[flames1971]

^^ In case you didn't catch my sarcasm.

We caught it

[matshark]

Please do 1/100th of the things Rick Warren has done before criticizing him. Please raise 1/100th of the money that he has raised and donate it to fighting AIDS in Africa before calling him a hypocrite.

actually, the second part of that wasn't about rick warren. however, i don't think its too much to ask for consistency between the things people claim to believe and their actions. consistency ladies and gentlemen... it gains respect from even those who disagree with you the most.

[Ed Dantes]

^^ In case you didn't catch my sarcasm.

I didn't catch the sarcasm, actually -- thanks for the addendum.

(is there a 'sorry for the infighting the last week buddy, can we bury the hatchet' emoticon?)

[ToTheLeft]

^^ In case you didn't catch my sarcasm.

I didn't catch the sarcasm, actually -- thanks for the addendum.

(is there a 'sorry for the infighting the last week buddy, can we bury the hatchet' emoticon?)

I usually go with <3.

That's probably why no one likes me.

Regardless, it's all good, and I am sorry as well.

[matshark]

^^ In case you didn't catch my sarcasm.

I didn't catch the sarcasm, actually -- thanks for the addendum.

(is there a 'sorry for the infighting the last week buddy, can we bury the hatchet' emoticon?)

I usually go with <3.

That's probably why no one likes me.

Regardless, it's all good, and I am sorry as well.

[GoUNCA]

Two Problems:

Please do 1/100th of the things Rick Warren has done before criticizing him. Please raise 1/100th of the money that he has raised and donate it to fighting AIDS in Africa before calling him a hypocrite.

That isn't sound reasoning. You do something wrong, you can get criticized for it no matter what you have done in the past. I would list examples, but they are inexhaustible (Ted Haggard, . It isn't an equilibrium between good and bad. I know your frustration and understand your position, but you can't make that argument. It sucks, sorry.

no, he's saying that they say they want to be treated equally but then hold politically agitating events for themselves and then would pitch a fit if the 'other side' did the exact same thing. he's merely pointing out the cognitive dissonance between what they say and what they do. (i.e. you can't have your c...uh, cake, and eat it too)

That isn't really fair. I've been told by many an evangelist in agitating demonstrations that gays are evil. Both sides exhibit "cognitive dissonance." Blacks used to not like it when the KKK had rallies and then the KKK used to hate the sit-ins and boycotts...British didn't like Indians demonstrating and vice versa....this has happened before. So let's all acknowledge both sides shows do this stupid argument.

[matshark]

my point is the inherent irony in one side claiming to be 'tolerant' of others, and using that as a basis for their actions (their 'moral high ground' if you will) while simultaneously blasting the other side for voicing their opinions. the end result being that they are tolerant merely of their own views, but not those of others (even though they disagree with them) after they have claimed tolerance as their moral high ground.

the end result being that their actual actions don't match with their quoted views.

(i.e. free speech entails respecting the ability of the other person to say what they want, regardless of how much you disagree with it) To compare, that would be the equivalent of a free speech advocate silencing the opposition. things that make you go...

the opposing side doesn't have an issue with this because they haven't used 'tolerance' as their moral high ground, where as the side that claims 'tolerance' certainly isn't being tolerant. therein lies the cognitive dissonance and irony.

[libertyFANatic123]

Im really dissapointed with this

[flames1971]

Im really dissapointed with this

I really am too. It is so sad. This world is really mixed up!!!!

[ATrain]

my point is the inherent irony in one side claiming to be 'tolerant' of others, and using that as a basis for their actions (their 'moral high ground' if you will) while simultaneously blasting the other side for voicing their opinions. the end result being that they are tolerant merely of their own views, but not those of others (even though they disagree with them) after they have claimed tolerance as their moral high ground.

the end result being that their actual actions don't match with their quoted views.

(i.e. free speech entails respecting the ability of the other person to say what they want, regardless of how much you disagree with it) To compare, that would be the equivalent of a free speech advocate silencing the opposition. things that make you go...

the opposing side doesn't have an issue with this because they haven't used 'tolerance' as their moral high ground, where as the side that claims 'tolerance' certainly isn't being tolerant. therein lies the cognitive dissonance and irony.

Bro, its a lot more complex than that.

[GoUNCA]

my point is the inherent irony in one side claiming to be 'tolerant' of others, and using that as a basis for their actions (their 'moral high ground' if you will) while simultaneously blasting the other side for voicing their opinions. the end result being that they are tolerant merely of their own views, but not those of others (even though they disagree with them) after they have claimed tolerance as their moral high ground.

the end result being that their actual actions don't match with their quoted views.

(i.e. free speech entails respecting the ability of the other person to say what they want, regardless of how much you disagree with it) To compare, that would be the equivalent of a free speech advocate silencing the opposition. things that make you go...

the opposing side doesn't have an issue with this because they haven't used 'tolerance' as their moral high ground, where as the side that claims 'tolerance' certainly isn't being tolerant. therein lies the cognitive dissonance and irony.

Exactly. Much better put. As long as we recognize both sides do it on nearly every argument these days, it always turns into pointing fingers was my point. I just wanted to point out it shouldn't be used as an argument against the other group, regardless of said group's opinion.

I really didn't mean to list Ted Haggard in my other post. I had it with others (Clinton, Reagan, and Andrew Carnegie were also on the list) and then thought I deleted it. There are many other examples and that kind of singles out a group. I didn't mean to do that. Apologies.

[Rockthejungle]

TCU maybe backing down.

http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1314183.html

[ATrain]

Personally I would applaud TCU if they back down from it.

Though the part that seemed to be ignored is that they were planning on starting "living-learning communities," for people who are like-minded, including Christians, gays, and others. Truthfully I think it'd be an interesting experiment.

If I went there, I'd pick the Health and Wellness Community (its already been started).

Now the big question...what if LU started something like this, having one dorm (or two since the dorms are single-sex) for people who are majoring in Communications, Religion, Business, or those with similar concerns like Health and Wellness or "Green Living"?

[Maximus]

Personally I would applaud TCU if they back down from it.

Though the part that seemed to be ignored is that they were planning on starting "living-learning communities," for people who are like-minded, including Christians, gays, and others. Truthfully I think it'd be an interesting experiment.

If I went there, I'd pick the Health and Wellness Community (its already been started).

Now the big question...what if LU started something like this, having one dorm (or two since the dorms are single-sex) for people who are majoring in Communications, Religion, Business, or those with similar concerns like Health and Wellness or "Green Living"?

But what happens to diversity?

[Hold My Own]

I hear they are trying to get the C removed from the TCU

[pbow]

Now the big question...what if LU started something like this, having one dorm (or two since the dorms are single-sex) for people who are majoring in Communications, Religion, Business, or those with similar concerns like Health and Wellness or "Green Living"?

I think the whole idea of it is very stupid. Part of the whole college experience is living with and getting to know people who are not exactly like you. I think it would ostracize pretty much the whole campus from each other.

[PAmedic]

I remember a big group of people had a legitimate problem w/ "Separate But Equal" back in the day, and rightly so.

history judged that concept a mistake.

College = Melting Pot, IMHO

[flames1971]

I hear they are trying to get the C removed from the TCU

The "C" part doesn't seem to fit their philosophies anyways.

[GoUNCA]

I remember a big group of people had a legitimate problem w/ "Separate But Equal" back in the day, and rightly so.

history judged that concept a mistake.

Yeah! Just like marriage and civil unions.

[ALUmnus]

I remember a big group of people had a legitimate problem w/ "Separate But Equal" back in the day, and rightly so.

history judged that concept a mistake.

Yeah! Just like marriage and civil unions.

I don't think you were even trying with that one, because, really, it didn't go anywhere. If you were trying, I'm sorry if I offended you in any way.

[El Scorcho]

College = Melting Pot, IMHO

Yep. Let's just be mindful of who's melting what into which pot.