About the whole Miss California thing

Panzerdin wrote:
It's absurd to me, because it simply doesn't exist as an issue any more here.

I suspect you still have issues with discrimination that the movement is trying to adress.

IMO I hope she sues Perez Hilton for everything he's got. It's been stated by him and many other people that she would've won hands down if it weren't for that question. I don't think that she could've honestly stated her views even in the most Eloquent way possible and not been bashed on by all the gay supporters out there.

And i say this as a conservative O.o

Well, one point someone else brought up on TV is that if it were the other way around (a woman supporting gay marriage, a judge being a conservative Christian), there'd be riots.

I see it as a giant double standard.

Perez Hilton thinks that he has the right to slander, smear, and deride this woman for her beliefs. This woman held no ill feelings for Hilton, even felt sorry for his outrage.

So basically, it's ok to have an opinion, as long as the current media trends agree with it. And if your opinion is "acceptable", you may try to persecute others for differing opinions. Since when did free speech (much less freedom of belief) only apply to one side?

I call this relative morality. Some people in this country have a grounded set of beliefs and solid rights and wrongs. Many others do not. Their morality isn't anchored to any principle or idea, it's anchored to their intent and wishes. Example completely off the subject, but very visible. Moveon.org (very liberal political online establishment) ran attack adds on Pres. Bush for his deficit spending. Obama has tripled the budget deficit spending in 100 days (this doesn't include bailouts or stimulus, PURELY budget deficit). I don't see any of those Moveon.org adds anymore. So when 1 side spends money it's bad, when the other side does the same thing, only worse, it's no longer bad. I personally condemn the deficit spending of both those men.

To finish back on track, Perez Hilton has his right to his belief and opinion, and the right to express it. He doesn't have the moral right to attack this woman for her beliefs, merely because they differ from his own. So, can he be a hypocritical whiner? Yes, he has freedom of speech. Is he morally correct to act that way, no.

Zironic wrote:It wasn't offensive.
Anyhow, I think the solution is just to remove the right to marry from the church and make it a completely legal function done by the state and then the church can have all the monopoly on the ceremony that they want.

If you read the Iowa court decision on the issue, that's basically what it says toward the end. The state does 'civil marriage' for all, and the churches can offer what they want to who they want. The gays get their marriages, and the churches can accomodate (or not) who they want. Makes sense to me.

thegreatheed wrote:So basically, it's ok to have an opinion, as long as the current media trends agree with it. And if your opinion is "acceptable", you may try to persecute others for differing opinions. Since when did free speech (much less freedom of belief) only apply to one side?

In the minds of the speakers?

Since just after the founding of the country.

The FCC is an edifice to people who hamper free speech based on popular opinion.

Zironic wrote:

Panzerdin wrote:
It's absurd to me, because it simply doesn't exist as an issue any more here.

I suspect you still have issues with discrimination that the movement is trying to adress.

This is precisely why I find it absurd. Short of introducing a thought police, that can't be done.

Panzerdin wrote:

Zironic wrote:

Panzerdin wrote:
It's absurd to me, because it simply doesn't exist as an issue any more here.

I suspect you still have issues with discrimination that the movement is trying to adress.

This is precisely why I find it absurd. Short of introducing a thought police, that can't be done.

The Media kind of is thought police; they regulate what we can and can't think via "popular opinion".

Not really. If you aren't in the public eye (or aren't affected by public perception) then you can think whatever you damn well please. Both myself and Fred Goodwin can hold whichever objectionable views we like.

Panzerdin wrote:This is precisely why I find it absurd. Short of introducing a thought police, that can't be done.

The new "Hate Crimes" bill comes about as dangerously close to Though Police as I'd like to see in my lifetime.

What and where?

Panzerdin wrote:Not really. If you aren't in the public eye (or aren't affected by public perception) then you can think whatever you damn well please. Both myself and Fred Goodwin can hold whichever objectionable views we like.

You can, but you're likely to be discriminated against for a variety of things depending on how you display your opinions.

I know. Beautifully circular, isn't it?

Panzerdin wrote:I know. Beautifully circular, isn't it?

I could never understand it, I'm militantly rationale. I think it has to do with my autism.

Obrimos wrote:

Panzerdin wrote:I know. Beautifully circular, isn't it?

I could never understand it, I'm militantly rationale. I think it has to do with my autism.

Not really. It's a function of logic, with a certain twist.

thegreatheed wrote:I see it as a giant double standard.

Perez Hilton thinks that he has the right to slander, smear, and deride this woman for her beliefs. This woman held no ill feelings for Hilton, even felt sorry for his outrage.

So basically, it's ok to have an opinion, as long as the current media trends agree with it. And if your opinion is "acceptable", you may try to persecute others for differing opinions. Since when did free speech (much less freedom of belief) only apply to one side?

I call this relative morality. Some people in this country have a grounded set of beliefs and solid rights and wrongs. Many others do not. Their morality isn't anchored to any principle or idea, it's anchored to their intent and wishes. Example completely off the subject, but very visible. Moveon.org (very liberal political online establishment) ran attack adds on Pres. Bush for his deficit spending. Obama has tripled the budget deficit spending in 100 days (this doesn't include bailouts or stimulus, PURELY budget deficit). I don't see any of those Moveon.org adds anymore. So when 1 side spends money it's bad, when the other side does the same thing, only worse, it's no longer bad. I personally condemn the deficit spending of both those men.

To finish back on track, Perez Hilton has his right to his belief and opinion, and the right to express it. He doesn't have the moral right to attack this woman for her beliefs, merely because they differ from his own. So, can he be a hypocritical whiner? Yes, he has freedom of speech. Is he morally correct to act that way, no.

I know I've already said it once in this thread, but it bears repeating.

Liberals are the most tolerant people and defenders of free speech there are...on the condition that you agree with them.

Not surprising that what their definition of 'bipartisanship' is as well. If you're standing by your beliefs in opposing them, you're an holed-up bigot, and will be so until give up your principals and join their side.