55-44-1

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
I absolutely contend that the whole idea that we don't have the right to a particular viewpoint is EGREGIOUS

I didn't disagree with that.

They ABSOLUTELY have the right.

I didn't disagree with that (which is the same thing you said above).

Furthermore, what is your basis for the exclusion of what is arguably a relative term?

It is not about the term "stupid." It is about the idea itself. Some ideas are unworthy of consideration because they are stupid.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />My point is that not every idea is equal. There are some stupid ideas. Surely you don't disagree with that ...

I totally and completely "disagree with that." The people to whom you refer as "stupid" are entitled to have any point of view. It is disturbing that you would honestly offer this as a legitimate viewpoint. Nevertheless, you are entitled to your intolerance.</font>[/QUOTE]You seem really confused. YOu seem to be thinking that I have said people don't have a right to be stupid. Go back and read. I have never said that. I have simply said taht people with the right to hold stupid ideas are still hold stupid ideas. I don't believe I referred to anybody as stupid. I think you made that up. And I have not been intolerant in the least. That is an attempt by you to prejudice an argument.

You obviously think my idea is stupid ... which shows the truth of my position from the beginning.

If you really believe this, then I would contend that you do not comprehend the concept of liberty.

You seem very confused about what I believe. I think you may not have read very closely.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />My point is that not every idea is equal.

Either you agree that people have the right to a viewpoint, or you don't.</font>[/QUOTE]And if you go back and read, you will find that the point was never about having the right to a viewpoint. It was about whether or not the viewpoint to which you have a right is a stupid viewpoint.

Are you essentially saying that stupidity is relative to your particular point of view? Are you offering these examples as some sort of justification for your own intolerance?

No, and no. I have demonstrated no intolerance in the least. That's ridiculous. Why do you think you can throw out a few emotionally charges terms and not have to answer the ideas? You apparently didn't even read closely enough since you think I am saying people don't have the right to do something.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The Democrats claim to be standing on principle while filibustering judges. IN reality, they are intolerant.

................which proves what? Were you so quick to judge the tolerance of the GOP when they used filibustering to stop legislation? </font>[/QUOTE]I am not judging filibustering. The reason for Democratic filibusters is that they are intolerant of the views that these judges hold (or supposedly hold, such as the case of Estrada). They won't let it come to a full Senate vote because they know they are in the minority and will lose. They are showing intolerance for those who disagree with them.

I said nothing about the separation of church and state.

I didn't say you did. I was using an example of intolerance.

As a matter of fact, I don't want the mention of God in school. I prefer to have that taught in the church. Similarly, I don't want Hinduism, Islam, Athiesm, Scientology, or even Mormonism taught in school. If we are going to teach about God in the schools, which "god" are we going to reference?

The only God that exists ... But I am not suggesting we teach God in public schools necessarily. That is not my point at all. My point is about the intolerance of those who will not allow him to be mentioned. They are not tolerating a view about God.

Yes, and now the pressure is on, isn't it? The President is supposedly against abortion. Let's see if he does anything to reward the people who elected him. He said that he supports tort reform. I wonder what he is going to do. Now that he has these "victories" in Congress, he has NO EXCUSE for failing to deliver.

The Senate still has enough to shut down votes. I agree that he should be doing some things about these things, and we will see what he does. I don't hold out great hope for things, but I think some things will get done.

Did you see that the dollar fell against the Euro again today? What is he going to do about that?

I don't think that in our system of government he can do much about that.

BIR, I hope you will go back and read what I actually said. You have accused me of some things I never said. I can't help but think you didn't do it intentinally ... you just misread. I never said that people don't have a right to hold stupid viewpoints. But their right to hold them does not make them less stupid. If I was unclear on that, then I apologize. But I think that was what I said from the beginning.

I have shown no intolerance in the least. I did point out a couple of instances of intolerance.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
You seem really confused. YOu seem to be thinking that I have said people don't have a right to be stupid. Go back and read. I have never said that. I have simply said taht people with the right to hold stupid ideas are still hold stupid ideas. I don't believe I referred to anybody as stupid. I think you made that up.

What? I made that up?
Okay, let’s take a look at your comment that started this exchange:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Do you think that there is no place for an opposing voice?

NOt when they are bad voices. This idea that every idea deserves to be heard is nonsense. Some ideas are just stupid. Dissent is not the problem. Stupidity is the problem.</font>[/QUOTE]These are your words. Perhaps you could expound upon the point that I am seemingly missing.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

[Continued]

And I have not been intolerant in the least. That is an attempt by you to prejudice an argument.

Okay, let’s look at that quote again:

NOt when they are bad voices. This idea that every idea deserves to be heard is nonsense. Some ideas are just stupid. Dissent is not the problem. Stupidity is the problem.

Again, these are your words. Perhaps you could demonstrate my attempt to "prejudice an argument."

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

[Continued]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I totally and completely "disagree with that." The people to whom you refer as "stupid" are entitled to have any point of view. It is disturbing that you would honestly offer this as a legitimate viewpoint. Nevertheless, you are entitled to your intolerance.

You obviously think my idea is stupid ... which shows the truth of my position from the beginning.</font>[/QUOTE]Please show us where I ever said that your idea was stupid. “Stupid” is a word that you interjected into this discussion back on November 4th @ 4:41 PM. The closest that I came to calling your idea "stupid" was my comment at the top of page 2, and that was not even directed at you. To borrow an idea from former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan: You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. In fact, I have maintained from the beginning that we are guaranteed the right to have any viewpoint, regardless of whether or not it is perceived as relevant.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

[Continued - Last one]

And if you go back and read, you will find that the point was never about having the right to a viewpoint. It was about whether or not the viewpoint to which you have a right is a stupid viewpoint.

These two sentences are contradictory. Either we are entitled to having a viewpoint, or we are only entitled to have a viewpoint, provided that it is not deemed to be stupid. Which one is it?

BIR, I hope you will go back and read what I actually said. You have accused me of some things I never said. I can't help but think you didn't do it intentinally ... you just misread. I never said that people don't have a right to hold stupid viewpoints. But their right to hold them does not make them less stupid. If I was unclear on that, then I apologize. But I think that was what I said from the beginning.

One more time:

NOt when they are bad voices. This idea that every idea deserves to be heard is nonsense. Some ideas are just stupid. Dissent is not the problem. Stupidity is the problem.

You made it very clear with this statement

 

[Pastor Larry]

BIR,

You are seriusly making me laugh this morning. Please listoen.

A person can have any viewpoint they want. (I have never disputed that.) However, the fact that they hold a viewpoint does not mean that the viewpoint is legitimate. It might be a stupid viewpoint. They can still hold it. You see, holding an opinion does not make it a valid opinion. It doesn't mean you don't have the right to hold it. Can you see the difference there?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Do you think that there is no place for an opposing voice?

NOt when they are bad voices. This idea that every idea deserves to be heard is nonsense. Some ideas are just stupid. Dissent is not the problem. Stupidity is the problem.</font>[/QUOTE]These are your words. Perhaps you could expound upon the point that I am seemingly missing.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes ... see above ... holding a view is entirely different than having a voice to express that view in every forum. There are some views that are held that do not deserve to be expressed. For instance, some deny the Holocaust took place. They are perfectly entitled to hold that view, but it is a stupid view. It does not deserve to be heard. There is no legitimate basis for that claim.

Again, these are your words. Perhaps you could demonstrate my attempt to "prejudice an argument."

Yes, you accused me of intolerance, which simply isn't true. Accuse me of common sense ... that would be truthful. But don't accuse me of intolerance. IT is not intolerant to point out the truth. I have shown no intolerance for anyone.

Please show us where I ever said that your idea was stupid.

Why? I never said you said that. I think you obviously think think that. THat seems clear from the vehemence with which you have responded. YOu think my view is ridiculous. YOu likened it to Orwellianism. Your response was unjustified since it is based on the premise that I said something I never said.

[]qb]To borrow an idea from former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan: You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

[/qb]Yes indeed. I would point that out to you. You can have your opinion about my opinion. But you cannot make up your own facts. The fact remains that I never said people were not entitled to hold a stupid opinion. THey certainly have that liberty. But that does not mean the opinion is not stupid.

In fact, I have maintained from the beginning that we are guaranteed the right to have any viewpoint, regardless of whether or not it is perceived as relevant.

I never disagreed with that. You think I have, which indicates that you are not reading what I said. Please show where I said someone didn't have the right to hold any opinion they want.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And if you go back and read, you will find that the point was never about having the right to a viewpoint. It was about whether or not the viewpoint to which you have a right is a stupid viewpoint.

These two sentences are contradictory. Either we are entitled to having a viewpoint, or we are only entitled to have a viewpoint, provided that it is not deemed to be stupid. Which one is it?</font>[/QUOTE]They are not contradictory in the least. Read it carefully and separate your view about it from the statement itself. The point I made was not about the right to hold a viewpoint. They can hold any viewpoint they want. However, the fact that someone holds a viewpoint does not mean that the viewpoint is not stupid. One can hold a stupid view. In fact, they quite often do (see above on Holocaust). They have the right; that doesn't legitimize the viewpoint. The fact that someone has the viewpoint that the Holocaust did not happen does not mean that that it a legitimate viewpoint.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />[qb]NOt when they are bad voices. This idea that every idea deserves to be heard is nonsense. Some ideas are just stupid. Dissent is not the problem. Stupidity is the problem.

You made it very clear with this statement</font>[/QUOTE]And which part of that indicates that someone doesn't have a right to hold a particular viewpoint?

You have built your whole argument on a false claim. I never said that they didn't have the right to hold view. I was specifically talking about voicing a view. Some things simply should not be said, even though they are believed.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

You are seriusly making me laugh this morning. Please listoen.
A person can have any viewpoint they want. (I have never disputed that.) However, the fact that they hold a viewpoint does not mean that the viewpoint is legitimate. It might be a stupid viewpoint. They can still hold it. You see, holding an opinion does not make it a valid opinion. It doesn't mean you don't have the right to hold it. Can you see the difference there?

You have amplified your position, and I will leave it at that.

Yes, you accused me of intolerance, which simply isn't true. Accuse me of common sense ... that would be truthful. But don't accuse me of intolerance. IT is not intolerant to point out the truth. I have shown no intolerance for anyone.

I disagree with your assertion here, and I have already addressed this.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

YOu think my view is ridiculous. YOu likened it to Orwellianism. Your response was unjustified since it is based on the premise that I said something I never said.

Wrong: perhaps you should read that post again. I said that Neil Boortz’s comments were Orwellian. You already established that you didn’t know who Neil Boortz is, so I opted not to discuss something with which you weren’t familiar.

You can have your opinion about my opinion. But you cannot make up your own facts. The fact remains that I never said people were not entitled to hold a stupid opinion. THey certainly have that liberty. But that does not mean the opinion is not stupid.

Here is your quote again:

This idea that every idea deserves to be heard is nonsense.

I have consistently maintained that it is NOT nonsense. Ideas deserve to be heard as a direct result of the liberty we have. The right to be heard does not imply validity. You have already given one example where an idea is completely wrong. That does not mean that the people do not have the right to possess this opinion. It also does not mean that they do not have the to voice it. Similarly, we have the right to dismiss this as nonsense.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

You have built your whole argument on a false claim. I never said that they didn't have the right to hold view. I was specifically talking about voicing a view. Some things simply should not be said, even though they are believed.

Again:

This idea that every idea deserves to be heard is nonsense.

The idea has the right to be heard. It does not have the right to be accepted.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

It does not have the right to be heard. That would mean that we are obligated to listen. We do have the right not to listen.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
It does not have the right to be heard. That would mean that we are obligated to listen. We do have the right not to listen.

That's right: we DON'T have the right to free speech. How silly of me.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Wrong: perhaps you should read that post again. I said that Neil Boortz’s comments were Orwellian. You already established that you didn’t know who Neil Boortz is, so I opted not to discuss something with which you weren’t familiar.

Perhaps you should read again. The comments about Boortz were in your fist post on this page. The comments about Orwell were in your second, in which the only mention of Boortz is your quote of me that I didn't know him. You acccused me of believing what Boortz allegedly does, and said it was orwellian. In reference to me supposed claim you said,

I absolutely contend that the whole idea that we don't have the right to a particular viewpoint is EGREGIOUS. This is tantamount to thoughtcrime in Orwell's novel 1984.

I have consistently maintained that it is NOT nonsense. Ideas deserve to be heard as a direct result of the liberty we have. The right to be heard does not imply validity. You have already given one example where an idea is completely wrong. That does not mean that the people do not have the right to possess this opinion. It also does not mean that they do not have the to voice it. Similarly, we have the right to dismiss this as nonsense.

Now you are changing the subject to the right to be heard, instead of the right to be held. The first in nonsense. There is no right to be heard. You can say what you want; no one has to listen. You are making a mountain out of molehill. There is not right to be heard.

Here's the point: Stupid ideas are stupid. They should not be taken seriously.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Perhaps you should read again. The comments about Boortz were in your fist post on this page. The comments about Orwell were in your second, in which the only mention of Boortz is your quote of me that I didn't know him. You acccused me of believing what Boortz allegedly does, and said it was orwellian.

You are mistaken, Pastor Larry. My Orwellian comment was a reinforcement of my belief that Neil Boortz's comments were egregious. That is why I made reference to his comments.

Here is what you said:

I have no idea who Neil Boortz is so I don't know if I agree or not. Calling them "egregious" doesn't help any though ...

to which I replied:

I absolutely contend that the whole idea that we don't have the right to a particular viewpoint is EGREGIOUS. This is tantamount to thoughtcrime in Orwell's novel 1984.

Go back and look at my response on Page 2. I posted it on November 5th @ 6:19PM. Notice that I went out of my way to separate what you said about Neil Boortz and what you offered as your opinion.

Now you are changing the subject to the right to be heard, instead of the right to be held. The first in nonsense. There is no right to be heard. You can say what you want; no one has to listen. You are making a mountain out of molehill. There is not right to be heard.

It does indeed have the right to be heard, as free speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Regardless of how "stupid" (YOUR word, not mine) you may find it to be, the person with the "stupid" (YOUR word, not mine) idea has the right to voice the idea they "hold." However, it does not have the right to be accepted.

Here's the point: Stupid ideas are stupid. They should not be taken seriously.

I never said anything to the contrary. I simply pointed out that even "stupid" (YOUR word, not mine) ideas have the right to be heard.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
It does not have the right to be heard. That would mean that we are obligated to listen. We do have the right not to listen.

That's right: we DON'T have the right to free speech. How silly of me. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, that is silly. Of course, you have the right to free speech. We also have the right to not listen to your free speech. You are implying that you have the right to be heard. You absolutely have the right to speak and say whatever you want. But, you have absolutely no right to be heard. For example, every now and then, the Klan will put on their little pajamas and make speeches on the capital steps. While they certainly have the right to gather and speak their hatred, they have absolutely no right to be heard.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Joseph Botwinick:
Of course, you have the right to free speech. We also have the right to not listen to your free speech. You are implying that you have the right to be heard. You absolutely have the right to speak and say whatever you want. But, you have absolutely no right to be heard.

Oh, okay. That certainly clears this up for me. We have the right to say it, we simply do not have the right to be heard.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Correct.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
My Orwellian comment was a reinforcement of my belief that Neil Boortz's comments were egregious. That is why I made reference to his comments.

And it seemed in both posts that you were saying that I said the same thing Boortz did. If you were saying that I said something different than Boortz, then fine. But it appeared that you were accusing me of saying the same thing Boortz did and then saying it was orwellian ... which isn't that big of a deal anyway, since what I said was different than all of that anyway.

It does indeed have the right to be heard, as free speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Regardless of how "stupid" (YOUR word, not mine) you may find it to be, the person with the "stupid" (YOUR word, not mine) idea has the right to voice the idea they "hold." However, it does not have the right to be accepted.

I use "heard" not in the sense of "speaking," but in the sense of "hearing." You can have free speech but that doesn't mean you have a right to be heard at the table of ideas. Every idea is not equal.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Here's the point: Stupid ideas are stupid. They should not be taken seriously.

I never said anything to the contrary. I simply pointed out that even "stupid" (YOUR word, not mine) ideas have the right to be heard. </font>[/QUOTE]And I was pointing out that stupid ideas do not have the right to be heard. They have a right to be held, not heard. The idea that the US should become a communist state should not be heard on the floor of Congress. It is a stupid idea. Someone may believe that. They do not have a right to be heard in Congress. It is not an "equal idea."

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
And it seemed in both posts that you were saying that I said the same thing Boortz did.

You are mistaken, Pastor Larry. Here is a direct question for you:
Did I or did I not separate your comments regarding your opinion from what you said about Neil Boortz? Yes or no.

If you were saying that I said something different than Boortz, then fine.

Did I or did I not separate your comments regarding your opinion from what you said about Neil Boortz? Yes or no.

But it appeared that you were accusing me of saying the same thing Boortz did and then saying it was orwellian ... which isn't that big of a deal anyway, since what I said was different than all of that anyway.

Did I or did I not separate your comments regarding your opinion from what you said about Neil Boortz? Yes or no.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It does indeed have the right to be heard, as free speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Regardless of how "stupid" (YOUR word, not mine) you may find it to be, the person with the "stupid" (YOUR word, not mine) idea has the right to voice the idea they "hold." However, it does not have the right to be accepted.

I use "heard" not in the sense of "speaking," but in the sense of "hearing." You can have free speech but that doesn't mean you have a right to be heard at the table of ideas. Every idea is not equal. </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, Now we are getting somewhere!!
I disagree with this on the simple basis that we have no way of knowing unless the other side is "heard." What benefit is free speech when the opposition cannot be heard, especially if it can be disregarded simply on the perception of whether or not it is a legitimate point.

And I was pointing out that stupid ideas do not have the right to be heard. They have a right to be held, not heard. The idea that the US should become a communist state should not be heard on the floor of Congress. It is a stupid idea. Someone may believe that. They do not have a right to be heard in Congress. It is not an "equal idea."

So, you would deny the freedom of speech to anyone who has an idea that you would deem as "stupid" (your word, not mine)? On what basis would the following be determined:
1. the validity of the argument
2. the appropriateness of the viewpoint

If someone believes that America should become a communist state, then they should by all means be heard. Let everyone else decide if it is a "stupid" (your word, not mine). Exactly what benefit is freedom of speech when it can be denied simply on the basis of what someone else deems as appropriate? Do you really want to live in a country where "stupid" (your word, not mine) ideas are silenced? Who decides what is "stupid" (your word, not mine)?

Joseph has even divorced the right to free speech from the right to be heard. In other words, "you have the right to free speech, just keep it to yourself." Do you not find that idea disturbing?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Correct.

What is the justification for this claim?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

The justification is that I have the right to not listen to you, therefore, you have no right to be heard.

Joseph Botwinick