and inconsistent stance the anarcho-communists take.....temporarily increase the scope and power of the State in the name of 'fairness' until we get our eutopian society. Since the State is already involved with A, B and C....lets manipulate it to do D, E and F. Those are all excuses to pursue your flavor of Statism. I take a much more black and white stance, either you are with or against it.

Sorry-- but being pro State sanctioned gay marriage is NOT the libertarian view, despite what these hypocrites might say.

Um, no.  The power of the State is its ability to prohibit things.  If the State prohibits gay marriage, ending that prohibition is a reduction in the power of the State.

Check your math, before posting supposed "proofs" of your position.

Joe
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: ONLYWAY on March 01, 2011, 05:43:02 pm
Yes it is ironic that the guy who started this thread by whinning and tattling on his EX-friend for being a "bigot" is the same guy calling for me to be banned becuase I think homosexuality is a disgusting, evil act that God spoke very clearly on in His Word.

You have yet to give a definition of what a bigot is, although it is retty easy to see what you think.  anyone who doesnt agree with you is a bigot.

It's refreshing to see the irony of this discussion is not lost on most.

Whether it's over their nature or their behavior which harms no one, a segment of society is being insulted, disrespected, and condescended to, some are even openly advocating discrimination by governments, a few people are trying to make the question about whether saying that's intolerant is actually intolerant.   That's the question?  Srsly?  :-\

Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: ONLYWAY on March 01, 2011, 05:45:03 pm
wrong!  the state grants marriage licenses - which when u get you place yourself under the contract of the state.  THE STATE NEEDS TO STAY OUT OF ALL MARRIAGES...and whatever the homosexuals want to call what they have going.

This is the same flawed and inconsistent stance the anarcho-communists take.....temporarily increase the scope and power of the State in the name of 'fairness' until we get our eutopian society. Since the State is already involved with A, B and C....lets manipulate it to do D, E and F. Those are all excuses to pursue your flavor of Statism. I take a much more black and white stance, either you are with or against it.

Sorry-- but being pro State sanctioned gay marriage is NOT the libertarian view, despite what these hypocrites might say.

Um, no.  The power of the State is its ability to prohibit things.  If the State prohibits gay marriage, ending that prohibition is a reduction in the power of the State.

Check your math, before posting supposed "proofs" of your position.

Joe
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: ONLYWAY on March 01, 2011, 05:47:05 pm
That doesnt make any sense.  AND how does that apply to the how the term is used by the moderators and rules and regs for this site? 

Bigotry would only apply to discrimination of State privilege.

Bigotry:
Synonyms
1.  narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.

I would guess if you oppose it for some, but support it for others... it would.



Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: MaineShark on March 01, 2011, 05:51:31 pm
wrong!  the state grants marriage licenses - which when u get you place yourself under the contract of the state.  THE STATE NEEDS TO STAY OUT OF ALL MARRIAGES...and whatever the homosexuals want to call what they have going.

The State does need to stay out of marriage.  That's why my wife and I never got any sort of license from the State.

But, as long as they are involved, they need to be as indiscriminate as possible.  When any one group gets special benefits, that group will fight to defend those benefits.  Allowing homosexuals to get marriages has diluted the special benefits that heterosexuals only used to have.

Lo and behold, folks who used to defend State marriage, have started coming over to the idea of getting the State out of marriage.  In NH, it's approaching a certainty that we can get the State out of marriage, within the next five years.  Before gay marriage passed, there was no chance at all of getting the State out of marriage.

You can argue all the hypothetical theory that you want to, but here in NH, we're doing it, and it works.

Joe
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: rossby on March 01, 2011, 06:25:46 pm
Consenting adults1 <shrug>.

1For reasonable definitions of consent and adult.

i like this comment.

Reminds me of an article I wanted to write once that was just an interpretation of the first amendment.

"Congress1 shall make no law2 respecting3 an establishment4 of religion5, or prohibiting6 the free exercise7 thereof; or abridging8 the freedom of speech9, or of the press10; or the right11 of the people peaceably12 to assemble13, and to petition14 the Government for a redress of grievances15."


1 Or any part of the several states.
2 Or, if a state, a decree or order.
3 Except for faith-based grants of taxpayer money.
4 Unless for tax, social security, or healthcare purposes.
5 And determined to be a valid religion.
6 Except when prohibited.
7 Except when exercise is illegal.
8 But restricting, regulating, and controlling are fine, especially when those non-abridgements only concern the time, place, and manner of the speech.
9 But only if we like the speech.
10 Except when it will expose government corruption, waste, and buffoonery.
11 Subject to obtaining a valid permit and paying a fee.
12 Unless they may have guns.
13 May be limited to "free-speech zones".
14 Elect federal politicians.
15 The above 14 points of bullshit.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: ONLYWAY on March 01, 2011, 07:25:07 pm
It is really great that you and your wife chose to keep the state out of your marriage...not many people get that. 

It is not hypothetical theory...It is simple scripture.  The Bible clearly teaches that the 2 marriages God seals is the marriage of the Church with Christ and the marriage of a woman and a man.  When you have the state involved in the process you have replaced God wth the state.  ANY churich that gets a 501c3 is wrong!   They have made the state their lord.  I have several articles on the unregisterd churches on my site if yoiu are interested.

I hope NH does get the state out of marriage!

wrong!  the state grants marriage licenses - which when u get you place yourself under the contract of the state.  THE STATE NEEDS TO STAY OUT OF ALL MARRIAGES...and whatever the homosexuals want to call what they have going.

The State does need to stay out of marriage.  That's why my wife and I never got any sort of license from the State.

But, as long as they are involved, they need to be as indiscriminate as possible.  When any one group gets special benefits, that group will fight to defend those benefits.  Allowing homosexuals to get marriages has diluted the special benefits that heterosexuals only used to have.

Lo and behold, folks who used to defend State marriage, have started coming over to the idea of getting the State out of marriage.  In NH, it's approaching a certainty that we can get the State out of marriage, within the next five years.  Before gay marriage passed, there was no chance at all of getting the State out of marriage.

You can argue all the hypothetical theory that you want to, but here in NH, we're doing it, and it works.

Joe
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: ONLYWAY on March 01, 2011, 07:43:32 pm
Why don't you grace us with your definition of "bigot"...it should sure would be nice to see an actual definition written into the rules and regs here.

Consenting adults1 <shrug>.

1For reasonable definitions of consent and adult.

i like this comment.

Reminds me of an article I wanted to write once that was just an interpretation of the first amendment.

"Congress1 shall make no law2 respecting3 an establishment4 of religion5, or prohibiting6 the free exercise7 thereof; or abridging8 the freedom of speech9, or of the press10; or the right11 of the people peaceably12 to assemble13, and to petition14 the Government for a redress of grievances15."


1 Or any part of the several states.
2 Or, if a state, a decree or order.
3 Except for faith-based grants of taxpayer money.
4 Unless for tax, social security, or healthcare purposes.
5 And determined to be a valid religion.
6 Except when prohibited.
7 Except when exercise is illegal.
8 But restricting, regulating, and controlling are fine, especially when those non-abridgements only concern the time, place, and manner of the speech.
9 But only if we like the speech.
10 Except when it will expose government corruption, waste, and buffoonery.
11 Subject to obtaining a valid permit and paying a fee.
12 Unless they may have guns.
13 May be limited to "free-speech zones".
14 Elect federal politicians.
15 The above 14 points of bullshit.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: MaineShark on March 01, 2011, 07:46:00 pm
It is really great that you and your wife chose to keep the state out of your marriage...not many people get that. 

It is not hypothetical theory...It is simple scripture.  The Bible clearly teaches that the 2 marriages God seals is the marriage of the Church with Christ and the marriage of a woman and a man.  When you have the state involved in the process you have replaced God wth the state.  ANY churich that gets a 501c3 is wrong!   They have made the state their lord.  I have several articles on the unregisterd churches on my site if yoiu are interested.

I hope NH does get the state out of marriage!

The methodology of achieving that is what is "hypothetical theory" to some, but practical reality to others.

Laws that would define marriage at "one man and one woman" will only help to keep the State involved in marriage.  Only by diluting the special privileges of certain groups, can we get those groups to consider ending the whole mess.  Previously, conservative Christian groups have been the strongest supporters of government marriage licensing.  Now that civil unions, and then gay marriage have passed in NH, some of those same groups are willing to come to the table and talk about getting the State out of the marriage business, altogether.

I'd like to at least get things to a proper common-law marriage situation, where you get married in whatever way you see fit, and then the most the government does is recognize the fact that you did so, if it comes up (inheritance, child custody, whatever).  There doesn't even have to be any sexual component - if two sisters who live together want to have community property and consider each other next of kin, that's fine by me - all the government should be concerned with, at most, is the contractual part, not the spiritual/emotional/sexual parts.  And their sole involvement in the contractual part should be recognizing that it exists, not granting permission, or condoning or opposing it.

Joe
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: ONLYWAY on March 01, 2011, 07:47:57 pm
exactly the govt loves to stack the cards so it is impossible to really win....it's like they give you a crossword puzzle but fill in a couple of wrong words and say here you go finsih the puzzle but dont change our words.  Stop playing their games and erase their words or better yet just throw the stupid thing away.

Then, you cant exclude it from anybody. Period. And however one wants to define marriage must have access to this so-called state privilege. So if a 50 year old wants to marry a 13 yr old, they cant be denied. If a father wants to marry his daughter, ditto.

Repeat after me: "consenting adults."

If you want 20 wives or husbands...

Why not?  I wouldn't mind having 20 wives...

And on and on. Im sure there are some wackojobs out there that would wanna extend this 'privilege' to marrying animals too, beastiality is quite the popular hobby.

Good for them.  Does it harm me, if they do so?

Getting the State out of marriage is the only solution. Giving them MORE power, no matter how 'fair' it might seem on the surface, is never a good thing. It only creates more problems down the road.

The only way to get the State out of marriage is to eliminate the special privilege that heterosexual couples have.  So long as they have a special privilege that no one else can get, most of them will fight tooth-and-nail to keep it all for themselves.  No one should have "special rights," be that heterosexuals who get to marry, to the exclusion of all others, or minorities who are protected by "hate crime" laws.  Every person has the same rights as every other person, and the government needs to recognize that.  When no one gets special benefits that others can't have, then we can actually  get the State out of marriage and other things.

Joe

This is the same flawed and inconsistent stance the anarcho-communists take.....temporarily increase the scope and power of the State in the name of 'fairness' until we get our eutopian society. Since the State is already involved with A, B and C....lets manipulate it to do D, E and F. Those are all excuses to pursue your flavor of Statism. I take a much more black and white stance, either you are with or against it.

Sorry-- but being pro State sanctioned gay marriage is NOT the libertarian view, despite what these hypocrites might say.


Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: rossby on March 01, 2011, 07:48:21 pm
Why don't you grace us with your definition of "bigot"...it should sure would be nice to see an actual definition written into the rules and regs here.

Consenting adults1 <shrug>.

1For reasonable definitions of consent and adult.

i like this comment.

Reminds me of an article I wanted to write once that was just an interpretation of the first amendment.

"Congress1 shall make no law2 respecting3 an establishment4 of religion5, or prohibiting6 the free exercise7 thereof; or abridging8 the freedom of speech9, or of the press10; or the right11 of the people peaceably12 to assemble13, and to petition14 the Government for a redress of grievances15."


Since I've done that several times already, makes me think you're just trolling here. Measure your next post carefully.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: ONLYWAY on March 01, 2011, 07:52:07 pm
I agree but you need to remember that most "christian types" would fall under the catholic or protestant headers...these groups think that "the church" (aka "their church") should be in charge of the govt and think that others should be forced to obey their specifics.

It is really great that you and your wife chose to keep the state out of your marriage...not many people get that. 

It is not hypothetical theory...It is simple scripture.  The Bible clearly teaches that the 2 marriages God seals is the marriage of the Church with Christ and the marriage of a woman and a man.  When you have the state involved in the process you have replaced God wth the state.  ANY churich that gets a 501c3 is wrong!   They have made the state their lord.  I have several articles on the unregisterd churches on my site if yoiu are interested.

I hope NH does get the state out of marriage!

The methodology of achieving that is what is "hypothetical theory" to some, but practical reality to others.

Laws that would define marriage at "one man and one woman" will only help to keep the State involved in marriage.  Only by diluting the special privileges of certain groups, can we get those groups to consider ending the whole mess.  Previously, conservative Christian groups have been the strongest supporters of government marriage licensing.  Now that civil unions, and then gay marriage have passed in NH, some of those same groups are willing to come to the table and talk about getting the State out of the marriage business, altogether.

I'd like to at least get things to a proper common-law marriage situation, where you get married in whatever way you see fit, and then the most the government does is recognize the fact that you did so, if it comes up (inheritance, child custody, whatever).  There doesn't even have to be any sexual component - if two sisters who live together want to have community property and consider each other next of kin, that's fine by me - all the government should be concerned with, at most, is the contractual part, not the spiritual/emotional/sexual parts.  And their sole involvement in the contractual part should be recognizing that it exists, not granting permission, or condoning or opposing it.

Joe
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: ONLYWAY on March 01, 2011, 07:56:07 pm
I have read every one of these posts in this entire thread so you can go ahaed and apologize fo ryour false accusation.  Maybe you could point to some of those definitions?  a link will do. 

"Measure my next post carefully" what exactly does that mean?  are you threatening me because i asked you for a hard definition of the word "bigot".  If it is used in the rules and regs there should be a definition...you are lawyer you should know that.

Why don't you grace us with your definition of "bigot"...it should sure would be nice to see an actual definition written into the rules and regs here.

Consenting adults1 <shrug>.

1For reasonable definitions of consent and adult.

i like this comment.

Reminds me of an article I wanted to write once that was just an interpretation of the first amendment.

"Congress1 shall make no law2 respecting3 an establishment4 of religion5, or prohibiting6 the free exercise7 thereof; or abridging8 the freedom of speech9, or of the press10; or the right11 of the people peaceably12 to assemble13, and to petition14 the Government for a redress of grievances15."


Since I've done that several times already, makes me think you're just trolling here. Measure your next post carefully.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: rossby on March 01, 2011, 07:59:03 pm
I have read every one of these posts in this entire thread so you can go ahaed and apologize fo ryour false accusation.  Maybe you could point to some of those definitions?  a link will do. 

If you've read the thread (and the one that came before it too) you will find I've done that at least 3 times.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: MaineShark on March 01, 2011, 08:09:11 pm
I agree but you need to remember that most "christian types" would fall under the catholic or protestant headers...these groups think that "the church" (aka "their church") should be in charge of the govt and think that others should be forced to obey their specifics.

And...?  The point was not what sort of dogma they ascribe to, but that they formerly opposed us, and now are talking about supporting the liberty position on this issue.

Joe
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on March 01, 2011, 10:27:49 pm
Yes it is ironic that the guy who started this thread by whinning and tattling on his EX-friend for being a "bigot" is the same guy calling for me to be banned becuase I think homosexuality is a disgusting, evil act that God spoke very clearly on in His Word.

You have yet to give a definition of what a bigot is, although it is retty easy to see what you think.  anyone who doesnt agree with you is a bigot.

It's refreshing to see the irony of this discussion is not lost on most.

Whether it's over their nature or their behavior which harms no one, a segment of society is being insulted, disrespected, and condescended to, some are even openly advocating discrimination by governments, a few people are trying to make the question about whether saying that's intolerant is actually intolerant.   That's the question?  Srsly?  :-\

Actually as I posted... its not quite the clarity that your presenting. The OT describes it as wrong... but the NT describes your judgement of such wrong. Creating the paradox.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on March 01, 2011, 10:28:59 pm
That doesnt make any sense.  AND how does that apply to the how the term is used by the moderators and rules and regs for this site? 

Bigotry would only apply to discrimination of State privilege.

Bigotry:
Synonyms
1.  narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.

I would guess if you oppose it for some, but support it for others... it would.



You would need to ask a moderator.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on March 01, 2011, 10:33:00 pm
Bigotry would only apply to discrimination of State privilege.

Then, you cant exclude it from anybody. Period. And however one wants to define marriage must have access to this so-called state privilege. So if a 50 year old wants to marry a 13 yr old, they cant be denied. If a father wants to marry his daughter, ditto. If you want 20 wives or husbands... And on and on. Im sure there are some wackojobs out there that would wanna extend this 'privilege' to marrying animals too, beastiality is quite the popular hobby.

And if you oppose any of this, you are a bigot. Remember, you cant discriminate against anyone LoL !

Obviously, this is all beyond absurd.

Getting the State out of marriage is the only solution. Giving them MORE power, no matter how 'fair' it might seem on the surface, is never a good thing. It only creates more problems down the road.


If all parties wish to be bound, and have the power to consent, then yes.
I'm Catholic, so I'm pretty much stuck with the Augustinian/Gregorian viewpoint. Which isn't 100% biblic.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Russell Kanning on March 05, 2011, 12:14:54 pm
those legal definitions were really funny BD Ross


I guess the answer is that many fsp members care about bigotry.

I am surprised how worked up some people get about the government doing gay marriage. I was listening to a Christian radio station last week and thought the world was going to end because obama wasn't going to enforce some marriage law.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on April 01, 2011, 03:17:10 pm
It's almost as if she read this thread...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p68-k_fiiaQ
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Dreepa on April 01, 2011, 04:56:08 pm
It's almost as if she read this thread...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p68-k_fiiaQ


I got 30 seconds of her voice...then stopped.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on April 01, 2011, 07:11:19 pm
I got 30 seconds of her voice...then stopped.

Yeah, I know.  That's unfortunate.  It's a shame because she had some good points to make in that droning, monotone voice.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: rossby on April 01, 2011, 07:45:42 pm
those legal definitions were really funny BD Ross

Just pulled 'em out of a dictionary. And gave my own. ... I don't think there is a "legal" definition of bigotry.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Argentum on April 03, 2011, 08:35:00 am
"Q: What kind of people are not welcome as members of the Free State Project?

A: Anyone who promotes violence, racial hatred, or bigotry is not welcome."

It seems to me that libertarianism is only about when it is proper to use force.  It doesn't have an answer for racial hatred or bigotry.  I can understand why the FSP's founders want to exclude those who promote racial hatred.  It's bad for business to have Stormfront types associated with the FSP.  But bigotry is not as precise a word as the length of this thread has shown.  Theoretically, once can be a bigot, however defined, and still be a libertarian.

I don't think it is bigotry if a Christian condemns or judges gays or any other sinners. 

I definitely feel that the libertarian position on marriage is to get the government out of it.  I guess as long as there is a government, it would still be involved as it relates to contract enforcement.  I think the whole idea of "the gov't shouldn't be involved, but as long as it is" is a very dangerous can of worms.  The goal should be to eliminate privilege, not equalize it.  That is not to say that libertarians shouldn't use the political fact that States may get involved further to their advantage in recruiting normally pro-State Christians to our side.


As a side note, the FSP welcomes military members and/or non-anarchists.  What's worse?  A non-bigoted Statist or a bigoted,hate filled anarchist?
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: MaineShark on April 03, 2011, 09:16:27 am
I definitely feel that the libertarian position on marriage is to get the government out of it.  I guess as long as there is a government, it would still be involved as it relates to contract enforcement.  I think the whole idea of "the gov't shouldn't be involved, but as long as it is" is a very dangerous can of worms.  The goal should be to eliminate privilege, not equalize it.

Yes, that's the point of passing gay marriage.  It eliminates the privilege that heterosexual couples had.  Then, if we can eliminate the numerical restriction, that will eliminate the privilege that couples have over larger groupings.  Et cetera.

Joe
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Argentum on April 03, 2011, 09:36:14 am
I definitely feel that the libertarian position on marriage is to get the government out of it.  I guess as long as there is a government, it would still be involved as it relates to contract enforcement.  I think the whole idea of "the gov't shouldn't be involved, but as long as it is" is a very dangerous can of worms.  The goal should be to eliminate privilege, not equalize it.

Yes, that's the point of passing gay marriage.  It eliminates the privilege that heterosexual couples had.  Then, if we can eliminate the numerical restriction, that will eliminate the privilege that couples have over larger groupings.  Et cetera.

Joe

Joe,

Doesn't that increase the governments role in civil society.  Wouldn't it be better to get government out of heterosexual marriage?  This would also appeal to religious people because we can say to them that the government will not be using their tax dollars recognizing gay marriage qua gay marriage.  It would still, of course, be recognizing the underlying civil contract.  For the record and at the risk of appearing to be a bigot, I don't consider gay marriage to be a marriage in my book.  But it doesn't matter what I think..  Or at least not yet.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: MaineShark on April 03, 2011, 09:51:23 am
Doesn't that increase the governments role in civil society.  Wouldn't it be better to get government out of heterosexual marriage?  This would also appeal to religious people because we can say to them that the government will not be using their tax dollars recognizing gay marriage qua gay marriage.  It would still, of course, be recognizing the underlying civil contract.

Ideally, the government will go away, completely.  Not living in that ideal world, yet, we have to deal with what is.

The government's power is to prohibit.  Currently, in most places, they prohibit gay marriage (either directly, or by heavily penalizing gays who get married in various ways).  Passing gay marriage into law, removes their ability to prohibit it, thereby reducing their power.

The only way we will ever get the government out of marriage, is to end the special privileges.  As long as heterosexuals have a special privilege that others can't have, many of them will fight to defend the system that gives them their privilege.  Once that privilege is ended, they no longer support the government-controlled-marriage system as strongly.  This isn't just theory; we've been doing it, here in NH, and as civil unions and then gay marriage were passed, support for getting the government out of marriage has increased substantially.  Many of those who previously supported that system only to defend their own privileges, now support it less or not at all, because those special privileges are gone.

Privilege ("private law" - special legal "benefits" given to some group, but not others) needs to be ended, before many of those who are at the receiving end of that privilege will even consider opposing the system.  That's why the government is so keen to get so many on some sort of welfare, etc. - he will then defend them in order to maintain the privilege.  Other than bloody revolution, which any sane person would prefer to see as small as possible, or avoid completely, ending privilege is the only way to shrink the government's power.

Joe
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on April 03, 2011, 11:07:20 pm
I don't think it is bigotry if a Christian condemns or judges gays or any other sinners. 

Somehow it got complicated, but I've always understood bigotry to be intolerance for people who are different.  That's certainly what it has always meant to me.  In my book, if you insult, condemn, condescend to people for their nature, or their choices or behavior that don't harm you in any way, that's bigotry.  That's how I always understood the word.  So in my book, you described a bigot and religion is just presented as a justification for it.  If their religion prescribes bigotry, it seems like people ought to re-examine their faith.

I keep wondering what the FSP means by it in the context in which it's used.  That's what it ultimately comes down to.  That was kind of the point of this thread.  They made a point of specifically mentioning racial hatred but then followed it with the broader term of "bigotry".  So what did they mean by their use of it and what actions would they consider in response to it?

If this is unknown, then maybe it's time to think about that.  I gave analogies for the sake of a thought experiment.  Someone comes here from Stormfront and suggests inter-racial marriages are bad and should be discouraged (but not outlawed, no force so still technically libertarian) and used derogatory terms to describe certain races of people.  How would the FSP respond to that?  Okay, so someone shows up and very publicly uses derogatory terms to describe homosexuals or Muslims or Mormons.  Now what?  Is there concern about the image of the FSP by not dissociating to some degree or another?
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on April 04, 2011, 03:32:28 am
More to the point... its in direct opposition of Christ's teaching for anyone to condemn or judge the sin of another.
So doing so would actually be anti-Christian.

As for the one woman - one man marriage... that isn't biblical, its papal doctrine.

I can't even remember a quote attributed to Christ on homosexual behaviour.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Andvari on April 04, 2011, 03:55:13 am
I definitely feel that the libertarian position on marriage is to get the government out of it.  I guess as long as there is a government, it would still be involved as it relates to contract enforcement.  I think the whole idea of "the gov't shouldn't be involved, but as long as it is" is a very dangerous can of worms.  The goal should be to eliminate privilege, not equalize it.

Yes, that's the point of passing gay marriage.  It eliminates the privilege that heterosexual couples had.  Then, if we can eliminate the numerical restriction, that will eliminate the privilege that couples have over larger groupings.  Et cetera.

Joe

Joe,

Doesn't that increase the governments role in civil society.  Wouldn't it be better to get government out of heterosexual marriage?  This would also appeal to religious people because we can say to them that the government will not be using their tax dollars recognizing gay marriage qua gay marriage.  It would still, of course, be recognizing the underlying civil contract.  For the record and at the risk of appearing to be a bigot, I don't consider gay marriage to be a marriage in my book.  But it doesn't matter what I think..  Or at least not yet.

In the end, it doesnt matter anyway. 99.9% of the laws and rules Govt comes up with suck, so whats another crappy law. It aint  like anyone's gonna change their mind about the issue, unless you're a drone who believes what the State decrees. One overlooked thing is that there will be increased benefits in social programs (more tax theft), funny how the so called anarchists never mention this.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: MaineShark on April 04, 2011, 07:00:32 am
One overlooked thing is that there will be increased benefits in social programs (more tax theft), funny how the so called anarchists never mention this.

Actually, a number of individuals have made that point, as it is yet one more reason to support gay marriage: those who are getting "assistance" will get less as a married couple than as two separate individuals, so it further reduces the thieving...

Joe
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on April 04, 2011, 11:10:47 am
One overlooked thing is that there will be increased benefits in social programs (more tax theft), funny how the so called anarchists never mention this.

This is an incredibly simplistic take on a very complicated subject, and unfortunately, there's no short and simple way to explain why it makes no sense.  I brush the surface of it here and thoroughly debunk this fallacious view, but you probably won't read it.  The misconception is tied to an oversimplification of the myriad ways that government intrudes into our lives and the way that intrusion is affected by contracts between individuals.

The short answer is that for government to intervene and ban what should be a personal contract between consenting adults is an intrusion of government.  Libertarians are big on consensual contracts.  If they stop banning contracts between consenting adults, that's a retraction of government size and intrusiveness and clearly a step in a more libertarian direction.  The phrase "get government out of marriage" is tossed around flippantly without thinking about all that would entail and what it will really take to get there (practically an end to most if not all of what governments do-- taxation, border control, the entire welfare state), as much as I want to get there too.

Actually, a number of individuals have made that point, as it is yet one more reason to support gay marriage: those who are getting "assistance" will get less as a married couple than as two separate individuals, so it further reduces the thieving...

It usually increases taxes for most because for most couples, both partners work.  And since that's the case for most modern couples (and likely at least as much so for same-sex couples), you're right.  It would generally mean they'd pay more taxes than singles.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Russell Kanning on April 07, 2011, 09:43:42 am
Somehow it got complicated, but I've always understood bigotry to be intolerance for people who are different. 
Are you asking us to not tolerate those that are intolerant to those that are different.
Are you and I supposed to tolerate Fluff and stuff when he gets drunk and stupid, or when he is intolerant of you?
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Russell Kanning on April 07, 2011, 09:47:30 am
I don't think it is very complicated. I don't want to be involved in other people's contracts, so I don't support a government doing it.
Some contracts that people make I will support others I will not. I will just have to decide how to react to each one of them. No reaction would involve force, so I shouldn't be hurting anyone too badly, if I am wrong.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Alex Libman on April 07, 2011, 10:29:37 am
Dalebert is one smart cookie...

As I've criticized gay culture to pieces, he found the perfect balance between indulging me and then ignoring me.

Yes...  I've been out-trolled.   :o

And I think that's a win-win situation for both of us.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on April 07, 2011, 04:49:48 pm
Somehow it got complicated, but I've always understood bigotry to be intolerance for people who are different. 
Are you asking us to not tolerate those that are intolerant to those that are different.  Are you and I supposed to tolerate Fluff and stuff when he gets drunk and stupid, or when he is intolerant of you?

Tolerate as in not do violence to?  Yes.  Tolerate as in carry on as if there is no problem?  I don't recommend it.  Keith and I are no longer friends.  However, I'm not demanding anything from others.  I haven't dissociated from people who still associate with him.

Don't put words in my mouth.  I haven't asked people to DO anything.  I have been using Socratic method to get people to examine their choices for logic and consistency.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Russell Kanning on April 08, 2011, 12:25:24 pm
I was guessing that you wanted the FSP (and I guess a bunch of us in it) to not put up with certain behaviors.
I agree that if someone is doing something wrong and won't change, we should do something about it.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on April 08, 2011, 04:55:53 pm
I was guessing that you wanted the FSP (and I guess a bunch of us in it) to not put up with certain behaviors.

Not saying that's an unreasonable conclusion.  Essentially, what I've been bringing up over and over is, how does the FSP choose to react to overt racism and then asking whether they consistently apply such standards to other forms of bigotry.  If not, why not?  What are their motivations for how they deal with people who demonstrate overt racist behavior and whether the same reasoning would support dealing with other forms of bigotry similarly.  I've also been attempting to give some very clear analogies to provide some objectivity in figuring out what bigotry is.

I think most important of all is not necessarily strong action as much as avoiding the appearance of sanctioning bigotry.  Sometimes that just takes the right public statement and having the right public policy.  It's all about PR and how the FSP is perceived.

I don't feel there's a safe way to ride the fence and be completely "big tent".  I think you have to make a choice.  You either have to turn off bigots or you have to turn off the people who are turned off by (overt) bigotry.  The more tactful bigots are almost certainly around and mixing here and there.  Those don't affect the PR of the FSP so much.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on July 28, 2011, 05:01:07 pm
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/general/proud-to-be-a-bigot-and-intolerant/msg639800/#msg639800

Quote from: Dalebert
I am a bigot and very intolerant. I am intolerant of the view that the state taking my money at the point of a gun is somehow different from theft. I am bigoted because I believe that people own their bodies.

That sounds like the only thing you're intolerant of is actual intolerance.  Statism is fueled by intolerance and a desire to control others.  Being tolerant only makes sense if you actually stop at tolerating intolerance.  Otherwise it is paradoxical.  Statists have no problem with paradoxes and inconsistencies in general.  They have elaborate mechanisms for dealing with cognitive dissonance.

I doubt you're a bigot either.  If you're like most libertarians (small-l), then you took a lot of convincing to get there.  If you seem to be, it might just be because you're not hearing any good, logical points that might change your views.  Even after becoming a libertarian, I'm still constantly looking at things from a new perspective when such perspectives are effectively presented.

I think a bigot better describes someone who's stuck in a particular viewpoint, maybe due to arbitrary faith or taboos that are well integrated into their personalities from long-term conditioning, and blocks out any logical arguments that might create cognitive dissonance for them, obstinantly failing to even consider new perspectives, even when presented logically and backed by substantial evidence.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: HRearden on July 28, 2011, 06:53:55 pm
I am bigoted against people who reject logic and the scientific method. Should I be kicked out of NH?
No. I would not describe myself as a bigot against religious believers and theists eventhough I am an Atheist and rational thinker.

                                           $ Freethinker
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: HRearden on July 28, 2011, 06:57:32 pm
I was guessing that you wanted the FSP (and I guess a bunch of us in it) to not put up with certain behaviors.

Not saying that's an unreasonable conclusion.  Essentially, what I've been bringing up over and over is, how does the FSP choose to react to overt racism and then asking whether they consistently apply such standards to other forms of bigotry.  If not, why not?  What are their motivations for how they deal with people who demonstrate overt racist behavior and whether the same reasoning would support dealing with other forms of bigotry similarly.  I've also been attempting to give some very clear analogies to provide some objectivity in figuring out what bigotry is.

I think most important of all is not necessarily strong action as much as avoiding the appearance of sanctioning bigotry.  Sometimes that just takes the right public statement and having the right public policy.  It's all about PR and how the FSP is perceived.

I don't feel there's a safe way to ride the fence and be completely "big tent".  I think you have to make a choice.  You either have to turn off bigots or you have to turn off the people who are turned off by (overt) bigotry.  The more tactful bigots are almost certainly around and mixing here and there.  Those don't affect the PR of the FSP so much.


Members of the FSP can choose to react but the FSP can not speack for all of the FSP members.

                                                $
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Uncle Walt on July 29, 2011, 09:06:06 am

I can't even remember a quote attributed to Christ on homosexual behaviour.

What most people think of a Biblical statement against homosexuality is the story of the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, because of the sinful ways of the people in those cities.  And when the angels come to rescue Lot & family, they are threatened with homosexual rape.  So, many people think homosexuality is the "sin" the cities were condemned for.  However, I think it would be rape, whether homosexual or not, that was an example of the "sin".  Rape being a physical initiation of force to violate one of the 10 Commandments ("Do not covet").
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Uncle Walt on July 29, 2011, 09:12:24 am

As for the one woman - one man marriage... that isn't biblical, its papal doctrine.


“For this reason a man shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife, the two shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

Of course, the Old Testament is also full of stories of the Patriarchs having multiple wives or concubines.  ;D
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: MaineShark on July 29, 2011, 09:15:07 am
What most people think of a Biblical statement against homosexuality is the story of the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, because of the sinful ways of the people in those cities.  And when the angels come to rescue Lot & family, they are threatened with homosexual rape.  So, many people think homosexuality is the "sin" the cities were condemned for.  However, I think it would be rape, whether homosexual or not, that was an example of the "sin".  Rape being a physical initiation of force to violate one of the 10 Commandments ("Do not covet").

Actually, you may want to read that in more detail.  In Genesis 19:8, Lot defends these two angels by offering to let the crowd rape his two virgin daughters, if they'll leave the men alone.

And Lot was, apparently, so righteous that divine intervention was exercised to save him.

That's not the only place where rape is divinely condoned.

Joe
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: MaineShark on July 29, 2011, 09:16:02 am
As for the one woman - one man marriage... that isn't biblical, its papal doctrine.
“For this reason a man shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife, the two shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

Of course, the Old Testament is also full of stories of the Patriarchs having multiple wives or concubines.  ;D

Um, that defines "one woman - one man" as the minimum necessary for a marriage.  It sets no upper bound.

Joe
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Uncle Walt on July 29, 2011, 01:19:26 pm
As for the one woman - one man marriage... that isn't biblical, its papal doctrine.
“For this reason a man shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife, the two shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

Of course, the Old Testament is also full of stories of the Patriarchs having multiple wives or concubines.  ;D

Um, that defines "one woman - one man" as the minimum necessary for a marriage.  It sets no upper bound.

Joe

That was my point.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Uncle Walt on July 29, 2011, 01:29:31 pm
What most people think of a Biblical statement against homosexuality is the story of the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, because of the sinful ways of the people in those cities.  And when the angels come to rescue Lot & family, they are threatened with homosexual rape.  So, many people think homosexuality is the "sin" the cities were condemned for.  However, I think it would be rape, whether homosexual or not, that was an example of the "sin".  Rape being a physical initiation of force to violate one of the 10 Commandments ("Do not covet").

Actually, you may want to read that in more detail.  In Genesis 19:8, Lot defends these two angels by offering to let the crowd rape his two virgin daughters, if they'll leave the men alone.

And Lot was, apparently, so righteous that divine intervention was exercised to save him.

That's not the only place where rape is divinely condoned.

Joe

Since his daughters were his property (under the mores of the time), I don't think that would be viewed as rape the same way the attack on the angels would be.  But that's just MY opinion.

Though, later in the story, his daughters get him drunk to have sex with him ... so rape & incest.  ;D
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on July 29, 2011, 01:52:51 pm
Since his daughters were his property (under the mores of the time), I don't think that would be viewed as rape the same way the attack on the angels would be.  But that's just MY opinion.

Though, later in the story, his daughters get him drunk to have sex with him ... so rape & incest.  ;D

I suppose in a world where women aren't real people and are just property, only men can be raped.  But we digress...
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Uncle Walt on July 29, 2011, 05:46:48 pm
Since his daughters were his property (under the mores of the time), I don't think that would be viewed as rape the same way the attack on the angels would be.  But that's just MY opinion.

Though, later in the story, his daughters get him drunk to have sex with him ... so rape & incest.  ;D

I suppose in a world where women aren't real people and are just property, only men can be raped.  But we digress...

Right you are.  So, then ...

I don't believe the FSP cares about anything.  FSP is not a living entity - thus it can't have feelings - thus it can't care.
Individuals within the FSP may care.  There may even be an official guidelines telling them what to care about while working as representatives of the FSP organization.
Of course, then it really becomes a question of whether or not individuals are following guidelines they agreed to.

Personally, I'd encourage people to display their bigotry.  I'd rather know an outspoken racist, than one who pretended not to be. 
Makes it so much less surprising when they act on their bigotry.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on July 29, 2011, 07:21:16 pm
I don't believe the FSP cares about anything.  FSP is not a living entity - thus it can't have feelings - thus it can't care.
Individuals within the FSP may care.

If you read some earlier posts in this thread, you'll see that this has been discussed at length.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: HRearden on July 29, 2011, 09:04:02 pm

I can't even remember a quote attributed to Christ on homosexual behaviour.

What most people think of a Biblical statement against homosexuality is the story of the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, because of the sinful ways of the people in those cities.  And when the angels come to rescue Lot & family, they are threatened with homosexual rape.  So, many people think homosexuality is the "sin" the cities were condemned for.  However, I think it would be rape, whether homosexual or not, that was an example of the "sin".  Rape being a physical initiation of force to violate one of the 10 Commandments ("Do not covet").

You should read Lev 20:13.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: The Rising Populist on August 06, 2011, 12:30:44 pm
This is why I dislike "conserva-tarianism" because they're just bigots hiding under more consistent clothing than the standard neoconitis

Bigoted people make me uncomfortable, which is why I'm not involved in Ron Paul or Tea Party initiatives anymore.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on August 06, 2011, 02:11:16 pm
Bigoted people make me uncomfortable, which is why I'm not involved in Ron Paul or Tea Party initiatives anymore.

Ah, you should listen to tomorrow's show (http://FlamingFreedom.com) because we'll be discussing this article (http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2011/08/charming-reminder-of-ugly-side-of-dr-no.html).
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on August 17, 2011, 01:21:45 pm
Bigoted people make me uncomfortable, which is why I'm not involved in Ron Paul or Tea Party initiatives anymore.

Ah, you should listen to tomorrow's show (http://FlamingFreedom.com) because we'll be discussing this article (http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2011/08/charming-reminder-of-ugly-side-of-dr-no.html).


And so we did.  We discussed an article about "the ugly side of Dr. No." (http://flamingfreedom.com/2011/08/07/episode-%e2%80%93-2011-aug-7th/)
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: 10stateswithnh on August 17, 2011, 08:35:04 pm
Charming article  ::), with, in my opinion, a very loose definition of the word "bigotry". Apparently believing in popular misconceptions, in an era when you don't have the technology to easily check your facts, about a group you don't know or understand, makes one a bigot according to some people. I just call it, ignorance, and ignorance which has been corrected by the passage of time, such that he doesn't say this stuff anymore. By this definition, I guess everyone was bigoted before about the 1960's, so it hardly makes sense to judge people based on stuff they said a long time ago before the facts got out. In the early 1800's all white Americans were racist according to this kind of definition, which is a logical fallacy whose name I can't think of, but it's something to do with judging past cultures based on current standards of morality and ethics. If you do that than everyone in the distant past was evil.

For example in the early 1800's it was common for 50-year-old men to marry 15 or 16-year-old girls, maybe even a little younger. Nowadays we call it statutory rape or child abuse, but it was accepted then. Calling all those people perverted based on our current standards seems ludicrous, but that's about how this article seems to me (obviously with different timeframe and different issues).
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on August 18, 2011, 04:08:53 am
Older men can still marry teenage girls in NH...
Its statutory rape when they are not married.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on August 18, 2011, 08:11:56 am
For example in the early 1800's it was common for 50-year-old men to marry 15 or 16-year-old girls, maybe even a little younger. Nowadays we call it statutory rape or child abuse, but it was accepted then. Calling all those people perverted based on our current standards seems ludicrous, but that's about how this article seems to me (obviously with different timeframe and different issues).

We're talking mid to late 90s here, but fair enough.  You're saying the same thing as Neal in his defense, that he seems to have changed.  I think it's serious enough he should own up to it and say as much himself instead of trying to claim he had no idea it was even being said.  If he were to become a contender in the race, this will most assuredly come back to bite him and the direct approach is probably better.

Then again, maybe he's got the strategy that that bridge isn't worth crossing until after the primaries as it's the Dems most likely to attack him with it.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: swamp_yankee on August 18, 2011, 11:37:30 am
Bigoted against who?  Mormon? Catholics? Traditionalists? The rich?

Its a relative term, but some wish to claim ownership of the term for their pet demographic. Awful lot of bigoted attitudes towards religious folks in the FSP and no one seems to care.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: Uncle Walt on August 18, 2011, 03:25:43 pm
One dictionary defines "bigot" as: "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

I think a lot of people use the first part of the definition ... One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics ... and imply that's a bad thing.  When it's actually the "intollerant" part that's bad.  Most people qualify as a bigot using just the first part.   ;D
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: dalebert on August 18, 2011, 07:00:47 pm
Awful lot of bigoted attitudes towards religious folks in the FSP and no one seems to care.

Can you expound?  Describe behavior that you would call bigoted toward religious folks.
Title: Re: Does the FSP Care about Bigotry?
Post by: MS Libertarian on August 24, 2011, 04:22:23 pm
If what the guy with the worm piture says is true about the moderator, that he doesn't want the GOVERNMENT to recognize a certain marriage, then that is wrong, but I thought we libertarians didn't want ANY marriage to be recognized by the GOVERNMENT with special favors.  If the moderator said what you claim, I hope he meant that.