Should the owner put the Superman comic on the shelf?
Yes, he should.
36.3% (33)
36.3% (33)
No, he shouldn't.
63.7% (58)
63.7% (58)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Comic Shop Pulls Anti-LGBT Writer's Work

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Dijkstra:

NameIsRobertPaulson:
As someone who has championed LGBT rights for many years (my parents are lesbians), I say put the comic on the shelf. As long as the comic itself is not homophobic, attacking someone for their personal beliefs away from business comes dangerously close to fine line. While I don't think its cool to be racist, sexist, or homophobic, you should have the right to think that way, as long as those actions do not affect the rights of others. Now if there was a conclusive link that sales of the comic go towards banning gay marriage, that would be different.

What line? I see no reason that someone should not personally take issue with someone else's bigoted beliefs. As Boots pointed out, there would be no issue if he were a KKK member who wanted to reinstate slavery, people would just accept that decent people generally would want nothing to do with him. He has his right to be a douche, that doesn't mean he's entitled to have all stores ignore that he is a douche.

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

Attacking him for his views away from the comic comes close to thought policing. If the product itself it not indicative of a sexist, racist, or homophobic belief, then it should be given equal standing.

Believing God wants to kill all gays, believing blacks are genetically inferior, believing the Earth is flat. While these are scientifically wrong and politically incorrect, no one should be persecuted for believing them, as long as they do not affect the rights of others.

I have to ask you, are you for real? I mean, do you really believe what you've just written here?

If someone has the right to call some races inferior then he also has the right to get the shit kicked out of him by myself and people like me who will not tolerate this idiocy. Free speech is not ultimate. You have the freedom to say incredibly dumb things, but you also have the right to suffer the consequences.

Images:

Revnak:

Images:
Plenty of great pieces of pop culture were produced by bigots and assholes. Hell, we all know Walt Disney's bad rep when it comes to that but I'm pretty sure plenty of people still watch his films.

Okay, seriously? You see a joke on Family Guy and assume it's based in fact? Or are you talking about the poor representation of women and to a certain extent blacks in his works (which is relatively undeniable)? As the Wikipedia page shows, Disney was in no way the outspoken Racist or anti-Semite people assume he is.

Never mentioned anti-Semitism. I was talking about his support for rabid anti-Communist groups during the era of HUAC.

But yeah, if you doubt there's anti-Semitism or racism in Disney's work puh-lease. Go check out 3 little pigs for me.

Thanks for jumping the gun though and assuming a Media & Communication grad gets his opinions from a cartoon.

You're ignoring the part where I admitted that those things did appear in his work to a certain extent, but not to the degree people like to joke about. And honestly, what would you expect when somebody says Disney had unacceptable views? So many people just keep parroting that same dumb joke. It gets annoying honestly. How was I supposed to know you had that degree?

Even if you won't go so far as to say that you have the right to kick the shit out of somebody you disagree with, you at least do have the right to not buy his comics and give them a podium on which to sell their hate from.

Orson Scott Card has the right to free speech to make his comic or do whatever, but he doesn't have the right to expect somebody to offer him a soapbox to spout his words from. I mean if I made some risque hardcore porn comic or something, should Wal-Mart be obligated to give me all of a whole isle to promote it?

While he does have every right to do that, I still think its foolish and wrong. Card is not putting his views in the comics to my knowledge (he didn't in his Ender series anyway) and he not putting huge money into hate groups so this is really just a "I don't like your beliefs so screw you".

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Dijkstra:

NameIsRobertPaulson:
As someone who has championed LGBT rights for many years (my parents are lesbians), I say put the comic on the shelf. As long as the comic itself is not homophobic, attacking someone for their personal beliefs away from business comes dangerously close to fine line. While I don't think its cool to be racist, sexist, or homophobic, you should have the right to think that way, as long as those actions do not affect the rights of others. Now if there was a conclusive link that sales of the comic go towards banning gay marriage, that would be different.

What line? I see no reason that someone should not personally take issue with someone else's bigoted beliefs. As Boots pointed out, there would be no issue if he were a KKK member who wanted to reinstate slavery, people would just accept that decent people generally would want nothing to do with him. He has his right to be a douche, that doesn't mean he's entitled to have all stores ignore that he is a douche.

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

Attacking him for his views away from the comic comes close to thought policing. If the product itself it not indicative of a sexist, racist, or homophobic belief, then it should be given equal standing.

Believing God wants to kill all gays, believing blacks are genetically inferior, believing the Earth is flat. While these are scientifically wrong and politically incorrect, no one should be persecuted for believing them, as long as they do not affect the rights of others.

Card is on the Board of Directors for the National Organization for Marriage. It is a fairly safe bet that whatever income he collects, a significant amount will be given over to homophobic causes.

Refusing to financially support a man who is actively working to oppress homosexuals is not persecution.

Shock and Awe:
While he does have every right to do that, I still think its foolish and wrong. Card is not putting his views in the comics to my knowledge (he didn't in his Ender series anyway) and he not putting huge money into hate groups so this is really just a "I don't like your beliefs so screw you".

Again, Card sits on the board of directors for a hate group. who knows how much money he's given them?

Shock and Awe:
While he does have every right to do that, I still think its foolish and wrong. Card is not putting his views in the comics to my knowledge (he didn't in his Ender series anyway) and he not putting huge money into hate groups so this is really just a "I don't like your beliefs so screw you".

And what's wrong with saying screw you to someone who explicitly wanted homosexuals to not feel like equal citizens? Who says revolution is a good idea if gay marriage becomes legal? He's a living piece of shit.

I'm going to propose the apparently revolutionary idea that a person's beliefs actually say something about their character and thus can affect how you may want to treat them.

Glasgow:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Dijkstra:

What line? I see no reason that someone should not personally take issue with someone else's bigoted beliefs. As Boots pointed out, there would be no issue if he were a KKK member who wanted to reinstate slavery, people would just accept that decent people generally would want nothing to do with him. He has his right to be a douche, that doesn't mean he's entitled to have all stores ignore that he is a douche.

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

Attacking him for his views away from the comic comes close to thought policing. If the product itself it not indicative of a sexist, racist, or homophobic belief, then it should be given equal standing.

Believing God wants to kill all gays, believing blacks are genetically inferior, believing the Earth is flat. While these are scientifically wrong and politically incorrect, no one should be persecuted for believing them, as long as they do not affect the rights of others.

I have to ask you, are you for real? I mean, do you really believe what you've just written here?

If someone has the right to call some races inferior then he also has the right to get the shit kicked out of him by myself and people like me who will not tolerate this idiocy. Free speech is not ultimate. You have the freedom to say incredibly dumb things, but you also have the right to suffer the consequences.

The problem is that what is morally right entirely depends on who makes the laws, and what the time period is. Saying that gays should have equal rights carries the death penalty in at least 18 countries. Believing something, even if it is wrong, is also an intrinsic human right.

Advocating violence against people with politically incorrect beliefs makes you no better than the opponents you argue against, and undermines your entire argument.

In my mind, the ultimate human right above marriage, above voting, above driving, above not being a slave, is the right to your own thoughts. The day we make it a crime to simply believe something without ever acting on it is the day freedom in the world truly dies.

cobra_ky:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Dijkstra:

What line? I see no reason that someone should not personally take issue with someone else's bigoted beliefs. As Boots pointed out, there would be no issue if he were a KKK member who wanted to reinstate slavery, people would just accept that decent people generally would want nothing to do with him. He has his right to be a douche, that doesn't mean he's entitled to have all stores ignore that he is a douche.

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

Attacking him for his views away from the comic comes close to thought policing. If the product itself it not indicative of a sexist, racist, or homophobic belief, then it should be given equal standing.

Believing God wants to kill all gays, believing blacks are genetically inferior, believing the Earth is flat. While these are scientifically wrong and politically incorrect, no one should be persecuted for believing them, as long as they do not affect the rights of others.

Card is on the Board of Directors for the National Organization for Marriage. It is a fairly safe bet that whatever income he collects, a significant amount will be given over to homophobic causes.

Refusing to financially support a man who is actively working to oppress homosexuals is not persecution.

Shock and Awe:
While he does have every right to do that, I still think its foolish and wrong. Card is not putting his views in the comics to my knowledge (he didn't in his Ender series anyway) and he not putting huge money into hate groups so this is really just a "I don't like your beliefs so screw you".

Again, Card sits on the board of directors for a hate group. who knows how much money he's given them?

Unless there is a conclusive link (like the one during the Chick-Fil-A incident), then nothing should be done. We cannot do something based on presumption of guilt. Show me proof that even $100 of his sales go to the NOM, and then I say remove it, because it has moved beyond thought and into action infringing upon the rights of others.

Dijkstra:

Shock and Awe:
While he does have every right to do that, I still think its foolish and wrong. Card is not putting his views in the comics to my knowledge (he didn't in his Ender series anyway) and he not putting huge money into hate groups so this is really just a "I don't like your beliefs so screw you".

And what's wrong with saying screw you to someone who explicitly wanted homosexuals to not feel like equal citizens? Who says revolution is a good idea if gay marriage becomes legal? He's a living piece of shit.

I'm going to propose the apparently revolutionary idea that a person's beliefs actually say something about their character and thus can affect how you may want to treat them.

Demonizing someone on the opposite side? Nice. He believes different from you(and me for that matter) we get it. His views have not been expressed in his work(that I've read) so I am not that concerned. If I boycotted artists, actors, and authors who believed things I opposed I would be missing....well lets just say a lot. If the book isn't anti-gay in and of itself I really don't care, I just want a quality product.

Dijkstra:

Shock and Awe:
While he does have every right to do that, I still think its foolish and wrong. Card is not putting his views in the comics to my knowledge (he didn't in his Ender series anyway) and he not putting huge money into hate groups so this is really just a "I don't like your beliefs so screw you".

And what's wrong with saying screw you to someone who explicitly wanted homosexuals to not feel like equal citizens? Who says revolution is a good idea if gay marriage becomes legal? He's a living piece of shit.

I'm going to propose the apparently revolutionary idea that a person's beliefs actually say something about their character and thus can affect how you may want to treat them.

I've fought tooth and nail for homosexual rights for the last 14 years of my life (since I was 12). It's arguments like this that help me understand why progress is slow. Angrily striking out, insulting them, attacking them DOES NOT HELP THE CAUSE OF HOMOSEXUALS AT ALL. What is needed is compromise, and a willingness to meet halfway to show that there is nothing to fear by allowing gays to marry. When you attack someone like that, you shut off any degree of discussion with them, and harden their beliefs against you because they now have the image that you aren't willing to be civil in the matter.

This is also why that even though I believe gays should be married, and there will never be any reason for them not to, I advocate civil unions with all the rights of marriage because it meets the opposition halfway, and creates a compromise that everyone can live with. Not perfect, but change is slow, and lashing out in anger does not help.

Shock and Awe:

Dijkstra:

Shock and Awe:
While he does have every right to do that, I still think its foolish and wrong. Card is not putting his views in the comics to my knowledge (he didn't in his Ender series anyway) and he not putting huge money into hate groups so this is really just a "I don't like your beliefs so screw you".

And what's wrong with saying screw you to someone who explicitly wanted homosexuals to not feel like equal citizens? Who says revolution is a good idea if gay marriage becomes legal? He's a living piece of shit.

I'm going to propose the apparently revolutionary idea that a person's beliefs actually say something about their character and thus can affect how you may want to treat them.

Demonizing someone on the opposite side? Nice.

Calling someone a piece of shit isn't demonizing and the other bits are quoted facts. But go on, have your bland world where all ideas are equal and people need to treat all ideas equally. Hitler was a fine dude, right?

He believes different from you(and me for that matter) we get it.

He is an unrepentant bigot. The KKK believes differently. Hitler believed differently. People who held slaves believed differently. Please stop with that absolutely asinine bullshit about 'believes differently' as if we're all thoughtless drones who can't evaluate if a difference is good or bad.

His views have not been expressed in his work(that I've read) so I am not that concerned.

More like you're not the one told they should be a second class citizen so you don't give a fuck and think people should apparently like him.

If I boycotted artists, actors, and authors who believed things I opposed I would be missing....well lets just say a lot.

Will you quit this crap of 'all beliefs are perfectly equal'? Because I doubt that's how you actually act except when it's convenient for you given that it's nigh impossible. Not all differences in opinion are equal. Shocking, isn't it? He's boycotting someone who is blatantly quite bigoted and active about his bigotry. Sorry, but that's not the same as someone who wants cocaine when I don't think people should take it.

If the book isn't anti-gay in and of itself I really don't care, I just want a quality product.

Yes, it's all about you isn't it? It's foolish and wrong to not do what you want.

Something about shelving the comic book really pisses me off. Of course he has the right to do so. I just don't think he should shelve it anymore than a a devout Christian owner of a non-denominational comic book store shelve golden age Green Lantern comic. I should write, if Superman starts gay bashing, I guess that would be different, advocating violence. But this just seems facistic.

Column on the matter: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/02/19/liberals-superman-comics-writer

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Dijkstra:

Shock and Awe:
While he does have every right to do that, I still think its foolish and wrong. Card is not putting his views in the comics to my knowledge (he didn't in his Ender series anyway) and he not putting huge money into hate groups so this is really just a "I don't like your beliefs so screw you".

And what's wrong with saying screw you to someone who explicitly wanted homosexuals to not feel like equal citizens? Who says revolution is a good idea if gay marriage becomes legal? He's a living piece of shit.

I'm going to propose the apparently revolutionary idea that a person's beliefs actually say something about their character and thus can affect how you may want to treat them.

I've fought tooth and nail for homosexual rights for the last 14 years of my life (since I was 12).

And that doesn't make your crap any more legitimate, nor less hypocritical, Mr. 'Free Speech except when you criticize someone else's'

It's arguments like this that help me understand why progress is slow. Angrily striking out, insulting them, attacking them DOES NOT HELP THE CAUSE OF HOMOSEXUALS AT ALL.

Yeah, bowing down and making hypocritical 'free speech' arguments does though! Let's tell people who don't like bigots to shut up because that will totally help make the bigots stop! And make erroneous accusations of 'thought policing' while complaining that someone is voicing their thoughts, that'll show 'em!

What is needed is compromise, and a willingness to meet halfway to show that there is nothing to fear by allowing gays to marry.

Sorry God, how did you get my number? Oh wait, you're just some guy who thinks too highly of himself, trying to make declarations he has no authority to make. No, compromise with bigots like Orson Scott Card is not what is needed. Get a grip on reality and realize that however much you want a nice fluffy world that can be created with being pleasant, this isn't a kid's cartoon where the villain is going to necessarily ever change his thoughts.

When you attack someone like that, you shut off any degree of discussion with them, and harden their beliefs against you because they now have the image that you aren't willing to be civil in the matter.

You mean like making idiotic accusations of thought policing and spouting self-righteous crap about free speech when nothing is violating it?

This is also why that even though I believe gays should be married, and there will never be any reason for them not to, I advocate civil unions with all the rights of marriage because it meets the opposition halfway, and creates a compromise that everyone can live with. Not perfect, but change is slow, and lashing out in anger does not help.

You have little grasp of reality. You advocate a bigoted compromise. Separate but equal is not equal, and it is disgusting how you want to trample on the First Amendment by letting religious bigots act like THEIR religion owns marriage. Besides, you have some idealistic idea that this will be all that the bigots want. It's not as if people have said things about sodomy laws like that they should "remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society." Oh wait, Orson Scott Card said that! I'm sure he'll be happy with civil unions, aren't you?

Dijkstra:

Shock and Awe:

Dijkstra:

And what's wrong with saying screw you to someone who explicitly wanted homosexuals to not feel like equal citizens? Who says revolution is a good idea if gay marriage becomes legal? He's a living piece of shit.

I'm going to propose the apparently revolutionary idea that a person's beliefs actually say something about their character and thus can affect how you may want to treat them.

Demonizing someone on the opposite side? Nice.

Calling someone a piece of shit isn't demonizing and the other bits are quoted facts. But go on, have your bland world where all ideas are equal and people need to treat all ideas equally. Hitler was a fine dude, right?

He believes different from you(and me for that matter) we get it.

He is an unrepentant bigot. The KKK believes differently. Hitler believed differently. People who held slaves believed differently. Please stop with that absolutely asinine bullshit about 'believes differently' as if we're all thoughtless drones who can't evaluate if a difference is good or bad.

His views have not been expressed in his work(that I've read) so I am not that concerned.

More like you're not the one told they should be a second class citizen so you don't give a fuck and think people should apparently like him.

If I boycotted artists, actors, and authors who believed things I opposed I would be missing....well lets just say a lot.

Will you quit this crap of 'all beliefs are perfectly equal'? Because I doubt that's how you actually act except when it's convenient for you given that it's nigh impossible. Not all differences in opinion are equal. Shocking, isn't it? He's boycotting someone who is blatantly quite bigoted and active about his bigotry. Sorry, but that's not the same as someone who wants cocaine when I don't think people should take it.

If the book isn't anti-gay in and of itself I really don't care, I just want a quality product.

Yes, it's all about you isn't it? It's foolish and wrong to not do what you want.

As per my usual style let's do the post breakdown.
"Calling someone a piece of shit isn't demonizing and the other bits are quoted facts. But go on, have your bland world where all ideas are equal and people need to treat all ideas equally. Hitler was a fine dude, right?"
It's about being civil, being mean to the opposite side is a great way to stop them from every agreeing with you. I would think it's better to have a disagreeable belief than to have an agreeable one and insult everyone who believes differently. As for Hitler, godwin much?

"He is an unrepentant bigot. The KKK believes differently. Hitler believed differently. People who held slaves believed differently. Please stop with that absolutely asinine bullshit about 'believes differently' as if we're all thoughtless drones who can't evaluate if a difference is good or bad."
It should be noted that those people have done horrible things, this guy just has a belief. Better to negotiate with people than act like he murders gay people or something like that.

"More like you're not the one told they should be a second class citizen so you don't give a fuck and think people should apparently like him."
He does care, it's a subject me and Paulson used to fight over. We're not saying people should like him, we're saying better to be civil about it and discuss things instead of just slamming him.

"Will you quit this crap of 'all beliefs are perfectly equal'? Because I doubt that's how you actually act except when it's convenient for you given that it's nigh impossible. Not all differences in opinion are equal. Shocking, isn't it? He's boycotting someone who is blatantly quite bigoted and active about his bigotry. Sorry, but that's not the same as someone who wants cocaine when I don't think people should take it."
And you're bigoted against his beliefs to the point I doubt you'd sit at a table and discuss it. People change not by insulting them, that strengthens their belief that you're the bad guy, but rather through civil discussion.

Dijkstra:

Shock and Awe:

Dijkstra:

And what's wrong with saying screw you to someone who explicitly wanted homosexuals to not feel like equal citizens? Who says revolution is a good idea if gay marriage becomes legal? He's a living piece of shit.

I'm going to propose the apparently revolutionary idea that a person's beliefs actually say something about their character and thus can affect how you may want to treat them.

Demonizing someone on the opposite side? Nice.

Calling someone a piece of shit isn't demonizing and the other bits are quoted facts. But go on, have your bland world where all ideas are equal and people need to treat all ideas equally. Hitler was a fine dude, right?

He believes different from you(and me for that matter) we get it.

He is an unrepentant bigot. The KKK believes differently. Hitler believed differently. People who held slaves believed differently. Please stop with that absolutely asinine bullshit about 'believes differently' as if we're all thoughtless drones who can't evaluate if a difference is good or bad.

His views have not been expressed in his work(that I've read) so I am not that concerned.

More like you're not the one told they should be a second class citizen so you don't give a fuck and think people should apparently like him.

If I boycotted artists, actors, and authors who believed things I opposed I would be missing....well lets just say a lot.

Will you quit this crap of 'all beliefs are perfectly equal'? Because I doubt that's how you actually act except when it's convenient for you given that it's nigh impossible. Not all differences in opinion are equal. Shocking, isn't it? He's boycotting someone who is blatantly quite bigoted and active about his bigotry. Sorry, but that's not the same as someone who wants cocaine when I don't think people should take it.

If the book isn't anti-gay in and of itself I really don't care, I just want a quality product.

Yes, it's all about you isn't it? It's foolish and wrong to not do what you want.

Can we please keep this mature? There is absolutely no need to invoke Godwin's Law or devolve to name calling. Its not making you more convincing; in fact it makes me want to disagree with your beliefs on the matter despite the fact I hold the same ones. You need to listen to NameIsRobertPaulson and check the anger, it doesn't help you or your beliefs. It does the opposite. Accusing me of being selfish and evil, and whatever else you please just makes you look like a child.

Now, on to other things. First off I do not think ideas are all equal. I believe Card is definitely wrong on this issue, however what I am trying to get across here is that it really doesn't make that much of a difference in the product. If you really feel so strongly that you want to boycott Card's stuff that is your right, no one is saying you can't. As for my still buying products from those who oppose my interests it is actually exactly like Card and Gay Marriage. When I wrote that I had my rights as a firearm owner in mind, if you don't think there are plenty of actors and such who actively oppose my rights and proport the idea that people like me are a bunch of potential baby killers you'd be sadly mistaken.

Dijkstra:

Bentusi16:

Dijkstra:

Where has he judged the piece of work itself? There can be more factors to whether you sell something or not than whether it's good work.

He's chosen not to shelve it based on politics, not on whats in the actual comic.

Yes, and that is not judging the piece of work.

And there can be; but to me there shouldn't be. To put it another way, to me personally, a work should ONLY be judged on it's own values, including the sale of; however I acknowledge that this is a rare school of thought.

And why exactly should we not consider anything else? It's not as if there is some particular pledge of business to be impartial. No reason they can't have ethical objections to dealing with the work of someone. Sure it has no impact on whether the work is good, the author's personal attributes won't change that outside of how he writes it. But I see no reason that that is all that should be considered in regards to whether you want to sell something or not. Businesses are about money, the only reason I could see to ignore this is if someone has a conscious and has an ethical issue with how they are making money. For instance selling the works of a bigot.

Under my world view, it shouldn't matter that he's a bigot, assuming we're talking about comic books as a piece of artwork rather then as purely a business thing.

From a business standpoint, yes, he can and probably should choose who and what he wants associated with his shop.

As a piece of art the artists beliefs are irrelevant. So from a point of artwork, the comics should be judged purely on their own merits. From a point of business (what is being discussed), taking in factors such as politics is reasonable.

Bentusi16:

Dijkstra:

Bentusi16:

He's chosen not to shelve it based on politics, not on whats in the actual comic.

Yes, and that is not judging the piece of work.

And there can be; but to me there shouldn't be. To put it another way, to me personally, a work should ONLY be judged on it's own values, including the sale of; however I acknowledge that this is a rare school of thought.

And why exactly should we not consider anything else? It's not as if there is some particular pledge of business to be impartial. No reason they can't have ethical objections to dealing with the work of someone. Sure it has no impact on whether the work is good, the author's personal attributes won't change that outside of how he writes it. But I see no reason that that is all that should be considered in regards to whether you want to sell something or not. Businesses are about money, the only reason I could see to ignore this is if someone has a conscious and has an ethical issue with how they are making money. For instance selling the works of a bigot.

Under my world view, it shouldn't matter that he's a bigot, assuming we're talking about comic books as a piece of artwork rather then as purely a business thing.

From a business standpoint, yes, he can and probably should choose who and what he wants associated with his shop.

As a piece of art the artists beliefs are irrelevant. So from a point of artwork, the comics should be judged purely on their own merits. From a point of business (what is being discussed), taking in factors such as politics is reasonable.

Well then I agree I think. I'm not sure why you'd bring it up as a piece of art though since what's going on is a business thing.

Shock and Awe:

Dijkstra:

Shock and Awe:

Demonizing someone on the opposite side? Nice.

Calling someone a piece of shit isn't demonizing and the other bits are quoted facts. But go on, have your bland world where all ideas are equal and people need to treat all ideas equally. Hitler was a fine dude, right?

He believes different from you(and me for that matter) we get it.

He is an unrepentant bigot. The KKK believes differently. Hitler believed differently. People who held slaves believed differently. Please stop with that absolutely asinine bullshit about 'believes differently' as if we're all thoughtless drones who can't evaluate if a difference is good or bad.

His views have not been expressed in his work(that I've read) so I am not that concerned.

More like you're not the one told they should be a second class citizen so you don't give a fuck and think people should apparently like him.

If I boycotted artists, actors, and authors who believed things I opposed I would be missing....well lets just say a lot.

Will you quit this crap of 'all beliefs are perfectly equal'? Because I doubt that's how you actually act except when it's convenient for you given that it's nigh impossible. Not all differences in opinion are equal. Shocking, isn't it? He's boycotting someone who is blatantly quite bigoted and active about his bigotry. Sorry, but that's not the same as someone who wants cocaine when I don't think people should take it.

If the book isn't anti-gay in and of itself I really don't care, I just want a quality product.

Yes, it's all about you isn't it? It's foolish and wrong to not do what you want.

Can we please keep this mature? There is absolutely no need to invoke Godwin's Law or devolve to name calling.

No name-calling at all, and Godwin's law is irrelevant. It's not a logical fallacy, it's all about people bringing up a bad excuse to not deal with a point because they have no way to deal with it. So please stop doing that and if you can't address a point just admit it.

Its not making you more convincing; in fact it makes me want to disagree with your beliefs on the matter despite the fact I hold the same ones.

I'm sorry, but what I'm seeing is "I don't want to be logical, you need to do other stuff to please me besides make a logical argument or I'll just disagree with you anyway". Tone arguments are generally pretty bad diversions from the real point and this is no exception.

You need to listen to NameIsRobertPaulson and check the anger, it doesn't help you or your beliefs. It does the opposite. Accusing me of being selfish and evil, and whatever else you please just makes you look like a child.

I'm sorry, but is the child the one who disagrees with things because they don't like how they're presented or the one who cares about whether it makes sense or not?

Now, on to other things. First off I do not think ideas are all equal.

Then don't make such a ridiculously broad comparison that ignores it, like comparing this to rejecting the work of all actors etc who have opposing viewpoints. If you recognize not all ideas are equal then you should recognize that not all disagreements over differing ideas are either and should be able to realize why such comparisons are ridiculous.

I believe Card is definitely wrong on this issue, however what I am trying to get across here is that it really doesn't make that much of a difference in the product.

No, it does not make a difference in the product. That does not mean that someone shouldn't object to selling it. It gives his work recognition, it says that financially he is someone who can make a sellable product.

If you really feel so strongly that you want to boycott Card's stuff that is your right, no one is saying you can't.

And I am saying it isn't 'wrong and foolish' either.

As for my still buying products from those who oppose my interests it is actually exactly like Card and Gay Marriage. When I wrote that I had my rights as a firearm owner in mind, if you don't think there are plenty of actors and such who actively oppose my rights and proport the idea that people like me are a bunch of potential baby killers you'd be sadly mistaken.

You're free to do so, it doesn't mean it'd be wrong and foolish not to.

I don't have a problem with it. I might if it was a large national corporation essentially preventing anyone from seeing the comic. If a small retailer wants to sell, or not sell, products based on politics that's fine with me. Heck there is even a counter ice cream to the notoriously liberal "Ben and Jerry's" called "Star Spangled Ice Cream" with tasteful flavors like Iraqi Road and Small Governmint.

Xan Krieger:

Dijkstra:

Shock and Awe:

Demonizing someone on the opposite side? Nice.

Calling someone a piece of shit isn't demonizing and the other bits are quoted facts. But go on, have your bland world where all ideas are equal and people need to treat all ideas equally. Hitler was a fine dude, right?

He believes different from you(and me for that matter) we get it.

He is an unrepentant bigot. The KKK believes differently. Hitler believed differently. People who held slaves believed differently. Please stop with that absolutely asinine bullshit about 'believes differently' as if we're all thoughtless drones who can't evaluate if a difference is good or bad.

His views have not been expressed in his work(that I've read) so I am not that concerned.

More like you're not the one told they should be a second class citizen so you don't give a fuck and think people should apparently like him.

If I boycotted artists, actors, and authors who believed things I opposed I would be missing....well lets just say a lot.

Will you quit this crap of 'all beliefs are perfectly equal'? Because I doubt that's how you actually act except when it's convenient for you given that it's nigh impossible. Not all differences in opinion are equal. Shocking, isn't it? He's boycotting someone who is blatantly quite bigoted and active about his bigotry. Sorry, but that's not the same as someone who wants cocaine when I don't think people should take it.

If the book isn't anti-gay in and of itself I really don't care, I just want a quality product.

Yes, it's all about you isn't it? It's foolish and wrong to not do what you want.

As per my usual style let's do the post breakdown.
"Calling someone a piece of shit isn't demonizing and the other bits are quoted facts. But go on, have your bland world where all ideas are equal and people need to treat all ideas equally. Hitler was a fine dude, right?"
It's about being civil, being mean to the opposite side is a great way to stop them from every agreeing with you. I would think it's better to have a disagreeable belief than to have an agreeable one and insult everyone who believes differently. As for Hitler, godwin much?

And what, do you think Orson Scott Card will ever agree? I think not. In general I do not see that baseless bigotry such as his will be convinced by nice words. And I'm sure you hold that belief up until it affects you directly.

As for Godwin, logic much?

"He is an unrepentant bigot. The KKK believes differently. Hitler believed differently. People who held slaves believed differently. Please stop with that absolutely asinine bullshit about 'believes differently' as if we're all thoughtless drones who can't evaluate if a difference is good or bad."
It should be noted that those people have done horrible things, this guy just has a belief. Better to negotiate with people than act like he murders gay people or something like that.

He's not exactly different from some modern day KKK member. Not like they're all out there committing hate crimes daily to meet their daily hate crime KKK quota like this was Guild Wars 2 and they wanted laurels from their dailies. And he does more than have a belief, he's with the National Organization for Marriage. And I won't kiss his ass to negotiate.

"More like you're not the one told they should be a second class citizen so you don't give a fuck and think people should apparently like him."
He does care, it's a subject me and Paulson used to fight over. We're not saying people should like him, we're saying better to be civil about it and discuss things instead of just slamming him.

This is Shock and Awe that I was replying to, for one. And what will not slamming him accomplish? Will he come here and say "Oh look I've been a total bigot for decades, guess I better change because someone was polite"?

"Will you quit this crap of 'all beliefs are perfectly equal'? Because I doubt that's how you actually act except when it's convenient for you given that it's nigh impossible. Not all differences in opinion are equal. Shocking, isn't it? He's boycotting someone who is blatantly quite bigoted and active about his bigotry. Sorry, but that's not the same as someone who wants cocaine when I don't think people should take it."
And you're bigoted against his beliefs to the point I doubt you'd sit at a table and discuss it. People change not by insulting them, that strengthens their belief that you're the bad guy, but rather through civil discussion.

Point out how I'm bigoted. Hint: Evaluating a belief and deciding it is repugnant is not bigotry. And what is there to discuss? He has a religion I reject, he's had it for many years. I wouldn't discuss anything because we're not even in the same continent in regards to what we believe. Discussion can work from shared beliefs, the basis for our beliefs differs completely. Plus, you think he hasn't heard it before? Given his position he probably has. FURTHER, he's even suggested revolution would be appropriate if gay marriage were to be legalized. It'd be like going up to Fred Phelps and expecting a well reasoned discussion. As such it is logical to conclude little would be accomplished.

And sure, tell me how civil discussion has worked out in regards to rights in the past. Please, do.

Dijkstra:

Shock and Awe:

Dijkstra:

Calling someone a piece of shit isn't demonizing and the other bits are quoted facts. But go on, have your bland world where all ideas are equal and people need to treat all ideas equally. Hitler was a fine dude, right?

He is an unrepentant bigot. The KKK believes differently. Hitler believed differently. People who held slaves believed differently. Please stop with that absolutely asinine bullshit about 'believes differently' as if we're all thoughtless drones who can't evaluate if a difference is good or bad.

More like you're not the one told they should be a second class citizen so you don't give a fuck and think people should apparently like him.

Will you quit this crap of 'all beliefs are perfectly equal'? Because I doubt that's how you actually act except when it's convenient for you given that it's nigh impossible. Not all differences in opinion are equal. Shocking, isn't it? He's boycotting someone who is blatantly quite bigoted and active about his bigotry. Sorry, but that's not the same as someone who wants cocaine when I don't think people should take it.

Yes, it's all about you isn't it? It's foolish and wrong to not do what you want.

Can we please keep this mature? There is absolutely no need to invoke Godwin's Law or devolve to name calling.

No name-calling at all, and Godwin's law is irrelevant. It's not a logical fallacy, it's all about people bringing up a bad excuse to not deal with a point because they have no way to deal with it. So please stop doing that and if you can't address a point just admit it.

Its not making you more convincing; in fact it makes me want to disagree with your beliefs on the matter despite the fact I hold the same ones.

I'm sorry, but what I'm seeing is "I don't want to be logical, you need to do other stuff to please me besides make a logical argument or I'll just disagree with you anyway". Tone arguments are generally pretty bad diversions from the real point and this is no exception.

You need to listen to NameIsRobertPaulson and check the anger, it doesn't help you or your beliefs. It does the opposite. Accusing me of being selfish and evil, and whatever else you please just makes you look like a child.

I'm sorry, but is the child the one who disagrees with things because they don't like how they're presented or the one who cares about whether it makes sense or not?

Now, on to other things. First off I do not think ideas are all equal.

Then don't make such a ridiculously broad comparison that ignores it, like comparing this to rejecting the work of all actors etc who have opposing viewpoints. If you recognize not all ideas are equal then you should recognize that not all disagreements over differing ideas are either and should be able to realize why such comparisons are ridiculous.

I believe Card is definitely wrong on this issue, however what I am trying to get across here is that it really doesn't make that much of a difference in the product.

No, it does not make a difference in the product. That does not mean that someone shouldn't object to selling it. It gives his work recognition, it says that financially he is someone who can make a sellable product.

If you really feel so strongly that you want to boycott Card's stuff that is your right, no one is saying you can't.

And I am saying it isn't 'wrong and foolish' either.

As for my still buying products from those who oppose my interests it is actually exactly like Card and Gay Marriage. When I wrote that I had my rights as a firearm owner in mind, if you don't think there are plenty of actors and such who actively oppose my rights and proport the idea that people like me are a bunch of potential baby killers you'd be sadly mistaken.

You're free to do so, it doesn't mean it'd be wrong and foolish not to.

Okay, that rebuttal seems kind of confused, so I may have not understood what you've said.

First off what I am trying to tell you is that no matter what you are arguing, your tone and words matter. If you sound like a mad high school student people will treat you like a mad high school student.

Secondly, what "vast generalizations" did I make? I said I don't care what the authors personal views are as long as they don't effect the product. I think its financially wrong and foolish for a proprietor of a business to turn away business because the author supports something you don't like. Thats like me running a video store and trashing all my DVDs that have all these guys in it. I personally find it wrong and foolish because it is basically "I don't like your beliefs, eat a dick".

Shock and Awe:

Dijkstra:

Shock and Awe:

Can we please keep this mature? There is absolutely no need to invoke Godwin's Law or devolve to name calling.

No name-calling at all, and Godwin's law is irrelevant. It's not a logical fallacy, it's all about people bringing up a bad excuse to not deal with a point because they have no way to deal with it. So please stop doing that and if you can't address a point just admit it.

Its not making you more convincing; in fact it makes me want to disagree with your beliefs on the matter despite the fact I hold the same ones.

I'm sorry, but what I'm seeing is "I don't want to be logical, you need to do other stuff to please me besides make a logical argument or I'll just disagree with you anyway". Tone arguments are generally pretty bad diversions from the real point and this is no exception.

You need to listen to NameIsRobertPaulson and check the anger, it doesn't help you or your beliefs. It does the opposite. Accusing me of being selfish and evil, and whatever else you please just makes you look like a child.

I'm sorry, but is the child the one who disagrees with things because they don't like how they're presented or the one who cares about whether it makes sense or not?

Now, on to other things. First off I do not think ideas are all equal.

Then don't make such a ridiculously broad comparison that ignores it, like comparing this to rejecting the work of all actors etc who have opposing viewpoints. If you recognize not all ideas are equal then you should recognize that not all disagreements over differing ideas are either and should be able to realize why such comparisons are ridiculous.

I believe Card is definitely wrong on this issue, however what I am trying to get across here is that it really doesn't make that much of a difference in the product.

No, it does not make a difference in the product. That does not mean that someone shouldn't object to selling it. It gives his work recognition, it says that financially he is someone who can make a sellable product.

If you really feel so strongly that you want to boycott Card's stuff that is your right, no one is saying you can't.

And I am saying it isn't 'wrong and foolish' either.

As for my still buying products from those who oppose my interests it is actually exactly like Card and Gay Marriage. When I wrote that I had my rights as a firearm owner in mind, if you don't think there are plenty of actors and such who actively oppose my rights and proport the idea that people like me are a bunch of potential baby killers you'd be sadly mistaken.

You're free to do so, it doesn't mean it'd be wrong and foolish not to.

Okay, that rebuttal seems kind of confused, so I may have not understood what you've said.

First off what I am trying to tell you is that no matter what you are arguing, your tone and words matter. If you sound like a mad high school student people will treat you like a mad high school student.

If you sound like you're against people not liking bigotry how do you think people will treat you? ^__^

Secondly, what "vast generalizations" did I make? I said I don't care what the authors personal views are as long as they don't effect the product. I think its financially wrong and foolish for a proprietor of a business to turn away business because the author supports something you don't like. Thats like me running a video store and trashing all my DVDs that have all these guys in it. I personally find it wrong and foolish because it is basically "I don't like your beliefs, eat a dick".

Secondly, where the hell does my post say 'vast generalizations'?

Yes, you personally don't care. Congratulations! Better inform the business owner that YOU personally don't care! I'm sure he'll immediately implement no change whatsoever based on that.

Financially wrong? Finances aren't about ethics, there is no financially wrong. And foolish? So, valuing some ethics more than money is foolishness, great.

And how is it wrong and foolish to say "Fuck you" to someone whose beliefs I don't like because they're incredibly bigoted and demean people for no valid reason?

Dijkstra:

Shock and Awe:

Dijkstra:

No name-calling at all, and Godwin's law is irrelevant. It's not a logical fallacy, it's all about people bringing up a bad excuse to not deal with a point because they have no way to deal with it. So please stop doing that and if you can't address a point just admit it.

I'm sorry, but what I'm seeing is "I don't want to be logical, you need to do other stuff to please me besides make a logical argument or I'll just disagree with you anyway". Tone arguments are generally pretty bad diversions from the real point and this is no exception.

I'm sorry, but is the child the one who disagrees with things because they don't like how they're presented or the one who cares about whether it makes sense or not?

Then don't make such a ridiculously broad comparison that ignores it, like comparing this to rejecting the work of all actors etc who have opposing viewpoints. If you recognize not all ideas are equal then you should recognize that not all disagreements over differing ideas are either and should be able to realize why such comparisons are ridiculous.

No, it does not make a difference in the product. That does not mean that someone shouldn't object to selling it. It gives his work recognition, it says that financially he is someone who can make a sellable product.

And I am saying it isn't 'wrong and foolish' either.

You're free to do so, it doesn't mean it'd be wrong and foolish not to.

Okay, that rebuttal seems kind of confused, so I may have not understood what you've said.

First off what I am trying to tell you is that no matter what you are arguing, your tone and words matter. If you sound like a mad high school student people will treat you like a mad high school student.

If you sound like you're against people not liking bigotry how do you think people will treat you? ^__^

Secondly, what "vast generalizations" did I make? I said I don't care what the authors personal views are as long as they don't effect the product. I think its financially wrong and foolish for a proprietor of a business to turn away business because the author supports something you don't like. Thats like me running a video store and trashing all my DVDs that have all these guys in it. I personally find it wrong and foolish because it is basically "I don't like your beliefs, eat a dick".

Secondly, where the hell does my post say 'vast generalizations'?

Yes, you personally don't care. Congratulations! Better inform the business owner that YOU personally don't care! I'm sure he'll immediately implement no change whatsoever based on that.

Financially wrong? Finances aren't about ethics, there is no financially wrong. And foolish? So, valuing some ethics more than money is foolishness, great.

And how is it wrong and foolish to say "Fuck you" to someone whose beliefs I don't like because they're incredibly bigoted and demean people for no valid reason?

You can lead a horse to water....

Anyway, why are you arguing with me if we get back to me not caring and me thinking its foolish from every respect? What was the point of getting so hyped up over what I said since from the beginning it was my opinion from the very start? Do I need to specify something like that on an internet forum?

As for business, it is generally speaking wrong and foolish to let personal beliefs get in the way of business. If Card isn't breaking the law or going out and committing vast atrocities why should I hurt my business by refusing him? If we did this for everyone that we thought was harming society I wouldn't do business with socialists, libertarians, people who oppose gun rights, and many many more. As a business person you have to take into account that people think differently, and you gotta deal with it.

As for an ethics standpoint I follow a similar live and let live policy. If you aren't directly hurting someone and you are just spouting BS then I am not going to raise a hand against you. I will tell the world you are wrong but I wont try and silence you. As someone else said, "I may disagree with what you say but I'll die for you right to do so." Therefore trying to harm someone and muzzle them do to their beliefs is...wait for it....wrong and foolish. If someone was doing this to pro-gay comic authors you would be flipping your shit right now.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
In my mind, the ultimate human right above marriage, above voting, above driving, above not being a slave, is the right to your own thoughts. The day we make it a crime to simply believe something without ever acting on it is the day freedom in the world truly dies.

no one is attacking Card's thoughts, nor has he been accused of a crime. People are entitled to make their own economic decisions.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Unless there is a conclusive link (like the one during the Chick-Fil-A incident), then nothing should be done. We cannot do something based on presumption of guilt. Show me proof that even $100 of his sales go to the NOM, and then I say remove it, because it has moved beyond thought and into action infringing upon the rights of others.

If you want proof of action then his involvement in NOM, the leading activist organization in the United States working to deny civil rights to homosexuals, should be enough. Furthermore most of NOM's donations are anonymous and none of us have the ability to pull Card's financial records; you're asking us to uphold an impossible standard here.

He's proven he's a repugnant homophobe, and sellers have every right to refuse to sell his work because they were never obligated to in the first place.

It's his shop, simple as that. If he doesn't want to sell a particular product for whatever reason - if he's okay with the knowledge that he is missing out on certain profits, if he is okay with the fact that any competitors who do sell this product would be getting an upper hand - then he doesn't have to. I know that if I ran a book store there would be certain books which I would refuse to sell (Cough, Ann Coulter, Cough) and that there would be certain books which I would highlight.

It's his store - instead of trying to force him to sell things that he doesn't want to sell, just buy them somewhere else. That, by the way, applies to everyone. If someone didn't want to sell pro-gay literature, they'd have every right not to.

EDIT: Also, a word about the poll. I just wanted to mention that it is a tad... Inappropriately worded, not in the naughty sense, though. It asks whether or not the owner should put Superman on the shelf, whereas it should be asking whether or not the owner should be allowed to decide what he wants to sell or not.

Which he should. ;)

If the store was owned by a right-wing Christian bigot and he refused to put a pro-gay comic on the shelves (as I'm sure it has happened before with the Archie gay wedding issue, for example), he'd be crying foul about how his rights are being trampled and how the gay agenda this and religious freedom that at the first sign of criticism.

So good on this guy. If I owned a book shop or comic store, there would be A LOT of stuff I would flat-out refuse to put on the shelf, and if they don't like it, they can go somewhere else to buy it.

His store, his rules. Just like I support what the firearms companies are doing. Now if his store provided a vital service to people like....water or something then i would get pissed.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Attacking him for his views away from the comic comes close to thought policing. If the product itself it not indicative of a sexist, racist, or homophobic belief, then it should be given equal standing.

Don't know where you get this from. He's not just a homophobe, he's an active campaigner for homophobia and against equal rights.

He's free to do that. We're also free to not bankroll his attempts to bring society back to medieval times.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Believing God wants to kill all gays, believing blacks are genetically inferior, believing the Earth is flat. While these are scientifically wrong and politically incorrect, no one should be persecuted for believing them, as long as they do not affect the rights of others.

Here's the trick though: Saying such things often affects the rights of others.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Believing God wants to kill all gays, believing blacks are genetically inferior, believing the Earth is flat. While these are scientifically wrong and politically incorrect, no one should be persecuted for believing them, as long as they do not affect the rights of others.

But it does. Charismatic turds throughout history has spewed hate propaganda and it has reach the ears of the easily led and rights has been violated in numerous ways and continue to be so today.

Shock and Awe:

Dijkstra:

Shock and Awe:

Okay, that rebuttal seems kind of confused, so I may have not understood what you've said.

First off what I am trying to tell you is that no matter what you are arguing, your tone and words matter. If you sound like a mad high school student people will treat you like a mad high school student.

If you sound like you're against people not liking bigotry how do you think people will treat you? ^__^

Secondly, what "vast generalizations" did I make? I said I don't care what the authors personal views are as long as they don't effect the product. I think its financially wrong and foolish for a proprietor of a business to turn away business because the author supports something you don't like. Thats like me running a video store and trashing all my DVDs that have all these guys in it. I personally find it wrong and foolish because it is basically "I don't like your beliefs, eat a dick".

Secondly, where the hell does my post say 'vast generalizations'?

Yes, you personally don't care. Congratulations! Better inform the business owner that YOU personally don't care! I'm sure he'll immediately implement no change whatsoever based on that.

Financially wrong? Finances aren't about ethics, there is no financially wrong. And foolish? So, valuing some ethics more than money is foolishness, great.

And how is it wrong and foolish to say "Fuck you" to someone whose beliefs I don't like because they're incredibly bigoted and demean people for no valid reason?

You can lead a horse to water....

But unless you do it nicely he'll die of dehydration?

Anyway, why are you arguing with me if we get back to me not caring and me thinking its foolish from every respect? What was the point of getting so hyped up over what I said since from the beginning it was my opinion from the very start? Do I need to specify something like that on an internet forum?

You elaborated that it was more than just something you wouldn't do. I'm merely pointing out that it's nonsense to call it wrong and foolish.

As for business, it is generally speaking wrong and foolish to let personal beliefs get in the way of business. If Card isn't breaking the law or going out and committing vast atrocities why should I hurt my business by refusing him? If we did this for everyone that we thought was harming society I wouldn't do business with socialists, libertarians, people who oppose gun rights, and many many more. As a business person you have to take into account that people think differently, and you gotta deal with it.

Because money is not the only thing in the world, you may be surprised to learn. If you're running a business it is for your own benefit and if you had a conscience you might decide there are things besides how much money you make that matter, and that you can send messages and that's worth something when you don't worship money. And you're making a ridiculous argument where you decide you have to apply it to everyone you think harms society. You don't. You can, shockingly, do it with some and not others. Besides, it makes no sense to suggest that it's wrong and foolish just because you couldn't run a business by doing it excessively since he has not done it excessively. As a human being maybe you should realize that 'business' is not the only goal in life anyway.

As for an ethics standpoint I follow a similar live and let live policy. If you aren't directly hurting someone and you are just spouting BS then I am not going to raise a hand against you. I will tell the world you are wrong but I wont try and silence you. As someone else said, "I may disagree with what you say but I'll die for you right to do so." Therefore trying to harm someone and muzzle them do to their beliefs is...wait for it....wrong and foolish. If someone was doing this to pro-gay comic authors you would be flipping your shit right now.

I hate it when people are so self-righteously ignorant. "I'll die for your right to not have anyone dislike you" is what I'm seeing and it's not as noble as you think it is. I hope whoever said that other thing is turning over in their grave at your misuse of it, because the bigot's rights have been nowhere near infringed. Saying "Fuck you" and not doing business with someone is not muzzling them. What's wrong and foolish is to treat this as if someone's rights were anywhere near infringed.

I'd be saying something, but it wouldn't be on the idiotic basis that someone is trying to silence them. People who say "Oh but you'd be upset!" need to fucking learn that I can be upset for a different reason and this does not validate them or make me hypocritical. I'd be upset because someone's being a bigot. Now unless you're against gays I don't see where you're going to get the same reason for being against this as I would have were the situation reversed.

Oh and one last thing, you don't seem to understand the difference between "I don't do this" and it being a matter of preference since you jump right to it being 'wrong and foolish'.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
As long as the comic itself is not homophobic, attacking someone for their personal beliefs away from business comes dangerously close to fine line. While I don't think its cool to be racist, sexist, or homophobic, you should have the right to think that way, as long as those actions do not affect the rights of others. Now if there was a conclusive link that sales of the comic go towards banning gay marriage, that would be different.

This sums up my feelings exactly. If his homophobic beliefs don't show up in the comic itself I do not see them as relevant.

Dijkstra:
Snipped due to ridiculous length

First off that horse comment was referring to your continued immature tone and your outright refusal to acknowledge that when your discussing something like this with someone it is best to refrain from petty insults and basically acting with hostility.

As for the business angle it makes no sense to discriminate against those who hold views opposed to your own, and it makes less sense to only discriminate against some people who don't hold your views. If your conscience is so important why not refuse to do business with everyone you think is harmful to others? It makes no sense to pick and choose when; if ethics is so much more important then business in this situation; to only discriminate against one person when there is certainly more.

As for my stance that boycotting people based on their beliefs is trying to muzzle them or change them it makes perfect sense. Why would you boycott someone if you were not trying to cause a change? That makes absolutely no sense. Boycotts are meant to change either practice or belief. Did Civil Rights activists boycott Montgomery buses for fun? Probably not. They did it because the company was directly discriminating against them, not because the company didn't like black people but treated them equally as customers. The boycott didn't change their personal feelings and the Civil Rights leaders knew it, it just changed behavior.

I would disagree with the shop owner regardless of his reasons for pulling a comic based on the unrelated activities of the author. It doesn't matter if its pro-gay, anti-gay, or anything in between. Its the same reason I disagree with Germany banning anything to do with the Nazis. Freedom of ideas is one of the most important things in a society, even if the ideas are shit.

Shock and Awe:

Dijkstra:
Snipped due to ridiculous length

First off that horse comment was referring to your continued immature tone and your outright refusal to acknowledge that when your discussing something like this with someone it is best to refrain from petty insults and basically acting with hostility.

Oh and here I thought it had to do with the way you infer that you care more about tone than reason.

As for the business angle it makes no sense to discriminate against those who hold views opposed to your own, and it makes less sense to only discriminate against some people who don't hold your views. If your conscience is so important why not refuse to do business with everyone you think is harmful to others? It makes no sense to pick and choose when; if ethics is so much more important then business in this situation; to only discriminate against one person when there is certainly more.

A business angle is not the only angle, and I'd hope most people aren't so in love with money they wouldn't consider it to be the most important one.

Discriminate? LOL. It's not discrimination to dislike people for wanting others to be second class citizens.

And lastly, "You need to do it to everyone!" is bullshit. You don't decide what the most important issues are to the comic shop owner, you don't get to decide when he thinks it matters to do it, you have no fucking clue. Don't pretend you do just to defend a bigot.

As for my stance that boycotting people based on their beliefs is trying to muzzle them or change them it makes perfect sense. Why would you boycott someone if you were not trying to cause a change? That makes absolutely no sense. Boycotts are meant to change either practice or belief. Did Civil Rights activists boycott Montgomery buses for fun? Probably not. They did it because the company was directly discriminating against them, not because the company didn't like black people but treated them equally as customers. The boycott didn't change their personal feelings and the Civil Rights leaders knew it, it just changed behavior.

It isn't muzzling just because you are trying to make a change. Furthermore, it does make sense to boycott even if it makes no change, it can be to make a point. Besides, why do you hate freedom of speech so much? What do you think a boycott is an expression of? By your ridiculous logic, if I say "Shut up" I'm muzzling someone. Stop being so ridiculously sensitive in all the wrong ways. Putting pressure on someone isn't muzzling. People are not obliged to make bigots feel loved, even if you think not doing so is muzzling them.

[quote[
I would disagree with the shop owner regardless of his reasons for pulling a comic based on the unrelated activities of the author. It doesn't matter if its pro-gay, anti-gay, or anything in between. Its the same reason I disagree with Germany banning anything to do with the Nazis. Freedom of ideas is one of the most important things in a society, even if the ideas are shit.[/quote]

Except when they're ideas you don't like, then they don't count.

Between the two of us, I'm the only one for freedom. You're the one who confuses my freedom to be against something with a violation of some non-existent right to only get approving responses because any kind of pressure is 'muzzling'.

Yes, a short paragraph at the top means its the most important thing. Excellent deduction sir.

When you run a business, 99% of the time the business angle IS the most important angle. It is stupid to refuse to do business with otherwise good partner just because you don't like him/her. Part of being a professional is doing exactly that; putting up with people who you otherwise wouldn't. Also, if you are refusing to do business with somebody due to personal views, thats discrimination. If I disagreed with things Muslims believed does that mean I shouldn't do business with them? Nyet. Thats discrimination.

I never said the man couldn't boycott Card. He has every right to do so. Its just that hes stupid and wrong for it doesn't mean I don't think he should be able to. Just because I disagree with what someone is doing or saying doesn't mean I don't think they should be able to say it. People are always saying stupid and hateful things. What they are saying could be the most foul and wrong things imaginable, yet I still think they have every right to do so. Also, doing business isn't loving someone, its doing business.

I also don't see why you keep insinuating that I agree with Card, I don't. I have said it multiple times. I also don't see why you keep implying that I don't think that the Shop owner has every legal justification to do what he did, I said that in my first post. I have said and I will say again that I think he was wrong in his decision on ethical and business grounds. I think he's trying to punish somebody for unrelated legal activity. In my book thats wrong. He has every right to do so, I love the fact that he has every right to do so, but I still think he is wrong.

Shock and Awe:

Yes, a short paragraph at the top means its the most important thing. Excellent deduction sir.

Well there's just the part where you mention how it influences you.

When you run a business, 99% of the time the business angle IS the most important angle. It is stupid to refuse to do business with otherwise good partner just because you don't like him/her. Part of being a professional is doing exactly that; putting up with people who you otherwise wouldn't. Also, if you are refusing to do business with somebody due to personal views, thats discrimination. If I disagreed with things Muslims believed does that mean I shouldn't do business with them? Nyet. Thats discrimination.

It isn't stupid to not share your value of money as the most important thing.

Part of owning your own business is being able to not deal with people who are living pieces of shit.

And nope, it's not discrimination. It wouldn't be discrimination for me to not want to deal with someone who hates people I care about.

I never said the man couldn't boycott Card. He has every right to do so. Its just that hes stupid and wrong for it doesn't mean I don't think he should be able to. Just because I disagree with what someone is doing or saying doesn't mean I don't think they should be able to say it. People are always saying stupid and hateful things. What they are saying could be the most foul and wrong things imaginable, yet I still think they have every right to do so. Also, doing business isn't loving someone, its doing business.

You're making the implication it's against Card's rights. This implies he has no right to do so, as you generally shouldn't be allowed to infringe on another's rights. So are you admitting you were talking bullshit when you went on about defending someone's right to say something?

Loving is just the logical extension. According to you putting pressure on someone and wanting them to change is 'muzzling'.

I also don't see why you keep insinuating that I agree with Card, I don't. I have said it multiple times. I also don't see why you keep implying that I don't think that the Shop owner has every legal justification to do what he did, I said that in my first post. I have said and I will say again that I think he was wrong in his decision on ethical and business grounds. I think he's trying to punish somebody for unrelated legal activity. In my book thats wrong. He has every right to do so, I love the fact that he has every right to do so, but I still think he is wrong.

You're defending his rights over the rights of others, it sure implies you're with him.

I don't see how you don't understand that an implied accusation of violating someone else's rights implies it should not be allowed.

You've failed at establishing ethical grounds. And he can't be wrong on business grounds, what he did was perfectly legal.

It's not unrelated, it's the same man. You're making arbitrary distinctions. And he's not wrong, you just have a skewed view of rights.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked