The Paradox of Tolerance

If you assault somebody you risk getting shot.

This is just the kind of "violent speech" we are discussing- "stop being dickheads!", sounds very harmful. But it does not give me the right to push you in front of a subway train. If I ever try to do such a thing, shoot me.

 

When did I lose the right to be intolerant?

 

Like I said, its a lie spread by leftists.

If you wish to believe that perception, that is on you.

Rubbish. With such a hardline stance then ANY protest that had even the tiniest bit of anything that could even be perceived as "violence" would be considered a terroristic stance. That is NOT how America works.

 

So the OP basically just stated that there are no tolerant people, because if one is tolerant, it means all people.

But to try and paint things as 'hate speech' that annoys one person's ears, is intolerance.

 

You never lost the right to be intolerant, you're just getting called out on it.

 

Then stop being a dickhead, it's your own fault, hypothetically speaking if someone is telling you to stop being a dickhead and you get upset, then it's no one else's fault but yours.

 

In a simpler way, just because you can be an intolerant prick doesn't mean you need to be.

 

Oh good. And I call you out for being a virtue signaling woke scold.

Are we having fun yet?

 

Not if they are calling you a eickhead to bully you.

 

And that has been a problem for Progressives as does anything involving morality. So how do they overcome the problem? They redefine the word!

 

The link quotes the law directly.

I wouldn't expect anything constructive to come out of a debate with somebody who refuses to believe what they see with their own eyes. Not worth the time so... thanks for playing.

 

No it doesn't. Because the law does not say "Don't say gay" anywhere in it, AT ALL. All the link does is show your perception of it, or rather what you've been told on how to perceive what the law says. All you're doing is showing that you can be led around by the nose and parrot what leftists say.

 

"Intolerant prick", not exactly an objective term. What if I called you something, is that violence in your opinion? I say it is not.

We are at Liberty to be pricks, so long as we do not violate anyone's natural rights .

 

@Golem

kal seems correct that in the list of things teachers are not allowed to say the word "gay" does not appear.

kal, if a teacher in florida does mention the word, maybe answering a question or comforting a bullied student what would be the result?

 

Depends on what you called me, first, but understand that not everyone will just walk off an insult, some people throw punches and honestly you'd deserve it.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences.

 

I deserve to be punched because you chose to take offense at my words. - something is not adding up here.

 

Big difference between calling people names just to do it vs. calling people names in response to them doing or saying something to you or someone else.

 

Don't bother. I know the excuse. Because it says "sexual orientation" instead of "gay" you believe that leaves a backdoor open for you to avoid the whole thing. It doesn't. Maybe if you're Fox trying to justify a law that is clearly homophobic your viewers might be content. But it doesn't work with people who prefer serious debates based on reality and facts.

However, absurd talking points like that one do help us discern between serious posters and those we shouldn't waste much time on.

 

You could try learning some self-awareness and just not call people names for no reason. It's your fault you got socked.

 

Most likely a lawsuit, at a minimum if any parents wished to pursue it. They would be disciplined and probably fired. But the worst is they'd probably tag them as a "pedophile". Like most MAGAs have done in this forum, even to teachers who HAVEN'T said any of the "forbidden words"

They use that excuse because the law says "sexual orientation" instead of "gay". Which is beyond ridiculous. The tag "Don't Say Gay" is 100% appropriate.

 

The law is about teaching. IF a K-3rd grade teachers comes across the issue they can refer the child to the parents to learn about it. There were plenty of times in elementary school that I was told "ask your mom/dad". Comforting a bullied child can be done without talking about such subjects. In fact often a bullied child that young just wants listened to and held more than have anything explained, if absolutely needed, again, refer to parents. Best option would be for the teacher to engage with the parents and explain the situation as they see it to the parents, and then let the parents decide on how to proceed with their child.

 

And your sky daddy tells you this is ok?

 

that seems to be my understanding of the new law.

 

To whose parents? You mean the parents who taught this boy-creep that being "gay" is like a "disease"... or something like that? Such intolerant parents would most likely congratulate the bully. Or you mean to the parents of the kids who were standing around and now believe that they should also shun their classmate because he/she has some sickness they know nothing about, and their teacher is not even allowed to mention, called "The Gay"?

Educators are trained to EDUCATE. To educate ALL the children. And teaching them tolerance is a huge part of education. And one that, as is evident in this forum, is sorely lacking

 

Last I knew, sexual orientation referred to ALL types of sexual orientation. Including heterosexual. And the law is about age appropriate material. There is no valid reasons to discuss any sort of sexual orientation in K-3 classes. NONE. Notta. Zip. Zilch. ZERO.