without ever offering the guy a chance to speak his mind,
Actually, he did speak his mind, he chose to support an attempt to demean other human beings. As a human being, I disagree with that, and he saw the error in his stance and decided to acquiesce the point. Why is it, that just because he lost the discussion, you insist there wasn't one? Did it not go on long enough?
.... it wasn't all that bad or that detrimental in the end.
What I don't understand, is that several here don't seem to get it. He
did something, not just speaking it, not just arguing his point, which is in itself bad enough that he believes he's right in it, but he
did something about it, attempting to make someone else in the human race,
many of them, feel like lesser people! Supported an action that does harm to people, and "it wasn't all that bad.."?? Why does it matter when he did it, what people said when they reacted to it, how
they chose to show their displeasure with his actions (accepting that no physical harm was done)? He chose a path that was counter to the peaceful existence of another human being, and suffered the punishment. So what? Lesson learned, I hope.
This was not an attempt to "stifle" his belief, his was an errant action from a misled child, who was shown the error in his path. Did he resign to save face for the company, or is it true wisdom that came to him, and he believed that to show his acceptance of his errors, he applied a self-punishment? I'd like to think the latter, but my bet is on the former. We had a saying in the Navy for when a student had problems with an area, and couldn't seem to get it. "Student knows correct answer when told". Too many don't.
His method of "having the discussion" was not to apply himself in a public forum and debate the topic on the scientific facts, but instead was choosing to provide funding for an action that causes harm to other humans, based solely on being told that his religion is right when it says these people are lesser. That religion did the same thing for race inequality for decades in our culture. "Discussion" didn't stop it, as much as I admired MLK's stance. It took Violence and brute force, use of and threat of both, ie the National Guard, et al.
I fought 6 years for his right to stand up and be a flaming idiot in public, if he so chooses. I would stand in front of anyone who attempted to prevent him from being allowed to speak his mind. (And as soon as they left, I'd turn and tell him he's a flaming idiot. ) But when he applies actions that cause damage to his fellow humans, he has escalated his errors. The public chose to escalate their corrective actions accordingly.
At some point in time, those of us with children understand, you can't keep saying in a quiet, calm voice "Don't do that. It's wrong. You're hurting him. Stop that." The child has to be corrected in
some other, more firm action, by you or the entity he's damaging, whether it be another child or an animal (well, you were twisting his arm, he's going to do something back; you pulled his tail, he's going to scratch) or an adult raising a voice or physically correcting the action. He heard people around him say "Stop that. It's wrong", and he did something more anyway. Society chose to raise its voice.
Discussion should be met with discussion. Ignorant discussion should be attempted to be reasoned with, on a limited basis, and then ignored if ignorance persists. Actions require reactions. He acted. Society reacted. He attempted to help twist someone's arm. They twisted his. Hopefully, lesson learned. His parents obviously didn't teach him to play nicely with others, and this is the consequence.
