Can you really be friends if your political beliefs are much different?

[js82]

For better or worse, the abortion debate in this thread has been a brutally effective demonstration of the original poster's point.

And to that, I'll echo Bloop Bloop's statement of "it's messy".  Until you have hard scientific evidence that the consciousness/the ability to feel pain begins at precisely day X it's impossible to rationally declare that this is a black-and-white issue.  The existing body of scientific evidence generally supports the more moderate positions on the issue(including the "viability" point per Roe v. Wade) as opposed to the far-left or the far-right - but again, there's not a hard line given that we can't measure consciousness.  And so we have the legal standard that is much more clear and practically implementable - the "viability" standard of Roe v. Wade.

[ctuser1]

In which case you are pro each mother having the right - whether or not exercised - to kill her foetus up to some point in time.

In which case I mostly agree with you, except I'd argue that instead of having a line drawn at birth, the burden that the mother needs to prove - to herself, her conscience, God, or society* - grows progressively heavier from the first trimester to post-birth. There is no justification apart from a pragmatic one to draw the line at birth, or particularly at any stage at all. After all it's not like a foetus 5  minutes before birth has a materially different level of sentience from a 5 minute old infant.

*Just because an individual exercises a right over his or her own body doesn't mean that the individual doesn't have to justify it externally. Every right carries with it the obligation of justification.

Also, not sure why so much defensiveness when I label pro-choice "pro-killing foetuses" (or babies, if you subscribe to my view that there's no bright line distinction). That's just what it is. There's nothing wrong with it. It's an ethical dilemma that you have to resolve one way or another. In many cases if you do not kill the foetus you will endanger the mother, violate her autonomy perhaps unnecessarily or cause some other accumulated loss of utility that outweighs the death of the foetus.

>>*Just because an individual exercises a right over his or her own body doesn't mean that the individual doesn't have to justify it externally. Every right carries with it the obligation of justification.

I think the obligation(s) have already been decided by the court(s) in the US. I'd be surprised if it is any different anywhere else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case

The husband was the legal guardian, where the wife was in a vegetative condition with life support. It was his decision, and his alone, to decide whether to pull the feeding tube or not.

If/when the baby requires support from the womb, it looks like a similar situation to me.

What makes you think anyone other than the mother has any locus standi in this matter?

What you or I think as right or wrong has zero pertinence on this topic. We are not parties to this "discussion" - unless you are carrying a baby in which case you and you alone are the relevant party who needs to take the decision.


>>Also, not sure why so much defensiveness when I label pro-choice "pro-killing foetuses"

Why stop at the fetus?
Every human cell can potentially act as the starting point for a genetic clone. If not now, maybe in 5 years. Are you pro-killing-clone-seeds if you like to brush your hair every day?
Yes, it is messy. So the mothers burdened with this decision deserve support, not nosy judgement from the likes of you or me.

[DadJokes]

I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.

Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).

If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.

Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).

If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.

Thanks for your summation. One of the beliefs that I hold most dearly is that abortion is killing an innocent life. I rarely talk about it on these forums because, as this has shown, no one will ever be convinced of anything, and people who take my stance are almost always denigrated or have not just their views questioned but the reasoning for their views questioned with people making assumptions about not just what they think but why they're thinking it. Yes, it's based in part on a religious belief, and please don't give me any of the BS of how it's ok for me to believe it personally but not want anything to be imposed on others because it's based off of a religions belief. We all base things we want as laws off of our own moral beliefs, religious or not, so to claim that just because someone wants laws or policies based off of a morality informed by religion, that their reasoning is unsound is just ridiculous. I've worked extremely hard to see the other side, even on this issue. I realize that very, very, very few people will ever change their mind on this. I have friends and can have conversations with people who don't believe the way I do on this. It's how I've chosen to handle things, and it's helped me see that most all other people aren't the heartless monsters who want to just be jerks to everyone else/troll them/whatever that both sides make their opponents out to be. YMMV

[OtherJen]

It all comes down to respect for each other.

I am a liberal agnostic who was raised strictly Catholic (K-8 school with nuns and plaid skirts, 3-hour liturgies on Good Friday, various forms of media declared “evil” by Mom, Dad, and parish). I personally find abortion sad and would not choose it for myself, but recognize that it isn’t a choice I get to make for others. Because I tried to remain Catholic into adulthood, I have Catholic friends who believe that abortion is murder. We can recognize that we have the shared goal of reducing the demand for abortion through education and improving the societal conditions that result in too many unwanted pregnancies, and that such efforts would be far more effective than declaring abortion to be illegal without changing anything else. There’s enough common respect and ethical agreement to remain friends.

I wasn’t able to remain friends with the ones who called me a baby-killer for voting Democrat (yes, that happened, and on multiple occasions) and refused to listen to my rationale. Those people didn’t respect me as a person and had no interest in thoughtful dialogue.

[Bloop Bloop]

I think the obligation(s) have already been decided by the court(s) in the US. I'd be surprised if it is any different anywhere else.

Courts are fallible. The US courts have made plenty of shitty rulings. No, the ethical obligation remains on each person to justify his or her decisions at large. That is the burden of freedom and consciousness.

To be clear, I agree with a lot of the reasoning in Roe v Wade. But it's rather suspect reasoning to call upon an external council (a Court) as some sort of moral arbiter - particularly when US legislatures and courts have made so many shitty decisions, both in the past and more recently.

"What makes you think anyone other than the mother has any locus standi in this matter?"

This goes back to your belief that until a foetus leaves the mother, only the mother has an ethical interest in the foetus's survival. While I mostly agree with that, there are very, very many arguments (both from a religious and a secular perspective) that go against your assertion. And even if we take for granted that the mother's needs are paramount, not every mother is going to make an informed or rational choice. We don't, for example, allow a mother or father to make uninformed decisions about things like access to IVF, or about post-birth care. To draw a fine-line distinction at the moment of birth can only be a pragmatic and not a logical exercise.

Again, your insistence that only the bearer of a baby can have a choice in the matter is dogmatic. Everyone has a dogma; I at least accept that my views come from it. You seem to ascribe some sort of universality to your starting point. For example, I would have thought that the mother needs to consider the needs of the unborn when weighing up the ethical choice, and since the unborn can't speak, society may have to speak for it.

Why stop at the fetus?
Every human cell can potentially act as the starting point for a genetic clone. If not now, maybe in 5 years. Are you pro-killing-clone-seeds if you like to brush your hair every day?

I don't follow what you're saying. Yeah, every cell can reproduce. But if you kill it while it's still a cell then you've only killed a cell. If you kill a foetus you've killed a foetus. If you've killed a baby you've killed a baby. What I am asking you to do is to:
1. Use direct and accurate terminology
2. Consider the opposing viewpoint at its highest before engaging with it

Yes, it is messy. So the mothers burdened with this decision deserve support, not nosy judgement from the likes of you or me.

I could easily say that foetuses subject to their mother's sole whims also deserve support from the state to ensure that there is some form of oversight. After all, no one - mother or not - is infallible.

While I personally am very pro-abortion and believe that mothers should, in most cases, have the absolute say, I can very easily see the argument coming from the other side.

Perhaps before setting down your opinion you should try to do the same. Take the best faith position you can of any opposing view.

[ctuser1]

...
Yes, it's based in part on a religious belief, and please don't give me any of the BS of how it's ok for me to believe it personally but not want anything to be imposed on others because it's based off of a religions belief. We all base things we want as laws off of our own moral beliefs, religious or not, so to claim that just because someone wants laws or policies based off of a morality informed by religion, that their reasoning is unsound is just ridiculous. I've worked extremely hard to see the other side, even on this issue. I realize that very, very, very few people will ever change their mind on this. I have friends and can have conversations with people who don't believe the way I do on this. It's how I've chosen to handle things, and it's helped me see that most all other people aren't the heartless monsters who want to just be jerks to everyone else/troll them/whatever that both sides make their opponents out to be. YMMV

It is perfectly fine for you to have your opinion, as long as you don't demand big government regulation into other people's bodies. When you do so, you become a fascist, which is evil!

FYI, your religion seems to have been quite ambivalent about the sins of abortion in the historical periods:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_abortion
(not that it is of any actual relevance to the key issues at hand, but interesting FYI for those arguing the religious angle)

While the Church has always condemned abortion, changing beliefs about the moment the embryo gains a human soul have led to changes in canon law in the classification of the sin of abortion.[27][28] In particular, several historians have written[29][30][31] that prior to the 19th century most Catholic authors did not regard as an abortion what we call "early abortion"—abortion before "quickening" or "ensoulment."
Not only did they not view early abortions as being abortions, but it is argued that some Catholics saw nothing wrong with compiling lists of known abortifacient herbs and discovering new ones. In the 13th century physician and cleric Peter of Spain wrote a book called Thesaurus Pauperum (literally Treasure of the Poor) containing a long list of early-stage abortifacients, including rue, pennyroyal, and other mints.[17]:205–211 It is believed by some that Peter of Spain became Pope John XXI in 1276.
Some prominent theologians, such as John Chrysostom and Thomas Sanchez, believed that post-quickening abortion was less sinful than deliberate contraception.[16]:161[32]:172,180 John Chrysostom believed that late-stage abortion was not as bad as deliberately killing an already-born person, whereas contraception was definitely worse than murder, according to him.[17]:98–99
As Koblitz writes,[15]:16
Catholic theologians have long wrestled with the question of whether one can truly be forgiven for a sin that one confesses while either still engaged in the sinful practice or else fully intending to resume the action as soon as absolution has been obtained. When a woman confesses to having had an abortion, she can make a sincere act of contrition if she believes that she will never commit the sin again. "It only happened once" is a frequent (though not necessarily accurate) refrain when an unintended pregnancy occurs. Daily use of contraception, on the other hand, is impossible to rationalize to oneself in this manner, and so it is a sin that, to many Catholics, cannot be satisfactorily expunged.

[sherr]

I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.

Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).

If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.

Thanks for bringing us back to my original point, which was not about abortion per se, but rather the general trend of conservatives trying to force others to do what they want. You can't "agree to disagree" when one side says "I disagree but you do you" and the other side says "I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs". The latter is not "agreeing to disagree". If conservatives could learn to "agree to disagree" then there would be far less friendship blockers.

[GuitarStv]

I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.

Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).

If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.

Thanks for bringing us back to my original point, which was not about abortion per se, but rather the general trend of conservatives trying to force others to do what they want. You can't "agree to disagree" when one side says "I disagree but you do you" and the other side says "I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs". The latter is not "agreeing to disagree". If conservatives could learn to "agree to disagree" then there would be far less friendship blockers.

I'm not entirely sure that this is fair to conservatives.  At least from their point of view.


Take every American conservatives favorite fetish - guns - as an example.  Most liberals want greater controls and restrictions placed on purchasing and selling guns.  Most conservatives do not.  From a conservative point of view, this is an 'I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs' situation.


(Yes, granted there is an argument to be made that easy access to firearms forces everyone in the country to live in a perpetual state of fear/heightened tension, but let's leave that aside for a bit.)

[Kris]

I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.

Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).

If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.

Thanks for bringing us back to my original point, which was not about abortion per se, but rather the general trend of conservatives trying to force others to do what they want. You can't "agree to disagree" when one side says "I disagree but you do you" and the other side says "I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs". The latter is not "agreeing to disagree". If conservatives could learn to "agree to disagree" then there would be far less friendship blockers.

I'm not entirely sure that this is fair to conservatives.  At least from their point of view.


Take every American conservatives favorite fetish - guns - as an example.  Most liberals want greater controls and restrictions placed on purchasing and selling guns.  Most conservatives do not.  From a conservative point of view, this is an 'I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs' situation.


(Yes, granted there is an argument to be made that easy access to firearms forces everyone in the country to live in a perpetual state of fear/heightened tension, but let's leave that aside for a bit.)

Except that the "liberal" point of view (insofar as there is one) isn't to outlaw guns.

[sherr]

I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.

Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).

If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.

Thanks for bringing us back to my original point, which was not about abortion per se, but rather the general trend of conservatives trying to force others to do what they want. You can't "agree to disagree" when one side says "I disagree but you do you" and the other side says "I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs". The latter is not "agreeing to disagree". If conservatives could learn to "agree to disagree" then there would be far less friendship blockers.

I'm not entirely sure that this is fair to conservatives.  At least from their point of view.


Take every American conservatives favorite fetish - guns - as an example.  Most liberals want greater controls and restrictions placed on purchasing and selling guns.  Most conservatives do not.  From a conservative point of view, this is an 'I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs' situation.


(Yes, granted there is an argument to be made that easy access to firearms forces everyone in the country to live in a perpetual state of fear/heightened tension, but let's leave that aside for a bit.)

I already stated upthread that guns are the one and only obvious example where conservatives are definitely more pro-liberty. Anything else? "General trend" does not mean "in every conceivable example", it means general trend.

[Nick_Miller]

Everyone has their limits, and that's going to be a personal decision.

"Politics" really displays a person's worldview, their priorities, and how they view other people. "Politics" is not trivial. It can really show a person's true nature. Sure, there are some areas that are more just about making the trains run on time, but some issues are just too vital to ignore vast disagreements. I don't get how many people say, "Oh, well that's just a political disagreement" when it comes to things like protections for LGBTQ folks, as an example. Would I be close friends with a person who thinks gay folks ought to be able to be fired just for...wait for it...being gay?

Hell no. I have no room for bigots in my life.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

...
Yes, it's based in part on a religious belief, and please don't give me any of the BS of how it's ok for me to believe it personally but not want anything to be imposed on others because it's based off of a religions belief. We all base things we want as laws off of our own moral beliefs, religious or not, so to claim that just because someone wants laws or policies based off of a morality informed by religion, that their reasoning is unsound is just ridiculous. I've worked extremely hard to see the other side, even on this issue. I realize that very, very, very few people will ever change their mind on this. I have friends and can have conversations with people who don't believe the way I do on this. It's how I've chosen to handle things, and it's helped me see that most all other people aren't the heartless monsters who want to just be jerks to everyone else/troll them/whatever that both sides make their opponents out to be. YMMV

It is perfectly fine for you to have your opinion, as long as you don't demand big government regulation into other people's bodies. When you do so, you become a fascist, which is evil!

FYI, your religion seems to have been quite ambivalent about the sins of abortion in the historical periods:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_abortion
(not that it is of any actual relevance to the key issues at hand, but interesting FYI for those arguing the religious angle)

While the Church has always condemned abortion, changing beliefs about the moment the embryo gains a human soul have led to changes in canon law in the classification of the sin of abortion.[27][28] In particular, several historians have written[29][30][31] that prior to the 19th century most Catholic authors did not regard as an abortion what we call "early abortion"—abortion before "quickening" or "ensoulment."
Not only did they not view early abortions as being abortions, but it is argued that some Catholics saw nothing wrong with compiling lists of known abortifacient herbs and discovering new ones. In the 13th century physician and cleric Peter of Spain wrote a book called Thesaurus Pauperum (literally Treasure of the Poor) containing a long list of early-stage abortifacients, including rue, pennyroyal, and other mints.[17]:205–211 It is believed by some that Peter of Spain became Pope John XXI in 1276.
Some prominent theologians, such as John Chrysostom and Thomas Sanchez, believed that post-quickening abortion was less sinful than deliberate contraception.[16]:161[32]:172,180 John Chrysostom believed that late-stage abortion was not as bad as deliberately killing an already-born person, whereas contraception was definitely worse than murder, according to him.[17]:98–99
As Koblitz writes,[15]:16
Catholic theologians have long wrestled with the question of whether one can truly be forgiven for a sin that one confesses while either still engaged in the sinful practice or else fully intending to resume the action as soon as absolution has been obtained. When a woman confesses to having had an abortion, she can make a sincere act of contrition if she believes that she will never commit the sin again. "It only happened once" is a frequent (though not necessarily accurate) refrain when an unintended pregnancy occurs. Daily use of contraception, on the other hand, is impossible to rationalize to oneself in this manner, and so it is a sin that, to many Catholics, cannot be satisfactorily expunged.

Hey, it took about an hour five minutes this time! That's slightly above what I was expecting, but close enough.

On a discussion that's literally on whether or not you can have friends of different beliefs, and an overall theme is that yes, as long as you're not a jerk about it, do you realize how condescending it sounds to say "FYI, your religion says this that or the other..."? I was mentally prepared for it, so it didn't really bother me, but dang, dude, lol. First, my religion is not Catholocism. Second, the part of my religion that influences my opinion is not specifically related to historical church doctrine on this issue. It is on other issues but not so much on this one, for different reasons that aren't worth discussing in this context except to say that, yes, I actually did know what you said (shocker, I might know as much as you do about it), and two, it doesn't influence me, because that's not a huge part of how religion influences my belief on the subject.

Finally, I'm not going to argue with you about the fascism or not thing, because, again, it goes nowhere. I will simply reiterate what I said above. To claim that someone's moral views that influence the laws that they want to go into affect are to be disregarded because they're based off of religion is a ridiculous argument.

[GuitarStv]

I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.

Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).

If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.

Thanks for bringing us back to my original point, which was not about abortion per se, but rather the general trend of conservatives trying to force others to do what they want. You can't "agree to disagree" when one side says "I disagree but you do you" and the other side says "I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs". The latter is not "agreeing to disagree". If conservatives could learn to "agree to disagree" then there would be far less friendship blockers.

I'm not entirely sure that this is fair to conservatives.  At least from their point of view.


Take every American conservatives favorite fetish - guns - as an example.  Most liberals want greater controls and restrictions placed on purchasing and selling guns.  Most conservatives do not.  From a conservative point of view, this is an 'I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs' situation.


(Yes, granted there is an argument to be made that easy access to firearms forces everyone in the country to live in a perpetual state of fear/heightened tension, but let's leave that aside for a bit.)

I already stated upthread that guns are the one and only obvious example where conservatives are definitely more pro-liberty. Anything else? "General trend" does not mean "in every conceivable example", it means general trend.

Face masks.  Conservatives in the US are much more pro-facemask choice in the middle of a pandemic than liberals are.

Taxation of the rich as well.  Conservatives are upset when the rich need to pay a fair share in taxes.  Environmental controls/regulation for business.  Conservatives don't like it when businesses don't have the option to pollute indiscriminately.

These are areas where conservatives are more pro-liberty.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Everyone has their limits, and that's going to be a personal decision.

"Politics" really displays a person's worldview, their priorities, and how they view other people. "Politics" is not trivial. It can really show a person's true nature. Sure, there are some areas that are more just about making the trains run on time, but some issues are just too vital to ignore vast disagreements. I don't get how many people say, "Oh, well that's just a political disagreement" when it comes to things like protections for LGBTQ folks, as an example. Would I be close friends with a person who thinks gay folks ought to be able to be fired just for...wait for it...being gay?

Hell no. I have no room for bigots in my life.

Your last argument is a stretch and illustrative of how these political principles that start out as "it's a moral issue" morph into a way to denigrate others beyond the actual issue - it's an issue of creep. I believe that there are people who believe that the government ought to not legislate a private company from not firing someone for that issue. It doesn't mean they would do it or even think it's right. They just believe that the government shouldn't use the law to stop it from happening. I think we all think there are things that are bad that the government shouldn't make illegal. I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying I agree with them. I'm just saying to call them bigots is an assumption on your part that may very well not be true and is an example of how these conversations morph from I won't befriend someone who goes on racist rants or something that's clear cut into something that's not nearly as clear cut.

[sherr]

I already stated upthread that guns are the one and only obvious example where conservatives are definitely more pro-liberty. Anything else? "General trend" does not mean "in every conceivable example", it means general trend.

Face masks.  Conservatives in the US are much more pro-facemask choice in the middle of a pandemic than liberals are.

Taxation of the rich as well.  Conservatives are upset when the rich need to pay a fair share in taxes.  Environmental controls/regulation for business.  Conservatives don't like it when businesses don't have the option to pollute indiscriminately.

These are areas where conservatives are more pro-liberty.

Huh. You're not wrong, but I guess it's the social issues are where illiberalism really kills me, not economic / environmental ones. And I guess I don't see wearing a facemask as an onerous burden that cannot be tolerated from this tyrannical government of ours.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I already stated upthread that guns are the one and only obvious example where conservatives are definitely more pro-liberty. Anything else? "General trend" does not mean "in every conceivable example", it means general trend.

Face masks.  Conservatives in the US are much more pro-facemask choice in the middle of a pandemic than liberals are.

Taxation of the rich as well.  Conservatives are upset when the rich need to pay a fair share in taxes.  Environmental controls/regulation for business.  Conservatives don't like it when businesses don't have the option to pollute indiscriminately.

These are areas where conservatives are more pro-liberty.

Huh. You're not wrong, but I guess it's the social issues are where illiberalism really kills me, not economic / environmental ones. And I guess I don't see wearing a facemask as an onerous burden that cannot be tolerated from this tyrannical government of ours.

Requirements for wearing seat belts. Requirements on business licenses/rules to start up a new business. Maybe not core Republican platforms but ideas that a non-insignificant amount of conservative people would either out and out espouse or support if brought up.

[boy_bye]

At this point, I personally cannot be friends with Trumpies. I will fight for their rights to a clean environment and access to a robust social safety net, and I sincerely hope they find a way out of the abusive relationship they are in with the president, but I cannot talk to their dumb asses anymore.

It's like when your best friend is dating a real asshole. You can be there for her, but she has to make the decision to leave him and there's nothing you can do other than remind her of who she is and who he is and why the way he's acting is unacceptable. At some point you might even need to put up a boundary like "I love you but I cannot talk about your asshole boyfriend anymore." If she can't stop, then you might have to walk away for a bit until she comes to her senses.

At this point, I've walked away, and I'm waiting for the Trumpies to come to their senses, but I'm not holding my breath. 

[John Galt incarnate!]

One of the beliefs that I hold most dearly is that abortion is killing an innocent life. Yes, it's based in part on a religious belief, and please don't give me any of the BS of how it's ok for me to believe it personally but not want anything to be imposed on others because it's based off of a religions belief. We all base things we want as laws off of our own moral beliefs, religious or not, so to claim that just because someone wants laws or policies based off of a morality informed by religion, that their reasoning is unsound is just ridiculous.

I agree.

Furthermore, it is illiberalism writ largest  to shun  believers' opinions and  arguments merely because  it is believers who advance them.

OTOH, legitimacy of a secular State's legislation and court-established law is enhanced when supportable on bases other than conformity to religious tenets which is abundantly the case with respect to Roe.

[sherr]

One of the beliefs that I hold most dearly is that abortion is killing an innocent life. Yes, it's based in part on a religious belief, and please don't give me any of the BS of how it's ok for me to believe it personally but not want anything to be imposed on others because it's based off of a religions belief. We all base things we want as laws off of our own moral beliefs, religious or not, so to claim that just because someone wants laws or policies based off of a morality informed by religion, that their reasoning is unsound is just ridiculous.

I agree.

It is illiberalism writ largest  to shun  believers' opinions and  arguments merely because  it is believers who advance them.

OTOH, legitimacy of a secular State's legislation and court-established law is enhanced when supportable on bases other than conformity to religious tenets which is abundantly the case with respect to Roe.

It is not "merely because it is believers who advance them". I for example, am a Christian. But religious beliefs cannot be the sole underpinning of laws designed to prevent other people from practicing their religious beliefs. That is absolutely illiberalism. (This applies more to the anti-gay issues than it does to abortion in particular.)

[Bloop Bloop]

I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.

Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).

If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.

Thanks for bringing us back to my original point, which was not about abortion per se, but rather the general trend of conservatives trying to force others to do what they want. You can't "agree to disagree" when one side says "I disagree but you do you" and the other side says "I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs". The latter is not "agreeing to disagree". If conservatives could learn to "agree to disagree" then there would be far less friendship blockers.

I'm not entirely sure that this is fair to conservatives.  At least from their point of view.


Take every American conservatives favorite fetish - guns - as an example.  Most liberals want greater controls and restrictions placed on purchasing and selling guns.  Most conservatives do not.  From a conservative point of view, this is an 'I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs' situation.


(Yes, granted there is an argument to be made that easy access to firearms forces everyone in the country to live in a perpetual state of fear/heightened tension, but let's leave that aside for a bit.)

One thing I really dislike about American politics on both ends of the spectrum - both fervent conservatives and fervent liberals do this - is their desire to pigeonhole things into "good" and "bad", "us" and "them". I think it's a really disingenuous habit.

Someone can have 70% liberal beliefs and 30% conservative beliefs or vice versa. Some beliefs could be neither liberal nor conservative. When you get into red state versus blue state and my team is better than yours type discussions, you are no longer arguing in good faith. You are also most likely de-humanising people whom you disagree with.

As I said earlier, in most debates (death penalty, abortion, gun rights etc) I can totally empathise with and understand why someone might take the completely opposing view to me. That doesn't mean I accept it or agree with it, but I can inhabit that stand and humanise it.

Sure, there are some things that are hard to humanise. Overt racism, fascism, etc.

But for the things I listed, I would suggest that if you cannot humanise opposing views, to the extent that you would at least tolerate a friendship with someone who holds those views in good faith, then that reflects very poorly on you.

[boy_bye]

I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.

Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).

If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.

Thanks for bringing us back to my original point, which was not about abortion per se, but rather the general trend of conservatives trying to force others to do what they want. You can't "agree to disagree" when one side says "I disagree but you do you" and the other side says "I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs". The latter is not "agreeing to disagree". If conservatives could learn to "agree to disagree" then there would be far less friendship blockers.

I'm not entirely sure that this is fair to conservatives.  At least from their point of view.


Take every American conservatives favorite fetish - guns - as an example.  Most liberals want greater controls and restrictions placed on purchasing and selling guns.  Most conservatives do not.  From a conservative point of view, this is an 'I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs' situation.


(Yes, granted there is an argument to be made that easy access to firearms forces everyone in the country to live in a perpetual state of fear/heightened tension, but let's leave that aside for a bit.)

One thing I really dislike about American politics on both ends of the spectrum - both fervent conservatives and fervent liberals do this - is their desire to pigeonhole things into "good" and "bad", "us" and "them". I think it's a really disingenuous habit.

Someone can have 70% liberal beliefs and 30% conservative beliefs or vice versa. Some beliefs could be neither liberal nor conservative. When you get into red state versus blue state and my team is better than yours type discussions, you are no longer arguing in good faith. You are also most likely de-humanising people whom you disagree with.

As I said earlier, in most debates (death penalty, abortion, gun rights etc) I can totally empathise with and understand why someone might take the completely opposing view to me. That doesn't mean I accept it or agree with it, but I can inhabit that stand and humanise it.

Sure, there are some things that are hard to humanise. Overt racism, fascism, etc.

But for the things I listed, I would suggest that if you cannot humanise opposing views, to the extent that you would at least tolerate a friendship with someone who holds those views in good faith, then that reflects very poorly on you.

To me the defining line is how fundamentalist is this person? Are they willing to keep learning and growing and allowing their beliefs to change as they take in new information? Or are they convinced they know everything already and unwilling to evolve?

Completely uninterested in friendships with the second kind of person. What is the point?

[Nick_Miller]

Everyone has their limits, and that's going to be a personal decision.

"Politics" really displays a person's worldview, their priorities, and how they view other people. "Politics" is not trivial. It can really show a person's true nature. Sure, there are some areas that are more just about making the trains run on time, but some issues are just too vital to ignore vast disagreements. I don't get how many people say, "Oh, well that's just a political disagreement" when it comes to things like protections for LGBTQ folks, as an example. Would I be close friends with a person who thinks gay folks ought to be able to be fired just for...wait for it...being gay?

Hell no. I have no room for bigots in my life.

Your last argument is a stretch and illustrative of how these political principles that start out as "it's a moral issue" morph into a way to denigrate others beyond the actual issue - it's an issue of creep. I believe that there are people who believe that the government ought to not legislate a private company from not firing someone for that issue. It doesn't mean they would do it or even think it's right. They just believe that the government shouldn't use the law to stop it from happening. I think we all think there are things that are bad that the government shouldn't make illegal. I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying I agree with them. I'm just saying to call them bigots is an assumption on your part that may very well not be true and is an example of how these conversations morph from I won't befriend someone who goes on racist rants or something that's clear cut into something that's not nearly as clear cut.

Nah I don't accept your argument.

Because I think it's bigoted and privileged as hell for someone, probably someone who's straight/white to say, "Oh let businesses discriminate against workers for any reason."

"Black? fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."

"Gay? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."

"Pregnant? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out!"

"Trans? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort them out."

"A woman? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."

Again, privileged as hell, and bigoted imo. It's easy when a certain group holds most of the cards, most of the money, most of the institutional power, most of the political clout, etc., to say, "Oh let's just focus on rugged individualism!"

It's not an even playing field, and its not even close.

[lexde]

Allllll of this.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Everyone has their limits, and that's going to be a personal decision.

"Politics" really displays a person's worldview, their priorities, and how they view other people. "Politics" is not trivial. It can really show a person's true nature. Sure, there are some areas that are more just about making the trains run on time, but some issues are just too vital to ignore vast disagreements. I don't get how many people say, "Oh, well that's just a political disagreement" when it comes to things like protections for LGBTQ folks, as an example. Would I be close friends with a person who thinks gay folks ought to be able to be fired just for...wait for it...being gay?

Hell no. I have no room for bigots in my life.

Your last argument is a stretch and illustrative of how these political principles that start out as "it's a moral issue" morph into a way to denigrate others beyond the actual issue - it's an issue of creep. I believe that there are people who believe that the government ought to not legislate a private company from not firing someone for that issue. It doesn't mean they would do it or even think it's right. They just believe that the government shouldn't use the law to stop it from happening. I think we all think there are things that are bad that the government shouldn't make illegal. I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying I agree with them. I'm just saying to call them bigots is an assumption on your part that may very well not be true and is an example of how these conversations morph from I won't befriend someone who goes on racist rants or something that's clear cut into something that's not nearly as clear cut.

Nah I don't accept your argument.

Because I think it's bigoted and privileged as hell for someone, probably someone who's straight/white to say, "Oh let businesses discriminate against workers for any reason."

"Black? fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."

"Gay? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."

"Pregnant? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out!"

"Trans? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort them out."

"A women? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."

Again, privileged as hell, and bigoted imo. It's easy when a certain group holds most of the cards, most of the money, most of the institutional power, most of the political clout, etc., to say, "Oh let's just focus on rugged individualism!"

It's not an even playing field, and its not even close.

Fair enough, I don't accept your opinion either, lol. And it's a shame, because you actually do articulate the middle ground in my mind. Is that opinion privileged? Sure. Is it (or could it be) naïve, absolutely? Is it bigoted? Not necessarily. How do I know? Because I've believed that the government should not restrict these things, and it was not from a bigoted perspective. I've had to improve on that issue, myself, as well, but not in regards to what the government should legislate companies do or not do. It didn't factor into that logical argument in my mind. Now I can't prove it to you, but I know what I thought.

You've actually illustrated a big part of the issue. You jump from a logically defendable and rational position - a person advocating that is privileged to not have to deal with it, to an assumption based position not provable - that they are bigoted. This is not helpful or healthy for dialogue. Your position is part of the problem.

[Nick_Miller]

Everyone has their limits, and that's going to be a personal decision.

"Politics" really displays a person's worldview, their priorities, and how they view other people. "Politics" is not trivial. It can really show a person's true nature. Sure, there are some areas that are more just about making the trains run on time, but some issues are just too vital to ignore vast disagreements. I don't get how many people say, "Oh, well that's just a political disagreement" when it comes to things like protections for LGBTQ folks, as an example. Would I be close friends with a person who thinks gay folks ought to be able to be fired just for...wait for it...being gay?

Hell no. I have no room for bigots in my life.

Your last argument is a stretch and illustrative of how these political principles that start out as "it's a moral issue" morph into a way to denigrate others beyond the actual issue - it's an issue of creep. I believe that there are people who believe that the government ought to not legislate a private company from not firing someone for that issue. It doesn't mean they would do it or even think it's right. They just believe that the government shouldn't use the law to stop it from happening. I think we all think there are things that are bad that the government shouldn't make illegal. I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying I agree with them. I'm just saying to call them bigots is an assumption on your part that may very well not be true and is an example of how these conversations morph from I won't befriend someone who goes on racist rants or something that's clear cut into something that's not nearly as clear cut.

Nah I don't accept your argument.

Because I think it's bigoted and privileged as hell for someone, probably someone who's straight/white to say, "Oh let businesses discriminate against workers for any reason."

"Black? fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."

"Gay? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."

"Pregnant? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out!"

"Trans? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort them out."

"A women? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."

Again, privileged as hell, and bigoted imo. It's easy when a certain group holds most of the cards, most of the money, most of the institutional power, most of the political clout, etc., to say, "Oh let's just focus on rugged individualism!"

It's not an even playing field, and its not even close.

Fair enough, I don't accept your opinion either, lol. And it's a shame, because you actually do articulate the middle ground in my mind. Is that opinion privileged? Sure. Is it (or could it be) naïve, absolutely? Is it bigoted? Not necessarily. How do I know? Because I've believed that the government should not restrict these things, and it was not from a bigoted perspective. I've had to improve on that issue, myself, as well, but not in regards to what the government should legislate companies do or not do. It didn't factor into that logical argument in my mind. Now I can't prove it to you, but I know what I thought.

You've actually illustrated a big part of the issue. You jump from a logically defendable and rational position - a person advocating that is privileged to not have to deal with it, to an assumption based position not provable - that they are bigoted. This is not helpful or healthy for dialogue. Your position is part of the problem.

You still don't get it. It's bigoted to not care about all of the inequities I listed above (and many more). It's bigoted to adopt a position ("let employers do whatever the f they want") that puts these already marginalized groups in even more tenuous positions than they're already in.

[Kris]

Everyone has their limits, and that's going to be a personal decision.

"Politics" really displays a person's worldview, their priorities, and how they view other people. "Politics" is not trivial. It can really show a person's true nature. Sure, there are some areas that are more just about making the trains run on time, but some issues are just too vital to ignore vast disagreements. I don't get how many people say, "Oh, well that's just a political disagreement" when it comes to things like protections for LGBTQ folks, as an example. Would I be close friends with a person who thinks gay folks ought to be able to be fired just for...wait for it...being gay?

Hell no. I have no room for bigots in my life.

Your last argument is a stretch and illustrative of how these political principles that start out as "it's a moral issue" morph into a way to denigrate others beyond the actual issue - it's an issue of creep. I believe that there are people who believe that the government ought to not legislate a private company from not firing someone for that issue. It doesn't mean they would do it or even think it's right. They just believe that the government shouldn't use the law to stop it from happening. I think we all think there are things that are bad that the government shouldn't make illegal. I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying I agree with them. I'm just saying to call them bigots is an assumption on your part that may very well not be true and is an example of how these conversations morph from I won't befriend someone who goes on racist rants or something that's clear cut into something that's not nearly as clear cut.

LOL. I literally talked to two people yesterday who said they would fire someone for being gay and think it's right.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Everyone has their limits, and that's going to be a personal decision.

"Politics" really displays a person's worldview, their priorities, and how they view other people. "Politics" is not trivial. It can really show a person's true nature. Sure, there are some areas that are more just about making the trains run on time, but some issues are just too vital to ignore vast disagreements. I don't get how many people say, "Oh, well that's just a political disagreement" when it comes to things like protections for LGBTQ folks, as an example. Would I be close friends with a person who thinks gay folks ought to be able to be fired just for...wait for it...being gay?

Hell no. I have no room for bigots in my life.

Your last argument is a stretch and illustrative of how these political principles that start out as "it's a moral issue" morph into a way to denigrate others beyond the actual issue - it's an issue of creep. I believe that there are people who believe that the government ought to not legislate a private company from not firing someone for that issue. It doesn't mean they would do it or even think it's right. They just believe that the government shouldn't use the law to stop it from happening. I think we all think there are things that are bad that the government shouldn't make illegal. I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying I agree with them. I'm just saying to call them bigots is an assumption on your part that may very well not be true and is an example of how these conversations morph from I won't befriend someone who goes on racist rants or something that's clear cut into something that's not nearly as clear cut.

Nah I don't accept your argument.

Because I think it's bigoted and privileged as hell for someone, probably someone who's straight/white to say, "Oh let businesses discriminate against workers for any reason."

"Black? fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."

"Gay? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."

"Pregnant? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out!"

"Trans? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort them out."

"A women? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."

Again, privileged as hell, and bigoted imo. It's easy when a certain group holds most of the cards, most of the money, most of the institutional power, most of the political clout, etc., to say, "Oh let's just focus on rugged individualism!"

It's not an even playing field, and its not even close.

Fair enough, I don't accept your opinion either, lol. And it's a shame, because you actually do articulate the middle ground in my mind. Is that opinion privileged? Sure. Is it (or could it be) naïve, absolutely? Is it bigoted? Not necessarily. How do I know? Because I've believed that the government should not restrict these things, and it was not from a bigoted perspective. I've had to improve on that issue, myself, as well, but not in regards to what the government should legislate companies do or not do. It didn't factor into that logical argument in my mind. Now I can't prove it to you, but I know what I thought.

You've actually illustrated a big part of the issue. You jump from a logically defendable and rational position - a person advocating that is privileged to not have to deal with it, to an assumption based position not provable - that they are bigoted. This is not helpful or healthy for dialogue. Your position is part of the problem.

You still don't get it. It's bigoted to not care about all of the inequities I listed above (and many more). It's bigoted to adopt a position ("let employers do whatever the f they want") that puts these already marginalized groups in even more tenuous positions than they're already in.

No, you still don't get it, because you've painted people in a box that makes you feel better about yourself becuase you think you know their motivations (see ctuser's post to me above). I get it, it's easy to classify someone who doesn't believe the same as you as a bigot. But you're not proving anything with your arguments - you're just throwing out the term bigot as a catch all for someone not viewing things the way you want them too.

Some people are naive and don't realize how much trouble not having these laws can cause. That alone disproves your guarantee of bigotry. It's also not necessarily bigoted to not care as much about digging into how much someone else's suffering to inform your opinion. It's certainly and clearly privileged, which is why I said that was a great point. It's selfish and not an admirable characteristic by any stretch. It's something I've strove to fight against in myself. But it's not bigotry following any definition I've ever seen- i.e. looking down on someone else for the group they are in unless you count "anyone but me" as a group.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Everyone has their limits, and that's going to be a personal decision.

"Politics" really displays a person's worldview, their priorities, and how they view other people. "Politics" is not trivial. It can really show a person's true nature. Sure, there are some areas that are more just about making the trains run on time, but some issues are just too vital to ignore vast disagreements. I don't get how many people say, "Oh, well that's just a political disagreement" when it comes to things like protections for LGBTQ folks, as an example. Would I be close friends with a person who thinks gay folks ought to be able to be fired just for...wait for it...being gay?

Hell no. I have no room for bigots in my life.

Your last argument is a stretch and illustrative of how these political principles that start out as "it's a moral issue" morph into a way to denigrate others beyond the actual issue - it's an issue of creep. I believe that there are people who believe that the government ought to not legislate a private company from not firing someone for that issue. It doesn't mean they would do it or even think it's right. They just believe that the government shouldn't use the law to stop it from happening. I think we all think there are things that are bad that the government shouldn't make illegal. I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying I agree with them. I'm just saying to call them bigots is an assumption on your part that may very well not be true and is an example of how these conversations morph from I won't befriend someone who goes on racist rants or something that's clear cut into something that's not nearly as clear cut.

LOL. I literally talked to two people yesterday who said they would fire someone for being gay and think it's right.

That's great that you have anecdotal evidence of two people that don't fit into my example. I never once said that all people didn't think that. The bolded text clearly states that their belief that the government shouldn't make a law to stop it from happening doesn't mean that they would do it. Clearly if you would do it, you want the government to not outlaw it. I didn't think I needed to state that.... I am saying one doesn't necessarily equal the other, and getting back to the overall topic, it's the belief that it does that is part of the problem.

[Kris]

Everyone has their limits, and that's going to be a personal decision.

"Politics" really displays a person's worldview, their priorities, and how they view other people. "Politics" is not trivial. It can really show a person's true nature. Sure, there are some areas that are more just about making the trains run on time, but some issues are just too vital to ignore vast disagreements. I don't get how many people say, "Oh, well that's just a political disagreement" when it comes to things like protections for LGBTQ folks, as an example. Would I be close friends with a person who thinks gay folks ought to be able to be fired just for...wait for it...being gay?

Hell no. I have no room for bigots in my life.

Your last argument is a stretch and illustrative of how these political principles that start out as "it's a moral issue" morph into a way to denigrate others beyond the actual issue - it's an issue of creep. I believe that there are people who believe that the government ought to not legislate a private company from not firing someone for that issue. It doesn't mean they would do it or even think it's right. They just believe that the government shouldn't use the law to stop it from happening. I think we all think there are things that are bad that the government shouldn't make illegal. I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying I agree with them. I'm just saying to call them bigots is an assumption on your part that may very well not be true and is an example of how these conversations morph from I won't befriend someone who goes on racist rants or something that's clear cut into something that's not nearly as clear cut.

LOL. I literally talked to two people yesterday who said they would fire someone for being gay and think it's right.

That's great that you have anecdotal evidence of two people that don't fit into my example. I never once said that all people didn't think that. The bolded text clearly states that their belief that the government shouldn't make a law to stop it from happening doesn't mean that they would do it. Clearly if you would do it, you want the government to not outlaw it. I didn't think I needed to state that.... I am saying one doesn't necessarily equal the other, and getting back to the overall topic, it's the belief that it does that is part of the problem.

Actually, no, it's not great that there are people who would fire someone for being gay and think it's right. It's pretty shitty.

And sure, there are people who don't think there needs to be a law about it who wouldn't actually do it themselves. But those people are likely not the people who would be discriminated against, so yeah, why should they care, right?

Passive complacency isn't bigotry, true. But it sure isn't the opposite of bigotry.

[ctuser1]

Hey, it took about an hour five minutes this time! That's slightly above what I was expecting, but close enough.

On a discussion that's literally on whether or not you can have friends of different beliefs, and an overall theme is that yes, as long as you're not a jerk about it, do you realize how condescending it sounds to say "FYI, your religion says this that or the other..."? I was mentally prepared for it, so it didn't really bother me, but dang, dude, lol. First, my religion is not Catholocism. Second, the part of my religion that influences my opinion is not specifically related to historical church doctrine on this issue. It is on other issues but not so much on this one, for different reasons that aren't worth discussing in this context except to say that, yes, I actually did know what you said (shocker, I might know as much as you do about it), and two, it doesn't influence me, because that's not a huge part of how religion influences my belief on the subject.

Finally, I'm not going to argue with you about the fascism or not thing, because, again, it goes nowhere. I will simply reiterate what I said above. To claim that someone's moral views that influence the laws that they want to go into affect are to be disregarded because they're based off of religion is a ridiculous argument.

>> do you realize how condescending it sounds to say "FYI, your religion says this that or the other..."?
Yes, I see how my own dogma (of having an active dislike for all the organized, exclusivist religions) + my own stereotyping (of assuming you must be a part of one such exclusivist denominations - e.g. Christian/Jewish/Muslim) resulted in a condescending reply. I should have phrased things differently. Apologies for that.

Since we are on this topic, let me turn the same question around assuming my stereotype is correct (which it may not be, e.g. say if you are a follower of the Japanese Shinto religion, or some denomination of Buddhist, or Hindu).

Assuming you are part of one of the exclusivist religious faiths, do you realize how condescending and arrogant it sounds when I hear:
1. There is only one true god, and it is the one I have a monopoly agency over, granted by my holy book.
2. If you don't believe in my god, then you are a heathen who is going to hell. I better do you a favor as a missionary and save your soul by converting you.
3. Since you are a sinner, my moral code is the only one that applies and you should obey that. If you don't, I will try to get the government to force you to obey that.

If someone is of a different religious faith, or of no faith at all, and does not subscribe to your "religiously informed" morality, will they be forced to abide by that moral code? 

Yes, I am guilty of having responded negatively based on assuming you are a part of a certain stereotype. I can improve on that - for sure. But this "I" am an insignificant nobody. Do you think, perhaps, that the source of that negative stereotype also has a responsibility to improve, and that forcing their moral code on everybody is not the way to do that??

[MudPuppy]

@ctuser1 fwiw I do come from a catholic faith tradition (like another user above, I'm liberal leaning) and nothing you said particularly ruffled my feathers

[boy_bye]

Everyone has their limits, and that's going to be a personal decision.

"Politics" really displays a person's worldview, their priorities, and how they view other people. "Politics" is not trivial. It can really show a person's true nature. Sure, there are some areas that are more just about making the trains run on time, but some issues are just too vital to ignore vast disagreements. I don't get how many people say, "Oh, well that's just a political disagreement" when it comes to things like protections for LGBTQ folks, as an example. Would I be close friends with a person who thinks gay folks ought to be able to be fired just for...wait for it...being gay?

Hell no. I have no room for bigots in my life.

Your last argument is a stretch and illustrative of how these political principles that start out as "it's a moral issue" morph into a way to denigrate others beyond the actual issue - it's an issue of creep. I believe that there are people who believe that the government ought to not legislate a private company from not firing someone for that issue. It doesn't mean they would do it or even think it's right. They just believe that the government shouldn't use the law to stop it from happening. I think we all think there are things that are bad that the government shouldn't make illegal. I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying I agree with them. I'm just saying to call them bigots is an assumption on your part that may very well not be true and is an example of how these conversations morph from I won't befriend someone who goes on racist rants or something that's clear cut into something that's not nearly as clear cut.

Nah I don't accept your argument.

Because I think it's bigoted and privileged as hell for someone, probably someone who's straight/white to say, "Oh let businesses discriminate against workers for any reason."

"Black? fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."

"Gay? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."

"Pregnant? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out!"

"Trans? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort them out."

"A women? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."

Again, privileged as hell, and bigoted imo. It's easy when a certain group holds most of the cards, most of the money, most of the institutional power, most of the political clout, etc., to say, "Oh let's just focus on rugged individualism!"

It's not an even playing field, and its not even close.

Fair enough, I don't accept your opinion either, lol. And it's a shame, because you actually do articulate the middle ground in my mind. Is that opinion privileged? Sure. Is it (or could it be) naïve, absolutely? Is it bigoted? Not necessarily. How do I know? Because I've believed that the government should not restrict these things, and it was not from a bigoted perspective. I've had to improve on that issue, myself, as well, but not in regards to what the government should legislate companies do or not do. It didn't factor into that logical argument in my mind. Now I can't prove it to you, but I know what I thought.

You've actually illustrated a big part of the issue. You jump from a logically defendable and rational position - a person advocating that is privileged to not have to deal with it, to an assumption based position not provable - that they are bigoted. This is not helpful or healthy for dialogue. Your position is part of the problem.

You still don't get it. It's bigoted to not care about all of the inequities I listed above (and many more). It's bigoted to adopt a position ("let employers do whatever the f they want") that puts these already marginalized groups in even more tenuous positions than they're already in.

No, you still don't get it, because you've painted people in a box that makes you feel better about yourself becuase you think you know their motivations (see ctuser's post to me above). I get it, it's easy to classify someone who doesn't believe the same as you as a bigot. But you're not proving anything with your arguments - you're just throwing out the term bigot as a catch all for someone not viewing things the way you want them too.

Some people are naive and don't realize how much trouble not having these laws can cause. That alone disproves your guarantee of bigotry. It's also not necessarily bigoted to not care as much about digging into how much someone else's suffering to inform your opinion. It's certainly and clearly privileged, which is why I said that was a great point. It's selfish and not an admirable characteristic by any stretch. It's something I've strove to fight against in myself. But it's not bigotry following any definition I've ever seen- i.e. looking down on someone else for the group they are in unless you count "anyone but me" as a group.

The intent that people have when they engage in behaviors that harm others is IRRELEVANT, or at least far less relevant than the fact the others are being harmed. And being ignorant of how one's actions contribute to the oppression of others is not an excuse. Voting for a bigot IS bigotry. Never taking the time to put oneself in the shoes of a less privileged person IS bigotry. Thinking that you being called bigoted is in any way comparable to experiencing actual bigotry? ALSO BIGOTRY.

A person doesn't have to walk around going "I hate [group]" in order to act in a bigoted way.

[Wrenchturner]

Let's assume this is an American company involved here.

A black person might not be hired to represent a company in Japan.
A gay person might not be hired to represent a company in Saudi Arabia.
A pregnant or trans person might not be hired in private security/military deployment.
A woman might not be hired to be a piano mover.

Is this bigotry?

[MudPuppy]

Yes.

[sui generis]

☝️

[sherr]

Let's assume this is an American company involved here.

A black person might not be hired to represent a company in Japan.
A gay person might not be hired to represent a company in Saudi Arabia.
A pregnant or trans person might not be hired in private security/military deployment.
A woman might not be hired to be a piano mover.

Is this bigotry?

Some of them possibly, some definitely not. The dividing line is if the discrimination is position-related and a business necessity.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Section 703.k.1.A
An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established under this subchapter only if-
(i) a complaining party demonstrates ... disparate impact ... and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity

[skp]

As my boss informed us all at a staff meeting the other day, Ohio is an at will employment state.  We can be fired for any or no reason whatsoever.   Should this apply only to white males?

[renata ricotta]

Yes. Title VII and court opinions interpreting it have a test for this - bona fide occupational qualification. If there is an element of a job that is truly required (not just a pretext to limit who is qualified), then make that a requirement and let the chips fall where they may. So, you can say in a job description that a person must be able to lift 100 pounds, which may have the effect of excluding some women/people with disabilities. But a court will look carefully to make sure that it's truly a requirement of the job. If in real life a person in that position only needs to routinely lift 25 pounds, and there are tools or bigger groups of people to handle larger weights, the requirement is not bona fide and its disparate impact is a violation of the law (discriminatory intent is irrelevant).

And, courts have held that real or perceived biases of your clientele/customers/vendors/donors cannot be the basis of a BFOQ. For example, Southwest Airlines in a lawsuit argued that their customers preferred to see flight attendants who were young, attractive women, so it was a BFOQ. Courts roundly reject this reasoning, and for similar reasons reject arguments like "we can't have women on our team supporting the Saudi Arabian project because the Saudis wouldn't like it."

[Wrenchturner]

Yes.

Awesome.  I like clarity. 

Bethesda is a video game development company, headquartered in Maryland.  They've created Fallout, and the new Doom game, among others.  Very popular.

This month is Pride Month.  Bethesda experienced a controversy earlier this month because their Twitter logos were changed to support Pride, with the exception of a few regions.  See the attached image.

What should be done about this bigoted company?  Are the people that buy and enjoy their games also complicit in the bigotry? 

[Wrenchturner]

Let's assume this is an American company involved here.

A black person might not be hired to represent a company in Japan.
A gay person might not be hired to represent a company in Saudi Arabia.
A pregnant or trans person might not be hired in private security/military deployment.
A woman might not be hired to be a piano mover.

Is this bigotry?

Some of them possibly, some definitely not. The dividing line is if the discrimination is position-related and a business necessity.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Section 703.k.1.A
An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established under this subchapter only if-
(i) a complaining party demonstrates ... disparate impact ... and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity

Interesting.  Your post suggests that there could be lawful subjective elements that could separate bigotry from business necessity.

Perhaps an average American female would not be a good candidate for a piano mover?  Perhaps a pregnant woman should not be serving on the front lines of a war zone?  Am I a bigot for considering this?

[Chris22]

Yes.

Awesome.  I like clarity. 

Bethesda is a video game development company, headquartered in Maryland.  They've created Fallout, and the new Doom game, among others.  Very popular.

This month is Pride Month.  Bethesda experienced a controversy earlier this month because their Twitter logos were changed to support Pride, with the exception of a few regions.  See the attached image.

What should be done about this bigoted company?  Are the people that buy and enjoy their games also complicit in the bigotry?

It’s almost like they know where virtue signaling is important and where it isn’t.

Also for the record, this is the kind of shit that pushes people away. If they had done nothing there would likely be little controversy. But instead they do something small, and it’s open season on why they didn’t do more, or different, or whatever.

If you want an ally, maybe first step isn’t to push away people who are taking their first steps down the road, they are just as likely to just turn around and walk the other way.

[sherr]

As my boss informed us all at a staff meeting the other day, Ohio is an at will employment state.  We can be fired for any or no reason whatsoever.   Should this apply only to white males?

Obvious strawman. NC is an at-will state too, anyone can be fired for no reason. If the fired person believes that "no reason" was actually because of their status in a protected class, and they think they have enough evidence to prove it, then they can sue under Title VII and their case will be evaluated on its merits. Everything is exactly how it should be, stop whining.

[GuitarStv]

Yes.

Awesome.  I like clarity. 

Bethesda is a video game development company, headquartered in Maryland.  They've created Fallout, and the new Doom game, among others.  Very popular.

This month is Pride Month.  Bethesda experienced a controversy earlier this month because their Twitter logos were changed to support Pride, with the exception of a few regions.  See the attached image.

What should be done about this bigoted company?  Are the people that buy and enjoy their games also complicit in the bigotry? 

None of the previous points you mentioned

Let's assume this is an American company involved here.

A black person might not be hired to represent a company in Japan.
A gay person might not be hired to represent a company in Saudi Arabia.
A pregnant or trans person might not be hired in private security/military deployment.
A woman might not be hired to be a piano mover.

Is this bigotry?

that MudPuppy said were bigoted actions are related to the argument you're putting forth now.

Fundamentally I think the question can come down to 'If Bethesda did nothing on any website to support gay pride would they be bigoted?'.  My response to that would be no.  So it's hard for me to see them as bigoted for partially supporting gay pride on some websites.

Let's assume this is an American company involved here.

A black person might not be hired to represent a company in Japan.
A gay person might not be hired to represent a company in Saudi Arabia.
A pregnant or trans person might not be hired in private security/military deployment.
A woman might not be hired to be a piano mover.

Is this bigotry?

Some of them possibly, some definitely not. The dividing line is if the discrimination is position-related and a business necessity.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Section 703.k.1.A
An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established under this subchapter only if-
(i) a complaining party demonstrates ... disparate impact ... and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity

Interesting.  Your post suggests that there could be lawful subjective elements that could separate bigotry from business necessity.

Perhaps an average American female would not be a good candidate for a piano mover?  Perhaps a pregnant woman should not be serving on the front lines of a war zone?  Am I a bigot for considering this?

On average Asian men are smaller and less strong than black men.  Is the average asian man therefore a bad candidate for a piano mover?

I'd argue that pregnancy is a debilitating but fully treatable medical condition.  We don't usually put men on the front line in war zones when they have debilitating but treatable medical conditions, so I wouldn't expect us to put women there either.

I think that your consideration for employment should include the requirements for the job.  If there are some women who can lift the weight necessary to move a piano, then you should not reject all women out of hand.  A pregnant woman shouldn't be serving on the front line of a war . . . but there's no reason a fit and able woman can't serve on the front line of a war.  Bigotry only really comes into play when you decide to exclude women entirely because of these concerns . . . rather than approaching and judging each situation by it's individual merits.

[Wrenchturner]

Yes.

Awesome.  I like clarity. 

Bethesda is a video game development company, headquartered in Maryland.  They've created Fallout, and the new Doom game, among others.  Very popular.

This month is Pride Month.  Bethesda experienced a controversy earlier this month because their Twitter logos were changed to support Pride, with the exception of a few regions.  See the attached image.

What should be done about this bigoted company?  Are the people that buy and enjoy their games also complicit in the bigotry?

It’s almost like they know where virtue signaling is important and where it isn’t.

Also for the record, this is the kind of shit that pushes people away. If they had done nothing there would likely be little controversy. But instead they do something small, and it’s open season on why they didn’t do more, or different, or whatever.

If you want an ally, maybe first step isn’t to push away people who are taking their first steps down the road, they are just as likely to just turn around and walk the other way.

What pushes people away is moving goalposts. 

I agree with your last paragraph, but the irony in the context of this bigger conversation is not lost on me.

Doing business with a bigoted culture has the potential upside of teachable moments.  "Soft power", essentially.

Again, this is why people have to be careful of treating the other side as irredeemable.  We allow murders to repent and reintegrate, but I see a puritanism on the left that excludes and denigrates.  I haven't seen it in any of the conservative arguments in this thread, feel free to prove me wrong with quotes.

[sherr]

Let's assume this is an American company involved here.

A black person might not be hired to represent a company in Japan.
A gay person might not be hired to represent a company in Saudi Arabia.
A pregnant or trans person might not be hired in private security/military deployment.
A woman might not be hired to be a piano mover.

Is this bigotry?

Some of them possibly, some definitely not. The dividing line is if the discrimination is position-related and a business necessity.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Section 703.k.1.A
An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established under this subchapter only if-
(i) a complaining party demonstrates ... disparate impact ... and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity

Interesting.  Your post suggests that there could be lawful subjective elements that could separate bigotry from business necessity.

Perhaps an average American female would not be a good candidate for a piano mover?  Perhaps a pregnant woman should not be serving on the front lines of a war zone?  Am I a bigot for considering this?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I stand by @renata ricotta's explanation, they did a better job than I and sound like they know what they're talking about better anyway. And I'd be willing to hazard a guess that there is no country on Earth that sends pregnant women to the front lines, including the USA, so no you're obviously not a bigot for considering this. This is also an obvious strawman.

[ctuser1]

What pushes people away is moving goalposts. 

I agree with your last paragraph, but the irony in the context of this bigger conversation is not lost on me.

Doing business with a bigoted culture has the potential upside of teachable moments.  "Soft power", essentially.

Again, this is why people have to be careful of treating the other side as irredeemable.  We allow murders to repent and reintegrate, but I see a puritanism on the left that excludes and denigrates.  I haven't seen it in any of the conservative arguments in this thread, feel free to prove me wrong with quotes.

Your house is on fire and you seem to worry a lot about the neighbors who complains loudly about the fire-fighter's attire because it offends them and offers no help!!

Interesting priorities...

Dude. Folks who look a certain way are disproportionate recipients of police violence. That is the "house in fire" problem. Can we please stop worrying about which snowflake's delicate sensibilities are hurt because of which slight?

[Wrenchturner]

None of the previous points you mentioned that MudPuppy said were bigoted actions are related to the argument you're putting forth now.

Fundamentally I think the question can come down to 'If Bethesda did nothing on any website to support gay pride would they be bigoted?'.  My response to that would be no.  So it's hard for me to see them as bigoted for partially supporting gay pride on some websites.

You're smarter than that!
"A gay person might not be hired to represent a company in Saudi Arabia."
Don't pretend that choosing to exclude the Middle Eastern demographic from showing support for Pride is not related conceptually to the example I described above.

On average Asian men are smaller and less strong than black men.  Is the average asian man therefore a bad candidate for a piano mover?

Yes.  And it is only coincidence that their race would manifest in a study of the racial makeup of piano movers. 

I'd argue that pregnancy is a debilitating but fully treatable medical condition.  We don't usually put men on the front line in war zones when they have debilitating but treatable medical conditions, so I wouldn't expect us to put women there either.

I think that your consideration for employment should include the requirements for the job.  If there are some women who can lift the weight necessary to move a piano, then you should not reject all women out of hand.  A pregnant woman shouldn't be serving on the front line of a war . . . but there's no reason a fit and able woman can't serve on the front line of a war.  Bigotry only really comes into play when you decide to exclude women entirely because of these concerns . . . rather than approaching and judging each situation by it's individual merits.

Yes.  This doesn't seem too difficult.  So we are left with the issue--if a survey is done and virtually all piano movers are NOT women, do we attribute this to bigotry or a natural consequence of a healthy selection method?

To summarize--the assumption of bigotry is a dangerous one and alternative causes should be considered before people get disparaged or denigrated.  Fair?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I stand by @renata ricotta's explanation, they did a better job than I and sound like they know what they're talking about better anyway. And I'd be willing to hazard a guess that there is no country on Earth that sends pregnant women to the front lines, including the USA, so no you're obviously not a bigot for considering this. This is also an obvious strawman.

Definitely not a strawman(gendered language????).

See my underlined summary above.

[MudPuppy]

Yes.

Awesome.  I like clarity. 

Bethesda is a video game development company, headquartered in Maryland.  They've created Fallout, and the new Doom game, among others.  Very popular.

This month is Pride Month.  Bethesda experienced a controversy earlier this month because their Twitter logos were changed to support Pride, with the exception of a few regions.  See the attached image.

What should be done about this bigoted company?  Are the people that buy and enjoy their games also complicit in the bigotry?

While bullshot, that is not a bigoted hiring practice

[Wrenchturner]

What pushes people away is moving goalposts. 

I agree with your last paragraph, but the irony in the context of this bigger conversation is not lost on me.

Doing business with a bigoted culture has the potential upside of teachable moments.  "Soft power", essentially.

Again, this is why people have to be careful of treating the other side as irredeemable.  We allow murders to repent and reintegrate, but I see a puritanism on the left that excludes and denigrates.  I haven't seen it in any of the conservative arguments in this thread, feel free to prove me wrong with quotes.

Your house is on fire and you seem to worry a lot about the neighbors who complains loudly about the fire-fighter's attire because it offends them and offers no help!!

Interesting priorities...

Dude. Folks who look a certain way are disproportionate recipients of police violence. That is the "house in fire" problem. Can we please stop worrying about which snowflake's delicate sensibilities are hurt because of which slight?

We were discussing discrimination when it comes to employment.  Sometimes people are discriminated against unfairly, sometimes they are discriminated against fairly.  I am not arguing against the idea that "Folks who look a certain way are disproportionate recipients of police violence".