mifki Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I find myself less tolerant and accepting due to Alessandro's posts in the real life forum. and about the add. I too just want mayonaise, not two guys kissing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted July 2, 2008 Author Share Posted July 2, 2008 Regardless, Alessandro is a admirably strong supporter of {censored} rights and human rights in general. Thanks, that is what I strive to be As you know, I fight for religious tolerance as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonTheSavage Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Thanks, that is what I strive to be As you know, I fight for religious tolerance as well. Thats what the Constitution speaks of in the 1st amendment. Its called freedom of religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted July 2, 2008 Author Share Posted July 2, 2008 Thats what the Constitution speaks of in the 1st amendment. Its called freedom of religion. Yes I know, we have also a great Constitution in Italy, but our politicians (and Catholic church) do their best to ignore it all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numberzz Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Yes I know, we have also a great Constitution in Italy, but our politicians (and Catholic church) do their best to ignore it all the time. Hey, that's exactly what our government does! What a coincidence! And Jon, I remember a while ago in a topic similar to this one you said that you didn't care what {censored} did or did not do. So why are we still arguing about this? This is really an idiotic topic. It's obvious that there will always be some people that don't want {censored} to have rights and some people that are {censored}. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johan Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I too just want mayonaise, not two guys kissing 'I just want mayonnaise! I don't want guys kissing!' ... Could you imagine what people would say if it was a straight kiss? equal should really mean equal no exceptions your eihter pro human rights and equality or against human rights and equality to me, there is no grey area.. when it comes to human rights when two straight people are kissing in an ad, its acceptable when two black people are kissing in an ad, thats acceptable when a white and a black person are kissing each other, thats acceptable when two {censored} people are kissing in an ad, it should be acceptable too come on, its just a innocent kiss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonTheSavage Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 'I just want mayonnaise! I don't want guys kissing!' ... Could you imagine what people would say if it was a straight kiss? equal should really mean equal no exceptions your eihter pro human rights and equality or against human rights and equality to me, there is no grey area.. when it comes to human rights when two straight people are kissing in an ad, its acceptable when two black people are kissing in an ad, thats acceptable when a white and a black person are kissing each other, thats acceptable when two {censored} people are kissing in an ad, it should be acceptable too come on, its just a innocent kiss. :pirate2: It never will be. Like I told the little one earlier. You cannot shape the world to your ideas. In a lot of places, such as Iraq, and south america, if you did that in public, they would kill you where you stand, or beat you up, and throw you in the forrest somewhere, or throw you in cell, and never let you out. The world will never conform to YOUR ideas, no more than you will conform to theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johan Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 It never will be. Like I told the little one earlier. You cannot shape the world to your ideas. In a lot of places, such as Iraq, and south america, if you did that in public, they would kill you where you stand, or beat you up, and throw you in the forrest somewhere, or throw you in cell, and never let you out. The world will never conform to YOUR ideas, no more than you will conform to theirs. thank god, its not about just my idea but here in europe a mayority shares my view on this subject Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonTheSavage Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Yes I know, we have also a great Constitution in Italy, but our politicians (and Catholic church) do their best to ignore it all the time. Ours do to. You are not alone. thank god, its not about just my ideabut here in europe a mayority shares my view on this subject This is an example of why the American colonies started. Europe is not a democracy. In America, we are not a democracy. %51 of the public cannot tell the other %49 what to do. If they did, then you would have a war. I would much rather live in a dictatorship than a democracy. If %51 of people didn't own guns, and they persuaded the dictator, or congressional body to take away the guns of the other %49, then the %49 would kill the %51 since they were unarmed. You can use any example such as this. If you believe in something, then do it. But you won't change the fact that someone might knock you out for it. You can't have your cake, and eat it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aduffbrew Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Ours do to. You are not alone.This is an example of why the American colonies started. Europe is not a democracy. In America, we are not a democracy. %51 of the public cannot tell the other %49 what to do. If they did, then you would have a war. I would much rather live in a dictatorship than a democracy. If %51 of people didn't own guns, and they persuaded the dictator, or congressional body to take away the guns of the other %49, then the %49 would kill the %51 since they were unarmed. You can use any example such as this. If you believe in something, then do it. But you won't change the fact that someone might knock you out for it. You can't have your cake, and eat it too. I really shouldn't beat this dead horse any further but like the rest of you, I feel compelled for no intelligent reason. It's also late and I feel like indulging in a display of emotionalism. The United Kingdom of Great Britain had majority rule more or less... representation during the 18th century was based on taxation... the more taxes you paid the more representation your community got in the The House of Commons and the House of Lords.... colonies excluded. Our founding fathers clearly understood the limitations of majority rule. They crafted the constitution in an attempt to rectify many of those problems. The US Constitution does NOT enshrine majority rule... our brand of democracy was NOT intended to give the majority shot gun over the minority... the founding fathers wanted something better. WE want something better. That is why the constitution is there to protect THE INDIVIDUAL! Not to put a finer point on the matter but I really can't see how an American... or should I say an educated and informed American... can horde the rights of community property, inheritance, child custody, taxation benefits, and all the other rights bestowed on a married couple and their children in this country, turn right around and deny it to another group based solely on their personal sensibilities with complete disregard to those most effected, and still call themselves defenders of the constitution. Even less can I comprehend how they intend to keep all their rights when they allow the practice of law to be so selective! Who is to say when maybe THEY will be targeted in the future? Popular opinion is fickle! The prevention of the extension of marriage rights to all by groups or individuals well intended or not is, in my book, an act of treason. Is that frank enough for you?! This is just another case of the pot calling the kettle black. We sure are quick to jump all over that Taliban for imposing their views but hell if the concept isn't alive and well in this country. Homosexuality is a sin... it freaks me out... I don't want my children thinking it's OK. Well how do you suppose we accomplish you getting your way? We hanged Mary Dyer on the Boston Commons just for being a Quaker. Maybe we should just round up all those dirty faggots and hang them too... (Dykes are ok... because I think it's hot!) While we're at it, I think drug users should be included too. How about them illegal aliens. Oh hell, lets just get rid of all immigrants! Socialists make me uncomfortable, maybe they should all go. People who drive SUVs? Michael Bolton fans are pretty obnoxious! And the Scientologists have pretty much fallen out of favor... they should go too.... along with the Mormons and members of The Star Trek Church because that's just not right! Who else? Where do we draw a line limiting our intolerance? If we really can't learn to live in harmony one with another and allow others their differences, I say lets skip the return of dictatorship and just blow ourselves up already. We wouldn't be worth saving. In America we are all allowed our opinion... even if it is ignorant. Stop listening to liberal crazies and the conservative nut jobs. Neither give you an accurate portrait of what is going on. The real world is somewhere in the middle... and this Darwinian view on society is either completely flawed or another reason to nuke ourselves. We are supposed to be the one animal that aspires to be more than we are... NOT SURRENDER TO IT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numberzz Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Europe is not a democracy. In America, we are not a democracy. %51 of the public cannot tell the other %49 what to do. If they did, then you would have a war. I would much rather live in a dictatorship than a democracy.If %51 of people didn't own guns, and they persuaded the dictator, or congressional body to take away the guns of the other %49, then the %49 would kill the %51 since they were unarmed. You can use any example such as this. That is a {censored} example because you have one party, the gun-wielding party, killing those that don't agree with their ideals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranoid Marvin Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 It never will be. Like I told the little one earlier. You cannot shape the world to your ideas. In a lot of places, such as Iraq, and south america, if you did that in public, they would kill you where you stand, or beat you up, and throw you in the forrest somewhere, or throw you in cell, and never let you out. The world will never conform to YOUR ideas, no more than you will conform to theirs. Thank god they'll never conform to yours either! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts