Conservative Kicked Out of Florida Restaurant

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

Dude, to you anyone who doesn't like abortion on demand "demeans" women. Anyone who doesn't think transwomen can have periods too demeans women.

Whatever he was saying at Paradis restaurant was offensive to the people there.

I believe we have covered this ground. I eat out at a place where I hear people saying sh1t that offends me all the damn time. The difference between me and those morons is that I am *TOLERANT*. They have the right to say what they want at their tables and it is none of my business unless they are openly discussing something like murdering their neighbor or raping children or something.

originally posted by: quintessentone
Found it:

"The owners of Paradis declined to comment to New Times, explaining that they did "not want to engage with these people at all and are trying to operate with utmost caution because we find their audience genuinely dangerous to us and our community."

Thanks;

"engage with these people"... These people?

"we find their audience genuinely dangerous to us and our community" ... generally dangerous?

Now I take the even stronger bet the restaurant owners are as intolerant as the dining party showed them to be.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

Dude, to you anyone who doesn't like abortion on demand "demeans" women. Anyone who doesn't think transwomen can have periods too demeans women.

Whatever he was saying at Paradis restaurant was offensive to the people there.

I believe we have covered this ground. I eat out at a place where I hear people saying sh1t that offends me all the damn time. The difference between me and those morons is that I am *TOLERANT*.

Good one.

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: quintessentone
Found it:

"The owners of Paradis declined to comment to New Times, explaining that they did "not want to engage with these people at all and are trying to operate with utmost caution because we find their audience genuinely dangerous to us and our community."

Thanks;

"engage with these people"... These people?

"we find their audience genuinely dangerous to us and our community" ... generally dangerous?

Now I take the even stronger bet the restaurant owners are as intolerant as the dining party showed them to be.

Zero tolerance against hate I believe they call it. The people there felt it was hate speech.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

Dude, to you anyone who doesn't like abortion on demand "demeans" women. Anyone who doesn't think transwomen can have periods too demeans women.

Whatever he was saying at Paradis restaurant was offensive to the people there.

I believe we have covered this ground. I eat out at a place where I hear people saying sh1t that offends me all the damn time. The difference between me and those morons is that I am *TOLERANT*.

Good one.

It's the truth. The morons in charge of that place are not nearly as enlightened and tolerant as they want to think they are.

If I wanted to be like them, I'd get up in someone's business the next I hear something progressive that offends me.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

Conservative guy went there at the suggestion of friends and did not know the place. Although I find the "kill you baby if it has Down's syndrome" folks getting their knickers in a twist over Roe v Wade and eugenics to be hilarious.

Doesn't matter, he's a conservative activist and obviously likes to demean women with his trash talk perhaps wherever he goes.

Weren't you just lecturing this entire thread about not forming their opinions based on the statements made by just one side of this dispute?

Double post

a reply to: quintessentone

That's the problem. It was *their* problem. *They* felt. They need to check their feelings in at the window. No one was trying to make them feel anything; they did that all on their own.

Most of us have better things to do than go through life worrying about how every stupid rando is going to react to every thing we say, especially when we're having real discussions about topics deeper than Kim Kardashian's ass.

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

Conservative guy went there at the suggestion of friends and did not know the place. Although I find the "kill you baby if it has Down's syndrome" folks getting their knickers in a twist over Roe v Wade and eugenics to be hilarious.

Doesn't matter, he's a conservative activist and obviously likes to demean women with his trash talk perhaps wherever he goes.

Weren't you just lecturing this entire thread about not forming their opinions based on the statements made by just one side of this dispute?

So the progressives are free game for speculation but not the conservatives?

Double standard much?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

That's the problem. It was *their* problem. *They* felt. They need to check their feelings in at the window. No one was trying to make them feel anything; they did that all on their own.

Most of us have better things to do than go through life worrying about how every stupid rando is going to react to every thing we say, especially when we're having real discussions about topics deeper than Kim Kardashian's ass.

Freedom from listening to political activists should have been added into your constitution as well.

a reply to: quintessentone

I notice that you immediately dismissed the conservative side and leaped right in to embrace the progressive one whole cloth.

All skepticism for one side and none for the other. Not even any possibility that there is a middle. Which is that the owner didn't like what she heard, and that the guys were probably discussing stuff at their table that most progressives wouldn't like to hear.

Does that mean they were being loud and obnoxious? Not necessarily. Did she over-react? Maybe.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

Conservative guy went there at the suggestion of friends and did not know the place. Although I find the "kill you baby if it has Down's syndrome" folks getting their knickers in a twist over Roe v Wade and eugenics to be hilarious.

Doesn't matter, he's a conservative activist and obviously likes to demean women with his trash talk perhaps wherever he goes.

Weren't you just lecturing this entire thread about not forming their opinions based on the statements made by just one side of this dispute?

So the progressives are free game for speculation but not the conservatives?

Double standard much?

Everyone is a free game to speculate l.

I never said speculation was wrong; I was in fact engaging in speculation (taking a bet) and more than once made that clear.

You on the other hand were making an impassioned argument about how we should not resort to speculation; that was until you found a direction of speculation that you agreed with.

Yes; I would agree that is a double standard.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

That's the problem. It was *their* problem. *They* felt. They need to check their feelings in at the window. No one was trying to make them feel anything; they did that all on their own.

Most of us have better things to do than go through life worrying about how every stupid rando is going to react to every thing we say, especially when we're having real discussions about topics deeper than Kim Kardashian's ass.

Freedom from listening to political activists should have been added into your constitution as well.

See? There's a problem with that.

The 1st Amendment freedom of speech is expressly to guarantee freedom of political speech, and activism falls squarely under that umbrella. Without that, government can control what we can and cannot say about it. That way lies tyranny.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

I notice that you immediately dismissed the conservative side and leaped right in to embrace the progressive one whole cloth.

All skepticism for one side and none for the other. Not even any possibility that there is a middle. Which is that the owner didn't like what she heard, and that the guys were probably discussing stuff at their table that most progressives wouldn't like to hear.

Does that mean they were being loud and obnoxious? Not necessarily. Did she over-react? Maybe.

That is why I want to read - verbatim - what conservative guy said, so we can judge for ourselves. Now we have both sides and this may be all we may get unless it goes to court, then we can find out what the owner and others found to be so demeaning.

a reply to: quintessentone

Well you didn't get - verbatim - what he said from your source either. You got what progressives characterize it as. Progressives mischaracterize things we say all the time.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

That's the problem. It was *their* problem. *They* felt. They need to check their feelings in at the window. No one was trying to make them feel anything; they did that all on their own.

Most of us have better things to do than go through life worrying about how every stupid rando is going to react to every thing we say, especially when we're having real discussions about topics deeper than Kim Kardashian's ass.

Freedom from listening to political activists should have been added into your constitution as well.

See? There's a problem with that.

The 1st Amendment freedom of speech is expressly to guarantee freedom of political speech, and activism falls squarely under that umbrella. Without that, government can control what we can and cannot say about it. That way lies tyranny.

Freedom of speech can be maintained for the activist but then freedoms of others comes into play, that being the 'where' if they take offense then their freedoms/rights are trampled on.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

That's the problem. It was *their* problem. *They* felt. They need to check their feelings in at the window. No one was trying to make them feel anything; they did that all on their own.

Most of us have better things to do than go through life worrying about how every stupid rando is going to react to every thing we say, especially when we're having real discussions about topics deeper than Kim Kardashian's ass.

Freedom from listening to political activists should have been added into your constitution as well.

See? There's a problem with that.

The 1st Amendment freedom of speech is expressly to guarantee freedom of political speech, and activism falls squarely under that umbrella. Without that, government can control what we can and cannot say about it. That way lies tyranny.

Freedom of speech can be maintained for the activist but then freedoms of others comes into play, that being the 'where' if they take offense then their freedoms/rights are trampled on.

So all I have to do is "take offense" and I can make it difficult for others to practice their freedom of speech?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

Well you didn't get - verbatim - what he said from your source either. You got what progressives characterize it as. Progressives mischaracterize things we say all the time.

Well, no more soup for conservative guy ever again and that, as they say, is that.

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

That's the problem. It was *their* problem. *They* felt. They need to check their feelings in at the window. No one was trying to make them feel anything; they did that all on their own.

Most of us have better things to do than go through life worrying about how every stupid rando is going to react to every thing we say, especially when we're having real discussions about topics deeper than Kim Kardashian's ass.

Freedom from listening to political activists should have been added into your constitution as well.

See? There's a problem with that.

The 1st Amendment freedom of speech is expressly to guarantee freedom of political speech, and activism falls squarely under that umbrella. Without that, government can control what we can and cannot say about it. That way lies tyranny.

Freedom of speech can be maintained for the activist but then freedoms of others comes into play, that being the 'where' if they take offense then their freedoms/rights are trampled on.

So all I have to do is "take offense" and I can make it difficult for others to practice their freedom of speech?

No, when your freedom of speech is actually disguised hate speech then out you go, on your kester.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

That's the problem. It was *their* problem. *They* felt. They need to check their feelings in at the window. No one was trying to make them feel anything; they did that all on their own.

Most of us have better things to do than go through life worrying about how every stupid rando is going to react to every thing we say, especially when we're having real discussions about topics deeper than Kim Kardashian's ass.

Freedom from listening to political activists should have been added into your constitution as well.

See? There's a problem with that.

The 1st Amendment freedom of speech is expressly to guarantee freedom of political speech, and activism falls squarely under that umbrella. Without that, government can control what we can and cannot say about it. That way lies tyranny.

Freedom of speech can be maintained for the activist but then freedoms of others comes into play, that being the 'where' if they take offense then their freedoms/rights are trampled on.

There is no freedom from being offended.

I have no way of knowing with any real certainty what will offend anyone, and neither do you. The concept of hate speech rests in intent, but if we move it to offense or impact, then intent is gone. You can easily offend with no intent. Not only that but how can you talk at all? Unless you can read minds, you can never accurately judge the impact of anything you are about to say to anyone about anything.

Down that rabbit hole lies madness.

Hell, I could claim you just offended me and you'd have no way of knowing if you really had. You offend me just by your very disagreement politically which, btw, is all too common. So, of course, the party with the power can now legally attack anyone who dares to disagree with them for merely being offensive by speaking out against any policy initiative.

"How dare you disagree?! I am so offended and hurt! That's so hateful!"

Those words I just wrote are so familiar, and I can think of a lot of people who would absolutely love to legally punish people instead of trying to convince them ...