Brian63
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2001
- Messages
- 1,639
- Location
- Michigan
- Gender
- Male
- Basic Beliefs
- Freethinker/atheist/humanist
The difference is that you want to ban expressing a normal belief from eligibility into polite society.
You and skepticalbip seem to have the same affinity for strawmen. No, I do not want to “ban” a normal belief as you say. I just do not want to force people into ignoring abnormal beliefs or behaviors.
It's normal to be a racist. It's normal to want to limit immigration. These people are often well adjusted and function well in society. There are statistical differences that map race or ethnicity with violent or otherwise anti-social behaviour. These statistics don't impress you or me. But they exist and need to be explained. You and I have a different explanation to these than that certain ethnic groups are inherently aggressive. But it's got to be allowed to hold another opinion than ours, if they want them to be taken into consideration.
Who the hell is arguing that we should not be “allowed” to have other opinions? That was never, ever in contention here. Our legal rights to have different and also unpopular opinions, and also to express them, is not what is being disputed here. I have plenty of unpopular opinions, and sometimes receive blowback from them when expressed publicly. Nobody is saying I should not have the “right” to express them. Whenever someone argues for a position that I find morally revolting, I make the case why I find it morally revolting. I do not argue that they do not have a “right” to have their opinion though. Let’s leave that term “right” off the table here because that is distorting what is really under dispute. Nobody has been saying that those opinions should be banned from expression in public. What is being argued is that others can disassociate, if they desire, from people who express those views.