>You're deliberately misconstruing what I'm saying.
I'm using the definition you gave. That's it. If you want to revise the definition, feel free.
>You're trying to put forth that I cannot both respect the rule of law of a civil society while still respecting human rights on a larger scale.
No, I'm not, and I don't think that. I'm saying you're intolerant of those people according to the definition you gave. That's it.
>At it's core your example is bad because there are tons of other variables involved in an immigration process that have nothing whatsoever to do with culture, speech, views, religion, etc. (and, taken further, a properly designed immigration policy in my mind wouldn't take any of those into account anyway.)
I'm sure it wouldn't, but that's irrelevant. Refusing to share social, political, or professional rights with someone because they were born in the wrong place and don't meet your reasonable requirements means you are intolerant of them, according to that definition you gave.
>"Genuinely held beliefs" are a terrible basis from which to derive law.
Telling people they can't express genuinely held beliefs is, I think, a pre-cursor to real world violence. Avoiding real world violence is a totally reasonable objective to have in mind when crafting law.
>If 2016 should teach you anything, it's that genuinely held beliefs by large amounts of people, no matter how large they are and no matter how much they believe them, do not constitute reality.
I agree. So? Which ones are you willing to kill your fellow countrymen over?
> No, I'm not, and I don't think that. I'm saying you're intolerant of those people according to the definition you gave. That's it.
That is not intolerance.
> I'm sure it wouldn't, but that's irrelevant.
How is your example being flawed irrelevant?
> Refusing to share social, political, or professional rights with someone because they were born in the wrong place and don't meet your reasonable requirements means you are intolerant of them, according to that definition you gave.
No, it doesn't. There are all kinds of legitimate reasons to not allow a person into a country. If they are not vaccinated against certain diseases, for example. Or if they have outstanding warrants for their arrest in other countries (unless of course they're seeking asylum).
You're (I think deliberately) clouding the difference between legitimate reasons to deny entry and intolerance.
> Telling people they can't express genuinely held beliefs is, I think, a pre-cursor to real world violence. Avoiding real world violence is a totally reasonable objective to have in mind when crafting law.
Your right to express a belief ends in my mind where said belief intends harm, be it physical, economic, mental or whatever form of harm, on another person. And in turn, anyone who intends that harm and engages in such speech, either for actual beliefs or simply to make money off of those susceptible to that sort of manipulation, should be punished.
> I agree. So? Which ones are you willing to kill your fellow countrymen over?
Nobody is killing anyone. You and people who think like you will be outvoted, and dragged to a prosperous future whether you want it or not.
It is according to the definition you gave. That much seems clear.
>How is your example being flawed irrelevant?
I was referring to your desired immigration system. Regardless, I explained why it was irrelevant immediately after the line you quoted.
>No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
>There are all kinds of legitimate reasons to not allow a person into a country.
Relevance? The word "legitimate" did not show up in your definition. No exception for being unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights was carved out for those with "legitimate reasons" for doing so.
>You're (I think deliberately) clouding the difference between legitimate reasons to deny entry and intolerance.
According to your definition, the two are orthogonal.
>Your right to express a belief ends in my mind where said belief intends harm, be it physical, economic, mental or whatever form of harm, on another person.
What exactly do you mean by "intends"? If I advocate for, say, deporting illegal immigrants, and I do so because I think it's in my self-interest for that to be done (whether or not I'm correct), but I hold no ill-will toward said illegal immigrants, and maybe even consider it unfortunate that our interests are in opposition, would you say that I "intend" them harm, simply because I know that economic harm will come to them if the policy for which I advocate is adopted?
Do I need to harbor some sort of malice in my mind in order to intend them harm, or is it enough to merely know it will happen as a (perhaps unfortunate and undesired) consequence?
>Nobody is killing anyone.
Then why ban people from saying what they want?
>You and people who think like you will be outvoted
Maybe. Let's hope not.
>and dragged to a prosperous future whether you want it or not.
Why should anyone trust you to ensure that prosperity rains upon them when you talk about them like that?
I'm using the definition you gave. That's it. If you want to revise the definition, feel free.
>You're trying to put forth that I cannot both respect the rule of law of a civil society while still respecting human rights on a larger scale.
No, I'm not, and I don't think that. I'm saying you're intolerant of those people according to the definition you gave. That's it.
>At it's core your example is bad because there are tons of other variables involved in an immigration process that have nothing whatsoever to do with culture, speech, views, religion, etc. (and, taken further, a properly designed immigration policy in my mind wouldn't take any of those into account anyway.)
I'm sure it wouldn't, but that's irrelevant. Refusing to share social, political, or professional rights with someone because they were born in the wrong place and don't meet your reasonable requirements means you are intolerant of them, according to that definition you gave.
>"Genuinely held beliefs" are a terrible basis from which to derive law.
Telling people they can't express genuinely held beliefs is, I think, a pre-cursor to real world violence. Avoiding real world violence is a totally reasonable objective to have in mind when crafting law.
>If 2016 should teach you anything, it's that genuinely held beliefs by large amounts of people, no matter how large they are and no matter how much they believe them, do not constitute reality.
I agree. So? Which ones are you willing to kill your fellow countrymen over?