And? Apple is open to everyone in those countries, too. Has Apple stated or made any move to not sell to bigots in US, but will sell to bigots in those other countries? Of course not.
Ah yes, thinking differently than the mob = bigot.
Yep, just like thinking differently than the mob that agrees whites aren't inherently superior to blacks = racist.
And? Apple is open to everyone in those countries, too. Has Apple stated or made any move to not sell to bigots in US, but will sell to bigots in those other countries? Of course not.
Anybody can twist a belief such that it looks terrible to outsiders. Some religious groups don't approve of alcohol, if they exclude people that drink does that make them bigots? If you religion doesn't approve of homosexual activities does that make up you a bigot? The answer there is no...
I'm afraid the answer there is yes. That's like saying that not agreeing with someone being black isn't racist. Please let me know when you decided to choose heterosexuality for your orientation.
Would this law mean that Apple couldn't fire a retail worker who refused to serve a homosexual couple?
We don't support homosexuality but we serve customers all the time at the Farmers Market who are gay. I shouldn't be compelled to advocate for their position but as human beings, they buy from us all the time and we happily serve them.
Further to your question, by serving them, an Apple employee would not be endorsing their lifestyle.
Do you support the lifestyle of being black?
Homosexuality ain't a lifestyle, sport. Religion is.
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that if Michigan passes a law that says, let's say not sodomy, that Apple would stop selling their products in Michigan, even though they still sell them in countries with anti-sodomy laws? Well guess what, Michigan did just that, and Apple is still selling products there. Don't conflate business with a a desire of enlightened men wanting the world be less frightened of shadows on a cave wall. You can hate homosexuals and still buy a Mac… because Apple is tolerance of those people's rights to rally against the gays, who then go home to angrily beat off to gay porn.
All I'm saying is that if you're going to be politically vocal against anti-gay law/legislation you shouldn't do it only when it's convenient, and safe to do so.
So you're saying that Tim Cook speaking in his, say, his home state of Alabama about civil rights and being homosexual is somehow blocked from anyone else in other countries? Let's remember that Cook is a US citizen, so why do you think he would force himself into, say, Saudi Arabia to speak about civil liberties? That makes no sense.
We don't support homosexuality but we serve customers all the time at the Farmers Market who are gay. I shouldn't be compelled to advocate for their position but as human beings, they buy from us all the time and we happily serve them.
Further to your question, by serving them, an Apple employee would not be endorsing their lifestyle.
Do you support the lifestyle of being black?
Homosexuality ain't a lifestyle, sport. Religion is.
So... every liberal, then. “Our way or the hourghway” is bigotry.
I don't get this argument. Liberals, in general, don't want to tell you how to live your life. They just don't want you to tell others how to live their lives. This is classic projection.
So... every liberal, then. “Our way or the hourghway” is bigotry.
The synonym of liberal is literally tolerant.
What you fail to comprehend is that not agreeing with an opinion is not the same as saying they aren't allowed to hold that opinion. You can claim to be an anti-liberal, true-conservative, that doesn't think the coloreds should mix with God's pure breed, and then use that as your basis for denying interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia, 1967); and I'll support your right to be a racist, while explaining to you—if I thought that you'd listen—that interracial marriage isn't going to doom this nation.
I'm not taking away your right to marry "within your race." I'm not taking away your anger for anti-segregation laws. That's what it means to be tolerant. That's what it means to be liberal.
I'm guessing the "hypocrisy" people all came in using only american gas, don't use any tech at all (most have parts made in China, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc), have only made home furnishing (of all types) with no parts coming from any unsavory countries (good luck with that...) and their house were all built with nothing from any of those countries (tools, fittings, windows, etc) and well their mostly nude all the time because most clothings or yarns come from some sort of country with some problems.
Unless they're Amish, I know who the hypocrites are here.
The best way to change minds and hearts is to have contacts with people, not alienate them so they leaders of those countries can make up whatever they want about you. That's the basis of being tolerant; bringing into the fold those that you don't agree with.
You don't condone, accept or support, but at the same time you understand the other person's humanity, that this is your connection to them and that fundamentally we have more in common that what divides us all.
That's basically at the heart of modern diplomacy; the one that seemingly the right abhors as "weakness" (sic). Doesn't
mean you leave yourself open to being flounced so with this openness is
coupled with pragmatism; the old, trust but verify mantra.
This openness to others, that kindness to others and oneself, love, is at the base of the new testament message that many of the evangelicals in the US seems to have skipped in their beeline for the old testament. We don't pass judgement, god passes judgment.
This heavy focus on our being responsable for the other's, even those you dislike very much, is as much as for ourselves is at the heart of what being a liberal is.
Which is why who we know as liberals are actually bigots.
What you fail to comprehend is that not agreeing with an opinion is not the same as saying they aren't allowed to hold that opinion.
Liberals fail to comprehend that. They project this delusion onto others, as shown by all of their discourse.
You can claim to be an anti-liberal, true-conservative, that doesn't think the coloreds should mix with God's pure breed, and then use that as your basis for denying interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia, 1967); and I'll support your right to be a racist, while explaining to you—if I thought that you'd listen—that interracial marriage isn't going to doom this nation.
The hell is this coming from?
That's what it means to be tolerant. That's what it means to be liberal.
Two things. Actually four.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without conviction.
– G. K. Chesterton
A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in an argument.
– Robert Frost
Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred.
– Jacques Barzun
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Liberals, in general, don't want to tell you how to live your life.
That’s why they support totalitarian government, of course. And why only their social beliefs are “acceptable”.
Soli said:
Which is why who we know as liberals are actually bigots. Liberals fail to comprehend that. They project this delusion onto others, as shown by all of their discourse. The hell is this coming from? Two things. Actually four.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without conviction.
– G. K. Chesterton
A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in an argument.
– Robert Frost
Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred.
– Jacques Barzun
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
– C. S. Lewis
You can post arbitrary opposing assertions all you like, but your characterizations are still completely reversed from reality. Let me pose a question instead. Can you provide a single example of mainstream liberal thinking imposing liberal values on how others live their lives? Just one please.
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "
Also, Article Six: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
It means exactly what it says. No matter what your religious beliefs or practices, you cannot be denied the right to vote, hold office, own property, engage in commerce, hold a job, publish a newspaper, say what you think, meet with others, petition the government, campaign for others who are running for office, etc.
You cannot be forced to pay a tax in order to worship.
You may refuse, as a conscientious objector, to refuse to perform any government service or private employment.
All of these principles have long been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Now, some people seem to think that 'separation of church and state' means that if they don't like your religion (or any religion) then you have no right to participate in affairs of state. This is the opposite of the express wording of the Constitution. The state cannot tell you how to worship. It cannot prevent you from worshipping. And it cannot take away your right to vote or support whatever candidate you wish. To do so would be to curtail your rights to freedom of expression, privacy, and worship.
What does any of this have to do with Apple. Apple is not the Federal government.
Yes it defies all logic that someone could actually think to quote writer's who opinion were formulated at a time were the progressive movement were making the greatest strides to get people out of the shithole that was society for most people; that robber baron society seems to elicit a bizarre rosy nostalgia that eschews reality of the times. Those comments were absurdly out of tune even for the times.
Also ridiculous in it sort of skirts the issue of anti-socialist and reactionary views in US society at the time.
it's to solve this mess they elected Roosevelt 4 straight times; you know... People voted, opinion counted, more than those writers
After 30 years of trickle down economics they have almost sent the US back to a time were a few rule all so that seems to be their goal. The opposite of taking care of your neighbors and tolerance.
Make your point in the present using your own words instead of googling platitudes from another faraway time by artist whose opinion on this mattered not at all then and matter even les now.
puppetry said: Can you provide a single example of mainstream liberal thinking imposing liberal values on how others live their lives? Just one please.
Do you want attempts or things to fruition? Because attempts are just as valid, since they prove what liberals believe.
Do you want an example of the “ban it because I don’t like it” ethic?
Trans fats, soda, guns (unconstitutional), the Pledge of Allegiance, the word ‘welfare’, dolls, entire political parties, masculinity (the concept itself), marriage, diversity, etc.
Or maybe “accept it because you’re bigoted otherwise”?
Homosexuality, marijuana, amnesty, abortion, transsexuality, federalization (because liberals don’t only exist in America), etc.
Here’s the basic issue.
Conservatism is fundamentally predicated on the belief that there is a single, objective reality that is intelligible (read: can be understood). This, in turn, leads one to adopt specific codes of conduct and behaviors that we call a moral core.
Leftist thought is fundamentally predicated on the belief that everything is subjective and nothing is objectively true or capable of being understood. This, in turn, leads one to adopt a fluid and contradictory moral relativism.
Leftists often attack conservatives for being hypocritical. Indeed, conservatives can be very hypocritical. Take, for example, anti-drug politicians who abuse alcohol, or so called “free market capitalists” that give subsidies to oil companies. They get attacked for this stuff all the time, and I’d say you’re right to call them hypocrites.
Here’s the kicker: a moral relativist cannot be a hypocrite, because there is no situation where he’s objectively in the wrong, even when he is acting in disagreement with his own “morals.” You can’t call someone a moral hypocrite if they functionally have no morals. So when Hillary Clinton professes to be a feminist while taking donations from regimes that abuse women, or Obama professes to be transparent while obsessing over secrecy, or Michael Moore makes a movie trashing capitalism while making cash hand over fist off it, there’s no problem for them. It’s all relative. They don’t care.
The second big thing–and this is their most beloved tactic–is this: They accuse you of what they are doing to you. Just meditate on that sentence and you’ll start to see it everywhere.
We don't support homosexuality but we serve customers all the time at the Farmers Market who are gay. I shouldn't be compelled to advocate for their position but as human beings, they buy from us all the time and we happily serve them.
Further to your question, by serving them, an Apple employee would not be endorsing their lifestyle.
Do you support the lifestyle of being black?
Homosexuality ain't a lifestyle, sport. Religion is.
puppetry said: Can you provide a single example of mainstream liberal thinking imposing liberal values on how others live their lives? Just one please.
Do you want attempts or things to fruition? Because attempts are just as valid, since they prove what liberals believe.
Do you want an example of the “ban it because I don’t like it” ethic?
Trans fats, soda, guns (unconstitutional), the Pledge of Allegiance, the word ‘welfare’, dolls, entire political parties, masculinity (the concept itself), marriage, diversity, etc.
Or maybe “accept it because you’re bigoted otherwise”?
Homosexuality, marijuana, amnesty, abortion, transsexuality, federalization (because liberals don’t only exist in America), etc.
Here’s the basic issue.
Conservatism is fundamentally predicated on the belief that there is a single, objective reality that is intelligible (read: can be understood). This, in turn, leads one to adopt specific codes of conduct and behaviors that we call a moral core.
Leftist thought is fundamentally predicated on the belief that everything is subjective and nothing is objectively true or capable of being understood. This, in turn, leads one to adopt a fluid and contradictory moral relativism.
Leftists often attack conservatives for being hypocritical. Indeed, conservatives can be very hypocritical. Take, for example, anti-drug politicians who abuse alcohol, or so called “free market capitalists” that give subsidies to oil companies. They get attacked for this stuff all the time, and I’d say you’re right to call them hypocrites.
Here’s the kicker: a moral relativist cannot be a hypocrite, because there is no situation where he’s objectively in the wrong, even when he is acting in disagreement with his own “morals.” You can’t call someone a moral hypocrite if they functionally have no morals. So when Hillary Clinton professes to be a feminist while taking donations from regimes that abuse women, or Obama professes to be transparent while obsessing over secrecy, or Michael Moore makes a movie trashing capitalism while making cash hand over fist off it, there’s no problem for them. It’s all relative. They don’t care.
The second big thing–and this is their most beloved tactic–is this: They accuse you of what they are doing to you. Just meditate on that sentence and you’ll start to see it everywhere.
So out of all that, you listed two or three things where you assert liberal thinking is attempting to define how you live - reducing the consumption of trans fats, soda, and something about guns.
Presumably trying to reduce the public consumption of alcohol and tobacco should also be in there by your reasoning? How about wearing seat belts? How about safety regulations in general? Are those all part of a liberal conspiracy to wreck your life? Or is that responsible government? Where do you draw the line?
What's your point about guns? Are you still trying to peddle the notion that Obama wants to take them all? Are the Republicans who espouse background checks virtually identical to the proposals that have been rejected multiple times closet leftists?
Leftist thought is fundamentally predicated on the belief that everything is subjective and nothing is objectively true or capable of being understood.
It's not possible to have a reasoned discussion when your posts contain this kind of uneductaed BS. Where on earth do you get this nonsense from?
The arbitrary nature of his "impositions", to whatever line he objects to, makes his argument laughable.
Trans fat killed tens of thousands and its use arose in the a time when people didn't even know it was bad for them. Same thing with radium and thousands of bad for you things and processes that have been regulated after scientists found it a bad idea t consume them, use them, do them.
Are people on the right objecting to the FDA, EPA and all regulatory agencies that have meant we're living non crippled lives? Seems so. Is science a left wing conspiracy? Seems so the way they talk about it. In most case, regulation and market forces work together to quickly reduce the noxious product out of existence.
If something is "imposed" because science says it's the thing to do and doing it because god says its the right thing to do; it's kinda different don't you think...
But in their world, it's all the same, they believe science is something someone has faith in, rather than know that science actually tries to reflects reality to a tee through constant adjustments that become ever smaller with time as theory and observation become ever closer.
So out of all that, you listed two or three things where you assert liberal thinking is attempting to define how you live - reducing the consumption of trans fats, soda, and something about guns.
Nah, I listed more than that. At least fucking try.
Presumably trying to reduce the public consumption of alcohol and tobacco should also be in there by your reasoning?
No, because they’re not. They’re expanding that degeneracy.
What's your point about guns?
Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.
It's not possible to have a reasoned discussion when your posts contain this kind of uneductaed BS.
So disprove it. I’ll wait. Forever. Meanwhile in reality, it’s literally how they behave. Moral relativism is the foundation of liberalism.
Comments
Homosexuality ain't a lifestyle, sport. Religion is.
What you fail to comprehend is that not agreeing with an opinion is not the same as saying they aren't allowed to hold that opinion. You can claim to be an anti-liberal, true-conservative, that doesn't think the coloreds should mix with God's pure breed, and then use that as your basis for denying interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia, 1967); and I'll support your right to be a racist, while explaining to you—if I thought that you'd listen—that interracial marriage isn't going to doom this nation.
I'm not taking away your right to marry "within your race." I'm not taking away your anger for anti-segregation laws. That's what it means to be tolerant. That's what it means to be liberal.
Unless they're Amish, I know who the hypocrites are here.
The best way to change minds and hearts is to have contacts with people, not alienate them so they leaders of those countries can make up whatever they want about you.
That's the basis of being tolerant; bringing into the fold those that you don't agree with.
You don't condone, accept or support, but at the same time you understand the other person's humanity, that this is your connection to them and that fundamentally we have more in common that what divides us all.
That's basically at the heart of modern diplomacy; the one that seemingly the right abhors as "weakness" (sic).
Doesn't mean you leave yourself open to being flounced so with this openness is coupled with pragmatism; the old, trust but verify mantra.
This openness to others, that kindness to others and oneself, love, is at the base of the new testament message that many of the evangelicals in the US seems to have skipped in their beeline for the old testament. We don't pass judgement, god passes judgment.
This heavy focus on our being responsable for the other's, even those you dislike very much, is as much as for ourselves is at the heart of what being a liberal is.
Soli said: Which is why who we know as liberals are actually bigots.
Liberals fail to comprehend that. They project this delusion onto others, as shown by all of their discourse.
The hell is this coming from?
Two things. Actually four.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without conviction.
– G. K. Chesterton
A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in an argument.
– Robert Frost
Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred.
– Jacques Barzun
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
– C. S. Lewis
Also ridiculous in it sort of skirts the issue of anti-socialist and reactionary views in US society at the time.
it's to solve this mess they elected Roosevelt 4 straight times; you know... People voted, opinion counted, more than those writers
After 30 years of trickle down economics they have almost sent the US back to a time were a few rule all so that seems to be their goal. The opposite of taking care of your neighbors and tolerance.
Make your point in the present using your own words instead of googling platitudes from another faraway time by artist whose opinion on this mattered not at all then and matter even les now.
Do you want an example of the “ban it because I don’t like it” ethic?
Trans fats, soda, guns (unconstitutional), the Pledge of Allegiance, the word ‘welfare’, dolls, entire political parties, masculinity (the concept itself), marriage, diversity, etc.
Or maybe “accept it because you’re bigoted otherwise”?
Homosexuality, marijuana, amnesty, abortion, transsexuality, federalization (because liberals don’t only exist in America), etc.
Here’s the basic issue.
Conservatism is fundamentally predicated on the belief that there is a single, objective reality that is intelligible (read: can be understood). This, in turn, leads one to adopt specific codes of conduct and behaviors that we call a moral core.
Leftist thought is fundamentally predicated on the belief that everything is subjective and nothing is objectively true or capable of being understood. This, in turn, leads one to adopt a fluid and contradictory moral relativism.
Leftists often attack conservatives for being hypocritical. Indeed, conservatives can be very hypocritical. Take, for example, anti-drug politicians who abuse alcohol, or so called “free market capitalists” that give subsidies to oil companies. They get attacked for this stuff all the time, and I’d say you’re right to call them hypocrites.
Here’s the kicker: a moral relativist cannot be a hypocrite, because there is no situation where he’s objectively in the wrong, even when he is acting in disagreement with his own “morals.” You can’t call someone a moral hypocrite if they functionally have no morals. So when Hillary Clinton professes to be a feminist while taking donations from regimes that abuse women, or Obama professes to be transparent while obsessing over secrecy, or Michael Moore makes a movie trashing capitalism while making cash hand over fist off it, there’s no problem for them. It’s all relative. They don’t care.
The second big thing–and this is their most beloved tactic–is this: They accuse you of what they are doing to you. Just meditate on that sentence and you’ll start to see it everywhere.
And don't call me "sport".
Presumably trying to reduce the public consumption of alcohol and tobacco should also be in there by your reasoning? How about wearing seat belts? How about safety regulations in general? Are those all part of a liberal conspiracy to wreck your life? Or is that responsible government? Where do you draw the line?
What's your point about guns? Are you still trying to peddle the notion that Obama wants to take them all? Are the Republicans who espouse background checks virtually identical to the proposals that have been rejected multiple times closet leftists?
It's not possible to have a reasoned discussion when your posts contain this kind of uneductaed BS. Where on earth do you get this nonsense from?
The arbitrary nature of his "impositions", to whatever line he objects to, makes his argument laughable.
Trans fat killed tens of thousands and its use arose in the a time when people didn't even know it was bad for them.
Same thing with radium and thousands of bad for you things and processes that have been regulated after scientists found it a bad idea t consume them, use them, do them.
Are people on the right objecting to the FDA, EPA and all regulatory agencies that have meant we're living non crippled lives? Seems so.
Is science a left wing conspiracy? Seems so the way they talk about it.
In most case, regulation and market forces work together to quickly reduce the noxious product out of existence.
If something is "imposed" because science says it's the thing to do and doing it because god says its the right thing to do; it's kinda different don't you think...
But in their world, it's all the same, they believe science is something someone has faith in, rather than know that science actually tries to reflects reality to a tee through constant adjustments that become ever smaller with time as theory and observation become ever closer.
No, because they’re not. They’re expanding that degeneracy.
Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.
So disprove it. I’ll wait. Forever. Meanwhile in reality, it’s literally how they behave. Moral relativism is the foundation of liberalism.