The Unfan

Why does it matter if somebody acts like an *******? If that is what they really are than shouldn't they be able to openly embrace that? What is so bad about someone openly stating his controversial opinion in a public way? Is it because it challenges your subjective morality and offends you? Have you ever stopped to consider that we might be offended by the way you treat your subjective morality as if it is some kind of truth that defines the way all of us should live?

For the record, just to prevent the civil rights act as being used as ammo against my point, I consider myself a liberal and not a democrat. If people want to be bigotted jerks they should have that right, and people should openly discriminate against people. I don't think that kind of honesty would be a bad thing. If someone believes I am unfit for a job because I am white than I don't see why he shouldn't not hire me. If he finds I am unworthy or eating his chicken because I have a beard than I don't see why he should have to sell me his chicken. As long as nobody is harmed in the process than I can't see how you can justify it as being bad since morality is subjective.

Edit: For clarification, in that last sentence "nobody" should read "No non-consenting parties." If someone wants harm done to himself it should be his right to have harm done to him. If somebody wants to have his or her own flesh mutilated I don't think the government should be able to say they can't have it done. We currently call it piercings.

oojay

What's the word that is censored in the opening sentence of your tirade? The rest of your post kind of hinges on that, so we really have no idea what you're talking about.

__________________

Wayfarer

I don't see how that only applies to conservatives. M'pretty sure just about anyone would find a person who openly embraces the fact that he/she's an asshole at least a little bit grating, regardless of their political stance.

__________________
Nothing can save imperialism, capitalism and revisionism from
the remorseless vengeance of the proletariat and the peoples.
Nothing can rescue them from deep antagonistic contradictions
and never-ending crises, revolutions, their inevitable demise.

tkpb938

Your basing this on some kind of idea that conservatives embrace a$$holes and liberals don't. What up with that?

The Unfan

You read that completely wrong. I'm stating that conservatives are trying to prevent the embrace there of. If somebody is really an a$$hole than why should it bother anyone when said person acts like one? As long as they're not causing harm to a non-consenting party than why should anyone care what that person is doing?

oojay

What are you even talking about? Conservatives don't want people to admit to being an a$$hole? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. What does a person's political ideology have to do with them embracing an a$$hole?

__________________

cardboard adolescent

but how is not hiring someone based on their race not harming them?

__________________

Miltamec Soundsquinaez

I think what The Unfan is saying is that conservatives don't want other people to embrace you, if you're an a.sshole. Right?
Anyway, my thought on this is that most conservatives like to see themselves as authoritarian, or in a powerful role in somehow, and generally I don't think they like people to think outside of their little close-minded box. Just my thoughts.

The Unfan

I'm saying that if I'm an a.sshole why shouldn't I act like one? Why do conservatives typically feel it is their role to govern human thought and emotion? If I honestly feel that [insert something here] is [insert something else here] why shouldn't I be able to express it in public without having a horde of closed minded morality pushers trying to legislate it away? If someone wants to say something on the radio, why should they have to censor it? If you're offended walk away or turn the channel and let the people who have something to say say it. If you then feel you have something to say back than say it, but for Nonexistent Deity's sake don't take away their freedom to do so. After all, a freedom I don't have is a freedom you don't have.

It doesn't create a condition in which they are fiscally or physically worse off than they were before applying therefore you didn't cause any harm. You just chose not to help, which should be your right. We shouldn't be obligated to nanny everyone.

cardboard adolescent

While in the short term this might be true, if you have
widespread prejudice (like we still do) on the large scale
whatever minorities are being discriminated against are
suffering greatly fiscally and physically because they
have a harder time finding work and stay poor...
Basically, I, and many other reasonable folks,
believe that the right to be hired based on skill and
experience rather than other arbitrary traits is
more important than the right to hire people based
on whatever quality you feel like.

__________________