# Tolerance:  Allowing people to be who and what they are.



## Foxfyre

The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.

This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.

I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.

I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.

That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.

We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.

I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.

What do you think?


----------



## Asclepias

I think that true tolerance is an idea that will never be achieved. It simply is against human nature. No one is going to be tolerant of say someone wishing to oppress them. They are going to do everything in their power to nip that sort of thinking in the bud.  

Before there is action there is a thought. If people with certain thoughts that are detrimental to society as a whole are allowed a platform, they can and will influence others to take up those same thoughts. A good example of that is Hitler.  People were tolerant of Hitler and look what happened.


----------



## Mac1958

.

I agree completely that the current climate is fraught with dangers.  My take on it is that it's a cultural issue.  We've become a terribly narcissistic society - and I do mean us, Americans, specifically - and there are examples and causes all around us.

Examples like the Selfie Generation -- hey, have I coined a phrase?  Kids all want to be internet celebrities; the proliferation of reality teevee that makes superstars out of people with no discernible talent; cell phones that allow kids to take literally thousands and thousands of pictures of themselves.  As for adults, we listen to people like Limbaugh and Levin and Maddow and Schultz and we want to be just as one-sided and closed-minded as they are.

Worse, it all feeds on itself.

As a result of this cultural narcissism, civility is viewed as some kind of capitulation, intolerance is viewed as strength.  When we have a significant part of the society that literally does not want to hear opposing views, when they literally want to punish a person for expressing their views, we have a real problem.

If I'm right and it's a cultural issue, it can only be reversed through the culture.  By leaders from multiple walks of life who are brave and strong enough to fight against it.  I don't see anyone like that on the horizon.

.


----------



## Mojo2

Foxfyre said:


> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?



I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.

The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.

Here is a link to it.

Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.

Really.

It's THAT good!


----------



## Derideo_Te

Foxfyre said:


> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?



Intolerance is nothing new. It is only in the past year that the law banning someone from marrying the consenting adult of their choice was partially overturned and states still have the ability to be intolerant on that issue. So as far as a trend goes this is just another blip on the chart. Overall there is a trend towards greater tolerance but it isn't happening overnight. 

As far as the intolerance towards holding a bigoted position goes that won't go away either. And even it when it does it will simply be replaced by a different one because there are some who are so insecure they need some way to make themselves feel "superior" to others. This is a part of human nature and try as we might it will take far longer to "evolve" than any of us will be around to observe.

When it comes to being "dangerous" I don't see it that way at all. Short of censorship freedom of speech is the bigots best friend. And no, I don't advocate censorship because the appropriate response to bigotry is public ridicule in my opinion. We the People shape our own society to reflect who we are. Demographics show that we are changing into a more diverse and accepting society than before. Yes, there are throwbacks and reactionaries and ugly incidents because no change is without turmoil. But it is all part of the process. 

We the People have a sound basis for our society and I have no doubt that if we were to fall into a coma and waken 100 years hence we would find that while superficial appearances will be different (just as they were 100 years ago) society will still be much as it ever was. And yes, bigotry will still exist only it will probably have dwindled to just treating Atheists as outcasts.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Mojo2 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.
> 
> The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.
> 
> Here is a link to it.
> 
> Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.
> 
> Really.
> 
> It's THAT good!
Click to expand...


 that anyone could actually swallow that kind of partisan drivel!


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

In my own observations, those who scream tolerance the most tend to be the worst offenders.


----------



## Asclepias

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> In my own observations, those who scream tolerance the most tend to be the worst offenders.



Is it even possible to be tolerant of intolerant people?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Asclepias said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my own observations, those who scream tolerance the most tend to be the worst offenders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it even possible to be tolerant of intolerant people?
Click to expand...


Yes! 

I ignore them right here in the USMB. 

They can spout off as much as they like and I have no problem with it whatsoever. In fact I support their right to do so. I tolerate their intolerance because their freedom and mine are indivisible.


----------



## Asclepias

Derideo_Te said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my own observations, those who scream tolerance the most tend to be the worst offenders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it even possible to be tolerant of intolerant people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes!
> 
> I ignore them right here in the USMB.
> 
> They can spout off as much as they like and I have no problem with it whatsoever. In fact I support their right to do so. I tolerate their intolerance because their freedom and mine are indivisible.
Click to expand...


How would you feel if someone on here influenced a person to kill a school full of say Asians because you were tolerant of their view and ignored them?  What if your voice in opposition was the lone reason that person decided not to do it?


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> In my own observations, those who scream tolerance the most tend to be the worst offenders.



That's interesting, because in my experience, those who scream "tolerance" the loudest are usually Conservatives trying to build up _tu quoque_ fallacies.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

"Tolerance" is a meaningless phrase.

Most of the examples of "intolerance" that you've mentioned in the OP are simply people disagreeing.

"Tolerance" doesn't mean that I have to agree with you, and the act of disagreeing, even being vocal with my disagreement, isn't being "intolerant".


----------



## Derideo_Te

Asclepias said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it even possible to be tolerant of intolerant people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!
> 
> I ignore them right here in the USMB.
> 
> They can spout off as much as they like and I have no problem with it whatsoever. In fact I support their right to do so. I tolerate their intolerance because their freedom and mine are indivisible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would you feel if someone on here influenced a person to kill a school full of say Asians because you were tolerant of their view and ignored them?  What if your voice in opposition was the lone reason that person decided not to do it?
Click to expand...


I don't delude myself into believing that my opinion will ever make a significant difference. I see myself as just one small voice in a much larger chorus of We the People. Each voice has it's own part to sing in the Opera that is America today but mine is insignificant and no, I don't fancy myself as a soloist.

So the person deranged enough to commit that heinous act will do so of their own volition and it won't be because someone here made them do it either. Adults must accept responsibility for their actions. Blaming others is what children do.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> I think that true tolerance is an idea that will never be achieved. It simply is against human nature. No one is going to be tolerant of say someone wishing to oppress them. They are going to do everything in their power to nip that sort of thinking in the bud.
> 
> Before there is action there is a thought. If people with certain thoughts that are detrimental to society as a whole are allowed a platform, they can and will influence others to take up those same thoughts. A good example of that is Hitler.  People were tolerant of Hitler and look what happened.



I am not advocating tolerance for anything and everything.  Many things should be intolerable to freedom loving and fair minded and good people.

It was not Hitler's thoughts, however, that created the Holocaust.  It was Hitler's INTENT and his ACTIONS.  And yes those were tolerated by good people until it was too late for them to stop him without a terrible bloody cost of many millions of lives.

The tolerance I am looking for is to allow people to be who they are who aren't intending or actively trying to coerce others.  Again from the op:

*I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.*


----------



## Mac1958

theDoctorisIn said:


> "Tolerance" is a meaningless phrase.
> 
> Most of the examples of "intolerance" that you've mentioned in the OP are simply people disagreeing.
> 
> "Tolerance" doesn't mean that I have to agree with you, and the act of disagreeing, even being vocal with my disagreement, isn't being "intolerant".




Meh, it's essentially semantics.

For me, it's not difficult to differentiate civility from intolerance.  Just look at the posts on this site, sometimes you'll see a response like "well, I disagree and here's why", and sometimes (more often, unfortunately) you'll see something much closer to "that's bullshit, you're an idiot".

Personally, I would consider the latter a form of intolerance, a lack of civility, a lack of confidence, a lack of fundamental maturity, or some combination therein.

.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Mac1958 said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Tolerance" is a meaningless phrase.
> 
> Most of the examples of "intolerance" that you've mentioned in the OP are simply people disagreeing.
> 
> "Tolerance" doesn't mean that I have to agree with you, and the act of disagreeing, even being vocal with my disagreement, isn't being "intolerant".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, it's essentially semantics.
> 
> For me, it's not difficult to differentiate civility from intolerance.  Just look at the posts on this site, sometimes you'll see a response like "well, I disagree and here's why", and sometimes (more often, unfortunately) you'll see something much closer to "that's bullshit, you're an idiot".
> 
> Personally, I would consider the latter a form of intolerance, a lack of civility, a lack of confidence, childishness, or some combination therein.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I would agree with the lack of civility, lack of confidence, childishness, or some combination.

But I wouldn't call it "intolerance".


----------



## Mac1958

theDoctorisIn said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Tolerance" is a meaningless phrase.
> 
> Most of the examples of "intolerance" that you've mentioned in the OP are simply people disagreeing.
> 
> "Tolerance" doesn't mean that I have to agree with you, and the act of disagreeing, even being vocal with my disagreement, isn't being "intolerant".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, it's essentially semantics.
> 
> For me, it's not difficult to differentiate civility from intolerance.  Just look at the posts on this site, sometimes you'll see a response like "well, I disagree and here's why", and sometimes (more often, unfortunately) you'll see something much closer to "that's bullshit, you're an idiot".
> 
> Personally, I would consider the latter a form of intolerance, a lack of civility, a lack of confidence, childishness, or some combination therein.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would agree with the lack of civility, lack of confidence, childishness, or some combination.
> 
> But I wouldn't call it "intolerance".
Click to expand...



As I said, semantics.

.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

If someone walks up to me on the street and tells me that he hates black people, is it "intolerant" of me to say "You're a racist"?

If someone goes on television and says he hates black people, would it be "intolerant" of me to go on TV and say "That guy is a racist"?

If someone builds a following of hundreds of people who support his hatred of black people, is it "intolerant" if I were to build a following of people to call him a racist?


----------



## Foxfyre

theDoctorisIn said:


> "Tolerance" is a meaningless phrase.
> 
> Most of the examples of "intolerance" that you've mentioned in the OP are simply people disagreeing.
> 
> "Tolerance" doesn't mean that I have to agree with you, and the act of disagreeing, even being vocal with my disagreement, isn't being "intolerant".



Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one.  Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.

But I have to disagree that 'tolerance' is a meaningless phrase.  I am not speaking about disagreement or our voicing our disagreement.  And I didn't GIVE any examples in the OP.  

But here are some examples of intolerance of people for no other reason than they are who and what they are.  These are by no means the ONLY examples:


A demand that Phil Robertson be fired from A&E due to his answer given to a GQ Magazine interviewer.

A demand that Chick-fil-a be boycotted for no other reason than the CEO supports traditional marriage.

A demand that Ellen Degeneres be dumped from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason that she is gay.

An effort to financially ruin a talk show host for characterizing Sandra Fluke as a 'slut'.

A demand to censure Trent Lott by accusing him of supporting segregation when he was extemporaneously praising a colleague on his 100th birthday.

A campaign to intimidate advertisers of Saturday Night Live to dump the show due to 'offensive' content.

Shouting down or refusing to allow somebody to speak on a college campus who was invited to do so.​
Note that none of the targets of these campaigns were doing anything to anybody.  They were not requiring contribution or participation by anybody.  The targets were being targeted purely for being who and what they are.  

It was not sufficient for the attacking organizations to urge their membership to register their disagreement with or boycott the 'offending' parties.   They were out to physically and/or materially harm/punish those parties--actively hurt them--anyway they could.  For no other reason than they expressed an opinion the attacking organization didn't like and/or are who they are.

Even if such attacking organizations were not politically motivated--they never go after their own who behave or say things badly--this is not something any freedom loving person should allow.  Yes, we all are subject to certain protocols required of our immediate associations, employers, etc.  But none of us should be afraid to be who and what we are out of fear that some unrelated angry mob, group, or organization will come after us and attempt to physically and/or materially punish us.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intolerance is nothing new. It is only in the past year that the law banning someone from marrying the consenting adult of their choice was partially overturned and states still have the ability to be intolerant on that issue. So as far as a trend goes this is just another blip on the chart. Overall there is a trend towards greater tolerance but it isn't happening overnight.
> 
> As far as the intolerance towards holding a bigoted position goes that won't go away either. And even it when it does it will simply be replaced by a different one because there are some who are so insecure they need some way to make themselves feel "superior" to others. This is a part of human nature and try as we might it will take far longer to "evolve" than any of us will be around to observe.
> 
> When it comes to being "dangerous" I don't see it that way at all. Short of censorship freedom of speech is the bigots best friend. *And no, I don't advocate censorship because the appropriate response to bigotry is public ridicule in my opinion. We the People shape our own society to reflect who we are.* Demographics show that we are changing into a more diverse and accepting society than before. Yes, there are throwbacks and reactionaries and ugly incidents because no change is without turmoil. But it is all part of the process.
> 
> We the People have a sound basis for our society and I have no doubt that if we were to fall into a coma and waken 100 years hence we would find that while superficial appearances will be different (just as they were 100 years ago) society will still be much as it ever was. And yes, bigotry will still exist only it will probably have dwindled to just treating Atheists as outcasts.
Click to expand...


Exactly. 

A free and democratic society can be messy, and intentionally so; the Framers correctly understood the need of unbridled, full-throated debate in the context of private society concerning the conflicts and controversies of the day, and that the people alone should resolve these conflicts and controversies absent interference by the government or the courts. 

That some might fear this process is understandable, but this is the nature of a truly free society and people, where the people alone define what that society is to be, how it should function, and what is considered appropriate and inappropriate. 

As Justice Kennedy observed when addressing the nature of the constitution and democracy: 



> [The] constitution with a small c is a word that had been used by historians and political theorists for centuries. Constitution with a small c means the sum total of customs and traditions and mores and beliefs and historical heritage that define a people.
> 
> Constitution with a small c in this sense was used to some extent by Plato and certainly by Aristotle, Pericles, Locke, Rousseau, Harrington, Jacques Maritain, and Michael Oakeshott. The whole point of official free speech is that the people can define their small-c constitution so that their country has a meaning and a purpose and a history and a destiny, and its the small-c constitution that other people look to, that other countries look to, to see what the United States is, what it stands for.
> 
> Constitution and Its Promise: Joseph Story Lecture by Justice Anthony Kennedy


----------



## Mac1958

theDoctorisIn said:


> If someone walks up to me on the street and tells me that he hates black people, is it "intolerant" of me to say "You're a racist"?
> 
> If someone goes on television and says he hates black people, would it be "intolerant" of me to go on TV and say "That guy is a racist"?
> 
> If someone builds a following of hundreds of people who support his hatred of black people, is it "intolerant" if I were to build a following of people to call him a racist?




In my opinion, yes, because I want to know what other people thinking whether I agree with it or not.  Frankly, I want to know who the REAL racists are so that I know not to associate with them.  But that's just me, I know, many (most) would disagree.

Here's what I'm curious about:  Using your example, when you call someone a racist, what precisely are you trying to accomplish?  Do you think that by yelling "racist" at him, you're going to somehow change his mind?  What do you want to have happen by calling him a racist?

Sincere question, I'd like to know.

.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Foxfyre said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Tolerance" is a meaningless phrase.
> 
> Most of the examples of "intolerance" that you've mentioned in the OP are simply people disagreeing.
> 
> "Tolerance" doesn't mean that I have to agree with you, and the act of disagreeing, even being vocal with my disagreement, isn't being "intolerant".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one.  Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.
> 
> But I have to disagree that 'tolerance' is a meaningless phrase.  I am not speaking about disagreement or our voicing our disagreement.  And I didn't GIVE any examples in the OP.
> 
> But here are some examples of intolerance of people for no other reason than they are who and what they are.  These are by no means the ONLY examples:
> 
> 
> A demand that Phil Robertson be fired from A&E due to his answer given to a GQ Magazine interviewer.
> 
> A demand that Chick-fil-a be boycotted for no other reason than the CEO supports traditional marriage.
> 
> A demand that Ellen Degeneres be dumped from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason that she is gay.
> 
> An effort to financially ruin a talk show host for characterizing Sandra Fluke as a 'slut'.
> 
> A demand to censure Trent Lott by accusing him of supporting segregation when he was extemporaneously praising a colleague on his 100th birthday.
> 
> A campaign to intimida​te advertisers of Saturday Night Live to dump the show due to 'offensive' content.
> 
> Shouting down or refusing to allow somebody to speak on a college campus who was invited to do so.
> 
> Note that none of the targets of these campaigns were doing anything to anybody.  They were not requiring contribution or participation by anybody.  The targets were being targeted purely for being who and what they are.
> 
> It was not sufficient for the attacking organizations to urge their membership to register their disagreement with or boycott the 'offending' parties.   They were out to physically and/or materially harm/punish those parties--actively hurt them--anyway they could.  For no other reason than they expressed an opinion the attacking organization didn't like and/or are who they are.
> 
> Even if such attacking organizations were not politically motivated--they never go after their own who behave or say things badly--this is not something any freedom loving person should allow.  Yes, we all are subject to certain protocols required of our immediate associations, employers, etc.  But none of us should be afraid to be who and what we are out of fear that some unrelated angry mob, group, or organization will come after us and attempt to physically and/or materially punish us.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you didn't give any explicit examples, but you made it pretty clear what you were talking about. None of those examples show "intolerance". 

In all of those examples, you've listed public figures, who made public comments that other have disagreed with - publicly and vocally. All of those people made ACTIONS, not thoughts - and the response was to those actions, not thoughts.

Calling Sandra Fluke a "slut" on the radio is an Action, not a thought.
Calling homosexuals "sinners" to a reporter is an Action, not a thought.

And so on.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Mac1958 said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone walks up to me on the street and tells me that he hates black people, is it "intolerant" of me to say "You're a racist"?
> 
> If someone goes on television and says he hates black people, would it be "intolerant" of me to go on TV and say "That guy is a racist"?
> 
> If someone builds a following of hundreds of people who support his hatred of black people, is it "intolerant" if I were to build a following of people to call him a racist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, yes, because I want to know what other people thinking whether I agree with it or not.  Frankly, I want to know who the REAL racists are so that I know not to associate with them.  But that's just me, I know, many (most) would disagree.
> 
> Here's what I'm curious about:  Using your example, when you call someone a racist, what precisely are you trying to accomplish?  Do you think that by yelling "racist" at him, you're going to somehow change his mind?  What do you want to have happen by calling him a racist?
> 
> Sincere question, I'd like to know.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


When (and if) I were to call a racist a racist, it would serve the purpose of informing that person of what I thought of what they were saying.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Foxfyre said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Tolerance" is a meaningless phrase.
> 
> Most of the examples of "intolerance" that you've mentioned in the OP are simply people disagreeing.
> 
> "Tolerance" doesn't mean that I have to agree with you, and the act of disagreeing, even being vocal with my disagreement, isn't being "intolerant".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one.  Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.
> 
> But I have to disagree that 'tolerance' is a meaningless phrase.  I am not speaking about disagreement or our voicing our disagreement.  And I didn't GIVE any examples in the OP.
> 
> But here are some examples of intolerance of people for no other reason than they are who and what they are.  These are by no means the ONLY examples:
> 
> 
> A demand that Phil Robertson be fired from A&E due to his answer given to a GQ Magazine interviewer.
> 
> A demand that Chick-fil-a be boycotted for no other reason than the CEO supports traditional marriage.
> 
> A demand that Ellen Degeneres be dumped from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason that she is gay.
> 
> An effort to financially ruin a talk show host for characterizing Sandra Fluke as a 'slut'.
> 
> A demand to censure Trent Lott by accusing him of supporting segregation when he was extemporaneously praising a colleague on his 100th birthday.
> 
> A campaign to intimidate advertisers of Saturday Night Live to dump the show due to 'offensive' content.
> 
> Shouting down or refusing to allow somebody to speak on a college campus who was invited to do so.​
> *Note that none of the targets of these campaigns were doing anything to anybody.  They were not requiring contribution or participation by anybody.  The targets were being targeted purely for being who and what they are.  *
> 
> *It was not sufficient for the attacking organizations to urge their membership to register their disagreement with or boycott the 'offending' parties.   They were out to physically and/or materially harm/punish those parties--actively hurt them--anyway they could.  For no other reason than they expressed an opinion the attacking organization didn't like and/or are who they are.*
> 
> Even if such attacking organizations were not politically motivated--they never go after their own who behave or say things badly--this is not something any freedom loving person should allow.  Yes, we all are subject to certain protocols required of our immediate associations, employers, etc.  But none of us should be afraid to be who and what we are out of fear that some unrelated angry mob, group, or organization will come after us and attempt to physically and/or materially punish us.
Click to expand...



I can't take anything you say seriously.

Are you really trying to claim that Rush calling a young woman a "slut" is just "who he is"?


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Was it "intolerant" for people to be outraged and demand the firing of Martin Bashir for his comments about Sarah Palin?

Was it "intolerant" of MSNBC to fire him?


----------



## Foxfyre

theDoctorisIn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Tolerance" is a meaningless phrase.
> 
> Most of the examples of "intolerance" that you've mentioned in the OP are simply people disagreeing.
> 
> "Tolerance" doesn't mean that I have to agree with you, and the act of disagreeing, even being vocal with my disagreement, isn't being "intolerant".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one.  Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.
> 
> But I have to disagree that 'tolerance' is a meaningless phrase.  I am not speaking about disagreement or our voicing our disagreement.  And I didn't GIVE any examples in the OP.
> 
> But here are some examples of intolerance of people for no other reason than they are who and what they are.  These are by no means the ONLY examples:
> 
> 
> A demand that Phil Robertson be fired from A&E due to his answer given to a GQ Magazine interviewer.
> 
> A demand that Chick-fil-a be boycotted for no other reason than the CEO supports traditional marriage.
> 
> A demand that Ellen Degeneres be dumped from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason that she is gay.
> 
> An effort to financially ruin a talk show host for characterizing Sandra Fluke as a 'slut'.
> 
> A demand to censure Trent Lott by accusing him of supporting segregation when he was extemporaneously praising a colleague on his 100th birthday.
> 
> A campaign to intimidate advertisers of Saturday Night Live to dump the show due to 'offensive' content.
> 
> Shouting down or refusing to allow somebody to speak on a college campus who was invited to do so.​
> *Note that none of the targets of these campaigns were doing anything to anybody.  They were not requiring contribution or participation by anybody.  The targets were being targeted purely for being who and what they are.  *
> 
> *It was not sufficient for the attacking organizations to urge their membership to register their disagreement with or boycott the 'offending' parties.   They were out to physically and/or materially harm/punish those parties--actively hurt them--anyway they could.  For no other reason than they expressed an opinion the attacking organization didn't like and/or are who they are.*
> 
> Even if such attacking organizations were not politically motivated--they never go after their own who behave or say things badly--this is not something any freedom loving person should allow.  Yes, we all are subject to certain protocols required of our immediate associations, employers, etc.  But none of us should be afraid to be who and what we are out of fear that some unrelated angry mob, group, or organization will come after us and attempt to physically and/or materially punish us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't take anything you say seriously.
> 
> Are you really trying to claim that Rush calling a young woman a "slut" is just "who he is"?
Click to expand...


Yes I am just as Martin Bashir is who he is when he said somebody should treat Sarah Palin as a slave and deficate in her mouth.  Both statements were crude, unacceptable, and wrong in a polite society.  But neither party DID anything to anybody.  They expressed an opinion no matter how indefensible or despicable.  Their employers could definitely take issue with them and enforce whatever personnel protocol was appropriate.  Their audiences could certainly choose to watch or listen to somebody or something else.  But for an angry mob, group, or organization to go after either of them and attempt to hurt them for no reason other than they expressed a socially abhorrent opinion is just wrong, anti-American, and should be tolerated by none of us.


----------



## Foxfyre

theDoctorisIn said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone walks up to me on the street and tells me that he hates black people, is it "intolerant" of me to say "You're a racist"?
> 
> If someone goes on television and says he hates black people, would it be "intolerant" of me to go on TV and say "That guy is a racist"?
> 
> If someone builds a following of hundreds of people who support his hatred of black people, is it "intolerant" if I were to build a following of people to call him a racist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, yes, because I want to know what other people thinking whether I agree with it or not.  Frankly, I want to know who the REAL racists are so that I know not to associate with them.  But that's just me, I know, many (most) would disagree.
> 
> Here's what I'm curious about:  Using your example, when you call someone a racist, what precisely are you trying to accomplish?  Do you think that by yelling "racist" at him, you're going to somehow change his mind?  What do you want to have happen by calling him a racist?
> 
> Sincere question, I'd like to know.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When (and if) I were to call a racist a racist, it would serve the purpose of informing that person of what I thought of what they were saying.
Click to expand...


That is absolutely right.  And you should be able to do so without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization would come after you and attempt to hurt you physically and/or materially for no reason other than you expressed your opinion.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Foxfyre said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Tolerance" is a meaningless phrase.
> 
> Most of the examples of "intolerance" that you've mentioned in the OP are simply people disagreeing.
> 
> "Tolerance" doesn't mean that I have to agree with you, and the act of disagreeing, even being vocal with my disagreement, isn't being "intolerant".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one.  Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.
> 
> But I have to disagree that 'tolerance' is a meaningless phrase.  I am not speaking about disagreement or our voicing our disagreement.  And I didn't GIVE any examples in the OP.
> 
> But here are some examples of intolerance of people for no other reason than they are who and what they are.  These are by no means the ONLY examples:
> 
> 
> A demand that Phil Robertson be fired from A&E due to his answer given to a GQ Magazine interviewer.
> 
> A demand that Chick-fil-a be boycotted for no other reason than the CEO supports traditional marriage.
> 
> A demand that Ellen Degeneres be dumped from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason that she is gay.
> 
> An effort to financially ruin a talk show host for characterizing Sandra Fluke as a 'slut'.
> 
> A demand to censure Trent Lott by accusing him of supporting segregation when he was extemporaneously praising a colleague on his 100th birthday.
> 
> A campaign to intimidate advertisers of Saturday Night Live to dump the show due to 'offensive' content.
> 
> Shouting down or refusing to allow somebody to speak on a college campus who was invited to do so.​
> Note that none of the targets of these campaigns were doing anything to anybody.  They were not requiring contribution or participation by anybody.  The targets were being targeted purely for being who and what they are.
> 
> It was not sufficient for the attacking organizations to urge their membership to register their disagreement with or boycott the 'offending' parties.   They were out to physically and/or materially harm/punish those parties--actively hurt them--anyway they could.  For no other reason than they expressed an opinion the attacking organization didn't like and/or are who they are.
> 
> Even if such attacking organizations were not politically motivated--they never go after their own who behave or say things badly--this is not something any freedom loving person should allow.  Yes, we all are subject to certain protocols required of our immediate associations, employers, etc.  But none of us should be afraid to be who and what we are out of fear that some unrelated angry mob, group, or organization will come after us and attempt to physically and/or materially punish us.
Click to expand...


None of us are entitled to be protected from the consequences of our openly stated opinions. The only thing that is sacrosanct is the right to express them. But if what I post about Mojo's link results in an angry mob demanding that I must be banned because I dared to label it as "drivel" then sobeit. That angry mob can rant and rave to their heart's content but the decision is not theirs to make. It will hinge upon whether or not I broke the USMB posting rules when I expressed that opinion. If I did then I must take responsibility for my own post. If I didn't the angry mob will have no impact on what I have posted in the past or the future for that matter.

So what you are talking about is fear of "mob justice". But since we live under the Rule of Law where no one is above it "mob justice" has no real force. To use your own example the "mob" in the form of GLAAD failed in their attempt because A&E was bound by whatever the "rules" were in the legal contract. Since PR had made similar statements on their show they were in no position to censure him for expressing them in another forum. The lawyers probably verified the rules and A&E then implemented them appropriately.

There was, and is, nothing to fear from the "mob justice" because it is outside of the Rule of Law. Granted the law moves slowly in comparison but unless We the People are willing to trust the system we are setting ourselves up for failure.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Foxfyre said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one.  Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.
> 
> But I have to disagree that 'tolerance' is a meaningless phrase.  I am not speaking about disagreement or our voicing our disagreement.  And I didn't GIVE any examples in the OP.
> 
> But here are some examples of intolerance of people for no other reason than they are who and what they are.  These are by no means the ONLY examples:
> 
> 
> A demand that Phil Robertson be fired from A&E due to his answer given to a GQ Magazine interviewer.
> 
> A demand that Chick-fil-a be boycotted for no other reason than the CEO supports traditional marriage.
> 
> A demand that Ellen Degeneres be dumped from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason that she is gay.
> 
> An effort to financially ruin a talk show host for characterizing Sandra Fluke as a 'slut'.
> 
> A demand to censure Trent Lott by accusing him of supporting segregation when he was extemporaneously praising a colleague on his 100th birthday.
> 
> A campaign to intimidate advertisers of Saturday Night Live to dump the show due to 'offensive' content.
> 
> Shouting down or refusing to allow somebody to speak on a college campus who was invited to do so.​
> *Note that none of the targets of these campaigns were doing anything to anybody.  They were not requiring contribution or participation by anybody.  The targets were being targeted purely for being who and what they are.  *
> 
> *It was not sufficient for the attacking organizations to urge their membership to register their disagreement with or boycott the 'offending' parties.   They were out to physically and/or materially harm/punish those parties--actively hurt them--anyway they could.  For no other reason than they expressed an opinion the attacking organization didn't like and/or are who they are.*
> 
> Even if such attacking organizations were not politically motivated--they never go after their own who behave or say things badly--this is not something any freedom loving person should allow.  Yes, we all are subject to certain protocols required of our immediate associations, employers, etc.  But none of us should be afraid to be who and what we are out of fear that some unrelated angry mob, group, or organization will come after us and attempt to physically and/or materially punish us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't take anything you say seriously.
> 
> Are you really trying to claim that Rush calling a young woman a "slut" is just "who he is"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I am just as Martin Bashir is who he is when he said somebody should treat Sarah Palin as a slave and deficate in her mouth.  Both statements were crude, unacceptable, and wrong in a polite society. * But neither party DID anything to anybody. * They expressed an opinion no matter how indefensible or despicable.  Their employers could definitely take issue with them and enforce whatever personnel protocol was appropriate.  Their audiences could certainly choose to watch or listen to somebody or something else.  But for an angry mob, group, or organization to go after either of them and attempt to hurt them for no reason other than they expressed a socially abhorrent opinion is just wrong, anti-American, and should be tolerated by none of us.
Click to expand...


Nonsense.

Thousands of "ditto heads" now refer to Sandra Fluke as a "slut" whenever they mention her name. Perhaps you should ask _her_ whether she thinks Rush DID anything to her.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Foxfyre said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, yes, because I want to know what other people thinking whether I agree with it or not.  Frankly, I want to know who the REAL racists are so that I know not to associate with them.  But that's just me, I know, many (most) would disagree.
> 
> Here's what I'm curious about:  Using your example, when you call someone a racist, what precisely are you trying to accomplish?  Do you think that by yelling "racist" at him, you're going to somehow change his mind?  What do you want to have happen by calling him a racist?
> 
> Sincere question, I'd like to know.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When (and if) I were to call a racist a racist, it would serve the purpose of informing that person of what I thought of what they were saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is absolutely right.  And you should be able to do so without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization would come after you and attempt to hurt you *physically *and/or materially for no reason other than you expressed your opinion.
Click to expand...


No one has been hurt "physically", and those "angry mobs" are just people expressing their contrary opinion.


----------



## Foxfyre

Mac1958 said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, it's essentially semantics.
> 
> For me, it's not difficult to differentiate civility from intolerance.  Just look at the posts on this site, sometimes you'll see a response like "well, I disagree and here's why", and sometimes (more often, unfortunately) you'll see something much closer to "that's bullshit, you're an idiot".
> 
> Personally, I would consider the latter a form of intolerance, a lack of civility, a lack of confidence, childishness, or some combination therein.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree with the lack of civility, lack of confidence, childishness, or some combination.
> 
> But I wouldn't call it "intolerance".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, semantics.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Intolerance means to me that you will not permit it, not allow it, not agree to allowing it to exist.  It is easy to say that we will not tolerate racists or homophobes or religious nuts or environmental wackos, but what we are really saying is we will not agree to be like them, to accept their point of view as okay.  The context of the OP is more than just semantics.  It is more than our personal choice of whether we will associate with or patronize somebody we find unacceptable.  

Intolerance in this context is the concept of physically and/or materially hurting in an intentional way somebody who holds opinions that we don't share, who expresses beliefs or opinions that we don't agree with, who seek to silence anybody that expresses an 'objectionable' or 'politically incorrect' or 'offensive' point of view.'

The problem is who gets to set the standards?  Who gets to make the rules for who and what people are allowed to be?


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Are you making the argument that it's "intolerant" to complain about a public figure making rude comments?


----------



## Asclepias

Derideo_Te said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!
> 
> I ignore them right here in the USMB.
> 
> They can spout off as much as they like and I have no problem with it whatsoever. In fact I support their right to do so. I tolerate their intolerance because their freedom and mine are indivisible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you feel if someone on here influenced a person to kill a school full of say Asians because you were tolerant of their view and ignored them?  What if your voice in opposition was the lone reason that person decided not to do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't delude myself into believing that my opinion will ever make a significant difference. I see myself as just one small voice in a much larger chorus of We the People. Each voice has it's own part to sing in the Opera that is America today but mine is insignificant and no, I don't fancy myself as a soloist.
> 
> So the person deranged enough to commit that heinous act will do so of their own volition and it won't be because someone here made them do it either. Adults must accept responsibility for their actions. Blaming others is what children do.
Click to expand...


Everyones opinion makes a difference. Sometimes it can be significant without you ever intending it to be. In my example if all the person needed was one voice of reason and you elected to remain silent how would you feel?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Asclepias said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you feel if someone on here influenced a person to kill a school full of say Asians because you were tolerant of their view and ignored them?  What if your voice in opposition was the lone reason that person decided not to do it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't delude myself into believing that my opinion will ever make a significant difference. I see myself as just one small voice in a much larger chorus of We the People. Each voice has it's own part to sing in the Opera that is America today but mine is insignificant and no, I don't fancy myself as a soloist.
> 
> So the person deranged enough to commit that heinous act will do so of their own volition and it won't be because someone here made them do it either. Adults must accept responsibility for their actions. Blaming others is what children do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyones opinion makes a difference. Sometimes it can be significant without you ever intending it to be. In my example if all the person needed was one voice of reason and you elected to remain silent how would you feel?
Click to expand...


Unlikely that I would even be aware that I failed to be the "one voice of reason". As far as opinions making a difference I don't see it happening all that often. Instead I see entrenched positions that are unlikely to change irrespective of whatever opinions are expressed. Certainly someone deranged enough to senselessly kill innocent people is unlikely to be open to the "voice of reason" so I am having a problem with your hypothesis.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that true tolerance is an idea that will never be achieved. It simply is against human nature. No one is going to be tolerant of say someone wishing to oppress them. They are going to do everything in their power to nip that sort of thinking in the bud.
> 
> Before there is action there is a thought. If people with certain thoughts that are detrimental to society as a whole are allowed a platform, they can and will influence others to take up those same thoughts. A good example of that is Hitler.  People were tolerant of Hitler and look what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I am not advocating tolerance for anything and everything.*  Many things should be intolerable to freedom loving and fair minded and good people.
> 
> *It was not Hitler's thoughts, however, that created the Holocaust.*  It was Hitler's INTENT and his ACTIONS.  And yes those were tolerated by good people until it was too late for them to stop him without a terrible bloody cost of many millions of lives.
> 
> The tolerance I am looking for is to allow people to be who they are who aren't intending or actively trying to coerce others.  Again from the op:
> 
> *I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.*
Click to expand...


In your first statement wouldn't that be the very definition of intolerant? Some thoughts are ok but others are not?

Before Hitler took action he expressed thoughts that influenced people. His thoughts were the impetus and his actions were the fulfillment of those thoughts.

If you voice your opinion you are actively contributing to moving people to think about your opinion be it a good or bad reaction.  If what you think remains inside your head and is not expressed in your actions that is the only way it does not involve contribution, participation, or affect others.


----------



## Foxfyre

theDoctorisIn said:


> Was it "intolerant" for people to be outraged and demand the firing of Martin Bashir for his comments about Sarah Palin?
> 
> Was it "intolerant" of MSNBC to fire him?



To the first question, yes.
To the second question, no.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Foxfyre said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was it "intolerant" for people to be outraged and demand the firing of Martin Bashir for his comments about Sarah Palin?
> 
> Was it "intolerant" of MSNBC to fire him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the first question, yes.
> To the second question, no.
Click to expand...


Even thought the only reason they fired him was due to that "outrage"?


----------



## Asclepias

Derideo_Te said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't delude myself into believing that my opinion will ever make a significant difference. I see myself as just one small voice in a much larger chorus of We the People. Each voice has it's own part to sing in the Opera that is America today but mine is insignificant and no, I don't fancy myself as a soloist.
> 
> So the person deranged enough to commit that heinous act will do so of their own volition and it won't be because someone here made them do it either. Adults must accept responsibility for their actions. Blaming others is what children do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyones opinion makes a difference. Sometimes it can be significant without you ever intending it to be. In my example if all the person needed was one voice of reason and you elected to remain silent how would you feel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlikely that I would even be aware that I failed to be the "one voice of reason". As far as opinions making a difference I don't see it happening all that often. Instead I see entrenched positions that are unlikely to change irrespective of whatever opinions are expressed. Certainly someone deranged enough to senselessly kill innocent people is unlikely to be open to the "voice of reason" so I am having a problem with your hypothesis.
Click to expand...


Thats the whole point.  You never know when what you express will be taken as significant to someone else.  Opinions make a huge difference all the time.  Everything you and I do are based on opinions. Can you tell me something you ever believed in without forming an opinion?  Yes your voice can be the voice of reason. You can talk someone out of committing suicide, divorce, or killing someone just by showing them a new way to think about it.  Your voice has power you wouldn't believe.  Thats not being arrogant. Thats just the facts.


----------



## Againsheila

Foxfyre said:


> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?



I think tolerance is overrated.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that true tolerance is an idea that will never be achieved. It simply is against human nature. No one is going to be tolerant of say someone wishing to oppress them. They are going to do everything in their power to nip that sort of thinking in the bud.
> 
> Before there is action there is a thought. If people with certain thoughts that are detrimental to society as a whole are allowed a platform, they can and will influence others to take up those same thoughts. A good example of that is Hitler.  People were tolerant of Hitler and look what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I am not advocating tolerance for anything and everything.*  Many things should be intolerable to freedom loving and fair minded and good people.
> 
> *It was not Hitler's thoughts, however, that created the Holocaust.*  It was Hitler's INTENT and his ACTIONS.  And yes those were tolerated by good people until it was too late for them to stop him without a terrible bloody cost of many millions of lives.
> 
> The tolerance I am looking for is to allow people to be who they are who aren't intending or actively trying to coerce others.  Again from the op:
> 
> *I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your first statement wouldn't that be the very definition of intolerant? Some thoughts are ok but others are not?
> 
> Before Hitler took action he expressed thoughts that influenced people. His thoughts were the impetus and his actions were the fulfillment of those thoughts.
> 
> If you voice your opinion you are actively contributing to moving people to think about your opinion be it a good or bad reaction.  If what you think remains inside your head and is not expressed in your actions that is the only way it does not involve contribution, participation, or affect others.
Click to expand...


No.  Not in this context.  It is not what is 'okay'.  I may think your (a generic your--not you personally) liberal views to be harmful, hateful, stupid, and ignorant.  I might not go to your party, buy your book, or ask you to serve on my committee because you wouldn't offer anything I could agree with.  If you insisted on being racist or homophobic or anti-Christian or pro-Nambla or some such, I might not want you on my staff or in my organization because it could reflect badly on my organization.  That is not intolerance.  That is choice of association--making a personal choice of what I consider to be acceptable behavior.

But I have wandered into the area of intolerance if I try to get other people to boycott your party.  If I try to get book sellers to not carry your book or intimidate people into not buying it.  If I go to your other committees and try to get you kicked off.  If I try to get your employer or sponsoring organizations to fire you.  That is far different than me exercising my personal choice or convictions.  That is maliciously and deliberately trying to punish somebody for no reason than he/she holds a belief or opinion I don't share and/or is somebody I don't like.  That would be wrong, hateful, spiteful, and should be intolerable to freedom loving people everywhere.

Thedoctorisin thinks somebody speaking an opinion is no different than DOING someithing to somebody.  He is entitled to that opinion.  I am entitled to strongly disagree with him (which I do.)  Neither of us should feel entitled to physically and/or materially punish the other because we don't like what the other says or believes though.



The Doctorisin thinks there is no difference between thought, opinion, speech, and DOING something to somebody.  That is his opinion and


----------



## Foxfyre

theDoctorisIn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was it "intolerant" for people to be outraged and demand the firing of Martin Bashir for his comments about Sarah Palin?
> 
> Was it "intolerant" of MSNBC to fire him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the first question, yes.
> To the second question, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even thought the only reason they fired him was due to that "outrage"?
Click to expand...


No.  Because they made a business decision.  It was wrong for people to demand that MSNBC fire him.  But I won't fault any business for making a legal business decision that is in its own interest.  Lord knows MSNBC has enough trouble trying to stay profitable without losing a lot of the few viewers it has left.

A&E also bowed to angry and--in my opinion--unacceptable pressure to dump Phil Robertson.  The difference was they got more pressure from the millions of fans of Duck Dynasty.  And they fairly quickly made the decision that they had more to lose by losing those fans than they had to fear from GLAAD.  Bashir simply didn't enjoy that kind of fan base.


----------



## hunarcy

Derideo_Te said:


> that anyone could actually swallow that kind of partisan drivel!



And thus we see that tolerance is not your strong suit.  Tolerance is a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, and attitudes differ from your own.  By dismissing  his video because you don't agree with it, you're showing your intolerance.  You're free to express such things, but be aware we see  your intolerance toward his thinking.


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my own observations, those who scream tolerance the most tend to be the worst offenders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it even possible to be tolerant of intolerant people?
Click to expand...


Aren't they the ones we must work hardest to tolerate?


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> How would you feel if someone on here influenced a person to kill a school full of say Asians because you were tolerant of their view and ignored them?  What if your voice in opposition was the lone reason that person decided not to do it?



If you tolerate their point of view that does not mean you agree with it.  You can debate them or try to sway them if you feel their POV is dangerous.   You can even alert Authorities if you feel there is an imminent danger to others.  But, we must tolerate their views.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I am not advocating tolerance for anything and everything.*  Many things should be intolerable to freedom loving and fair minded and good people.
> 
> *It was not Hitler's thoughts, however, that created the Holocaust.*  It was Hitler's INTENT and his ACTIONS.  And yes those were tolerated by good people until it was too late for them to stop him without a terrible bloody cost of many millions of lives.
> 
> The tolerance I am looking for is to allow people to be who they are who aren't intending or actively trying to coerce others.  Again from the op:
> 
> *I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your first statement wouldn't that be the very definition of intolerant? Some thoughts are ok but others are not?
> 
> Before Hitler took action he expressed thoughts that influenced people. His thoughts were the impetus and his actions were the fulfillment of those thoughts.
> 
> If you voice your opinion you are actively contributing to moving people to think about your opinion be it a good or bad reaction.  If what you think remains inside your head and is not expressed in your actions that is the only way it does not involve contribution, participation, or affect others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Not in this context.  It is not what is 'okay'.  I may think your (a generic your--not you personally) liberal views to be harmful, hateful, stupid, and ignorant.  I might not go to your party, buy your book, or ask you to serve on my committee because you wouldn't offer anything I could agree with.  If you insisted on being racist or homophobic or anti-Christian or pro-Nambla or some such, I might not want you on my staff or in my organization because it could reflect badly on my organization.  That is not intolerance.  That is choice of association--making a personal choice of what I consider to be acceptable behavior.
> 
> But I have wandered into the area of intolerance if I try to get other people to boycott your party.  If I try to get book sellers to not carry your book or intimidate people into not buying it.  If I go to your other committees and try to get you kicked off.  If I try to get your employer or sponsoring organizations to fire you.  That is far different than me exercising my personal choice or convictions.  That is maliciously and deliberately trying to punish somebody for no reason than he/she holds a belief or opinion I don't share and/or is somebody I don't like.  That would be wrong, hateful, spiteful, and should be intolerable to freedom loving people everywhere.
> 
> Thedoctorisin thinks somebody speaking an opinion is no different than DOING someithing to somebody.  He is entitled to that opinion.  I am entitled to strongly disagree with him (which I do.)  Neither of us should feel entitled to physically and/or materially punish the other because we don't like what the other says or believes though.
> 
> 
> 
> The Doctorisin thinks there is no difference between thought, opinion, speech, and DOING something to somebody.  That is his opinion and
Click to expand...


"Speaking" is _doing something._

It is an "action".

Thoughts and opinions are not.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Foxfyre said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the first question, yes.
> To the second question, no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even thought the only reason they fired him was due to that "outrage"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Because they made a business decision.  It was wrong for people to demand that MSNBC fire him.  But I won't fault any business for making a legal business decision that is in its own interest.  Lord knows MSNBC has enough trouble trying to stay profitable without losing a lot of the few viewers it has left.
> 
> A&E also bowed to angry and--in my opinion--unacceptable pressure to dump Phil Robertson.  The difference was they got more pressure from the millions of fans of Duck Dynasty.  And they fairly quickly made the decision that they had more to lose by losing those fans than they had to fear from GLAAD.  Bashir simply didn't enjoy that kind of fan base.
Click to expand...


In other words, the people who used their SPEECH are culpable, not those who actually did the firing (an "action").

Do I have that correct?


----------



## Foxfyre

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my own observations, those who scream tolerance the most tend to be the worst offenders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it even possible to be tolerant of intolerant people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aren't they the ones we must work hardest to tolerate?
Click to expand...


It might be the ones we have to consciously make the choice to allow to be who and what they are.  But in my opinion the tolerant person will allow people to be who and what they are so long as no contribution or participation by anybody else is required.

Again who gets to make the rules as who is tolerable and who is not?  Is a Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin not tolerable but a Martin Bashir or Ed Schultz is?  Who gets to decide that?  Who gets to write the rules of who will be tolerable and off limits to organized vendettas and who is fair game for them?

If you believe homosexuality is a sin, can you still love an Ellen Degeneres?  Appreciate her humor?  Enjoy her act?

If you believe the Bible is anti-gay, can you still love a Phil Robertson?  Enjoy Duck Dynasty?  Laugh at the intentional humor?

If we all are different and hold different opinions about most things, which of us gets to make the list of who to tolerate and who to attack?


----------



## hunarcy

theDoctorisIn said:


> I can't take anything you say seriously.



Then, why are you wasting time debating her?  You've just shown you aren't willing to accept her point of view.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I am not advocating tolerance for anything and everything.*  Many things should be intolerable to freedom loving and fair minded and good people.
> 
> *It was not Hitler's thoughts, however, that created the Holocaust.*  It was Hitler's INTENT and his ACTIONS.  And yes those were tolerated by good people until it was too late for them to stop him without a terrible bloody cost of many millions of lives.
> 
> The tolerance I am looking for is to allow people to be who they are who aren't intending or actively trying to coerce others.  Again from the op:
> 
> *I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your first statement wouldn't that be the very definition of intolerant? Some thoughts are ok but others are not?
> 
> Before Hitler took action he expressed thoughts that influenced people. His thoughts were the impetus and his actions were the fulfillment of those thoughts.
> 
> If you voice your opinion you are actively contributing to moving people to think about your opinion be it a good or bad reaction.  If what you think remains inside your head and is not expressed in your actions that is the only way it does not involve contribution, participation, or affect others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Not in this context.  It is not what is 'okay'.  I may think your (a generic your--not you personally) liberal views to be harmful, hateful, stupid, and ignorant.  I might not go to your party, buy your book, or ask you to serve on my committee because you wouldn't offer anything I could agree with.  If you insisted on being racist or homophobic or anti-Christian or pro-Nambla or some such, I might not want you on my staff or in my organization because it could reflect badly on my organization.  That is not intolerance.  That is choice of association--making a personal choice of what I consider to be acceptable behavior.
> 
> But I have wandered into the area of intolerance if I try to get other people to boycott your party.  If I try to get book sellers to not carry your book or intimidate people into not buying it.  If I go to your other committees and try to get you kicked off.  If I try to get your employer or sponsoring organizations to fire you.  That is far different than me exercising my personal choice or convictions.  That is maliciously and deliberately trying to punish somebody for no reason than he/she holds a belief or opinion I don't share and/or is somebody I don't like.  That would be wrong, hateful, spiteful, and should be intolerable to freedom loving people everywhere.
> 
> Thedoctorisin thinks somebody speaking an opinion is no different than DOING someithing to somebody.  He is entitled to that opinion.  I am entitled to strongly disagree with him (which I do.)  Neither of us should feel entitled to physically and/or materially punish the other because we don't like what the other says or believes though.
> 
> 
> 
> The Doctorisin thinks there is no difference between thought, opinion, speech, and DOING something to somebody.  That is his opinion and
Click to expand...


While I agree there is a difference between voicing an opinion and doing something (taking action) the latter does not normally occur without having the thought first.  Thoughts are dangerous only if expressed and used to influence actions.

Silencing those thoughts are a tricky subject as you pointed out because of the question of who is fit to be the judge?  IMO I have a duty to argue and destroy if possible any thoughts that I feel lead to stupidity in the form of racism, sexism, bigotry etc.  I see nothing wrong with advocating the financial ruin of someone promoting burning crosses on my neighbors lawn.  If that person can be locked up all the better.


----------



## hunarcy

Foxfyre said:


> If you believe homosexuality is a sin, can you still love an Ellen Degeneres?  Appreciate her humor?  Enjoy her act?
> 
> If you believe the Bible is anti-gay, can you still love a Phil Robertson?  Enjoy Duck Dynasty?  Laugh at the intentional humor?
> 
> If we all are different and hold different opinions about most things, which of us gets to make the list of who to tolerate and who to attack?



It's not up to us to judge our fellow humans.  We should, as much as we're able, love all around us.  We don't have to agree with them or even accept their opinions, but we should tolerate their opinions.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Foxfyre said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Tolerance" is a meaningless phrase.
> 
> Most of the examples of "intolerance" that you've mentioned in the OP are simply people disagreeing.
> 
> "Tolerance" doesn't mean that I have to agree with you, and the act of disagreeing, even being vocal with my disagreement, isn't being "intolerant".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one.  Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.
> 
> But I have to disagree that 'tolerance' is a meaningless phrase.  I am not speaking about disagreement or our voicing our disagreement.  And I didn't GIVE any examples in the OP.
> 
> But here are some examples of intolerance of people for no other reason than they are who and what they are.  These are by no means the ONLY examples:
> 
> 
> A demand that Phil Robertson be fired from A&E due to his answer given to a GQ Magazine interviewer.
> 
> A demand that Chick-fil-a be boycotted for no other reason than the CEO supports traditional marriage.
> 
> A demand that Ellen Degeneres be dumped from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason that she is gay.
> 
> An effort to financially ruin a talk show host for characterizing Sandra Fluke as a 'slut'.
> 
> A demand to censure Trent Lott by accusing him of supporting segregation when he was extemporaneously praising a colleague on his 100th birthday.
> 
> A campaign to intimidate advertisers of Saturday Night Live to dump the show due to 'offensive' content.
> 
> Shouting down or refusing to allow somebody to speak on a college campus who was invited to do so.​
> Note that none of the targets of these campaigns were doing anything to anybody.  They were not requiring contribution or participation by anybody.  The targets were being targeted purely for being who and what they are.
> 
> It was not sufficient for the attacking organizations to urge their membership to register their disagreement with or boycott the 'offending' parties.   They were out to physically and/or materially harm/punish those parties--actively hurt them--anyway they could.  For no other reason than they expressed an opinion the attacking organization didn't like and/or are who they are.
> 
> Even if such attacking organizations were not politically motivated--they never go after their own who behave or say things badly--this is not something any freedom loving person should allow.  Yes, we all are subject to certain protocols required of our immediate associations, employers, etc.  But none of us should be afraid to be who and what we are out of fear that some unrelated angry mob, group, or organization will come after us and attempt to physically and/or materially punish us.
Click to expand...


Again, a free and democratic society can be messy. Criminal and civil law exist to address those who cross the line, making them subject to criminal prosecution and/or civil action when they do so; otherwise, its up to private society alone to determine what is intolerance, and to admonish those who engage in inappropriate speech or actions. 

As for: this is not something any freedom loving person should allow. 

What exactly do you propose be done to disallow those whom you perceive to be acting in an offensive or intolerant manner?


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my own observations, those who scream tolerance the most tend to be the worst offenders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it even possible to be tolerant of intolerant people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aren't they the ones we must work hardest to tolerate?
Click to expand...


No. Sooner or later their time will come to influence people to harm or oppress others. I'd rather not waste intelligent lives simply being tolerant of intolerant people.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Foxfyre said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it even possible to be tolerant of intolerant people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't they the ones we must work hardest to tolerate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might be the ones we have to consciously make the choice to allow to be who and what they are.  But in my opinion the tolerant person will allow people to be who and what they are so long as no contribution or participation by anybody else is required.
> 
> Again who gets to make the rules as who is tolerable and who is not?  Is a Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin not tolerable but a Martin Bashir or Ed Schultz is?  Who gets to decide that?  Who gets to write the rules of who will be tolerable and off limits to organized vendettas and who is fair game for them?
> 
> If you believe homosexuality is a sin, can you still love an Ellen Degeneres?  Appreciate her humor?  Enjoy her act?
> 
> If you believe the Bible is anti-gay, can you still love a Phil Robertson?  Enjoy Duck Dynasty?  Laugh at the intentional humor?
> 
> If we all are different and hold different opinions about most things, which of us gets to make the list of who to tolerate and who to attack?
Click to expand...


EVERYONE makes their own "list". That's the whole point.


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your first statement wouldn't that be the very definition of intolerant? Some thoughts are ok but others are not?
> 
> Before Hitler took action he expressed thoughts that influenced people. His thoughts were the impetus and his actions were the fulfillment of those thoughts.
> 
> If you voice your opinion you are actively contributing to moving people to think about your opinion be it a good or bad reaction.  If what you think remains inside your head and is not expressed in your actions that is the only way it does not involve contribution, participation, or affect others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Not in this context.  It is not what is 'okay'.  I may think your (a generic your--not you personally) liberal views to be harmful, hateful, stupid, and ignorant.  I might not go to your party, buy your book, or ask you to serve on my committee because you wouldn't offer anything I could agree with.  If you insisted on being racist or homophobic or anti-Christian or pro-Nambla or some such, I might not want you on my staff or in my organization because it could reflect badly on my organization.  That is not intolerance.  That is choice of association--making a personal choice of what I consider to be acceptable behavior.
> 
> But I have wandered into the area of intolerance if I try to get other people to boycott your party.  If I try to get book sellers to not carry your book or intimidate people into not buying it.  If I go to your other committees and try to get you kicked off.  If I try to get your employer or sponsoring organizations to fire you.  That is far different than me exercising my personal choice or convictions.  That is maliciously and deliberately trying to punish somebody for no reason than he/she holds a belief or opinion I don't share and/or is somebody I don't like.  That would be wrong, hateful, spiteful, and should be intolerable to freedom loving people everywhere.
> 
> Thedoctorisin thinks somebody speaking an opinion is no different than DOING someithing to somebody.  He is entitled to that opinion.  I am entitled to strongly disagree with him (which I do.)  Neither of us should feel entitled to physically and/or materially punish the other because we don't like what the other says or believes though.
> 
> 
> 
> The Doctorisin thinks there is no difference between thought, opinion, speech, and DOING something to somebody.  That is his opinion and
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I agree there is a difference between voicing an opinion and doing something (taking action) the latter does not normally occur without having the thought first.  Thoughts are dangerous only if expressed and used to influence actions.
> 
> Silencing those thoughts are a tricky subject as you pointed out because of the question of who is fit to be the judge?  IMO I have a duty to argue and destroy if possible any thoughts that I feel lead to stupidity in the form of racism, sexism, bigotry etc.  I see nothing wrong with advocating the financial ruin of someone promoting burning crosses on my neighbors lawn.  If that person can be locked up all the better.
Click to expand...


So, you support censorship as long as you are the one choosing who should be censored.  Burning crosses is an overt act and infringes on the rights of others.  I applaud you for wanting to stop that.  However, everyone is free to think whatever they choose.


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe homosexuality is a sin, can you still love an Ellen Degeneres?  Appreciate her humor?  Enjoy her act?
> 
> If you believe the Bible is anti-gay, can you still love a Phil Robertson?  Enjoy Duck Dynasty?  Laugh at the intentional humor?
> 
> If we all are different and hold different opinions about most things, which of us gets to make the list of who to tolerate and who to attack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not up to us to judge our fellow humans.  We should, as much as we're able, love all around us.  We don't have to agree with them or even accept their opinions, but we should tolerate their opinions.
Click to expand...


At what point should that tolerance end?  Sometimes you misjudge that time period and you end up with a holocaust.


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it even possible to be tolerant of intolerant people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't they the ones we must work hardest to tolerate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Sooner or later their time will come to influence people to harm or oppress others. I'd rather not waste intelligent lives simply being tolerant of intolerant people.
Click to expand...


More proof that you advocate censorship as long as you're the censor.


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe homosexuality is a sin, can you still love an Ellen Degeneres?  Appreciate her humor?  Enjoy her act?
> 
> If you believe the Bible is anti-gay, can you still love a Phil Robertson?  Enjoy Duck Dynasty?  Laugh at the intentional humor?
> 
> If we all are different and hold different opinions about most things, which of us gets to make the list of who to tolerate and who to attack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not up to us to judge our fellow humans.  We should, as much as we're able, love all around us.  We don't have to agree with them or even accept their opinions, but we should tolerate their opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At what point should that tolerance end?  Sometimes you misjudge that time period and you end up with a holocaust.
Click to expand...


Obviously when it moves from opinion to action and people's rights are being infringed, that's when toleration should end and action taken.


----------



## Foxfyre

hunarcy said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> that anyone could actually swallow that kind of partisan drivel!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And thus we see that tolerance is not your strong suit.  Tolerance is a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, and attitudes differ from your own.  By dismissing  his video because you don't agree with it, you're showing your intolerance.  You're free to express such things, but be aware we see  your intolerance toward his thinking.
Click to expand...


Which is his right.  I thought the guy was brilliant in that video.  I don't fully agree with his point of view on every single point, but I think he got most of it right.  But of course, if he is right, a dedicated leftist would not be able to look at his point of view critically and with an open mind.  They would dismiss it out of hand as partisan drivel.     Which is their right.

Tolerance means we allow the speaker his point of view without physically and/or materially punishing him.  And we allow DT to dismiss him as partisan drivel without physically and/or materially punishing DT.  And you and I should be allowed to choose which we think has the more defensible point of view without anybody coming after us to physically and/or materially punish us.  And if we are all tolerant, we can believe each other are all wet, wrong, or hyper partisan or whatever, and still love and/or appreciate each other.


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Not in this context.  It is not what is 'okay'.  I may think your (a generic your--not you personally) liberal views to be harmful, hateful, stupid, and ignorant.  I might not go to your party, buy your book, or ask you to serve on my committee because you wouldn't offer anything I could agree with.  If you insisted on being racist or homophobic or anti-Christian or pro-Nambla or some such, I might not want you on my staff or in my organization because it could reflect badly on my organization.  That is not intolerance.  That is choice of association--making a personal choice of what I consider to be acceptable behavior.
> 
> But I have wandered into the area of intolerance if I try to get other people to boycott your party.  If I try to get book sellers to not carry your book or intimidate people into not buying it.  If I go to your other committees and try to get you kicked off.  If I try to get your employer or sponsoring organizations to fire you.  That is far different than me exercising my personal choice or convictions.  That is maliciously and deliberately trying to punish somebody for no reason than he/she holds a belief or opinion I don't share and/or is somebody I don't like.  That would be wrong, hateful, spiteful, and should be intolerable to freedom loving people everywhere.
> 
> Thedoctorisin thinks somebody speaking an opinion is no different than DOING someithing to somebody.  He is entitled to that opinion.  I am entitled to strongly disagree with him (which I do.)  Neither of us should feel entitled to physically and/or materially punish the other because we don't like what the other says or believes though.
> 
> 
> 
> The Doctorisin thinks there is no difference between thought, opinion, speech, and DOING something to somebody.  That is his opinion and
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree there is a difference between voicing an opinion and doing something (taking action) the latter does not normally occur without having the thought first.  Thoughts are dangerous only if expressed and used to influence actions.
> 
> Silencing those thoughts are a tricky subject as you pointed out because of the question of who is fit to be the judge?  IMO I have a duty to argue and destroy if possible any thoughts that I feel lead to stupidity in the form of racism, sexism, bigotry etc.  I see nothing wrong with advocating the financial ruin of someone promoting burning crosses on my neighbors lawn.  If that person can be locked up all the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you support censorship as long as you are the one choosing who should be censored.  Burning crosses is an overt act and infringes on the rights of others.  I applaud you for wanting to stop that.  However, everyone is free to think whatever they choose.
Click to expand...


I support self censorship.  If you are not intelligent enough to censor yourself then others should do it for you.  Yes it would be in my opinion which was my whole point. Its human nature to want to stop those that are of the opinion you should not exist and *openly express that thought*.


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not up to us to judge our fellow humans.  We should, as much as we're able, love all around us.  We don't have to agree with them or even accept their opinions, but we should tolerate their opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At what point should that tolerance end?  Sometimes you misjudge that time period and you end up with a holocaust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously when it moves from opinion to action and people's rights are being infringed, that's when toleration should end and action taken.
Click to expand...


How or when is that time period defined?  At what point should saying you wish someone would shoot the president be stopped? Before or after the president is shot?


----------



## Foxfyre

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not up to us to judge our fellow humans.  We should, as much as we're able, love all around us.  We don't have to agree with them or even accept their opinions, but we should tolerate their opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At what point should that tolerance end?  Sometimes you misjudge that time period and you end up with a holocaust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously when it moves from opinion to action and people's rights are being infringed, that's when toleration should end and action taken.
Click to expand...


Bingo.  If no contribution or participation is required by anybody else, we don't have to agree with or condone their point of view, but we allow people to be who and what they are.  It is only when they are DOING something or intending to do something harmful to others that good people will intervene.  You nailed it.


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> I support self censorship.  If you are not intelligent enough to censor yourself then others should do it for you.  Yes it would be in my opinion which was my whole point. Its human nature to want to stop those that are of the opinion you should not exist and *openly express that thought*.



And that is intolerant thinking...no one should express an opinion with which you don't agree.  

Is that really the world you want to live in, Asclepias?


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree there is a difference between voicing an opinion and doing something (taking action) the latter does not normally occur without having the thought first.  Thoughts are dangerous only if expressed and used to influence actions.
> 
> Silencing those thoughts are a tricky subject as you pointed out because of the question of who is fit to be the judge?  IMO I have a duty to argue and destroy if possible any thoughts that I feel lead to stupidity in the form of racism, sexism, bigotry etc.  I see nothing wrong with advocating the financial ruin of someone promoting burning crosses on my neighbors lawn.  If that person can be locked up all the better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you support censorship as long as you are the one choosing who should be censored.  Burning crosses is an overt act and infringes on the rights of others.  I applaud you for wanting to stop that.  However, everyone is free to think whatever they choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support self censorship.  If you are not intelligent enough to censor yourself then others should do it for you.  Yes it would be in my opinion which was my whole point. Its human nature to want to stop those that are of the opinion you should not exist and *openly express that thought*.
Click to expand...


But what others?  Who would you trust to be your censor?  Hunacy?  Me?  Rush Limbaugh?  Martin Bashir?  Who?


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> How or when is that time period defined?  At what point should saying you wish someone would shoot the president be stopped? Before or after the president is shot?



I can say, in frustration or jest, that anyone should be shot, but until I take action, it's just an attitude and we shouldn't be punished for an attitude.  

(However, I realize that there are laws concerning threatening the President and whether we agree with the law or not, we must follow it)


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support self censorship.  If you are not intelligent enough to censor yourself then others should do it for you.  Yes it would be in my opinion which was my whole point. Its human nature to want to stop those that are of the opinion you should not exist and *openly express that thought*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is intolerant thinking...no one should express an opinion with which you don't agree.
> 
> Is that really the world you want to live in, Asclepias?
Click to expand...


Only some harmful opinions. Yes I agree its intolerant but I see anything wrong with being intolerant of intolerant people.


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> How or when is that time period defined?  At what point should saying you wish someone would shoot the president be stopped? Before or after the president is shot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can say, in frustration or jest, that anyone should be shot, but until I take action, it's just an attitude and we shouldn't be punished for an attitude.
> 
> (However, I realize that there are laws concerning threatening the President and whether we agree with the law or not, we must follow it)
Click to expand...


Thats where we differ I think.  Your (not you personally) expressed thought should not be tolerated if there is a possibility that your wish influences others to harm someone else.


----------



## Foxfyre

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> How or when is that time period defined?  At what point should saying you wish someone would shoot the president be stopped? Before or after the president is shot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can say, in frustration or jest, that anyone should be shot, but until I take action, it's just an attitude and we shouldn't be punished for an attitude.
> 
> (However, I realize that there are laws concerning threatening the President and whether we agree with the law or not, we must follow it)
Click to expand...


Yes and saying somebody should be shot is a common expression with no force of action or intent behind it in American vernacular.  But if I say I want you to shoot somebody or I intend to shoot somebody, then I certainly should be very strongly questioned, investigated, and, if warrented, restrained.  We are NOT talking about speech here that encourages people to do something illegal, violent, or harmful or that incites to panic or riot such as shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater.  We are talking about expressing personal opinions, convictions, belief, perspectives, observations.

It is unfortunate that, as the guy in the video explained, some are unwilling to draw and/or are incapable of drawing distinctions between two different things like that.


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support self censorship.  If you are not intelligent enough to censor yourself then others should do it for you.  Yes it would be in my opinion which was my whole point. Its human nature to want to stop those that are of the opinion you should not exist and *openly express that thought*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is intolerant thinking...no one should express an opinion with which you don't agree.
> 
> Is that really the world you want to live in, Asclepias?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only some harmful opinions. Yes I agree its intolerant but I see anything wrong with being intolerant of intolerant people.
Click to expand...


But, that's a slippery slope.  The slave owner believed it was harmful for slaves to desire to be free and did everything he could to control the slave's thinking, to the point that slaves were prevented from learning to read and write in most cases.   If you believed a slave should seek freedom, your opinion would be considered harmful in that world.  

Wouldn't you want the opinion that people should all be free to be tolerated, even by those who would deem it harmful to their lives?


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> How or when is that time period defined?  At what point should saying you wish someone would shoot the president be stopped? Before or after the president is shot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can say, in frustration or jest, that anyone should be shot, but until I take action, it's just an attitude and we shouldn't be punished for an attitude.
> 
> (However, I realize that there are laws concerning threatening the President and whether we agree with the law or not, we must follow it)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats where we differ I think.  Your (not you personally) expressed thought should not be tolerated if there is a possibility that your wish influences others to harm someone else.
Click to expand...


So, you would have supported those who wanted abolitionists to be silenced?  I cannot believe that.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you support censorship as long as you are the one choosing who should be censored.  Burning crosses is an overt act and infringes on the rights of others.  I applaud you for wanting to stop that.  However, everyone is free to think whatever they choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I support self censorship.  If you are not intelligent enough to censor yourself then others should do it for you.  Yes it would be in my opinion which was my whole point. Its human nature to want to stop those that are of the opinion you should not exist and *openly express that thought*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what others?  Who would you trust to be your censor?  Hunacy?  Me?  Rush Limbaugh?  Martin Bashir?  Who?
Click to expand...


Therein lies the paradox. Until someone or something can be appointed Supreme Censor then you can only go on your beliefs as to what constitutes a dangerous expression of thought.  The only safe way is to be intolerant of intolerant people.


----------



## Derideo_Te

hunarcy said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> that anyone could actually swallow that kind of partisan drivel!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And thus we see that tolerance is not your strong suit.  Tolerance is a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, and attitudes differ from your own.  By dismissing  his video because you don't agree with it, you're showing your intolerance.  You're free to express such things, but be aware we see  your intolerance toward his thinking.
Click to expand...


Technically speaking I am intolerant of his appalling lack of critical  thinking skills. 

However it is readily apparent that you didn't watch it yourself. Within the first 3 minutes the speaker was expressing absolute intolerance of everything that the Dems stand for. It was the epitome of intolerance and yet Mojo was raving about how good it was. So the irony here is your accusing me of intolerance without knowing that you were defending intolerance.


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can say, in frustration or jest, that anyone should be shot, but until I take action, it's just an attitude and we shouldn't be punished for an attitude.
> 
> (However, I realize that there are laws concerning threatening the President and whether we agree with the law or not, we must follow it)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats where we differ I think.  Your (not you personally) expressed thought should not be tolerated if there is a possibility that your wish influences others to harm someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you would have supported those who wanted abolitionists to be silenced?  I cannot believe that.
Click to expand...


I'm Black.  I would not agree with abolitionists being silenced.  I would be advocating the silencing of those against them.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> How or when is that time period defined?  At what point should saying you wish someone would shoot the president be stopped? Before or after the president is shot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can say, in frustration or jest, that anyone should be shot, but until I take action, it's just an attitude and we shouldn't be punished for an attitude.
> 
> (However, I realize that there are laws concerning threatening the President and whether we agree with the law or not, we must follow it)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats where we differ I think.  Your (not you personally) expressed thought should not be tolerated if there is a possibility that your wish influences others to harm someone else.
Click to expand...


But who gets to decide what is allowed to be said that might influence somebody to harm someone else?   When Nancy Pelosi describes Republicans or Tea Partiers as Nazis or bullies or obstructionists or whatever the unflattering characterization of the day is, is she influencing somebody to target Republicans or Tea Partiers?  Does anybody really think that an extemporaneous or scripted controversial comment by a politician or radio or televsion personality or preacher or even the President himself carries anywhere near the influence that violent video games or movies or television shows or rap music carries?

Who gets to make the rules about what will be considered 'harmful influence' and what is permissable?


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats where we differ I think.  Your (not you personally) expressed thought should not be tolerated if there is a possibility that your wish influences others to harm someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you would have supported those who wanted abolitionists to be silenced?  I cannot believe that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm Black.  I would not agree with abolitionists being silenced.
Click to expand...


I'm white and I would not either.  But, the slave holder would have felt that the abolitionist should not be not be tolerated if there is a possibility that their wish to free the slaves would influence others to end the system and/or cause slave uprisings.  THAT'S what your point of view is really supporting.  We shouldn't censor the thoughts and opinions of others, for only when they are expressed can they stand or fall in the court of public opinion.  THAT'S why we should tolerate opinions we don't agree with in life.


----------



## Foxfyre

Derideo_Te said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> that anyone could actually swallow that kind of partisan drivel!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And thus we see that tolerance is not your strong suit.  Tolerance is a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, and attitudes differ from your own.  By dismissing  his video because you don't agree with it, you're showing your intolerance.  You're free to express such things, but be aware we see  your intolerance toward his thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically speaking I am intolerant of his appalling lack of critical  thinking skills.
> 
> However it is readily apparent that you didn't watch it yourself. Within the first 3 minutes the speaker was expressing absolute intolerance of everything that the Dems stand for. It was the epitome of intolerance and yet Mojo was raving about how good it was. So the irony here is your accusing me of intolerance without knowing that you were defending intolerance.
Click to expand...


And I did listen to the whole thing and I think he defended that statement very well, but it has to be put into the whole context.  The whole rest of his speech was making a very comprehensive and well thought out rationale for the thesis he set in the first few minutes.  

But that is not pertinent is it?  You are totally intolerant of anything the guy said and are obviously unwilling to admit he has a valid point about anything.  And it is your right to hold that opinion.  It is your right to think it was strictly partisan even though it wasn't.  

But should he be censured for saying it?  For making the speech?  Should he be denied a forum to speak?  How strongly do you enforce your own brand of intolerance?   Who should get to make the rules about what you should speak?  And what he should speak?


----------



## hunarcy

Derideo_Te said:


> Technically speaking I am intolerant of his appalling lack of critical  thinking skills.
> 
> However it is readily apparent that you didn't watch it yourself. Within the first 3 minutes the speaker was expressing absolute intolerance of everything that the Dems stand for. It was the epitome of intolerance and yet Mojo was raving about how good it was. So the irony here is your accusing me of intolerance without knowing that you were defending intolerance.



I appreciate you helping me understand what you were being intolerant of in your post.   

I watched about 5 minutes of it.  

But, the point, you are given and opportunity to hear his ideas and judge for yourself and accept it or reject it.  That's what tolerance is all about...not that you have to agree with him, only that you allow him his opportunity to express his ideas.


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support self censorship.  If you are not intelligent enough to censor yourself then others should do it for you.  Yes it would be in my opinion which was my whole point. Its human nature to want to stop those that are of the opinion you should not exist and *openly express that thought*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what others?  Who would you trust to be your censor?  Hunacy?  Me?  Rush Limbaugh?  Martin Bashir?  Who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Therein lies the paradox. Until someone or something can be appointed Supreme Censor then you can only go on your beliefs as to what constitutes a dangerous expression of thought.  The only safe way is to be intolerant of intolerant people.
Click to expand...


LOL!  Wouldn't it be easier to tolerate them and let their ideas and attitudes survive or fail on their own?


----------



## Mac1958

.

Tolerance requires a mix of humility and confidence in your own beliefs.

We're pretty short on both, clearly.

.


----------



## hunarcy

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Tolerance requires a mix of humility and confidence in your own beliefs.
> 
> We're pretty short on both, clearly.
> 
> .



I think it's more an idea that we know what we think is right and we don't want to be forced to question ourselves or be disrupted.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can say, in frustration or jest, that anyone should be shot, but until I take action, it's just an attitude and we shouldn't be punished for an attitude.
> 
> (However, I realize that there are laws concerning threatening the President and whether we agree with the law or not, we must follow it)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats where we differ I think.  Your (not you personally) expressed thought should not be tolerated if there is a possibility that your wish influences others to harm someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But who gets to decide what is allowed to be said that might influence somebody to harm someone else?   When Nancy Pelosi describes Republicans or Tea Partiers as Nazis or bullies or obstructionists or whatever the unflattering characterization of the day is, is she influencing somebody to target Republicans or Tea Partiers?  Does anybody really think that an extemporaneous or scripted controversial comment by a politician or radio or televsion personality or preacher or even the President himself carries anywhere near the influence that violent video games or movies or television shows or rap music carries?
> 
> Who gets to make the rules about what will be considered 'harmful influence' and what is permissable?
Click to expand...


Thats why I said initially true tolerance is not possible.  As of now individuals have to decide for themselves. We all know what that means.

Yes it has been proven countless times comments or opinons made by people with airtime or a platform have influenced others to act.  You never know if what you say may give someone the wrong idea or to you the perfect idea.  Thats why it should be kept to yourself if it involves harming someone else or their rights.


----------



## Big Black Dog

Got mixed feelings about this thing called "tolerance".  i believe too much "tolerance" is exactly why we find ourselves in the shape America is in.  People are afraid to say something is "bullshit" when it clearly is.  This anything goes kind of world we live in now is getting pretty tiresome to me.  I think a line needs to be drawn in the sand and some boundaries set.  We are a country with no boundaries now days.  It's what's wrong with society.


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what others?  Who would you trust to be your censor?  Hunacy?  Me?  Rush Limbaugh?  Martin Bashir?  Who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therein lies the paradox. Until someone or something can be appointed Supreme Censor then you can only go on your beliefs as to what constitutes a dangerous expression of thought.  The only safe way is to be intolerant of intolerant people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Wouldn't it be easier to tolerate them and let their ideas and attitudes survive or fail on their own?
Click to expand...


It would if those ideas were truly original and no one else would pick them up. Humans are not made up that way.  Those ideas will never die and the law of seasons will give them new strength when their time cycles back around.


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you would have supported those who wanted abolitionists to be silenced?  I cannot believe that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm Black.  I would not agree with abolitionists being silenced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm white and I would not either.  But, the slave holder would have felt that the abolitionist should not be not be tolerated if there is a possibility that their wish to free the slaves would influence others to end the system and/or cause slave uprisings.  THAT'S what your point of view is really supporting.  We shouldn't censor the thoughts and opinions of others, for only when they are expressed can they stand or fall in the court of public opinion.  THAT'S why we should tolerate opinions we don't agree with in life.
Click to expand...


You cant be afraid of uprisings if you are not enslaving people.  You dont get to be intolerant first while harming others then have an issue with others shutting down your intolerance via uprisings.  You are fair game if you started the intolerance.


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> Thats why I said initially true tolerance is not possible.  As of now individuals have to decide for themselves. We all know what that means.
> 
> Yes it has been proven countless times comments or opinons made by people with airtime or a platform have influenced others to act.  You never know if what you say may give someone the wrong idea or to you the perfect idea.  Thats why it should be kept to yourself if it involves harming someone else or their rights.



I SO disagree with that.   It was intolerance that led to slavery because they didn't believe that people who didn't look like them or had some other difference weren't as good as the slave owner was.  Intolerance leads to only one type of people ruling the rest. . When you have intolerance, the people who dominate will most likely be the most vile and violent because it will take those traits to eliminate and silence all the other people.


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm Black.  I would not agree with abolitionists being silenced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm white and I would not either.  But, the slave holder would have felt that the abolitionist should not be not be tolerated if there is a possibility that their wish to free the slaves would influence others to end the system and/or cause slave uprisings.  THAT'S what your point of view is really supporting.  We shouldn't censor the thoughts and opinions of others, for only when they are expressed can they stand or fall in the court of public opinion.  THAT'S why we should tolerate opinions we don't agree with in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cant be afraid of uprisings if you are not enslaving people.  You dont get to be intolerant first while harming others then have an issue with others shutting down your intolerance via uprisings.  You are fair game if you started the intolerance.
Click to expand...


Did you purposely miss the point?   I had hoped that you would see that by being tolerant,  we don't allow anyone to be censored, which facilitates the free circulation of ideas.  It's censorship and intolerance that supported the status quo of slave holding America.


----------



## hunarcy

Big Black Dog said:


> We are a country with no boundaries now days.  It's what's wrong with society.



Perhaps that's true, but that's not a result of being tolerant.  It's a result of not standing up and persuading others why you feel your position is correct.  People don't do that now because they feel intimidated by the intolerance of those who don't agree with them.


----------



## oldfart

Derideo_Te said:


> As far as the intolerance towards holding a bigoted position goes that won't go away either. And even it when it does it will simply be replaced by a different one because there are some who are so insecure they need some way to make themselves feel "superior" to others. This is a part of human nature and try as we might it will take far longer to "evolve" than any of us will be around to observe.
> 
> When it comes to being "dangerous" I don't see it that way at all. Short of censorship freedom of speech is the bigots best friend. And no, I don't advocate censorship because the appropriate response to bigotry is public ridicule in my opinion. We the People shape our own society to reflect who we are. Demographics show that we are changing into a more diverse and accepting society than before. Yes, there are throwbacks and reactionaries and ugly incidents because no change is without turmoil. But it is all part of the process.



There is a huge problem of false equivalence in equating those who oppose virulent hatred, violence, and overt expressions of intolerance with those acts themselves.  In my jobs as a teacher and as a tax professional over the last 45 years (mostly in Mississippi), I have met a wide spectrum of opinion.  Since I generally withhold my own opinion in a teaching or business setting, lots of people assume that I must believe as they do.  So I think my sample is pretty statistically reliable.  

Most people form opinions about other groups of people at an early age based on what they observe and those opinions are hard to modify.  I don't believe it is useful to try to change how people think on these matters.  But we have rather successfully altered what people say and do in normal business and social situations.  Expressions of overt violent racism, for example commenting on the need for a lynching, have become rare.  It is no longer acceptable to say such things in public in most places.  

This has generated generational changes, but they are very uneven.  Racial and ethnic prejudice seems on a decline, but the violent extreme is targeting more groups.  Greater acceptance of gays and lesbians is increasing dramatically., but prejudice based on class and economic status is rapidly growing.  Overall, I think the trend has been progress, but we seem to be always one economic downturn away from the brownshirts and night riders.  And yes, I have encountered both in the unadorned original as well as the modern wannabes.  

I agree that "the appropriate response to bigotry is public ridicule".  In the long term it is the only workable solution.  My fear is that the Right has developed a set of beliefs and mode of expression where public ridicule is not effective, just as reason is not effective in breaking a closed logical system.  

It was not always so.  In my youth most of the crazies were on the left, and people like William F Buckley Jr and Milton Friedman founded the modern conservative movement through an appeal to logic.  But over 50 years the left has become more pragmatic and circumspect while the right grew shriller and more intolerant; eventually abandoning logic, reason, and appeals to common interest for appeals to bigotry and an intellectual strait jacket.  Noticeably, the right is now drumming out each successive generation of thinkers from the movement for not being sufficiently radical just as purists tried to do on the left fifty years ago.  

I agree that there has been progress, but I warn that progress is neither rapid not irreversible.  Dark days can come again.  What progress that has been made was bought at a terrible human price of stunted and ruined lives, and a greater price lies before us if further progress is to be made.


----------



## Foxfyre

hunarcy said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a country with no boundaries now days.  It's what's wrong with society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that's true, but that's not a result of being tolerant.  It's a result of not standing up and persuading others why you feel your position is correct.  People don't do that now because they feel intimidated by the intolerance of those who don't agree with them.
Click to expand...


This is the thing.  Oldfart's post was very well stated--one of the better of the day--but I disagree with him emphatically.  He sees the Left as the pragmatic and circumspect ones and the Right as the crazies.  I'm pretty much the polar opposite of that point of view.  But if I was going to debate the topic, I would choose him for an opponent in a heartbeat because it would probably be a good debate.

BBD's point of view is that we are a country with no boundaries.  He and I are much closer aligned politically than Oldfart and I are, but I disagree with his point of view that there are no boundaries.  

I think new boundaries have been set but they are all in the realm of the crazies--those who the guy in the video described as supporting everything that is wrong/evil while a new intolerance has been promoted for everything that is right/good.  A Sandra Fluke who wants the government to mandate that somebody give her free contraceptives is applauded while a Dan Cathy who promotes traditional marriage is branded a homophobic bigot and is targeted to be materially punished.  Attitudes and policy that promotes teenage promiscuity is encouraged while calls for abstinance are scorned and denigrated.  We could use example after example after example and I don't want to get sidetracked on those two things.

Tolerance means that ALL points of views can be expressed with impunity.  That way people have all perspectives from which to make their choices.  Tolerant people trust those who are fully informed and educated to make better choices than those who are indoctrinated with intolerance and who do their damndest to shut up anybody with a different point of view.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?



My take:


Alone the word "tolerance" has some disturbing side-currents: the word means that you only accept a person or an idea as far as you absolutely must, but not one step further.  Not much of a way to live, eh?

I would say that respect and dialogue are much better words. You see, you can still allow people to be what they are and even learn to respect them and maybe, just maybe, open a dialogue with them, even if you don't like them or what they stand for.

Take a look at US politics: at current, our nation is firmly divided into two camps: RED and BLUE, with not much tolerance between them, and a lot of untruths being told. Of course, one man's untruth could be the next man's hero, but that could be a topic for another day.

But there is no doubt that the acrimony between the two large ideologies is doing some damage to the fabric of our Union- for those ideologies have followings in the social, cultural and financial realms of the land.

Well, those are some of my ideas, just for starters. Have no idea if you are going to tolerate them or not. On the last thread (since you decided to mention it, I suppose I can, as well, eh?), sure didn't look like you were very interested in listening at all, except to people likeminded to you. Perhaps it will be different this time. Wait and see. Thanks for starting the thread.


----------



## hunarcy

Foxfyre said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a country with no boundaries now days.  It's what's wrong with society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that's true, but that's not a result of being tolerant.  It's a result of not standing up and persuading others why you feel your position is correct.  People don't do that now because they feel intimidated by the intolerance of those who don't agree with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the thing.  Oldfart's post was very well stated--one of the better of the day--but I disagree with him emphatically.  He sees the Left as the pragmatic and circumspect ones and the Right as the crazies.  I'm pretty much the polar opposite of that point of view.  But if I was going to debate the topic, I would choose him for an opponent in a heartbeat because it would probably be a good debate.
> 
> BBD's point of view is that we are a country with no boundaries.  He and I are much closer aligned politically than Oldfart and I are, but I disagree with his point of view that there are no boundaries.
> 
> I think new boundaries have been set but they are all in the realm of the crazies--those who the guy in the video described as supporting everything that is wrong/evil while a new intolerance has been promoted for everything that is right/good.  A Sandra Fluke who wants the government to mandate that somebody give her free contraceptives is applauded while a Dan Cathy who promotes traditional marriage is branded a homophobic bigot and is targeted to be materially punished.  Attitudes and policy that promotes teenage promiscuity is encouraged while calls for abstinance are scorned and denigrated.  We could use example after example after example and I don't want to get sidetracked on those two things.
> 
> Tolerance means that ALL points of views can be expressed with impunity.  That way people have all perspectives from which to make their choices.  Tolerant people trust those who are fully informed and educated to make better choices than those who are indoctrinated with intolerance and who do their damndest to shut up anybody with a different point of view.
Click to expand...


I felt Oldfart's post was an well disguised statement of intolerance.  He focused on the Right's move toward "purity" while ignoring the Left has done the same thing.  There are few "Blue Dog" Democrats left and if you don't think that was the result of a conscious effort, look at what happened to Joe Liebermann who was deemed to not be "Left" enough.  So, based on what he perceived as one side's move from the center, he wants to portray them as being intolerant.  That's his right and he's free to make that argument, but because he didn't acknowledge that the Left has as well,  I don't think he was being tolerant at all.


----------



## Statistikhengst

hunarcy said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a country with no boundaries now days.  It's what's wrong with society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that's true, but that's not a result of being tolerant.  It's a result of not standing up and persuading others *why you feel your position is correct*.  People don't do that now because they feel intimidated by the intolerance of those who don't agree with them.
Click to expand...



I would like to point out that not every viewpoint, or position, as you put it, has to be "correct", imo.

I do believe it is not always a matter of "right or wrong" for everything in life. That kind of stuff only leads to rigidity.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

We can never really know what people think. Since people lie readily, especially when put on the spot, expecting them to tell you the truth about what or how they think is perhaps unrealistic. And since how people behave is based on how they think, asking people to change their thoughts on things by accepting another's thoughts is asking them to change who they are at their very heart. (was a better formed thought in my head) 

A favorite novel of mine is called "Eon" by Greg Bear and features a future version of the human race making contact with the current one having travelled backwards in time. The future humans have a political system much like our's and the point is made that there are often multiple solutions to a problem. But trying to address problems requires consensus on a course of action, and that's where political conflicts can arise. But when such conflicts come about, it isn't that some believe the others are bad or evil, just that their way of solving a problem is preferable or better.

As with accepting other people's ideas. Before expecting them to accept our's, we need to be able to accept their's. Without that simple willingness to accept there may be more than one way to solve problems, all we achieve is never-ending animosity as those we're trying to convince of our way, insists their way is better. Hence how good politicians seek compromise. Whereas bad ones cling to the extremes.


----------



## Foxfyre

Statistikhengst said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My take:
> 
> 
> Alone the word "tolerance" has some disturbing side-currents: the word means that you only accept a person or an idea as far as you absolutely must, but not one step further.  Not much of a way to live, eh?
> 
> I would say that respect and dialogue are much better words. You see, you can still allow people to be what they are and even learn to respect them and maybe, just maybe, open a dialogue with them, even if you don't like them or what they stand for.
> 
> Take a look at US politics: at current, our nation is firmly divided into two camps: RED and BLUE, with not much tolerance between them, and a lot of untruths being told. Of course, one man's untruth could be the next man's hero, but that could be a topic for another day.
> 
> But there is no doubt that the acrimony between the two large ideologies is doing some damage to the fabric of our Union- for those ideologies have followings in the social, cultural and financial realms of the land.
> 
> Well, those are some of my ideas, just for starters. Have no idea if you are going to tolerate them or not. On the last thread (since you decided to mention it, I suppose I can, as well, eh?), sure didn't look like you were very interested in listening at all, except to people likeminded to you. Perhaps it will be different this time. Wait and see. Thanks for starting the thread.
Click to expand...


I'm sure you don't think I was interested in listening to people except likeminded like me.  But had you bothered to read that thread at all, you would see how silly that statement is.  But do you have a right to see it that way?  It's okay with me. Believe what you wish.  Just don't presume to misquote me and/or mischaracterize my position here like you did there, and we'll get along fine.

As for the definition of words, I explained what I mean by tolerance.  I'm sorry you don't like the word, but it is a different word to me than respect or dialogue.  I don't have to respect you one bit or want any dialogue with you whatsoever in order to be tolerant and allow you your opinion and allow you to be who you are.

That form of tolerance most of those, and even some on the right, have a really tough time with.  But that is why I started the thread so we can explore what is included in the concept.  And no, we don't all have to agree.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can say, in frustration or jest, that anyone should be shot, but until I take action, it's just an attitude and we shouldn't be punished for an attitude.
> 
> (However, I realize that there are laws concerning threatening the President and whether we agree with the law or not, we must follow it)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats where we differ I think.  Your (not you personally) expressed thought should not be tolerated if there is a possibility that your wish influences others to harm someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But who gets to decide what is allowed to be said that might influence somebody to harm someone else?   *When Nancy Pelosi describes Republicans or Tea Partiers as Nazis* or bullies or obstructionists or whatever the unflattering characterization of the day is, is she influencing somebody to target Republicans or Tea Partiers?  Does anybody really think that an extemporaneous or scripted controversial comment by a politician or radio or televsion personality or preacher or even the President himself carries anywhere near the influence that violent video games or movies or television shows or rap music carries?
> 
> Who gets to make the rules about what will be considered 'harmful influence' and what is permissable?
Click to expand...



Do you have a quote or some links for that statement, perhaps?


----------



## hunarcy

Statistikhengst said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats where we differ I think.  Your (not you personally) expressed thought should not be tolerated if there is a possibility that your wish influences others to harm someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But who gets to decide what is allowed to be said that might influence somebody to harm someone else?   *When Nancy Pelosi describes Republicans or Tea Partiers as Nazis* or bullies or obstructionists or whatever the unflattering characterization of the day is, is she influencing somebody to target Republicans or Tea Partiers?  Does anybody really think that an extemporaneous or scripted controversial comment by a politician or radio or televsion personality or preacher or even the President himself carries anywhere near the influence that violent video games or movies or television shows or rap music carries?
> 
> Who gets to make the rules about what will be considered 'harmful influence' and what is permissable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a quote or some links for that statement, perhaps?
Click to expand...


Still trying those troll tactics?  Off to ignoreland with you!


----------



## Foxfyre

Statistikhengst said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats where we differ I think.  Your (not you personally) expressed thought should not be tolerated if there is a possibility that your wish influences others to harm someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But who gets to decide what is allowed to be said that might influence somebody to harm someone else?   *When Nancy Pelosi describes Republicans or Tea Partiers as Nazis* or bullies or obstructionists or whatever the unflattering characterization of the day is, is she influencing somebody to target Republicans or Tea Partiers?  Does anybody really think that an extemporaneous or scripted controversial comment by a politician or radio or televsion personality or preacher or even the President himself carries anywhere near the influence that violent video games or movies or television shows or rap music carries?
> 
> Who gets to make the rules about what will be considered 'harmful influence' and what is permissable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a quote or some links for that statement, perhaps?
Click to expand...


No, I rarely have links for questions I ask.  But here are some links I had noted in my files:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...n_hall_protesters_are_carrying_swastikas.html

Now perhaps you would address the point I was making instead of getting all exorcised over the examples I used to illustrate it?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Big Black Dog said:


> Got mixed feelings about this thing called "tolerance".  i believe too much "tolerance" is exactly why we find ourselves in the shape America is in.  People are afraid to say something is "bullshit" when it clearly is.  This anything goes kind of world we live in now is getting pretty tiresome to me.  I think a line needs to be drawn in the sand and some boundaries set.  *We are a country with no boundaries now days.  It's what's wrong with society*.



Well, physically (geographically), our nation has very specific boundaries. Perhaps you are referring to cultural or moral boundaries. And exactly who is supposed to set those boundaries?


IMO, respect and dialogue tend to tear down boundaries and help us to find commonality. Sadly, not all people want to find commonality.

What a shame, for when all is said and done, we are all Homo Sapiens, you know.


----------



## BDBoop

Foxfyre said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But who gets to decide what is allowed to be said that might influence somebody to harm someone else?   *When Nancy Pelosi describes Republicans or Tea Partiers as Nazis* or bullies or obstructionists or whatever the unflattering characterization of the day is, is she influencing somebody to target Republicans or Tea Partiers?  Does anybody really think that an extemporaneous or scripted controversial comment by a politician or radio or televsion personality or preacher or even the President himself carries anywhere near the influence that violent video games or movies or television shows or rap music carries?
> 
> Who gets to make the rules about what will be considered 'harmful influence' and what is permissable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a quote or some links for that statement, perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I rarely have links for questions I ask.
Click to expand...


The alleged Nancy Pelosi statement. Do you have a link.


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats why I said initially true tolerance is not possible.  As of now individuals have to decide for themselves. We all know what that means.
> 
> Yes it has been proven countless times comments or opinons made by people with airtime or a platform have influenced others to act.  You never know if what you say may give someone the wrong idea or to you the perfect idea.  Thats why it should be kept to yourself if it involves harming someone else or their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I SO disagree with that.   It was intolerance that led to slavery because they didn't believe that people who didn't look like them or had some other difference weren't as good as the slave owner was.  Intolerance leads to only one type of people ruling the rest. . When you have intolerance, the people who dominate will most likely be the most vile and violent because it will take those traits to eliminate and silence all the other people.
Click to expand...


Do you mean slavery in the US or slavery in general? 2 different things.  I am intolerant of the opinion people should be enslaved.  Am I trampling someone's right to life and liberty?  Even if I was the person wanting slavery forfeited their rights as soon as they trampled someone elses right to life and liberty by enslaving them.  Thats a perfect example of being intolerant of intolerant ideas.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats why I said initially true tolerance is not possible.  As of now individuals have to decide for themselves. We all know what that means.
> 
> Yes it has been proven countless times comments or opinons made by people with airtime or a platform have influenced others to act.  You never know if what you say may give someone the wrong idea or to you the perfect idea.  Thats why it should be kept to yourself if it involves harming someone else or their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I SO disagree with that.   It was intolerance that led to slavery because they didn't believe that people who didn't look like them or had some other difference weren't as good as the slave owner was.  Intolerance leads to only one type of people ruling the rest. . When you have intolerance, the people who dominate will most likely be the most vile and violent because it will take those traits to eliminate and silence all the other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean slavery in the US or slavery in general? 2 different things.  I am intolerant of the opinion people should be enslaved.  Am I trampling someone's right to life and liberty?  Even if I was the person wanting slavery forfeited their rights as soon as they trampled someone elses right to life and liberty by enslaving them.  Thats a perfect example of being intolerant of intolerant ideas.
Click to expand...



Amen.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

As to the other part about intolerance of other's ideas costing us our Constitutional rights, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Much of the vitriol in politics is all bark, no bite. Anyone who proposed taking an eraser to the Bill of Rights would be run out of town on a rail. That said, there are occasions where rights are being suppressed, but lost completely and permanently no. I think educating Americans on what those rights are should be a continuing process so when such suppression occurs, people understand it's unconstitutional and don't just roll over and accept it. Lawsuits work well for this.

But at least on tv, freedom to voice dissent or disagree is being suppressed fairly often. But then there's the fact that on-air tv is business, and if someone's saying things that will negatively impact that business you get rid of them. Better to take a little hit than allow somoene fundamentally at odds with your business to keep shooting their mouth off.


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats why I said initially true tolerance is not possible.  As of now individuals have to decide for themselves. We all know what that means.
> 
> Yes it has been proven countless times comments or opinons made by people with airtime or a platform have influenced others to act.  You never know if what you say may give someone the wrong idea or to you the perfect idea.  Thats why it should be kept to yourself if it involves harming someone else or their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I SO disagree with that.   It was intolerance that led to slavery because they didn't believe that people who didn't look like them or had some other difference weren't as good as the slave owner was.  Intolerance leads to only one type of people ruling the rest. . When you have intolerance, the people who dominate will most likely be the most vile and violent because it will take those traits to eliminate and silence all the other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean slavery in the US or slavery in general? 2 different things.  I am intolerant of the opinion people should be enslaved.  Am I trampling someone's right to life and liberty?  Even if I was the person wanting slavery forfeited their rights as soon as they trampled someone elses right to life and liberty by enslaving them.  Thats a perfect example of being intolerant of intolerant ideas.
Click to expand...


Slavery in the US was what I was thinking of specifically, but it applies to slavery in general, I believe.  I don't agree with the idea that people should be enslaved, but if you are intolerant of that view, you never have the opportunity to argue against it because you deprive the person of ever expressing it, so they never hear a different point of view.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But who gets to decide what is allowed to be said that might influence somebody to harm someone else?   *When Nancy Pelosi describes Republicans or Tea Partiers as Nazis* or bullies or obstructionists or whatever the unflattering characterization of the day is, is she influencing somebody to target Republicans or Tea Partiers?  Does anybody really think that an extemporaneous or scripted controversial comment by a politician or radio or televsion personality or preacher or even the President himself carries anywhere near the influence that violent video games or movies or television shows or rap music carries?
> 
> Who gets to make the rules about what will be considered 'harmful influence' and what is permissable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a quote or some links for that statement, perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I rarely have links for questions I ask.  But here are some links I had noted in my files:
> Pelosi: Town Hall Protesters Are "Carrying Swastikas" | RealClearPolitics
Click to expand...




When I clicked on the quote function, a link appeared, apparently you interpolated that link after originally writing your response, or you deleted it, but the program still has it in the quote settings.

Here again is the link:

Pelosi: Town Hall Protesters Are "Carrying Swastikas" | RealClearPolitics

The text under the video:



> Nancy Pelosi claims protesters are "carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."



The video is now defunct.


So, just to clarify, there is no evidence that she said this, and if she did and it is factually correct, meaning that SOME people who went to Republican town-hall meetings indeed did carry swastikas, then I would still ask myself why you, after explaining in the OP that this was not supposed to get partisan, just got very partisan.

I do apologize for the false inquiry. 

I meant to ask if you had a link for your question.  Apparently, that oversight upset you. I promise to do better in the future. Ok?


----------



## hunarcy

BDBoop said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a quote or some links for that statement, perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I rarely have links for questions I ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The alleged Nancy Pelosi statement. Do you have a link.
Click to expand...


You do enjoy supporting trolls, don't you.  Could you not look it  up yourself?  Here, let me.

Pelosi Compares Tea Party Protesters To Nazis: 'They're Carrying Swastikas" | The Gateway Pundit


----------



## Foxfyre

Delta4Embassy said:


> As to the other part about intolerance of other's ideas costing us our Constitutional rights, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Much of the vitriol in politics is all bark, no bite. Anytime who proposed taking an eraser to the Bill of Rights would be run out of town on a rail. That said, there are occasions where rights are being suppressed, but lost completely and permanently no. I think educating Americans on what those rights are should be a continuing process so when such suppression occurs, people understand it's unconstitutional and don't just roll over and accept it. Lawsuits work well for this.
> 
> But at least on tv, freedom to voice dissent or disagree is being suppressed fairly often. But then there's the fact that on-air tv is business, and if someone's saying things that will negatively impact that business you get rid of them. Better to take a little hit than allow somoene fundamentally at odds with your business to keep shooting their mouth off.



It starts off rather innocuously in all countries that become oppressive totalitarian states.  First this group, then that group is demonized until it becomes politically correct for the angry mobs, groups, or organizations use strongarm (figuratively or actually) tactics to shut people up--only politically correct speech is allowed.  It is a slow creep from there to having all freedoms first suppressed, and then removed altogether.

I have no problem with anybody barking.  I have tried to be very clear about that.  It's when they choose to bite purely because of who are what somebody is that it becomes an infringement on peoples' unalienable rights.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Delta4Embassy said:


> As to the other part about intolerance of other's ideas costing us our Constitutional rights, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Much of the vitriol in politics is all bark, no bite. Anyone who proposed taking an eraser to the Bill of Rights would be run out of town on a rail. That said, there are occasions where rights are being suppressed, but lost completely and permanently no. I think educating Americans on what those rights are should be a continuing process so when such suppression occurs, people understand it's unconstitutional and don't just roll over and accept it. Lawsuits work well for this.
> 
> But at least on tv, freedom to voice dissent or disagree is being suppressed fairly often. *But then there's the fact that on-air tv is business, and if someone's saying things that will negatively impact that business you get rid of them*. Better to take a little hit than allow somoene fundamentally at odds with your business to keep shooting their mouth off.




The bolded: I would say that that would make a strong argument for public television, which is not beholden to private sponsors or advertisements.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

nancy pelosi compared tea party to nazis - Google Search

Many occasions of politicians comparing opposition to Nazis. Unless someone proposed rouding people up and murdering them I don't approve of such remarks. Projected foward, allowing that sort of comparison to go unchallenged will just cheapen what the actual Nazis have done. Making little political squabbles seem like what Nazis did in other words instead of murdering millions of people.


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I SO disagree with that.   It was intolerance that led to slavery because they didn't believe that people who didn't look like them or had some other difference weren't as good as the slave owner was.  Intolerance leads to only one type of people ruling the rest. . When you have intolerance, the people who dominate will most likely be the most vile and violent because it will take those traits to eliminate and silence all the other people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean slavery in the US or slavery in general? 2 different things.  I am intolerant of the opinion people should be enslaved.  Am I trampling someone's right to life and liberty?  Even if I was the person wanting slavery forfeited their rights as soon as they trampled someone elses right to life and liberty by enslaving them.  Thats a perfect example of being intolerant of intolerant ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery in the US was what I was thinking of specifically, but it applies to slavery in general, I believe.  I don't agree with the idea that people should be enslaved, but if you are intolerant of that view, you never have the opportunity to argue against it because you deprive the person of ever expressing it, so they never hear a different point of view.
Click to expand...


Slavery in ancient times was different.  There was no thought of people being subhuman in earlier instances of slavery to my knowledge. That was the Christian rationalization for it here in the US.

We must be talking about 2 different things then.  I don't mind someone expressing their point of view to me respectfully but there is no room IMO for things like slavery, misogyny etc.  There is nothing anyone could say that would make me think it was OK.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Statistikhengst said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to the other part about intolerance of other's ideas costing us our Constitutional rights, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Much of the vitriol in politics is all bark, no bite. Anyone who proposed taking an eraser to the Bill of Rights would be run out of town on a rail. That said, there are occasions where rights are being suppressed, but lost completely and permanently no. I think educating Americans on what those rights are should be a continuing process so when such suppression occurs, people understand it's unconstitutional and don't just roll over and accept it. Lawsuits work well for this.
> 
> But at least on tv, freedom to voice dissent or disagree is being suppressed fairly often. *But then there's the fact that on-air tv is business, and if someone's saying things that will negatively impact that business you get rid of them*. Better to take a little hit than allow somoene fundamentally at odds with your business to keep shooting their mouth off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bolded: I would say that that would make a strong argument for public television, which is not beholden to private sponsors or advertisements.
Click to expand...


Well not beholden as much maybe. Growing up with PBS I remember "Brought to you by the generous contribution of viewers like you and a generous grant from the Arthur C MIller Foundation" and the like. They're thus somewhat vulnerable to political  considerations, just not as much as a for profit station would be. They're not operating free of costs in other words. In some ways then, they're more vulnerable to manipulation as the people donating and making their airtime possible can force them to do their bidding. In theory anyway.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to the other part about intolerance of other's ideas costing us our Constitutional rights, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Much of the vitriol in politics is all bark, no bite. Anytime who proposed taking an eraser to the Bill of Rights would be run out of town on a rail. That said, there are occasions where rights are being suppressed, but lost completely and permanently no. I think educating Americans on what those rights are should be a continuing process so when such suppression occurs, people understand it's unconstitutional and don't just roll over and accept it. Lawsuits work well for this.
> 
> But at least on tv, freedom to voice dissent or disagree is being suppressed fairly often. But then there's the fact that on-air tv is business, and if someone's saying things that will negatively impact that business you get rid of them. Better to take a little hit than allow somoene fundamentally at odds with your business to keep shooting their mouth off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It starts off rather innocuously* in all countries that become oppressive totalitarian states.  First this group, then that group is demonized until it becomes politically correct for the angry mobs, groups, or organizations use strongarm (figuratively or actually) tactics to shut people up--only politically correct speech is allowed.  It is a slow creep from there to having all freedoms first suppressed, and then removed altogether.
> 
> I have no problem with anybody barking.  I have tried to be very clear about that.  It's when they choose to bite purely because of who are what somebody is that it becomes an infringement on peoples' unalienable rights.
Click to expand...



Actually, I have to challenge that somewhat (the bolded): history has shown us that most dictatorships have evolved very, very quickly.  In more recent history, NAZI Germany sprung out of the Weimar Republic within less than one year of Hitler's appointment to the Chancellorship of said Republic under President Paul Hindenburg. And the Nürnberg Laws were already being drafted and the lion's share of them, which caused suppression, pretty much happened all at once.

We love to take the romantic view that dictatorships can spring up slowly because people tend to be like frogs in a pot of water that is heating up very, very slowly, but historical facts are quite actually NOT on the side of that form of argument at all.

We have come to hear the phrase "first they came for the XXX, but I didn't do anything, and then they came for the XXX, and I still didn't do anything", etc.... but in NAZI Germany, they actually pretty much went after everyone on their hit list all at once.

The question I have of you is whether you really think anything like 1933-1945 Germany, 1927-1945 Japan, 1917-1990 UDSSR is even possible in the USA. I believe very much that it is quite impossible.


----------



## Foxfyre

Statistikhengst said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a quote or some links for that statement, perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I rarely have links for questions I ask.  But here are some links I had noted in my files:
> Pelosi: Town Hall Protesters Are "Carrying Swastikas" | RealClearPolitics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I clicked on the quote function, a link appeared, apparently you interpolated that link after originally writing your response, or you deleted it, but the program still has it in the quote settings.
> 
> Here again is the link:
> 
> Pelosi: Town Hall Protesters Are "Carrying Swastikas" | RealClearPolitics
> 
> The text under the video:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nancy Pelosi claims protesters are "carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video is now defunct.
> 
> 
> So, just to clarify, there is no evidence that she said this, and if she did and it is factually correct, meaning that SOME people who went to Republican town-hall meetings indeed did carry swastikas, then I would still ask myself why you, after explaining in the OP that this was not supposed to get partisan, just got very partisan.
> 
> I do apologize for the false inquiry.
> 
> I meant to ask if you had a link for your question.  Apparently, that oversight upset you. I promise to do better in the future. Ok?
Click to expand...


You have no clue what does and does not upset me.  And yes, there has been one or two swastikas with a line drawn through them--that means 'no nazis, yes?, out of tens of thousands of signs that have been photographed at Tea Party or town hall events.  Pelosi made it sound like they were all doing that.  And that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making.  I don't CARE whether she was referring to one sign or thousands.  The obvious point I was making is that she has had nothing complimentary to say about anybody on the right, ever.  And has characterized the Tea Party and other conservative groups in very ugly terms.

The point is whether her stating her very partisan and biased and sometimes downright hateful opinion about people on the right is influencing people to do harm to those people on the right?   Or, is Pelosi as entitled to her opinion as anybody else?  She should be allowed her opinion as much as anybody else?  Or would it be okay for an angry mob, group, or organization to do everything in their power to destroy her purely for an opinion she expressed?

Could you please focus on that and not try to steer the thread to something entirely different?  Thank you very much.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Delta4Embassy said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to the other part about intolerance of other's ideas costing us our Constitutional rights, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Much of the vitriol in politics is all bark, no bite. Anyone who proposed taking an eraser to the Bill of Rights would be run out of town on a rail. That said, there are occasions where rights are being suppressed, but lost completely and permanently no. I think educating Americans on what those rights are should be a continuing process so when such suppression occurs, people understand it's unconstitutional and don't just roll over and accept it. Lawsuits work well for this.
> 
> But at least on tv, freedom to voice dissent or disagree is being suppressed fairly often. *But then there's the fact that on-air tv is business, and if someone's saying things that will negatively impact that business you get rid of them*. Better to take a little hit than allow somoene fundamentally at odds with your business to keep shooting their mouth off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bolded: I would say that that would make a strong argument for public television, which is not beholden to private sponsors or advertisements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well not beholden as much maybe. Growing up with PBS I remember "Brought to you by the generous contribution of viewers like you and a generous grant from the Arthur C MIller Foundation" and the like. They're thus somewhat vulnerable to political  considerations, just not as much as a for profit station would be. They're not operating free of costs in other words. In some ways then, they're more vulnerable to manipulation as the people donating and making their airtime possible can force them to do their bidding. In theory anyway.
Click to expand...



Interesting. I never thought of that before. Thanks for the information.


----------



## Katzndogz

theDoctorisIn said:


> Was it "intolerant" for people to be outraged and demand the firing of Martin Bashir for his comments about Sarah Palin?
> 
> Was it "intolerant" of MSNBC to fire him?



Sarah Palin thougyt so.  She didn't say he should be fired.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I rarely have links for questions I ask.  But here are some links I had noted in my files:
> Pelosi: Town Hall Protesters Are "Carrying Swastikas" | RealClearPolitics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I clicked on the quote function, a link appeared, apparently you interpolated that link after originally writing your response, or you deleted it, but the program still has it in the quote settings.
> 
> Here again is the link:
> 
> Pelosi: Town Hall Protesters Are "Carrying Swastikas" | RealClearPolitics
> 
> The text under the video:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nancy Pelosi claims protesters are "carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video is now defunct.
> 
> 
> So, just to clarify, there is no evidence that she said this, and if she did and it is factually correct, meaning that SOME people who went to Republican town-hall meetings indeed did carry swastikas, then I would still ask myself why you, after explaining in the OP that this was not supposed to get partisan, just got very partisan.
> 
> I do apologize for the false inquiry.
> 
> I meant to ask if you had a link for your question.  Apparently, that oversight upset you. I promise to do better in the future. Ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You have no clue what does and does not upset me.*  And yes, there has been one or two swastikas with a line drawn through them--that means 'no nazis, yes?, out of tens of thousands of signs that have been photographed at Tea Party or town hall events.  Pelosi made it sound like they were all doing that.  And that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making.  I don't CARE whether she was referring to one sign or thousands.  _The obvious point I was making is that she has had nothing complimentary to say about anybody on the right, ever._  And has characterized the Tea Party and other conservative groups in very ugly terms.
> 
> The point is whether her stating her very partisan and biased and sometimes downright hateful opinion about people on the right is influencing people to do harm to those people on the right?   Or, is Pelosi as entitled to her opinion as anybody else?  She should be allowed her opinion as much as anybody else?  Or would it be okay for an angry mob, group, or organization to do everything in their power to destroy her purely for an opinion she expressed?
> 
> *Could you please focus on that and not try to steer the thread to something entirely different?  Thank you very much*.
Click to expand...


First bolded: oh, I was under the impression that we were supposed to be civil to each other here.

Second bolded:  I am not trying to steer this thread away from anything. I responded directly to input from YOU.

As for the NAZI signs with strike-marks or lines through them, I will research that. But I will again remind: YOU brought it up first, I am merely responding.

The part of your quote, which I put in red:  why did you not simply say that in the first place? And no, it is not apparent to all that you meant that.  I will also note that you are making a blanket statement about a political figure like Nancy Pelosi, without actual fact to back up the statement. Or are you aware of every single statement that Nancy Pelosi has ever said? And exactly what is the direct tie-in between her and the actual intent of your OP?

I just want to write this so that the whole world can see: I have approached you with respect here on this thread and you have simply been nasty to me. It's all there in black and white for the whole world to see.

Are you really interested in any kind of debate with people who are not exactly of the same mind as you?

For this reason I feel compelled to ask you to behave in accordance with the rules of the CDZ. Thank you.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Statistikhengst said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to the other part about intolerance of other's ideas costing us our Constitutional rights, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Much of the vitriol in politics is all bark, no bite. Anytime who proposed taking an eraser to the Bill of Rights would be run out of town on a rail. That said, there are occasions where rights are being suppressed, but lost completely and permanently no. I think educating Americans on what those rights are should be a continuing process so when such suppression occurs, people understand it's unconstitutional and don't just roll over and accept it. Lawsuits work well for this.
> 
> But at least on tv, freedom to voice dissent or disagree is being suppressed fairly often. But then there's the fact that on-air tv is business, and if someone's saying things that will negatively impact that business you get rid of them. Better to take a little hit than allow somoene fundamentally at odds with your business to keep shooting their mouth off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It starts off rather innocuously* in all countries that become oppressive totalitarian states.  First this group, then that group is demonized until it becomes politically correct for the angry mobs, groups, or organizations use strongarm (figuratively or actually) tactics to shut people up--only politically correct speech is allowed.  It is a slow creep from there to having all freedoms first suppressed, and then removed altogether.
> 
> I have no problem with anybody barking.  I have tried to be very clear about that.  It's when they choose to bite purely because of who are what somebody is that it becomes an infringement on peoples' unalienable rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I have to challenge that somewhat (the bolded): history has shown us that most dictatorships have evolved very, very quickly.  In more recent history, NAZI Germany sprung out of the Weimar Republic within less than one year of Hitler's appointment to the Chancellorship of said Republic under President Paul Hindenburg. And the Nürnberg Laws were already being drafted and the lion's share of them, which caused suppression, pretty much happened all at once.
> 
> We love to take the romantic view that dictatorships can spring up slowly because people tend to be like frogs in a pot of water that is heating up very, very slowly, but historical facts are quite actually NOT on the side of that form of argument at all.
> 
> We have come to hear the phrase "first they came for the XXX, but I didn't do anything, and then they came for the XXX, and I still didn't do anything", etc.... but in NAZI Germany, they actually pretty much went after everyone on their hit list all at once.
> 
> The question I have of you is whether you really think anything like 1933-1945 Germany, 1927-1945 Japan, 1917-1990 UDSSR is even possible in the USA. I believe very much that it is quite impossible.
Click to expand...


I think what's happened in the past is more or less impossible now because of global communications. People know better. And if some Hitler'esque figure came onto the world stage saying how this group and that group was responsible for all our woes, they'd be found out and debunked that same day. 

Problem is, people need a scapegoat so denouncing those with opinions and ideas opposite to our own is a common tactic in politics. The Republicans have indeed borrow some plays from the Nazi playbook like denouncing immigrants. And their attempts to deny basic human rights to the LGBT community harkens back to Nazi Germany as well (orign of the inverted pink triangle being the symbol used marking concentration camp prisoners as homosexuals.) And going over to Africa to push their anti-gay rhetoric onto countries so poor anyone offering help will have their ideology implemented in law as in Uganda recently is much as the Nazis spread around the world empowering politicial underdogs into power positions if they supported the Nazi agenda. So while I wouldn't say the Republicans are like Nazis, I would say they're copying a lot of things Nazis did so that it's becomming a bit of a concern to me as a Jew and member of the LGBT community.


----------



## Foxfyre

Katzndogz said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was it "intolerant" for people to be outraged and demand the firing of Martin Bashir for his comments about Sarah Palin?
> 
> Was it "intolerant" of MSNBC to fire him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah Palin thougyt so.  She didn't say he should be fired.
Click to expand...


Yep.  Sarah handled it with class.  And she DOES understand the difference between opinions and intentionally doing something to somebody.  So its pretty obvious which of those two came out looking best in that deal.

Sarah Palin is almost as opinionated as I am and holds her convictions almost as strongly as I do.  (Maybe more--I'm drawing an assumption there.)  But she also understands what unalienable rights are and what liberty is and how suppressing people's ideas, thoughts, and opinions is ultimately deadly to a free society.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Katzndogz said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was it "intolerant" for people to be outraged and demand the firing of Martin Bashir for his comments about Sarah Palin?
> 
> Was it "intolerant" of MSNBC to fire him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah Palin thougyt so.  She didn't say he should be fired.
Click to expand...



I concur.

What Martin Bashir said was truly disgusting and I would want to have no part of it. And in this case, I think that Sarah Palin handled it quite well.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Delta4Embassy said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It starts off rather innocuously* in all countries that become oppressive totalitarian states.  First this group, then that group is demonized until it becomes politically correct for the angry mobs, groups, or organizations use strongarm (figuratively or actually) tactics to shut people up--only politically correct speech is allowed.  It is a slow creep from there to having all freedoms first suppressed, and then removed altogether.
> 
> I have no problem with anybody barking.  I have tried to be very clear about that.  It's when they choose to bite purely because of who are what somebody is that it becomes an infringement on peoples' unalienable rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I have to challenge that somewhat (the bolded): history has shown us that most dictatorships have evolved very, very quickly.  In more recent history, NAZI Germany sprung out of the Weimar Republic within less than one year of Hitler's appointment to the Chancellorship of said Republic under President Paul Hindenburg. And the Nürnberg Laws were already being drafted and the lion's share of them, which caused suppression, pretty much happened all at once.
> 
> We love to take the romantic view that dictatorships can spring up slowly because people tend to be like frogs in a pot of water that is heating up very, very slowly, but historical facts are quite actually NOT on the side of that form of argument at all.
> 
> We have come to hear the phrase "first they came for the XXX, but I didn't do anything, and then they came for the XXX, and I still didn't do anything", etc.... but in NAZI Germany, they actually pretty much went after everyone on their hit list all at once.
> 
> The question I have of you is whether you really think anything like 1933-1945 Germany, 1927-1945 Japan, 1917-1990 UDSSR is even possible in the USA. I believe very much that it is quite impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think what's happened in the past is more or less impossible now because of global communications. People know better. And if some Hitler'esque figure came onto the world stage saying how this group and that group was responsible for all our woes, they'd be found out and debunked that same day.
> 
> Problem is, *people need a scapegoat* so denouncing those with opinions and ideas opposite to our own is a common tactic in politics. The Republicans have indeed borrow some plays from the Nazi playbook like denouncing immigrants. And their attempts to deny basic human rights to the LGBT community harkens back to Nazi Germany as well (orign of the inverted pink triangle being the symbol used marking concentration camp prisoners as homosexuals.) And going over to Africa to push their anti-gay rhetoric onto countries so poor anyone offering help will have their ideology implemented in law as in Uganda recently is much as the Nazis spread around the world empowering politicial underdogs into power positions if they supported the Nazi agenda. So while I wouldn't say the Republicans are like Nazis, I would say they're copying a lot of things Nazis did so that it's becomming a bit of a concern to me as a Jew and member of the LGBT community.
Click to expand...



That begs an important question: why do people ever "need" a scapegoat? What a waste of energy.

As for your statements about the Republican Party, considering that both parties have made some grievous mistakes in the past, I am not willing to say that Republicans are copying Nazi strategy. I don't think they are, and definitely not consciously. But some on the Right have said and done things that are extremely intolerant.  My concern, also as a Jew, like you, and as a straight-ally, is that there are forces behind the scene who want to profit from the constantly ideological battling within the USA.


----------



## Foxfyre

Delta4Embassy said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It starts off rather innocuously* in all countries that become oppressive totalitarian states.  First this group, then that group is demonized until it becomes politically correct for the angry mobs, groups, or organizations use strongarm (figuratively or actually) tactics to shut people up--only politically correct speech is allowed.  It is a slow creep from there to having all freedoms first suppressed, and then removed altogether.
> 
> I have no problem with anybody barking.  I have tried to be very clear about that.  It's when they choose to bite purely because of who are what somebody is that it becomes an infringement on peoples' unalienable rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I have to challenge that somewhat (the bolded): history has shown us that most dictatorships have evolved very, very quickly.  In more recent history, NAZI Germany sprung out of the Weimar Republic within less than one year of Hitler's appointment to the Chancellorship of said Republic under President Paul Hindenburg. And the Nürnberg Laws were already being drafted and the lion's share of them, which caused suppression, pretty much happened all at once.
> 
> We love to take the romantic view that dictatorships can spring up slowly because people tend to be like frogs in a pot of water that is heating up very, very slowly, but historical facts are quite actually NOT on the side of that form of argument at all.
> 
> We have come to hear the phrase "first they came for the XXX, but I didn't do anything, and then they came for the XXX, and I still didn't do anything", etc.... but in NAZI Germany, they actually pretty much went after everyone on their hit list all at once.
> 
> The question I have of you is whether you really think anything like 1933-1945 Germany, 1927-1945 Japan, 1917-1990 UDSSR is even possible in the USA. I believe very much that it is quite impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think what's happened in the past is more or less impossible now because of global communications. People know better. And if some Hitler'esque figure came onto the world stage saying how this group and that group was responsible for all our woes, they'd be found out and debunked that same day.
> 
> Problem is, people need a scapegoat so denouncing those with opinions and ideas opposite to our own is a common tactic in politics. The Republicans have indeed borrow some plays from the Nazi playbook like denouncing immigrants. And their attempts to deny basic human rights to the LGBT community harkens back to Nazi Germany as well (orign of the inverted pink triangle being the symbol used marking concentration camp prisoners as homosexuals.) And going over to Africa to push their anti-gay rhetoric onto countries so poor anyone offering help will have their ideology implemented in law as in Uganda recently is much as the Nazis spread around the world empowering politicial underdogs into power positions if they supported the Nazi agenda. So while I wouldn't say the Republicans are like Nazis, I would say they're copying a lot of things Nazis did so that it's becomming a bit of a concern to me as a Jew and member of the LGBT community.
Click to expand...


And I respect your right to characterize Republicans that way even though everything you just said about what Republicans have done or attempted is a flat out untruth if not an intentional lie.  And I have every right to call you on it and say bullshit that Republicans have copied anything Nazi or utilized Nazi-like tactics in any respect.

But PLEASE let's don't sidetrack the thread on who and who isn't Nazis, or whether the Democrats or Republicans most deserve to wear Hitler mustaches.  That is appropriate for another thread, not this one.

But the exchange between you and me on the subject IS pertinent to this thread.  Should you be able to express your contempt for Republicans without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will try to take away your livelihood and otherwise ruin your life?  Yes you should.

And should I be able to say what you said is a bunch of crap without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will try to take away my livelihood and otherwise ruin my life?  Yes I should.

And what Stat said about the Nazis accomplishing what they did very quickly is worth a second look.  My understanding of history is that it took the Nazi party close to a decade and a half to accomplish a totalitarian state, and while that was very fast in the whole scope of world history, it didn't happen just overnight but in increments as society was conditioned or lulled to accept what was happening as a good, noble, virtuous thing.  And while I do NOT want to get into a discussion of Hitler's Germany outside of that very narrow concept, I do think we can learn from it.  Most especially the component in which the Nazis first controlled the message that would be acceptable.  Any who dared veer from the politically correct version could expect swift and certain reprimand in various ways.

So who is now trying to--demanding to--control the message in the USA.  And urging swift and certain reprimand to those who wander off the politically correct reservation?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I have to challenge that somewhat (the bolded): history has shown us that most dictatorships have evolved very, very quickly.  In more recent history, NAZI Germany sprung out of the Weimar Republic within less than one year of Hitler's appointment to the Chancellorship of said Republic under President Paul Hindenburg. And the Nürnberg Laws were already being drafted and the lion's share of them, which caused suppression, pretty much happened all at once.
> 
> We love to take the romantic view that dictatorships can spring up slowly because people tend to be like frogs in a pot of water that is heating up very, very slowly, but historical facts are quite actually NOT on the side of that form of argument at all.
> 
> We have come to hear the phrase "first they came for the XXX, but I didn't do anything, and then they came for the XXX, and I still didn't do anything", etc.... but in NAZI Germany, they actually pretty much went after everyone on their hit list all at once.
> 
> The question I have of you is whether you really think anything like 1933-1945 Germany, 1927-1945 Japan, 1917-1990 UDSSR is even possible in the USA. I believe very much that it is quite impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think what's happened in the past is more or less impossible now because of global communications. People know better. And if some Hitler'esque figure came onto the world stage saying how this group and that group was responsible for all our woes, they'd be found out and debunked that same day.
> 
> Problem is, people need a scapegoat so denouncing those with opinions and ideas opposite to our own is a common tactic in politics. The Republicans have indeed borrow some plays from the Nazi playbook like denouncing immigrants. And their attempts to deny basic human rights to the LGBT community harkens back to Nazi Germany as well (orign of the inverted pink triangle being the symbol used marking concentration camp prisoners as homosexuals.) And going over to Africa to push their anti-gay rhetoric onto countries so poor anyone offering help will have their ideology implemented in law as in Uganda recently is much as the Nazis spread around the world empowering politicial underdogs into power positions if they supported the Nazi agenda. So while I wouldn't say the Republicans are like Nazis, I would say they're copying a lot of things Nazis did so that it's becomming a bit of a concern to me as a Jew and member of the LGBT community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I respect your right to characterize Republicans that way even though everything you just said about what Republicans have done or attempted is a flat out untruth if not an intentional lie.  And I have every right to call you on it and say bullshit that Republicans have copied anything Nazi or utilized Nazi-like tactics in any respect.
> 
> But PLEASE let's don't sidetrack the thread on who and who isn't Nazis, or whether the Democrats or Republicans most deserve to wear Hitler mustaches.  That is appropriate for another thread, not this one.
> 
> But the exchange between you and me on the subject IS pertinent to this thread.  Should you be able to express your contempt for Republicans without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will try to take away your livelihood and otherwise ruin your life?  Yes you should.
> 
> And should I be able to say what you said is a bunch of crap without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will try to take away my livelihood and otherwise ruin my life?  Yes I should.
> 
> And what Stat said about the Nazis accomplishing what they did very quickly is worth a second look. * My understanding of history is that it took the Nazi party close to a decade and a half to accomplish a totalitarian state, and while that was very fast in the whole scope of world history*, it didn't happen just overnight but in increments as society was conditioned or lulled to accept what was happening as a good, noble, virtuous thing.  And while I do NOT want to get into a discussion of Hitler's Germany outside of that very narrow concept, I do think we can learn from it.  Most especially the component in which the Nazis first controlled the message that would be acceptable.  Any who dared veer from the politically correct version could expect swift and certain reprimand in various ways.
> 
> So who is now trying to--demanding to--control the message in the USA.  *And urging swift and certain reprimand to those who wander off the politically correct reservation?*
Click to expand...


The Nazi Party was created in 1920. There was a forerunnner to the party (the German Workers Party, formed by Anton Drexler) created in 1919 as a direct protest to the hard reparations levied upon Germany for it's particpation in WWI.

Hitler was jailed in 1924 for an attempt at a bloody coup in Munich on November 9, 1923 (for this very reason, he selected November 9, 15 years later, to burn down all the synagogues in the land).

He was back on the streets in 1925.

The Nazi party had little or no influence from 1925-1928.

When the Great Depression hit, and the Weimar Republic took a hit with it, the NAZI party rose in power but still lost the 1928 elections miserably and only got 37% in 1932.

Only through sleight of hand did Hitler get appointed to be Chancellor from then President Paul Hindenberg, and by 1933, the Weimar Republic was destroyed. The first drafts of the Nürnberg laws were already being written and open persecution of Jews, Roma, gays, Leftists (including politicians from the Social Democrats, who were herded up, put in large dog cages and instructed to bark or get shot in the head - and that already in 1935), the handicapped and people of any other religious other than Christian (although Hitler himself scorned Christianity) - all of this was happenining as early as 1935, just two years after the "Machtübernahme" of Hitler. So, it wasn't 15 years, it went much, much faster than that. Some people like to think fifteen years between 1928-1943, but that is simply incorrect.

But no matter what, the destruction he brought is apparent for all to see.

As for your last sentence: I was unaware that we are all on a reservation. 

And as for who is trying to control thought - well, thought is free, it can hardly be controlled. The very fact that you and I can openly argue about a number of thngs pretty much proves that.  If you are suggesting that the Left is trying to stifle people, I challenge that suggestion, very strongly. I also do not think that the Right, by and large, is trying to stifle people, either.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Can prove everything I ever say. Just didn't think anyone'd challenge "the sky is blue." But ok...Gimme a few.


----------



## Foxfyre

Delta4Embassy said:


> Can prove everything I ever say. Just didn't think anyone'd challenge "the sky is blue." But ok...Gimme a few.



Please do not derail the thread with a diatribe re Republicans.  I believe you believe everything you said.  You will NOT find ANYTHING to change my opinion that you are dead wrong.  So please don't muddy the waters by dragging a bunch of unrelated stuff in here.  If you want to start another thread on the evils of Republicanism, I'm sure you'll get a lot of traffic.

On this thread, how evil Republicans are or are not is irrelevent EXCEPT as how it pertains to the issue of tolerance and allowing people to be who and what they are when their point of view requires no contribution or participation by anybody else.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Statistikhengst said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to the other part about intolerance of other's ideas costing us our Constitutional rights, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Much of the vitriol in politics is all bark, no bite. Anytime who proposed taking an eraser to the Bill of Rights would be run out of town on a rail. That said, there are occasions where rights are being suppressed, but lost completely and permanently no. I think educating Americans on what those rights are should be a continuing process so when such suppression occurs, people understand it's unconstitutional and don't just roll over and accept it. Lawsuits work well for this.
> 
> But at least on tv, freedom to voice dissent or disagree is being suppressed fairly often. But then there's the fact that on-air tv is business, and if someone's saying things that will negatively impact that business you get rid of them. Better to take a little hit than allow somoene fundamentally at odds with your business to keep shooting their mouth off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It starts off rather innocuously* in all countries that become oppressive totalitarian states.  First this group, then that group is demonized until it becomes politically correct for the angry mobs, groups, or organizations use strongarm (figuratively or actually) tactics to shut people up--only politically correct speech is allowed.  It is a slow creep from there to having all freedoms first suppressed, and then removed altogether.
> 
> I have no problem with anybody barking.  I have tried to be very clear about that.  It's when they choose to bite purely because of who are what somebody is that it becomes an infringement on peoples' unalienable rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I have to challenge that somewhat (the bolded): history has shown us that most dictatorships have evolved very, very quickly.  In more recent history, NAZI Germany sprung out of the Weimar Republic within less than one year of Hitler's appointment to the Chancellorship of said Republic under President Paul Hindenburg. And the Nürnberg Laws were already being drafted and the lion's share of them, which caused suppression, pretty much happened all at once.
> 
> We love to take the romantic view that dictatorships can spring up slowly because people tend to be like frogs in a pot of water that is heating up very, very slowly, but historical facts are quite actually NOT on the side of that form of argument at all.
> 
> We have come to hear the phrase "first they came for the XXX, but I didn't do anything, and then they came for the XXX, and I still didn't do anything", etc.... but in NAZI Germany, they actually pretty much went after everyone on their hit list all at once.
> 
> The question I have of you is whether you really think anything like 1933-1945 Germany, 1927-1945 Japan, 1917-1990 UDSSR is even possible in the USA. I believe very much that it is quite impossible.
Click to expand...


True. 

The notion of creeping totalitarianism is essentially false.  

And the Anglo-American judicial traditions of due process, judicial review, and the rule of law will safeguard our civil liberties from unwarranted encroachment by the state. 

Indeed, unbridled, full-throated discourse in private society serves the important role of safeguarding our civil liberties as well, rendering involvement by the government or the courts unnecessary; to advocate any limitations on this discourse in the context of private society would in fact pose a threat to our civil liberties.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can prove everything I ever say. Just didn't think anyone'd challenge "the sky is blue." But ok...Gimme a few.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please do not derail the thread with a *diatribe* re Republicans.  I believe you believe everything you said.  You will NOT find ANYTHING to change my opinion that you are dead wrong.  So please don't muddy the waters by dragging a bunch of unrelated stuff in here.  If you want to start another thread on the evils of Republicanism, I'm sure you'll get a lot of traffic.
> 
> On this thread, how evil Republicans are or are not is irrelevent EXCEPT as how it pertains to the issue of tolerance and allowing people to be who and what they are when their point of view requires no contribution or participation by anybody else.
Click to expand...



Diatribe? Hmmmm....

He expressed an opinon, with which you already disagreed.

So, what was that again about someone wanting to control or stifle?  And how is his mentioning of the Republican Party any more OT than your mentioning of Nancy Pelosi? You are both using those things to illustrate points, or? So, what's the big deal?

This was a most excellent exchange to watch, for I do believe that you just played out the meaning of the OP.

You have been hinting all over the place that the Left is somehow stifling freedoms, but you just tried to stifle this man's freedoms. 

Fascinating.

And you will also notice that I did not not particularly agree with some of Delta4Embassy's sentiments.


----------



## Statistikhengst

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It starts off rather innocuously* in all countries that become oppressive totalitarian states.  First this group, then that group is demonized until it becomes politically correct for the angry mobs, groups, or organizations use strongarm (figuratively or actually) tactics to shut people up--only politically correct speech is allowed.  It is a slow creep from there to having all freedoms first suppressed, and then removed altogether.
> 
> I have no problem with anybody barking.  I have tried to be very clear about that.  It's when they choose to bite purely because of who are what somebody is that it becomes an infringement on peoples' unalienable rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I have to challenge that somewhat (the bolded): history has shown us that most dictatorships have evolved very, very quickly.  In more recent history, NAZI Germany sprung out of the Weimar Republic within less than one year of Hitler's appointment to the Chancellorship of said Republic under President Paul Hindenburg. And the Nürnberg Laws were already being drafted and the lion's share of them, which caused suppression, pretty much happened all at once.
> 
> We love to take the romantic view that dictatorships can spring up slowly because people tend to be like frogs in a pot of water that is heating up very, very slowly, but historical facts are quite actually NOT on the side of that form of argument at all.
> 
> We have come to hear the phrase "first they came for the XXX, but I didn't do anything, and then they came for the XXX, and I still didn't do anything", etc.... but in NAZI Germany, they actually pretty much went after everyone on their hit list all at once.
> 
> The question I have of you is whether you really think anything like 1933-1945 Germany, 1927-1945 Japan, 1917-1990 UDSSR is even possible in the USA. I believe very much that it is quite impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> The notion of creeping totalitarianism is essentially false.
> 
> And the Anglo-American judicial traditions of due process, judicial review, and the rule of law will safeguard our civil liberties from unwarranted encroachment by the state.
> 
> *Indeed, unbridled, full-throated discourse in private society serves the important role of safeguarding our civil liberties as well, rendering involvement by the government or the courts unnecessary; to advocate any limitations on this discourse in the context of private society would in fact pose a threat to our civil liberties.*
Click to expand...



I concur.


----------



## Foxfyre

Statistikhengst said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can prove everything I ever say. Just didn't think anyone'd challenge "the sky is blue." But ok...Gimme a few.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please do not derail the thread with a *diatribe* re Republicans.  I believe you believe everything you said.  You will NOT find ANYTHING to change my opinion that you are dead wrong.  So please don't muddy the waters by dragging a bunch of unrelated stuff in here.  If you want to start another thread on the evils of Republicanism, I'm sure you'll get a lot of traffic.
> 
> On this thread, how evil Republicans are or are not is irrelevent EXCEPT as how it pertains to the issue of tolerance and allowing people to be who and what they are when their point of view requires no contribution or participation by anybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Diatribe? Hmmmm....
> 
> He expressed an opinon, with which you already disagreed.
> 
> So, what was that again about someone wanting to control or stifle?  And how is his mentioning of the Republican Party any more OT than your mentioning of Nancy Pelosi? You are both using those things to illustrate points, or? So, what's the big deal?
> 
> This was a most excellent exchange to watch, for I do believe that you just played out the meaning of the OP.
> 
> You have been hinting all over the place that the Left is somehow stifling freedoms, but you just tried to stifle this man's freedoms.
> 
> Fascinating.
> 
> And you will also notice that I did not not particularly agree with some of Delta4Embassy's sentiments.
Click to expand...


Sorry but insisting that members stay on the thread topic is not suppression of speech.  It is suppression of bad manners in a forum with rules.  Thanks for understanding.

Now then, do you or do you not believe Delta has the right to his opinion about Republicans--to express that opinion--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after him to take away his livelihood and otherwise ruin his life as much as they can?

Do I or do I not have the right to defend Republicans--and believe me I won't be doing that all that often--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after me to get me fired and/or otherwise ruin my life as much as I can?


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please do not derail the thread with a *diatribe* re Republicans.  I believe you believe everything you said.  You will NOT find ANYTHING to change my opinion that you are dead wrong.  So please don't muddy the waters by dragging a bunch of unrelated stuff in here.  If you want to start another thread on the evils of Republicanism, I'm sure you'll get a lot of traffic.
> 
> On this thread, how evil Republicans are or are not is irrelevent EXCEPT as how it pertains to the issue of tolerance and allowing people to be who and what they are when their point of view requires no contribution or participation by anybody else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Diatribe? Hmmmm....
> 
> He expressed an opinon, with which you already disagreed.
> 
> So, what was that again about someone wanting to control or stifle?  And how is his mentioning of the Republican Party any more OT than your mentioning of Nancy Pelosi? You are both using those things to illustrate points, or? So, what's the big deal?
> 
> This was a most excellent exchange to watch, for I do believe that you just played out the meaning of the OP.
> 
> You have been hinting all over the place that the Left is somehow stifling freedoms, but you just tried to stifle this man's freedoms.
> 
> Fascinating.
> 
> And you will also notice that I did not not particularly agree with some of Delta4Embassy's sentiments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but insisting that members stay on the thread topic is not suppression of speech.  It is suppression of bad manners in a forum with rules.  Thanks for understanding.
> 
> Now then, do you or do you not believe Delta has the right to his opinion about Republicans--to express that opinion--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after him to take away his livelihood and otherwise ruin his life as much as they can?
> 
> Do I or do I not have the right to defend Republicans--and believe me I won't be doing that all that often--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after me to get me fired and/or otherwise ruin my life as much as I can?
Click to expand...



You have the right to express what you want to but people also have the right to financially ruin you for expressing it as long as they do not break any laws. There are consequences to voicing your opinion. You have to weigh which is better for you.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please do not derail the thread with a *diatribe* re Republicans.  I believe you believe everything you said.  You will NOT find ANYTHING to change my opinion that you are dead wrong.  So please don't muddy the waters by dragging a bunch of unrelated stuff in here.  If you want to start another thread on the evils of Republicanism, I'm sure you'll get a lot of traffic.
> 
> On this thread, how evil Republicans are or are not is irrelevent EXCEPT as how it pertains to the issue of tolerance and allowing people to be who and what they are when their point of view requires no contribution or participation by anybody else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Diatribe? Hmmmm....
> 
> He expressed an opinon, with which you already disagreed.
> 
> So, what was that again about someone wanting to control or stifle?  And how is his mentioning of the Republican Party any more OT than your mentioning of Nancy Pelosi? You are both using those things to illustrate points, or? So, what's the big deal?
> 
> This was a most excellent exchange to watch, for I do believe that you just played out the meaning of the OP.
> 
> You have been hinting all over the place that the Left is somehow stifling freedoms, but you just tried to stifle this man's freedoms.
> 
> Fascinating.
> 
> And you will also notice that I did not not particularly agree with some of Delta4Embassy's sentiments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but insisting that members stay on the thread topic is not suppression of speech.  It is suppression of bad manners in a forum with rules.  Thanks for understanding.
> 
> Now then, do you or do you not believe Delta has the right to his opinion about Republicans--to express that opinion--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after him to take away his livelihood and otherwise ruin his life as much as they can?
> 
> Do I or do I not have the right to defend Republicans--and believe me I won't be doing that all that often--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after me to get me fired and/or otherwise ruin my life as much as I can?
Click to expand...


Oh, I support both of your rights and I support those rights to be loud and full-throated as well. And sure, part of a free society is a form of tolerance that allows things that one side would consider unsavory to come into play. So, you may think that some of Delta4Embassy's comments were unsavory, just as I think your failed attempt to disparage Nancy Pelosi was somewhat unsavory. But at the same time, even during both exchanges, new information has some to light, so we have all actually benefitted from the exchange.

Or?

But I disagree with you in your assessment that he was trying to derail this thread. He was not. He was using a group as an example to make a point, just as you did with Nancy Pelosi.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Foxfyre said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I have to challenge that somewhat (the bolded): history has shown us that most dictatorships have evolved very, very quickly.  In more recent history, NAZI Germany sprung out of the Weimar Republic within less than one year of Hitler's appointment to the Chancellorship of said Republic under President Paul Hindenburg. And the Nürnberg Laws were already being drafted and the lion's share of them, which caused suppression, pretty much happened all at once.
> 
> We love to take the romantic view that dictatorships can spring up slowly because people tend to be like frogs in a pot of water that is heating up very, very slowly, but historical facts are quite actually NOT on the side of that form of argument at all.
> 
> We have come to hear the phrase "first they came for the XXX, but I didn't do anything, and then they came for the XXX, and I still didn't do anything", etc.... but in NAZI Germany, they actually pretty much went after everyone on their hit list all at once.
> 
> The question I have of you is whether you really think anything like 1933-1945 Germany, 1927-1945 Japan, 1917-1990 UDSSR is even possible in the USA. I believe very much that it is quite impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think what's happened in the past is more or less impossible now because of global communications. People know better. And if some Hitler'esque figure came onto the world stage saying how this group and that group was responsible for all our woes, they'd be found out and debunked that same day.
> 
> Problem is, people need a scapegoat so denouncing those with opinions and ideas opposite to our own is a common tactic in politics. The Republicans have indeed borrow some plays from the Nazi playbook like denouncing immigrants. And their attempts to deny basic human rights to the LGBT community harkens back to Nazi Germany as well (orign of the inverted pink triangle being the symbol used marking concentration camp prisoners as homosexuals.) And going over to Africa to push their anti-gay rhetoric onto countries so poor anyone offering help will have their ideology implemented in law as in Uganda recently is much as the Nazis spread around the world empowering politicial underdogs into power positions if they supported the Nazi agenda. So while I wouldn't say the Republicans are like Nazis, I would say they're copying a lot of things Nazis did so that it's becomming a bit of a concern to me as a Jew and member of the LGBT community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I respect your right to characterize Republicans that way even though everything you just said about what Republicans have done or attempted is a flat out untruth if not an intentional lie.  And I have every right to call you on it and say bullshit that Republicans have copied anything Nazi or utilized Nazi-like tactics in any respect.
> 
> But PLEASE let's don't sidetrack the thread on who and who isn't Nazis, or whether the Democrats or Republicans most deserve to wear Hitler mustaches.  That is appropriate for another thread, not this one.
> 
> But the exchange between you and me on the subject IS pertinent to this thread.  Should you be able to express your contempt for Republicans without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will try to take away your livelihood and otherwise ruin your life?  Yes you should.
> 
> And should I be able to say what you said is a bunch of crap without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will try to take away my livelihood and otherwise ruin my life?  Yes I should.
> 
> And what Stat said about the Nazis accomplishing what they did very quickly is worth a second look.  My understanding of history is that it took the Nazi party close to a decade and a half to accomplish a totalitarian state, and while that was very fast in the whole scope of world history, it didn't happen just overnight but in increments as society was conditioned or lulled to accept what was happening as a good, noble, virtuous thing.  And while I do NOT want to get into a discussion of Hitler's Germany outside of that very narrow concept, I do think we can learn from it.  Most especially the component in which the Nazis first controlled the message that would be acceptable.  Any who dared veer from the politically correct version could expect swift and certain reprimand in various ways.
> 
> So who is now trying to--demanding to--control the message in the USA.  And urging swift and certain reprimand to those who wander off the politically correct reservation?
Click to expand...


Well you kinda just called me a liar so I'd like to show I'm not arbitraily dumping on Republicans, and that in fact much of their political ideology is exactly identical to that of the Nazis leading up to WWII and the Holocaust. Will keep it short.

Themes in Nazi propaganda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In 1933, Hitler's speeches spoke of serving Germany and defending it from its foes: hostile countries, Communism, liberals, and culture decay..."

Would assume you don't need proof of how Republicans denounce liberals? Or how Republicans are anti-LGBT as being 'moral decay'? And how they insist Islamic Sharia law is a threat to our system of governing and law much as Nazis did with Communism? 

So yes Virginia, there are similarities between the Nazis and the Republicans.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Diatribe? Hmmmm....
> 
> He expressed an opinon, with which you already disagreed.
> 
> So, what was that again about someone wanting to control or stifle?  And how is his mentioning of the Republican Party any more OT than your mentioning of Nancy Pelosi? You are both using those things to illustrate points, or? So, what's the big deal?
> 
> This was a most excellent exchange to watch, for I do believe that you just played out the meaning of the OP.
> 
> You have been hinting all over the place that the Left is somehow stifling freedoms, but you just tried to stifle this man's freedoms.
> 
> Fascinating.
> 
> And you will also notice that I did not not particularly agree with some of Delta4Embassy's sentiments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but insisting that members stay on the thread topic is not suppression of speech.  It is suppression of bad manners in a forum with rules.  Thanks for understanding.
> 
> Now then, do you or do you not believe Delta has the right to his opinion about Republicans--to express that opinion--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after him to take away his livelihood and otherwise ruin his life as much as they can?
> 
> Do I or do I not have the right to defend Republicans--and believe me I won't be doing that all that often--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after me to get me fired and/or otherwise ruin my life as much as I can?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to express what you want to but people also have the right to financially ruin you for expressing it as long as they do not break any laws. There are consequences to voicing your opinion. You have to weigh which is better for you.
Click to expand...


Do they?  Do they have a right to ruin me purely for who I am or what I believe?  Or can they just do that legally?

The point is not what they CAN do.

The point is what is the right, honorable, ethical, moral thing to do.

Do you condone an angry mob, group, or organization trying to ruin somebody purely because of who and what he/she is and/or because of a belief that he/she holds?

I am not finding many conservatives who can't answer that with a simple yes or no.

I'm not finding many left of center who will even admit the question is asked, much less answer it straight up or down.

Which is making that video Mojo posted early in the thread more and more pertinent here I think.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but insisting that members stay on the thread topic is not suppression of speech.  It is suppression of bad manners in a forum with rules.  Thanks for understanding.
> 
> Now then, do you or do you not believe Delta has the right to his opinion about Republicans--to express that opinion--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after him to take away his livelihood and otherwise ruin his life as much as they can?
> 
> Do I or do I not have the right to defend Republicans--and believe me I won't be doing that all that often--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after me to get me fired and/or otherwise ruin my life as much as I can?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to express what you want to but people also have the right to financially ruin you for expressing it as long as they do not break any laws. There are consequences to voicing your opinion. You have to weigh which is better for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they?  Do they have a right to ruin me purely for who I am or what I believe?  Or can they just do that legally?
> 
> The point is not what they CAN do.
> 
> The point is what is the right, honorable, ethical, moral thing to do.
> 
> Do you condone an angry mob, group, or organization trying to ruin somebody purely because of who and what he/she is and/or because of a belief that he/she holds?
> 
> I am not finding many conservatives who can't answer that with a simple yes or no.
> 
> I'm not finding many left of center who will even admit the question is asked, much less answer it straight up or down.
> 
> Which is making that video Mojo posted early in the thread more and more pertinent here I think.
Click to expand...



I have no problem with saying without a doubt if you open your mouth to voice a negative opinion just because you think what say is important, then morally and ethically I can condone you being ruined. If what you are saying is not positive you should keep your mouth closed or deal with the consequences.  Like my grandmother used to say, "if you don't have something good to say don't say nothing at all". Its really that simple.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to express what you want to but people also have the right to financially ruin you for expressing it as long as they do not break any laws. There are consequences to voicing your opinion. You have to weigh which is better for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they?  Do they have a right to ruin me purely for who I am or what I believe?  Or can they just do that legally?
> 
> The point is not what they CAN do.
> 
> The point is what is the right, honorable, ethical, moral thing to do.
> 
> Do you condone an angry mob, group, or organization trying to ruin somebody purely because of who and what he/she is and/or because of a belief that he/she holds?
> 
> I am not finding many conservatives who can't answer that with a simple yes or no.
> 
> I'm not finding many left of center who will even admit the question is asked, much less answer it straight up or down.
> 
> Which is making that video Mojo posted early in the thread more and more pertinent here I think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with saying without a doubt if you open your mouth to voice a negative opinion just because you think what say is important, then morally and ethically I can condone you being ruined. If what you are saying is not positive you should keep your mouth closed or deal with the consequences.  Like my grandmother used to say, "if you don't have something good to say don't say nothing at all". Its really that simple.
Click to expand...


Well thank you for being honest about it.  Because your point of view, if there is no push back, will destroy every unalienable right and liberty we enjoy, you can understand why I find your point of view really scary.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but insisting that members stay on the thread topic is not suppression of speech.  It is suppression of bad manners in a forum with rules.  Thanks for understanding.
> 
> Now then, do you or do you not believe Delta has the right to his opinion about Republicans--to express that opinion--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after him to take away his livelihood and otherwise ruin his life as much as they can?
> 
> Do I or do I not have the right to defend Republicans--and believe me I won't be doing that all that often--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after me to get me fired and/or otherwise ruin my life as much as I can?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to express what you want to but people also have the right to financially ruin you for expressing it as long as they do not break any laws. There are consequences to voicing your opinion. You have to weigh which is better for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they?  Do they have a right to ruin me purely for who I am or what I believe?  Or can they just do that legally?
> 
> The point is not what they CAN do.
> 
> *The point is what is the right, honorable, ethical, moral thing to do.
> 
> Do you condone an angry mob, group, or organization trying to ruin somebody purely because of who and what he/she is and/or because of a belief that he/she holds?*
> 
> I am not finding many conservatives who can't answer that with a simple yes or no.
> 
> I'm not finding many left of center who will even admit the question is asked, much less answer it straight up or down.
> 
> Which is making that video Mojo posted early in the thread more and more pertinent here I think.
Click to expand...


Oh, that's easy:

I don't condone it. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.

It is also morally wrong, imo.

But more importantly, it tends to backfire more often than not, if not in this generation, then in the next.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

"Do you condone an angry mob, group, or organization trying to ruin somebody purely because of who and what he/she is and/or because of a belief that he/she holds?

I'm not finding many left of center who will even admit the question is asked, much less answer it straight up or down."

No. 

Would rather watch cartoons than spend time trying to convince such people they're wrong. Just as we Jews don't seek converts, that sentiment extends to at least my feelings of those I don't agree with. I'm never going to be able to convince someone I'm right and they're wrong if they don't already agree with me despite saying otherwise.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Delta4Embassy said:


> "Do you condone an angry mob, group, or organization trying to ruin somebody purely because of who and what he/she is and/or because of a belief that he/she holds?
> 
> I'm not finding many left of center who will even admit the question is asked, much less answer it straight up or down."
> 
> No.
> 
> Would rather watch cartoons than spend time trying to convince such people they're wrong. Just as we Jews don't seek converts, that sentiment extends to at least my feelings of those I don't agree with. I'm never going to be able to convince someone I'm right and they're wrong if they don't already agree with me despite saying otherwise.





What did you say? I was watching cartoons....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuUJfYcn3V4]Q-36 Space Modulator - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Delta4Embassy

"That creature has stolen the elunium 36 explosive space modulator!" 

Those were the great cartoons, not like the crap now.


----------



## Foxfyre

Statistikhengst said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to express what you want to but people also have the right to financially ruin you for expressing it as long as they do not break any laws. There are consequences to voicing your opinion. You have to weigh which is better for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they?  Do they have a right to ruin me purely for who I am or what I believe?  Or can they just do that legally?
> 
> The point is not what they CAN do.
> 
> *The point is what is the right, honorable, ethical, moral thing to do.
> 
> Do you condone an angry mob, group, or organization trying to ruin somebody purely because of who and what he/she is and/or because of a belief that he/she holds?*
> 
> I am not finding many conservatives who can't answer that with a simple yes or no.
> 
> I'm not finding many left of center who will even admit the question is asked, much less answer it straight up or down.
> 
> Which is making that video Mojo posted early in the thread more and more pertinent here I think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that's easy:
> 
> I don't condone it. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.
> 
> It is also morally wrong, imo.
> 
> But more importantly, it tends to backfire more often than not, if not in this generation, then in the next.
Click to expand...


Thank you.  I really REALLY hope you're right about that, and that honor, ethics, morality, tolerance, and liberty will win out.  That is the whole thing.  Not what it is legal to do, but what is the right thing to do.

But if the momentum towards total political correctness continues, I do think we are headed for complete totalitarianism in our generation because nobody in government will dare push back.  And, they will become as addicted to that power as they are to the power that holding the purse strings gives them.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they?  Do they have a right to ruin me purely for who I am or what I believe?  Or can they just do that legally?
> 
> The point is not what they CAN do.
> 
> The point is what is the right, honorable, ethical, moral thing to do.
> 
> Do you condone an angry mob, group, or organization trying to ruin somebody purely because of who and what he/she is and/or because of a belief that he/she holds?
> 
> I am not finding many conservatives who can't answer that with a simple yes or no.
> 
> I'm not finding many left of center who will even admit the question is asked, much less answer it straight up or down.
> 
> Which is making that video Mojo posted early in the thread more and more pertinent here I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with saying without a doubt if you open your mouth to voice a negative opinion just because you think what say is important, then morally and ethically I can condone you being ruined. If what you are saying is not positive you should keep your mouth closed or deal with the consequences.  Like my grandmother used to say, "if you don't have something good to say don't say nothing at all". Its really that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well thank you for being honest about it.  Because your point of view, if there is no push back, will destroy every unalienable right and liberty we enjoy, you can understand why I find your point of view really scary.
Click to expand...


Everything goes in cycles.  There will be a push back.  My stance will not destroy our illusions of our rights. The simple law of supply and demand will self regulate those that do not conform with popular opinion. If more people hate your opinion, the more you will feel it in your pocketbook depending on how educated your consumers are.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they?  Do they have a right to ruin me purely for who I am or what I believe?  Or can they just do that legally?
> 
> The point is not what they CAN do.
> 
> *The point is what is the right, honorable, ethical, moral thing to do.
> 
> Do you condone an angry mob, group, or organization trying to ruin somebody purely because of who and what he/she is and/or because of a belief that he/she holds?*
> 
> I am not finding many conservatives who can't answer that with a simple yes or no.
> 
> I'm not finding many left of center who will even admit the question is asked, much less answer it straight up or down.
> 
> Which is making that video Mojo posted early in the thread more and more pertinent here I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's easy:
> 
> I don't condone it. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.
> 
> It is also morally wrong, imo.
> 
> But more importantly, it tends to backfire more often than not, if not in this generation, then in the next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  I really REALLY hope you're right about that, and that honor, ethics, morality, tolerance, and liberty will win out.  That is the whole thing.  Not what it is legal to do, but what is the right thing to do.
> 
> But if the momentum towards total political correctness continues, I do think we are headed for complete totalitarianism in our generation because nobody in government will dare push back and they will become as addicted that power as they are to the power that holding the purse strings gives them.
Click to expand...



There would probably be no need for anyone to feel the need to push PC if the vast majority of people could learn to use modesty and self-imposed restraint in their dealings with fellow homo-sapiens to begin with. Well, it is very late here where I live, I am only still up because of a pine allergy.  

Proceed apace, free thinkers of the world.   I shall now think in sleep.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with saying without a doubt if you open your mouth to voice a negative opinion just because you think what say is important, then morally and ethically I can condone you being ruined. If what you are saying is not positive you should keep your mouth closed or deal with the consequences.  Like my grandmother used to say, "if you don't have something good to say don't say nothing at all". Its really that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well thank you for being honest about it.  Because your point of view, if there is no push back, will destroy every unalienable right and liberty we enjoy, you can understand why I find your point of view really scary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything goes in cycles.  There will be a push back.  My stance will not destroy our illusions of our rights. The simple law of supply and demand will self regulate those that do not conform with popular opinion. If more people hate your opinion, the more you will feel it in your pocketbook depending on how educated your consumers are.
Click to expand...


But the fact that you condone it, in my opinion makes you part of the problem.  And if there are enough who condone it, there won't be enough to push back.  And it won't be long before those who try to push back become targets themselves.  It is how every totalitarian nation takes control--by removing the power of the people to dissent.  Which is exactly what physically and materially hurting people for who they are or what they believe is.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well thank you for being honest about it.  Because your point of view, if there is no push back, will destroy every unalienable right and liberty we enjoy, you can understand why I find your point of view really scary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything goes in cycles.  There will be a push back.  My stance will not destroy our illusions of our rights. The simple law of supply and demand will self regulate those that do not conform with popular opinion. If more people hate your opinion, the more you will feel it in your pocketbook depending on how educated your consumers are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the fact that you condone it, in my opinion makes you part of the problem.  And if there are enough who condone it, there won't be enough to push back.  And it won't be long before those who try to push back become targets themselves.  It is how every totalitarian nation takes control--by removing the power of the people to dissent.  Which is exactly what physically and materially hurting people for who they are or what they believe is.
Click to expand...


You are assuming I view it is a problem.  I don't.  There are plenty of people that feel like you do.  I'm sure they will march with you to censor people that wish to censor your right to say negative things about others.  It will all come out in the wash.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but insisting that members stay on the thread topic is not suppression of speech.  It is suppression of bad manners in a forum with rules.  Thanks for understanding.
> 
> Now then, do you or do you not believe Delta has the right to his opinion about Republicans--to express that opinion--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after him to take away his livelihood and otherwise ruin his life as much as they can?
> 
> Do I or do I not have the right to defend Republicans--and believe me I won't be doing that all that often--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after me to get me fired and/or otherwise ruin my life as much as I can?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to express what you want to but people also have the right to financially ruin you for expressing it as long as they do not break any laws. There are consequences to voicing your opinion. You have to weigh which is better for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they?  Do they have a right to ruin me purely for who I am or what I believe?  Or can they just do that legally?
> 
> The point is not what they CAN do.
> 
> The point is what is the right, honorable, ethical, moral thing to do.
> 
> *Do you condone an angry mob, group, or organization trying to ruin somebody purely because of who and what he/she is and/or because of a belief that he/she holds?*
> 
> I am not finding many conservatives who can't answer that with a simple yes or no.
> 
> I'm not finding many left of center who will even admit the question is asked, much less answer it straight up or down.
> 
> Which is making that video Mojo posted early in the thread more and more pertinent here I think.
Click to expand...


Of course not. 

No one does; and no one is advocating any such thing, liberals in particular. 

Nor does anyone condone the state somehow becoming involved by preempting such speech or actions, or subjecting those who engage in such speech or actions to official punitive measures. 

Private society will evaluate the merits of speech made by individuals, as it will evaluate the merits of the argument against that speech, which is both appropriate and desirable in a free and democratic society. 

As for the video posted earlier, unfortunately it serves only to prove the ignorance and hate common among most conservatives.


----------



## oldfart

We seem to have stumbled into a rather good discussion and I applaud Foxfyre as de facto moderating it.  



Foxfyre said:


> This is the thing.  Oldfart's post was very well stated--one of the better of the day--but I disagree with him emphatically.  He sees the Left as the pragmatic and circumspect ones and the Right as the crazies.  I'm pretty much the polar opposite of that point of view.



Some of the differences are of era and location.  I grew up in the Eisenhower administration after Ike had pretty well squished Joe McCarthy, and the last half of the 1960s where we had groups like the Weather Underground (a couple of members of which I knew), the SLA of Patty Hearst fame, and the Bader-Meinhof Gang.  That's what I mean by crazies on the left, and I don't see anyone acting like that today.  

I was a participant in the civil rights movement from the late fifties on and the anti-Vietnam War movement.  That's what became the mainstream left.  I said some nice things about Buckley and Friedman which I regard as the originators of the modern conservative movement and have never lumped them with he Klan, the John Birch Society, or similar organizations often portrayed as on the right.  I was never much impressed with extremists of any ilk or anyone who thought that violence was a useful political tool.  

Following graduate school I accepted a teaching job in Mississippi, and I must admit that generalizing from Mississippi to the entire country is a big stretch.  Conversely, over the last forty five years I have been told by many people on the right that many things I saw myself and experienced never happened.  There is a level of cognitive dissonance so great that people will deny that the house I lived in had shotgun pellets from nightriders in the window sashes or that Rev Ed King must have firebombed his own house.  This is the kind of denial and unwillingness to face current facts and history that I run into on the right, and it permeates this board.  



Foxfyre said:


> But if I was going to debate the topic, I would choose him for an opponent in a heartbeat because it would probably be a good debate.



I look forward with relish to many such discussions.  I even promise not to try to blow smoke up your ass.  



Foxfyre said:


> Tolerance means that ALL points of views can be expressed with impunity.  That way people have all perspectives from which to make their choices.  Tolerant people trust those who are fully informed and educated to make better choices than those who are indoctrinated with intolerance and who do their damndest to shut up anybody with a different point of view.



I respectfully disagree.  I have defended the right of conservatives to speak on a college campus when protestors tried to silence him by demonstrating in the hall.  I have severe misgivings about measures regarding "hate speech" on many college campuses.  But people who demand a captive audience, refuse to share the podium for rebuttal or take questions, and then cry that they are being oppressed are simply silly.  I know people who were beaten up for saying things that today are in Supreme Court rulings.  Whiners who want to be insulated from the rigors of actual public debate or the consequences of their statements and actions when those who oppose them exercise their rights is a travesty.


----------



## Asclepias

oldfart said:


> I respectfully disagree.  I have defended the right of conservatives to speak on a college campus when protestors tried to silence him by demonstrating in the hall.  I have severe misgivings about measures regarding "hate speech" on many college campuses.  But people who demand a captive audience, refuse to share the podium for rebuttal or take questions, and then cry that they are being oppressed are simply silly.  I know people who were beaten up for saying things that today are in Supreme Court rulings.  Whiners who want to be insulated from the rigors of actual public debate or the consequences of their statements and actions when those who oppose them exercise their rights is a travesty.



I think you may have hit on something.  If you feel the need to say something negative, say it where it can be challenged and debated.  You personally may not ever change your mind but those listening to your viewpoint will also hear counter viewpoints.  If I am not mistaken was this not the intent of the first amendment anyway?  I think people having a audience without any challenge is dangerous and why I condone any repercussions that may come about from hate speech.


----------



## oldfart

Asclepias said:


> You cant be afraid of uprisings if you are not enslaving people.  You dont get to be intolerant first while harming others then have an issue with others shutting down your intolerance via uprisings.  You are fair game if you started the intolerance.



Thanks for giving me such a clear position to extend my comments from.  What passes for conservative political economy today seems nothing more than a rationalization of the use of force to redistribute income more unequally and pretend that this result is merely some kind of universal law.  As stated the argument goes like this:

1.  If I have economic power I can use it to capture the political system and the regulatory organs of government.  I call this "representative democracy".

2.  I use this control to encourage monopolistic and monopsonistic combinations and suppress actual market solutions and threats of actual competition.  Of course this increases and centralizes economic power.  I call this doctrine "free markets".  

3.  I use political and economic power to counter any attempt to frustrate my ambitions through the ballot box.  This is called "free (corporate) speech" and "protecting the integrity of the vote".  

4.  If there is any intellectual opposition to this corporatist system, I will use economic power to buy off sufficient "scholars" to muddy the scientific waters, control what gets published, justify my actions, and discredit those who disagree with me.  This I call "academic freedom".

5.  I create an ideology that denigrates public service, deifies unbridled greed and civic irresponsibility, and identifies public welfare with the exclusive interests of my class.  I hire legions of hacks to promote these ideas in every forum available.  I insure that opposing voices will be overwhelmed by my PR organs and that schools of law, business, journalism and the like teach this new ethos to the rising generation of professionals.  This I call "higher education".  

I have been so successful with this system that I only rarely need to bring out the goons, like in the old days, to bust up printing presses and union organizers, or have a few "educational" lynchings (deportation works so much better).  I have convinced the common people to fight among themselves as their living standards deteriorate.  This I call the "American Way" and despite massive evidence to the contrary, declare it the best and most righteous society in the world.  That way, I label everyone who disagrees with me or has differing ideas of how to improve society as "UnAmerican".

And of course, this is the system ordained by God, or at least my friends in the clergy, and therefore is ungodly to protest.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything goes in cycles.  There will be a push back.  My stance will not destroy our illusions of our rights. The simple law of supply and demand will self regulate those that do not conform with popular opinion. If more people hate your opinion, the more you will feel it in your pocketbook depending on how educated your consumers are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the fact that you condone it, in my opinion makes you part of the problem.  And if there are enough who condone it, there won't be enough to push back.  And it won't be long before those who try to push back become targets themselves.  It is how every totalitarian nation takes control--by removing the power of the people to dissent.  Which is exactly what physically and materially hurting people for who they are or what they believe is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are assuming I view it is a problem.  I don't.  There are plenty of people that feel like you do.  I'm sure they will march with you to censor people that wish to censor your right to say negative things about others.  It will all come out in the wash.
Click to expand...


No I assume nothing about you other than what you tell me about yourself.  I am the one who sees it as a problem.  And I also see it as tragic that it might come to down to whether there are more of me or more of you that will determine whether we will all remain free to be who and what we are.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the fact that you condone it, in my opinion makes you part of the problem.  And if there are enough who condone it, there won't be enough to push back.  And it won't be long before those who try to push back become targets themselves.  It is how every totalitarian nation takes control--by removing the power of the people to dissent.  Which is exactly what physically and materially hurting people for who they are or what they believe is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are assuming I view it is a problem.  I don't.  There are plenty of people that feel like you do.  I'm sure they will march with you to censor people that wish to censor your right to say negative things about others.  It will all come out in the wash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I assume nothing about you other than what you tell me about yourself.  I am the one who sees it as a problem.  And I also see it as tragic that it might come to down to whether there are more of me or more of you that will determine whether we will all remain free to be who and what we are.
Click to expand...


I think you are being overly dramatic.  Unless the first amendment is rescinded you have nothing to worry about. No one is the thought police.  However everyone is potentially the thought expression police.  You say something negative you should expect people to react negatively to your expression no matter how much of a right you have to express yourself.  It sounds to me like you want a free pass to say something without facing the consequences. That is not logical when considering human nature.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are assuming I view it is a problem.  I don't.  There are plenty of people that feel like you do.  I'm sure they will march with you to censor people that wish to censor your right to say negative things about others.  It will all come out in the wash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I assume nothing about you other than what you tell me about yourself.  I am the one who sees it as a problem.  And I also see it as tragic that it might come to down to whether there are more of me or more of you that will determine whether we will all remain free to be who and what we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are being overly dramatic.  Unless the first amendment is rescinded you have nothing to worry about. No one is the thought police.  However everyone is potentially the thought expression police.  You say something negative you should expect people to react negatively to your expression no matter how much of a right you have to express yourself.  It sounds to me like you want a free pass to say something without facing the consequences. That is not logical when considering human nature.
Click to expand...


This is not a constitutional, First Amendment, or legal issue so far as I am concerned.  And I am not talking about people responding negatively either.  I certainly respond negatively when somebody here, in the media, or in the newspapers etc. says something offensively stupid.   I have no right to approval.  But I should have a right to be able to express my opinion without an angry mob, group, or organization descending on me with the intention to physically and/or materially hurt me.

Do you see a different between telling somebody off and punching him/her in the face?
You should also see a difference between somebody responding negatively and intentionally hurting somebody.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I assume nothing about you other than what you tell me about yourself.  I am the one who sees it as a problem.  And I also see it as tragic that it might come to down to whether there are more of me or more of you that will determine whether we will all remain free to be who and what we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are being overly dramatic.  Unless the first amendment is rescinded you have nothing to worry about. No one is the thought police.  However everyone is potentially the thought expression police.  You say something negative you should expect people to react negatively to your expression no matter how much of a right you have to express yourself.  It sounds to me like you want a free pass to say something without facing the consequences. That is not logical when considering human nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not a constitutional, First Amendment, or legal issue so far as I am concerned.  And I am not talking about people responding negatively either.  I certainly respond negatively when somebody here, in the media, or in the newspapers etc. says something offensively stupid.   I have no right to approval.  But I should have a right to be able to express my opinion without an angry mob, group, or organization descending on me with the intention to physically and/or materially hurt me.
> 
> Do you see a different between telling somebody off and punching him/her in the face?
> You should also see a difference between somebody responding negatively and intentionally hurting somebody.
Click to expand...


I'd hurt some people physically for the things I read here on this message board if they said those things in my presence if I could get away with it legally. I'm big on being respectful. If you cannot be respectful in your expression then you deserve to be dealt with IMO. I think that is just human nature.  Why should you be allowed to say hurtful things without dealing with the consequences?


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are being overly dramatic.  Unless the first amendment is rescinded you have nothing to worry about. No one is the thought police.  However everyone is potentially the thought expression police.  You say something negative you should expect people to react negatively to your expression no matter how much of a right you have to express yourself.  It sounds to me like you want a free pass to say something without facing the consequences. That is not logical when considering human nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a constitutional, First Amendment, or legal issue so far as I am concerned.  And I am not talking about people responding negatively either.  I certainly respond negatively when somebody here, in the media, or in the newspapers etc. says something offensively stupid.   I have no right to approval.  But I should have a right to be able to express my opinion without an angry mob, group, or organization descending on me with the intention to physically and/or materially hurt me.
> 
> Do you see a different between telling somebody off and punching him/her in the face?
> You should also see a difference between somebody responding negatively and intentionally hurting somebody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd hurt some people physically for the things I read here on this message board if they said those things in my presence if I could get away with it legally. I'm big on being respectful. If you cannot be respectful in your expression then you deserve to be dealt with IMO. I think that is just human nature.  Why should you be allowed to say hurtful things without dealing with the consequences?
Click to expand...


Because none of us have an unalienable right to not be offended.  Because grown ups don't punch people out because they are insensitive jerks or verbal bullies.  It doesn't mean we have to accept what they say.  It doesn't mean we don't tell them off when appropriate to do so.  It doesn't mean that we don't remove them from our Christmas Card list or whatever.

But if we value liberty, that means that we have to allow liberty.  Even liberty to be awful people.   We can demand certain protocol in our own business.  We can demand certain protocol in our families or in our homes.  We can expect a certain conduct from those we associate with.  But otherwise we have no right to dictate to anybody else how they must think, believe, speak or else.  Because if we assume that right, then we should expect to be at the mercy of a bigger, stronger bully than we are.

But it is very late and I'm weary and I'm headed for bed.  But I will no doubt be back to fight the good fight.  Good night.


----------



## Derideo_Te

hunarcy said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Technically speaking I am intolerant of his appalling lack of critical  thinking skills.
> 
> However it is readily apparent that you didn't watch it yourself. Within the first 3 minutes the speaker was expressing absolute intolerance of everything that the Dems stand for. It was the epitome of intolerance and yet Mojo was raving about how good it was. So the irony here is your accusing me of intolerance without knowing that you were defending intolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate you helping me understand what you were being intolerant of in your post.
> 
> I watched about 5 minutes of it.
> 
> But, the point, you are given and opportunity to hear his ideas and judge for yourself and accept it or reject it.  That's what tolerance is all about...not that you have to agree with him, only that you allow him his opportunity to express his ideas.
Click to expand...


You are welcome. 

But I did "hear his ideas and judge[d it] for [my]self" and I rejected it based upon the absurd level of intolerance that it contained. It was so intolerant that I felt that the appropriate response was ridicule and that is exactly how I responded. 

So, yes, I gave Mojo the "opportunity to express his ideas" and then I responded appropriately. However you claimed that my response was intolerant when it was nothing of the sort. It was merely ridiculing the intolerance of his position which I have as much right to express as Mojo does. 

In essence you are the one who is being intolerant of my right to express my ridicule of his intolerance.


----------



## BDBoop

oldfart said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cant be afraid of uprisings if you are not enslaving people.  You dont get to be intolerant first while harming others then have an issue with others shutting down your intolerance via uprisings.  You are fair game if you started the intolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for giving me such a clear position to extend my comments from.  What passes for conservative political economy today seems nothing more than a rationalization of the use of force to redistribute income more unequally and pretend that this result is merely some kind of universal law.  As stated the argument goes like this:
> 
> 1.  If I have economic power I can use it to capture the political system and the regulatory organs of government.  I call this "representative democracy".
> 
> 2.  I use this control to encourage monopolistic and monopsonistic combinations and suppress actual market solutions and threats of actual competition.  Of course this increases and centralizes economic power.  I call this doctrine "free markets".
> 
> 3.  I use political and economic power to counter any attempt to frustrate my ambitions through the ballot box.  This is called "free (corporate) speech" and "protecting the integrity of the vote".
> 
> 4.  If there is any intellectual opposition to this corporatist system, I will use economic power to buy off sufficient "scholars" to muddy the scientific waters, control what gets published, justify my actions, and discredit those who disagree with me.  This I call "academic freedom".
> 
> 5.  I create an ideology that denigrates public service, deifies unbridled greed and civic irresponsibility, and identifies public welfare with the exclusive interests of my class.  I hire legions of hacks to promote these ideas in every forum available.  I insure that opposing voices will be overwhelmed by my PR organs and that schools of law, business, journalism and the like teach this new ethos to the rising generation of professionals.  This I call "higher education".
> 
> I have been so successful with this system that I only rarely need to bring out the goons, like in the old days, to bust up printing presses and union organizers, or have a few "educational" lynchings (deportation works so much better).  I have convinced the common people to fight among themselves as their living standards deteriorate.  This I call the "American Way" and despite massive evidence to the contrary, declare it the best and most righteous society in the world.  That way, I label everyone who disagrees with me or has differing ideas of how to improve society as "UnAmerican".
> 
> And of course, this is the system ordained by God, or at least my friends in the clergy, and therefore is ungodly to protest.
Click to expand...


Brilliant. I wish we saw you here more often, sir.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that true tolerance is an idea that will never be achieved. It simply is against human nature. No one is going to be tolerant of say someone wishing to oppress them. They are going to do everything in their power to nip that sort of thinking in the bud.
> 
> Before there is action there is a thought. If people with certain thoughts that are detrimental to society as a whole are allowed a platform, they can and will influence others to take up those same thoughts. A good example of that is Hitler.  People were tolerant of Hitler and look what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I am not advocating tolerance for anything and everything.*  Many things should be intolerable to freedom loving and fair minded and good people.
> 
> *It was not Hitler's thoughts, however, that created the Holocaust.*  It was Hitler's INTENT and his ACTIONS.  And yes those were tolerated by good people until it was too late for them to stop him without a terrible bloody cost of many millions of lives.
> 
> The tolerance I am looking for is to allow people to be who they are who aren't intending or actively trying to coerce others.  Again from the op:
> 
> *I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your first statement wouldn't that be the very definition of intolerant? Some thoughts are ok but others are not?
> 
> *Before Hitler took action he expressed thoughts that influenced people. His thoughts were the impetus and his actions were the fulfillment of those thoughts.*
> 
> If you voice your opinion you are actively contributing to moving people to think about your opinion be it a good or bad reaction.  If what you think remains inside your head and is not expressed in your actions that is the only way it does not involve contribution, participation, or affect others.
Click to expand...


You are erroneously conflating 2 different things here. The opinion of a non-entity such as myself on the USMB carries no weight whereas the leader of an entire nation is in a position of power to issue orders so as to have his ideas implemented in practice.


----------



## bayoubill

Foxfyre said:


> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?



as a dyslexic ADD borderline autistic lazy white boy,

I think you use too many words to put your point across...


----------



## BDBoop

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are assuming I view it is a problem.  I don't.  There are plenty of people that feel like you do.  I'm sure they will march with you to censor people that wish to censor your right to say negative things about others.  It will all come out in the wash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I assume nothing about you other than what you tell me about yourself.  I am the one who sees it as a problem.  And I also see it as tragic that it might come to down to whether there are more of me or more of you that will determine whether we will all remain free to be who and what we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are being overly dramatic.  Unless the first amendment is rescinded you have nothing to worry about. No one is the thought police.  However everyone is potentially the thought expression police.  You say something negative you should expect people to react negatively to your expression no matter how much of a right you have to express yourself.  It sounds to me like you want a free pass to say something without facing the consequences. That is not logical when considering human nature.
Click to expand...


Exactly. And I perceive GLAAD to be necessary. Not a necessary evil, just necessary. Like paying taxes because we-the-many can work together to affect change, or provide a social safety net, or WHATEVER we put our minds to, than we-the-solitary.

And yes. To me it sounds like the OP wants to undermine the right to essentially peaceably assemble to affect change.

Rush Limbaugh, for example.

Westbrook Baptist Church.

They have the right to be hatemongers. We have the right, by whatever legal means necessary, to make it difficult for them to be heard.

We have the right to match their volume, effectively.

We HAVE that RIGHT.


----------



## bayoubill

BDBoop said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I assume nothing about you other than what you tell me about yourself.  I am the one who sees it as a problem.  And I also see it as tragic that it might come to down to whether there are more of me or more of you that will determine whether we will all remain free to be who and what we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are being overly dramatic.  Unless the first amendment is rescinded you have nothing to worry about. No one is the thought police.  However everyone is potentially the thought expression police.  You say something negative you should expect people to react negatively to your expression no matter how much of a right you have to express yourself.  It sounds to me like you want a free pass to say something without facing the consequences. That is not logical when considering human nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. And I perceive GLAAD to be necessary. Not a necessary evil, just necessary. Like paying taxes because we-the-many can work together to affect change, or provide a social safety net, or WHATEVER we put our minds to, than we-the-solitary.
> 
> And yes. To me it sounds like the OP wants to undermine the right to essentially peaceably assemble to affect change.
> 
> Rush Limbaugh, for example.
> 
> Westbrook Baptist Church.
> 
> They have the right to be hatemongers. We have the right, by whatever legal means necessary, to make it difficult for them to be heard.
> 
> We have the right to match their volume, effectively.
> 
> We HAVE that RIGHT.
Click to expand...


I've listened to Rush, off and on, for the last 25 years...

and while I can agree that he does often bloviate excessively...

I've never gotten the sense that he's a hatemonger...

as opposed to an outright asshole like, say, Hannity...


----------



## Derideo_Te

BDBoop said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I assume nothing about you other than what you tell me about yourself.  I am the one who sees it as a problem.  And I also see it as tragic that it might come to down to whether there are more of me or more of you that will determine whether we will all remain free to be who and what we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are being overly dramatic.  Unless the first amendment is rescinded you have nothing to worry about. No one is the thought police.  However everyone is potentially the thought expression police.  You say something negative you should expect people to react negatively to your expression no matter how much of a right you have to express yourself.  It sounds to me like you want a free pass to say something without facing the consequences. That is not logical when considering human nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. And I perceive GLAAD to be necessary. Not a necessary evil, just necessary. Like paying taxes because we-the-many can work together to affect change, or provide a social safety net, or WHATEVER we put our minds to, than we-the-solitary.
> 
> And yes. To me it sounds like the OP wants to undermine the right to essentially peaceably assemble to affect change.
> 
> Rush Limbaugh, for example.
> 
> Westbrook Baptist Church.
> 
> They have the right to be hatemongers. We have the right, by whatever legal means necessary, to make it difficult for them to be heard.
> 
> We have the right to match their volume, effectively.
> 
> We HAVE that RIGHT.
Click to expand...




Indeed We the People most certainly do have that right.

We also have an obligation to stand up and speak out against wrongs being perpetrated against others because this is how we defend our rights. Not with guns but with the Rule of Law. We the People formed this union so as give ourselves the power to protect each other's rights.


----------



## BDBoop

Delta4Embassy said:


> Can prove everything I ever say. Just didn't think anyone'd challenge "the sky is blue." But ok...Gimme a few.



As I recall upon your arrival, you were more of a moderate/independent. Now you are starting to appear liberal only because on this board, the right is so fringe that you appear left by way of pushback. 

How's I doing.


----------



## Derideo_Te

BDBoop said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can prove everything I ever say. Just didn't think anyone'd challenge "the sky is blue." But ok...Gimme a few.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall upon your arrival, you were more of a moderate/independent. Now you are starting to appear liberal only because on this board, the right is so fringe that you appear left by way of pushback.
> 
> How's I doing.
Click to expand...


I sound like a "liberal" to the extreme right too but I am probably more fiscally conservative in real terms than any of them are. Even my "socially liberal" positions are grounded in fiscal conservatism. I prefer to remain as an Independent because I refuse to have to defend either party's partisan policies. At present the Dems are the party closest to the moderate center. The moderate Republicans are caught in a squeeze where if they attempt to appeal to the center they will be attacked by the extreme right and if they don't they stand to lose elections. Many of them have just given up and become Independents instead.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Tolerance" is a meaningless phrase.
> 
> Most of the examples of "intolerance" that you've mentioned in the OP are simply people disagreeing.
> 
> "Tolerance" doesn't mean that I have to agree with you, and the act of disagreeing, even being vocal with my disagreement, isn't being "intolerant".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one.  Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.
> 
> But I have to disagree that 'tolerance' is a meaningless phrase.  I am not speaking about disagreement or our voicing our disagreement.  And I didn't GIVE any examples in the OP.
> 
> But here are some examples of intolerance of people for no other reason than they are who and what they are.  These are by no means the ONLY examples:
> 
> 
> A demand that Phil Robertson be fired from A&E due to his answer given to a GQ Magazine interviewer.
> 
> A demand that Chick-fil-a be boycotted for no other reason than the CEO supports traditional marriage.
> 
> A demand that Ellen Degeneres be dumped from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason that she is gay.
> 
> An effort to financially ruin a talk show host for characterizing Sandra Fluke as a 'slut'.
> 
> A demand to censure Trent Lott by accusing him of supporting segregation when he was extemporaneously praising a colleague on his 100th birthday.
> 
> A campaign to intimidate advertisers of Saturday Night Live to dump the show due to 'offensive' content.
> 
> Shouting down or refusing to allow somebody to speak on a college campus who was invited to do so.​
> Note that none of the targets of these campaigns were doing anything to anybody.  They were not requiring contribution or participation by anybody.  The targets were being targeted purely for being who and what they are.
> 
> It was not sufficient for the attacking organizations to urge their membership to register their disagreement with or boycott the 'offending' parties.   They were out to physically and/or materially harm/punish those parties--actively hurt them--anyway they could.  For no other reason than they expressed an opinion the attacking organization didn't like and/or are who they are.
> 
> Even if such attacking organizations were not politically motivated--they never go after their own who behave or say things badly--this is not something any freedom loving person should allow.  Yes, we all are subject to certain protocols required of our immediate associations, employers, etc.  But none of us should be afraid to be who and what we are out of fear that some unrelated angry mob, group, or organization will come after us and attempt to physically and/or materially punish us.
Click to expand...


The fact that you endorse something as divisive and incendiary as Evan Sayet's diatribe says all I need to know about you. You are a hyper-partisan fraud.

Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism. 
Barry Goldwater


----------



## BDBoop

I won't contribute to their bottom line, the Evan Sayet's of the world. Not Rush, not Ann, not this guy, nor any like them. People point to Obama as "the great divider" while looking clear past everybody that has been feeding them hate for the past couple of decades.

I thank Fox 'news' for that.


----------



## Mac1958

Asclepias said:


> There are plenty of people that feel like you do.  I'm sure they will march with you to censor people that wish to censor your right to say negative things about others.




Here's the difference:  I don't want to censor you, I am in no way trying to intimidate you from saying what you're thinking or calling you names or trying to get you fired.

I'm trying to use civility and reason and maturity to change your mind, even if just one tiny little bit.  My approach has been consistent: 

I have said a zillion times that I want to know who the crazies are, what they are thinking, and (most importantly) who agrees with them.  I can't know that if people are attacked when they say things that I don't like, and they will not say those things if they are intimidated.  It is then, at that point, that perhaps we can open lines of communication to heal wounds.

Unlike those who have this narcissistic personal need to shout "racist" or "homophobe" or whatever --_ knowing quite well that such behavior accomplishes absolutely nothing positive_ -- I'm willing to do the heavy lifting of trying to calmly change hearts and minds.  Those who just want to attack and punish people who dare to say something they don't like -- in America! -- clearly have no such goals.

.


----------



## katsteve2012

Asclepias said:


> I think that true tolerance is an idea that will never be achieved. It simply is against human nature. No one is going to be tolerant of say someone wishing to oppress them. They are going to do everything in their power to nip that sort of thinking in the bud.
> 
> Before there is action there is a thought. If people with certain thoughts that are detrimental to society as a whole are allowed a platform, they can and will influence others to take up those same thoughts. A good example of that is Hitler.  People were tolerant of Hitler and look what happened.



I think you make a great point Asclepias, however I would like to add a caveat to stimulate some additional  thought. 

It is my opinion that there there is a distinct difference between "action" and "reaction".

I believe that what differentiates the two would be that one is a by product of the thought process which takes into account risk factors and circumstances as well as whether the  decision to take certain types of "action" is the right thing to do, whereas "reaction" is based more on emotion and primal instinct, and can be driven by the fear of imminent danger or the presence of uncontrolled anger or rage.

Case in point would be the term "temporary insanity" which is often used as a motive for "reaction" in a court of law, and can be considered a valid defense  by demonstrating a lack of premeditation in a criminal act. 

There have been descriptives by many of Hitlers psychological makeup which range from "insane" to "brilliant", which are all a matter of opinion of course,  but the facts as we know them do seem to point to him harboring a firm belief in the inferiority of others, which may have been driven by a deep anger and rage.

What distinguishes the difference between human beings and other species is the ability to rationalize, and make decisions based on factors such as ones personal belief system and their ability to consciously change their belief system in pursuit of personal improvement or through rehabilitation to learn how to control anger and rage which can drive "reactions" to certain stimuli.

So in summary, I would state that short term  "tolerance" can be useful in defeating an oppressor by quietly setting a plan into motion to use the oppressors own vulnerability against them. But can only be executed through well thought out "action".

Just my opinion.


----------



## Statistikhengst

bayoubill said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are being overly dramatic.  Unless the first amendment is rescinded you have nothing to worry about. No one is the thought police.  However everyone is potentially the thought expression police.  You say something negative you should expect people to react negatively to your expression no matter how much of a right you have to express yourself.  It sounds to me like you want a free pass to say something without facing the consequences. That is not logical when considering human nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. And I perceive GLAAD to be necessary. Not a necessary evil, just necessary. Like paying taxes because we-the-many can work together to affect change, or provide a social safety net, or WHATEVER we put our minds to, than we-the-solitary.
> 
> And yes. To me it sounds like the OP wants to undermine the right to essentially peaceably assemble to affect change.
> 
> Rush Limbaugh, for example.
> 
> Westbrook Baptist Church.
> 
> They have the right to be hatemongers. We have the right, by whatever legal means necessary, to make it difficult for them to be heard.
> 
> We have the right to match their volume, effectively.
> 
> We HAVE that RIGHT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've listened to Rush, off and on, for the last 25 years...
> 
> and while I can agree that he does often bloviate excessively...
> 
> I've never gotten the sense that he's a hatemonger...
> 
> as opposed to an outright asshole like, say, Hannity...
Click to expand...



As with all humans, even Rush Limbaugh has moments of clarity and sometimes, just sometimes says something I can agree with. But he ruins alot of those moments of real clarity by just saying stuff that is totally martian, and he only does that to gin up ratings and therefore, make money.


----------



## BDBoop

Statistikhengst said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. And I perceive GLAAD to be necessary. Not a necessary evil, just necessary. Like paying taxes because we-the-many can work together to affect change, or provide a social safety net, or WHATEVER we put our minds to, than we-the-solitary.
> 
> And yes. To me it sounds like the OP wants to undermine the right to essentially peaceably assemble to affect change.
> 
> Rush Limbaugh, for example.
> 
> Westbrook Baptist Church.
> 
> They have the right to be hatemongers. We have the right, by whatever legal means necessary, to make it difficult for them to be heard.
> 
> We have the right to match their volume, effectively.
> 
> We HAVE that RIGHT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've listened to Rush, off and on, for the last 25 years...
> 
> and while I can agree that he does often bloviate excessively...
> 
> I've never gotten the sense that he's a hatemonger...
> 
> as opposed to an outright asshole like, say, Hannity...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As with all humans, even Rush Limbaugh has moments of clarity and sometimes, just sometimes says something I can agree with. But he ruins alot of those moments of real clarity by just saying stuff that is totally martian, and he only does that to gin up ratings and therefore, make money.
Click to expand...


In my estimation, Rush is no better than any other fringe right person on this board. It does not necessarily follow that them having internet access = me reading the verbal vomit they post.

In other words, I'm not willing to take Rush off ignore because someday, he might have something to say which bears repeating.


----------



## Statistikhengst

I want to reiterate two points:

1.) Just because we have a "Right" to do something doesn't mean we should or have to do it. Legal and moral are not the same things. Those are personal judgement calls.

2.) Let's not forget that one man's freedom ends at the boundary of another man's personal bubble, so to speak.

I stick with my contention that tolerance itself is not so cool a word, for it both infers and implies that we only accept someone as far as we absolutely have to in order to let that person still breathe  air, so to speak. That is hardly a healthy way of living.

I also stick with my contention that I can be open and accepting of a PERSON, but completely reject an idea that he espouses. So, tolerance can also be broken up into two categories, imo:


Tolerance / intolerance toward people

Tolerance / intolerance toward ideas

They are not necessarily the same thing. In fact, most of the time, they are definitely not.

If a person espouses the idea that it is ok to chop off people's heads, I do not need to be tolerant of this idea at all, nor do I want this person around me!  I will certainly accept the person, preferably behind the walls of an insane asylum...


----------



## G.T.

Not to say that the op is hyperbole just to be mean, but as a society we are WAY more tolerant today than historically. 

Shit, just listen to music watch movies and television. 3/4 of it would not have historically been tolerated. 

Being black used to not be tolerated.
Being gay.
Marrying interracially.
Being a woman in the workforce.
Being a woman in politics.


So you might buy into the hype of political heads making gross political statements and the "other side" organizing protest, but you're out of your mind and being brainwashed by sensationalism if you feel we're on a dangerous trend of intolerance. 

The trend is on a STEEEEEEEEEEEEP downward cycle headed away from intolerance.


----------



## Mac1958

Statistikhengst said:


> I want to reiterate two points:
> 
> 1.) Just because we have a "Right" to do something doesn't mean we should aor have to do it. Legal and moral are not the same things. Those are personal judgement calls.
> 
> 2.) Let's not forget that one man's freedom ends at the boundary of another man's personal bubble, so to speak.
> 
> I stick with my contention that tolerance itself is not so cool a word, for it both infers and implies that we only accept someone as far as we absolutely have to in order to let that person still breathe  air, so to speak. That is hardly a healthy way of living.
> 
> I also stick with my contention that I can be open and accepting of a PERSON, but completely reject an idea that he espouses. So, tolerance can also be broken up into two categories, imo:
> 
> 
> Tolerance / intolerance toward people
> 
> Tolerance / intolerance toward ideas
> 
> They are not necessarily the same thing. In fact, most of the time, they are definitely not.
> 
> If a person espouses the idea that it is ok to chop off people's heads, I do not need to be tolerant of this idea at all, nor do I want this person around me!  I will certainly accept the person, preferably behind the walls of an insane asylum...




Okay, that makes sense, and it opens up a couple of things:

When you say that you can "completely reject an idea that he espouses", which makes sense too, what exactly do you mean by "reject"?  Would that include supporting that person being punished in some way, such as losing their job?

Also, if someone advocates breaking the law, "chopping off someone's head", that's clearly a different thing.  But what if a guy being interviewed on TV says he doesn't like Obama simply because of the color of his skin?  Should anything happen to that person, and if so, what would you like to see?

.


----------



## Sarah G

The word tolerant is in and of itself arrogant, judgemental.  You either believe that what someone is saying is true or you don't.  It's simple and easy.


----------



## G.T.

Mac1958 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to reiterate two points:
> 
> 1.) Just because we have a "Right" to do something doesn't mean we should aor have to do it. Legal and moral are not the same things. Those are personal judgement calls.
> 
> 2.) Let's not forget that one man's freedom ends at the boundary of another man's personal bubble, so to speak.
> 
> I stick with my contention that tolerance itself is not so cool a word, for it both infers and implies that we only accept someone as far as we absolutely have to in order to let that person still breathe  air, so to speak. That is hardly a healthy way of living.
> 
> I also stick with my contention that I can be open and accepting of a PERSON, but completely reject an idea that he espouses. So, tolerance can also be broken up into two categories, imo:
> 
> 
> Tolerance / intolerance toward people
> 
> Tolerance / intolerance toward ideas
> 
> They are not necessarily the same thing. In fact, most of the time, they are definitely not.
> 
> If a person espouses the idea that it is ok to chop off people's heads, I do not need to be tolerant of this idea at all, nor do I want this person around me!  I will certainly accept the person, preferably behind the walls of an insane asylum...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, that makes sense, and it opens up a couple of things:
> 
> When you say that you can "completely reject an idea that he espouses", which makes sense too, what exactly do you mean by "reject"?  Would that include supporting that person being punished in some way, such as losing their job?
> 
> Also, if someone advocates breaking the law, "chopping off someone's head", that's clearly a different thing.  But what if a guy being interviewed on TV says he doesn't like Obama simply because of the color of his skin?  Should anything happen to that person, and if so, what would you like to see?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You mistake boycotts for something nefarious?

That's how freedom of speech works. 

There will be supporters of said boycotts, and there will be detractors. 

Expressing what you want to happen as a result of someone being disagreeable is not the same as the company pulling the trigger. The actual firing (and subsequent rehiring) is on the shoulders of the corporation period, and not on the boycotters. 

Boycotting is a way to shun what you find distasteful because you don't want your children in a world where it is promoted. Free speech is being able to express that in any way you see fit, within the law. That is a right.


----------



## Mac1958

G.T. said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to reiterate two points:
> 
> 1.) Just because we have a "Right" to do something doesn't mean we should aor have to do it. Legal and moral are not the same things. Those are personal judgement calls.
> 
> 2.) Let's not forget that one man's freedom ends at the boundary of another man's personal bubble, so to speak.
> 
> I stick with my contention that tolerance itself is not so cool a word, for it both infers and implies that we only accept someone as far as we absolutely have to in order to let that person still breathe  air, so to speak. That is hardly a healthy way of living.
> 
> I also stick with my contention that I can be open and accepting of a PERSON, but completely reject an idea that he espouses. So, tolerance can also be broken up into two categories, imo:
> 
> 
> Tolerance / intolerance toward people
> 
> Tolerance / intolerance toward ideas
> 
> They are not necessarily the same thing. In fact, most of the time, they are definitely not.
> 
> If a person espouses the idea that it is ok to chop off people's heads, I do not need to be tolerant of this idea at all, nor do I want this person around me!  I will certainly accept the person, preferably behind the walls of an insane asylum...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, that makes sense, and it opens up a couple of things:
> 
> When you say that you can "completely reject an idea that he espouses", which makes sense too, what exactly do you mean by "reject"?  Would that include supporting that person being punished in some way, such as losing their job?
> 
> Also, if someone advocates breaking the law, "chopping off someone's head", that's clearly a different thing.  But what if a guy being interviewed on TV says he doesn't like Obama simply because of the color of his skin?  Should anything happen to that person, and if so, what would you like to see?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mistake boycotts for something nefarious?
> 
> That's how freedom of speech works.
> 
> There will be supporters of said boycotts, and there will be detractors.
> 
> Expressing what you want to happen as a result of someone being disagreeable is not the same as the company pulling the trigger. The actual firing (and subsequent rehiring) is on the shoulders of the corporation period, and not on the boycotters.
> 
> Boycotting is a way to shun what you find distasteful because you don't want your children in a world where it is promoted. Free speech is being able to express that in any way you see fit, within the law. That is a right.
Click to expand...



Perhaps you could actually answer my questions.

What would you like to see happen to the guy who talked on TV about Obama's skin color?

.


----------



## G.T.

Mac1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, that makes sense, and it opens up a couple of things:
> 
> When you say that you can "completely reject an idea that he espouses", which makes sense too, what exactly do you mean by "reject"?  Would that include supporting that person being punished in some way, such as losing their job?
> 
> Also, if someone advocates breaking the law, "chopping off someone's head", that's clearly a different thing.  But what if a guy being interviewed on TV says he doesn't like Obama simply because of the color of his skin?  Should anything happen to that person, and if so, what would you like to see?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mistake boycotts for something nefarious?
> 
> That's how freedom of speech works.
> 
> There will be supporters of said boycotts, and there will be detractors.
> 
> Expressing what you want to happen as a result of someone being disagreeable is not the same as the company pulling the trigger. The actual firing (and subsequent rehiring) is on the shoulders of the corporation period, and not on the boycotters.
> 
> Boycotting is a way to shun what you find distasteful because you don't want your children in a world where it is promoted. Free speech is being able to express that in any way you see fit, within the law. That is a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could actually answer my questions.
> 
> What would you like to see happen to the guy who talked on TV about Obama's skin color?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I'd like him shouted down every time he tries, and I'd like his company (if he discloses it) to fire him for misrepresenting their values (HOPEFULLY that misrepresents their values.

You should not win at anything if you're a racist. Racism is EVIL. Not "considered evil by some," but universally and unequivocally evil, there is no logic that can break that truth. Some things are absolutes. You picked an absolute.


----------



## Mac1958

.

GT, first of all, seriously, thanks for directly answering my question, which is pretty freakin' RARE around here.

We both want our children to grow up in a better place.  I wonder if you think that firing the guy is actually doing that.  He hasn't been executed, so he's still around, and no doubt his racists views have been exacerbated by this firing.  No doubt the racist views of those around him have, as well.

I'd think your response would be something like, "yes, but now they know they need to keep their mouths shut or they're next."  This is where we part company, because I don't want my kids to grow up in a country where, if they say the wrong thing, someone who disagrees with them will go after them in some way.

I'd much rather have them grow up in a country where differences of opinion can be brought out and discussed.  They'll win some, they'll lose some, but at least they won't be afraid to say what's on their mind.   In my mind, openness to other ideas is a positive, not a negative.  Say what you're thinking, and let's discuss it.

.


----------



## G.T.

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> GT, first of all, seriously, thanks for directly answering my question, which is pretty freakin' RARE around here.
> 
> We both want our children to grow up in a better place.  I wonder if you think that firing the guy is actually doing that.  He hasn't been executed, so he's still around, and no doubt his racists views have been exacerbated by this firing.  No doubt the racist views of those around him have, as well.
> 
> I'd think your response would be something like, "yes, but now they know they need to keep their mouths shut or they're next."  This is where we part company, because I don't want my kids to grow up in a country where, if they say the wrong thing, someone who disagrees with them will go after them in some way.
> 
> I'd much rather have them grow up in a country where differences of opinion can be brought out and discussed.  They'll win some, they'll lose some, but at least they won't be afraid to say what's on their mind.   In my mind, openness to other ideas is a positive, not a negative.  Say what you're thinking, and let's discuss it.
> 
> .



Racism is not a difference of opinion, it's universally evil. It is hatred based on an always illogical presumption. 

I, too, don't want disagreements to be banned or disallowed. That would be ridiculous. 

But if someone is evil, I'd like for people to go after it. And I know that evil is *subjective*, which would likely be YOUR response - but racism being evil is a non-debatable absolute: sort of like murder. 

And sure he'll go back and be a racist. But not on tv or at his company anymore. You fight battles, not whole wars at once.


----------



## Mac1958

G.T. said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> GT, first of all, seriously, thanks for directly answering my question, which is pretty freakin' RARE around here.
> 
> We both want our children to grow up in a better place.  I wonder if you think that firing the guy is actually doing that.  He hasn't been executed, so he's still around, and no doubt his racists views have been exacerbated by this firing.  No doubt the racist views of those around him have, as well.
> 
> I'd think your response would be something like, "yes, but now they know they need to keep their mouths shut or they're next."  This is where we part company, because I don't want my kids to grow up in a country where, if they say the wrong thing, someone who disagrees with them will go after them in some way.
> 
> I'd much rather have them grow up in a country where differences of opinion can be brought out and discussed.  They'll win some, they'll lose some, but at least they won't be afraid to say what's on their mind.   In my mind, openness to other ideas is a positive, not a negative.  Say what you're thinking, and let's discuss it.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racism is not a difference of opinion, it's universally evil. It is hatred based on an always illogical presumption.
> 
> I, too, don't want disagreements to be banned or disallowed. That would be ridiculous.
> 
> But if someone is evil, I'd like for people to go after it. And I know that evil is *subjective*, which would likely be YOUR response - but racism being evil is a non-debatable absolute: sort of like murder.
> 
> And sure he'll go back and be a racist. But not on tv or at his company anymore. You fight battles, not whole wars at once.
Click to expand...



Yeah, you're right, I generally have a problem with the world "evil", mostly because I've seen stuff called that a little too easily, but I get your point.

Our goals are the same, our methods of getting there are very different.

Thanks for the quality of the conversation, I'm not used to that here!

.


----------



## G.T.

Mac1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> GT, first of all, seriously, thanks for directly answering my question, which is pretty freakin' RARE around here.
> 
> We both want our children to grow up in a better place.  I wonder if you think that firing the guy is actually doing that.  He hasn't been executed, so he's still around, and no doubt his racists views have been exacerbated by this firing.  No doubt the racist views of those around him have, as well.
> 
> I'd think your response would be something like, "yes, but now they know they need to keep their mouths shut or they're next."  This is where we part company, because I don't want my kids to grow up in a country where, if they say the wrong thing, someone who disagrees with them will go after them in some way.
> 
> I'd much rather have them grow up in a country where differences of opinion can be brought out and discussed.  They'll win some, they'll lose some, but at least they won't be afraid to say what's on their mind.   In my mind, openness to other ideas is a positive, not a negative.  Say what you're thinking, and let's discuss it.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racism is not a difference of opinion, it's universally evil. It is hatred based on an always illogical presumption.
> 
> I, too, don't want disagreements to be banned or disallowed. That would be ridiculous.
> 
> But if someone is evil, I'd like for people to go after it. And I know that evil is *subjective*, which would likely be YOUR response - but racism being evil is a non-debatable absolute: sort of like murder.
> 
> And sure he'll go back and be a racist. But not on tv or at his company anymore. You fight battles, not whole wars at once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're right, I generally have a problem with the world "evil", mostly because I've seen stuff called that a little too easily, but I get your point.
> 
> Our goals are the same, our methods of getting there are very different.
> 
> Thanks for the quality of the conversation, I'm not used to that here!
> 
> .
Click to expand...


No worry. 

I am always cordial with people who aren't jerks and who don't speak in absolutes about whole groups of people - namely factions of political opponents. 

But when people cross those lines, I've no problem treating them like dogs.


----------



## Papawx3

Asclepias said:


> *I think that true tolerance is an idea that will never be achieved. It simply is against human nature. No one is going to be tolerant of say someone wishing to oppress them*. They are going to do everything in their power to nip that sort of thinking in the bud.
> 
> Before there is action there is a thought. If people with certain thoughts that are detrimental to society as a whole are allowed a platform, they can and will influence others to take up those same thoughts. A good example of that is Hitler.  People were tolerant of Hitler and look what happened.



That may be, but freedom to think and speak as one thinks is an ideal upon which our nation was founded.  Personally I still believe in it.  I don't care what someone else thinks or says.  It is their right to think and speak as they please, and as long as their freedoms don't interfere with my own, I'll be among the first to defend them. 
It is those people who are so ready to vilify others for their thoughts and speech; those that would, without a second thought, remove those same freedoms of others that should be "nipped in the bud".


----------



## G.T.

Papawx3 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I think that true tolerance is an idea that will never be achieved. It simply is against human nature. No one is going to be tolerant of say someone wishing to oppress them*. They are going to do everything in their power to nip that sort of thinking in the bud.
> 
> Before there is action there is a thought. If people with certain thoughts that are detrimental to society as a whole are allowed a platform, they can and will influence others to take up those same thoughts. A good example of that is Hitler.  People were tolerant of Hitler and look what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That may be, but freedom to think and speak as one thinks is an ideal upon which our nation was founded.  Personally I still believe in it.  I don't care what someone else thinks or says.  It is their right to think and speak as they please, and as long as their freedoms don't interfere with my own, I'll be among the first to defend them.
> It is those people who are so ready to vilify others for their thoughts and speech; those that would, without a second thought, remove the freedoms of others for the same that should be "nipped in the bud".
Click to expand...


That freedom applies to the law.

It doesn't apply to people NOT shunning or boycotting you.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Mac1958 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to reiterate two points:
> 
> 1.) Just because we have a "Right" to do something doesn't mean we should aor have to do it. Legal and moral are not the same things. Those are personal judgement calls.
> 
> 2.) Let's not forget that one man's freedom ends at the boundary of another man's personal bubble, so to speak.
> 
> I stick with my contention that tolerance itself is not so cool a word, for it both infers and implies that we only accept someone as far as we absolutely have to in order to let that person still breathe  air, so to speak. That is hardly a healthy way of living.
> 
> I also stick with my contention that I can be open and accepting of a PERSON, but completely reject an idea that he espouses. So, tolerance can also be broken up into two categories, imo:
> 
> 
> Tolerance / intolerance toward people
> 
> Tolerance / intolerance toward ideas
> 
> They are not necessarily the same thing. In fact, most of the time, they are definitely not.
> 
> If a person espouses the idea that it is ok to chop off people's heads, I do not need to be tolerant of this idea at all, nor do I want this person around me!  I will certainly accept the person, preferably behind the walls of an insane asylum...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, that makes sense, and it opens up a couple of things:
> 
> When you say that you can "completely reject an idea that he espouses", which makes sense too, what exactly do you mean by "reject"?  *Would that include supporting that person being punished in some way, such as losing their job*?
> 
> Also, if someone advocates breaking the law, "chopping off someone's head", that's clearly a different thing.  But what if a guy being interviewed on TV says he doesn't like Obama simply because of the color of his skin?  Should anything happen to that person, and if so, what would you like to see?
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Nope. But if he does end up losing his job for his own stupidity, then that is his problem. I would not cause him to lose it, but I would also not help him to regain it. Personal responsibilty. Boot-straps. Ruggedness.

As for the racism you mention - as much as I hate racism, I again separate the person from the behaviour. Issuing a racist statement against any person, including our President, is totally vile. But to jail a person for it? Nope. But I can choose whether or not to do any kind of business with that person, so long as his behaviour is this way.

Thoughts are free. You cannot imprison them. But you can decide whether or not you want to have anything to do with them. And if the APPLICATION of said thoughts through a third party brings you into danger, you have the right to defend yourself, that is glass-clear.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Sarah G said:


> The word tolerant is in and of itself arrogant, judgemental.  You either believe that what someone is saying is true or you don't.  It's simple and easy.




yes, I have somewhat made that point a couple of times. Alone, the word "tolerance" is disturbing to me on more than one level.


----------



## G.T.

A boycott is perfection. 

Freedom of speech is a legally protected construct. 

A boycott of yourself or your company as a result of your freedom of speech is not illegal. It also does not infringe on your freedom of speech. 

It is others using *their* power of speech, or in most cases their speech through consumerism, in order to try to shape society towards THEIR views using THEIR tools under the constitution to do so. This is why we HAVE freedom of speech. To dissent against that which we find disagreeable. 

The problem is: you can organize counter boycotts. You can still use your VOICE to kick down the boycott and if people SUPPORT YOU, then it worked. If they DONT SUPPORT YOU, it still worked. 

Freedom of speech doesn't mean that everyone has to accept what you say and take no action, inside of the law. It doesn't mean getting your own way, untouched. And when you are boycotted, that does not equal losing your freedom of speech because you can use that SAME freedom to win all or more of your support back, be you as correct as you may think that you are. 

It worked for Phil.

Juan Williams took his speech over to another channel. 

This is much ado over NOTHING, in my humble. 

Literally NOTHING. And regarding TOLERANCE of others' speech, we are FAR more tolerant nowadays than historically. I can't even fathom how any could find that debatable. Read some detailed US history, and compare it to today. Back of the bus, segregation, women's rights, racism, Japanese internment camps, censorship on tv, elvis' "hip gyrations" being "outrageous!"

Really?


----------



## oldfart

G.T. said:


> Not to say that the op is hyperbole just to be mean, but as a society we are WAY more tolerant today than historically.
> 
> Shit, just listen to music watch movies and television. 3/4 of it would not have historically been tolerated.
> 
> Being black used to not be tolerated.
> Being gay.
> Marrying interracially.
> Being a woman in the workforce.
> Being a woman in politics.
> 
> 
> So you might buy into the hype of political heads making gross political statements and the "other side" organizing protest, but you're out of your mind and being brainwashed by sensationalism if you feel we're on a dangerous trend of intolerance.
> 
> The trend is on a STEEEEEEEEEEEEP downward cycle headed away from intolerance.



I fervently hope you are correct, and in many respects believe you are correct.  I'd just add a couple of counterpoints.  First, the progress achieved has come at a great human price and that price will continue to be paid if we are to retain those improvements, much less advance them.  Second, the use of violence has decreased and adapted its forms, but a great many are still looking for opportunities to bring back the "good ol' days".  Our achievements are not irreversible.


----------



## G.T.

oldfart said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to say that the op is hyperbole just to be mean, but as a society we are WAY more tolerant today than historically.
> 
> Shit, just listen to music watch movies and television. 3/4 of it would not have historically been tolerated.
> 
> Being black used to not be tolerated.
> Being gay.
> Marrying interracially.
> Being a woman in the workforce.
> Being a woman in politics.
> 
> 
> So you might buy into the hype of political heads making gross political statements and the "other side" organizing protest, but you're out of your mind and being brainwashed by sensationalism if you feel we're on a dangerous trend of intolerance.
> 
> The trend is on a STEEEEEEEEEEEEP downward cycle headed away from intolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fervently hope you are correct, and in many respects believe you are correct.  I'd just add a couple of counterpoints.  First, the progress achieved has come at a great human price and that price will continue to be paid if we are to retain those improvements, much less advance them.  Second, the use of violence has decreased and adapted its forms, but a great many are still looking for opportunities to bring back the "good ol' days".  Our achievements are not irreversible.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't call those counterpoints, I'd call them "additional points."


----------



## Gagafritz

For the most part, I think we need to get back to the concept of Minding Your OWN Business.  There are far, far too many busybodies.  Everyone is responsible to stand before God for His or Her Self.  I am not accountable for your life nor are you accountable for mine.  A whole lot more minding your own business and whole lot less TMI would make for a better world in my opinion.


----------



## Mac1958

Gagafritz said:


> For the most part, I think we need to get back to the concept of Minding Your OWN Business.  There are far, far too many busybodies.  Everyone is responsible to stand before God for His or Her Self.  I am not accountable for your life nor are you accountable for mine.  A whole lot more minding your own business and whole lot less TMI would make for a better world in my opinion.




Yep, agreed, and that goes to my posts about narcissism.  If you say something I don't like, I just HAVE to find a way to PUNISH you for it, otherwise I'm just CHEATED in some way.  I just HAVE to DEMONSTRATE to you PRECISELY how OFFENDED I am. 

Maybe if we all just calmed down and got over ourselves a bit, people would be less motivated to bloviate in the FIRST place.

.


----------



## G.T.

Mac1958 said:


> Gagafritz said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the most part, I think we need to get back to the concept of Minding Your OWN Business.  There are far, far too many busybodies.  Everyone is responsible to stand before God for His or Her Self.  I am not accountable for your life nor are you accountable for mine.  A whole lot more minding your own business and whole lot less TMI would make for a better world in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, agreed, and that goes to my posts about narcissism.  If you say something I don't like, I just HAVE to find a way to PUNISH you for it, otherwise I'm just CHEATED in some way.  I just HAVE to DEMONSTRATE to you PRECISELY how OFFENDED I am.
> 
> Maybe if we all just calmed down and got over ourselves a bit, people would be less motivated to bloviate in the FIRST place.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


This sounds nice, and works well in personal circles -> but it ignores reality. If people who were being subjugated by law just sat quietly about it, and didn't say a peep when people were publicly making it "normal" to speak of them as 3rd rate human beings - things would never change. 

When a particular type of person has been a party to ridicule for quite some time, drawing attention to it when it occurs is the best resolve.


----------



## Mac1958

G.T. said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gagafritz said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the most part, I think we need to get back to the concept of Minding Your OWN Business.  There are far, far too many busybodies.  Everyone is responsible to stand before God for His or Her Self.  I am not accountable for your life nor are you accountable for mine.  A whole lot more minding your own business and whole lot less TMI would make for a better world in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, agreed, and that goes to my posts about narcissism.  If you say something I don't like, I just HAVE to find a way to PUNISH you for it, otherwise I'm just CHEATED in some way.  I just HAVE to DEMONSTRATE to you PRECISELY how OFFENDED I am.
> 
> Maybe if we all just calmed down and got over ourselves a bit, people would be less motivated to bloviate in the FIRST place.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sounds nice, and works well in personal circles -> but it ignores reality. If people who were being subjugated by law just sat quietly about it, and didn't say a peep when people were publicly making it "normal" to speak of them as 3rd rate human beings - things would never change.
> 
> When a particular type of person has been a party to ridicule for quite some time, drawing attention to it when it occurs is the best resolve.
Click to expand...



I would never advocate sitting quietly and not saying a peep.  But -- in least in my mind, anyway --  there is a clear and significant distinction between honest, civil, passionate public debate and going out of one's way to purposely punish someone for daring to have opposing (legal) beliefs.  

I'm far more interested in fixing the root cause than punishing the end result.

.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a constitutional, First Amendment, or legal issue so far as I am concerned.  And I am not talking about people responding negatively either.  I certainly respond negatively when somebody here, in the media, or in the newspapers etc. says something offensively stupid.   I have no right to approval.  But I should have a right to be able to express my opinion without an angry mob, group, or organization descending on me with the intention to physically and/or materially hurt me.
> 
> Do you see a different between telling somebody off and punching him/her in the face?
> You should also see a difference between somebody responding negatively and intentionally hurting somebody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd hurt some people physically for the things I read here on this message board if they said those things in my presence if I could get away with it legally. I'm big on being respectful. If you cannot be respectful in your expression then you deserve to be dealt with IMO. I think that is just human nature.  Why should you be allowed to say hurtful things without dealing with the consequences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Because none of us have an unalienable right to not be offended*.  Because grown ups don't punch people out because they are insensitive jerks or verbal bullies.  It doesn't mean we have to accept what they say.  It doesn't mean we don't tell them off when appropriate to do so.  It doesn't mean that we don't remove them from our Christmas Card list or whatever.
> 
> But if we value liberty, that means that we have to allow liberty.  Even liberty to be awful people.   We can demand certain protocol in our own business.  We can demand certain protocol in our families or in our homes.  We can expect a certain conduct from those we associate with.  But otherwise we have no right to dictate to anybody else how they must think, believe, speak or else.  Because if we assume that right, then we should expect to be at the mercy of a bigger, stronger bully than we are.
> 
> But it is very late and I'm weary and I'm headed for bed.  But I will no doubt be back to fight the good fight.  Good night.
Click to expand...


None of us have the unalienable right to offend without consequence as well.  True we dont *have* to punch people.  However, they don't _*have*_ to express things that wound far deeper than anything physical.  I don't subscribe to the sticks and stones theory because words can and often do more damage than physical actions.  Everyone tries to pretend it doesn't matter but it does.  Have someone tell you that you are worthless for years and see where you would be mentally. It would gradually destroy your self esteem and potentially affect later generations. I assert the right to demand respectful treatment. That right cannot be given to me as it is just a part of me. if someone comes along stronger than me they better pack a lunch because that would not change.  There is no need to fight. I understand your position but respectfully I just disagree.


----------



## Asclepias

Mac1958 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of people that feel like you do.  I'm sure they will march with you to censor people that wish to censor your right to say negative things about others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the difference:  I don't want to censor you, I am in no way trying to intimidate you from saying what you're thinking or calling you names or trying to get you fired.
> 
> I'm trying to use civility and reason and maturity to change your mind, even if just one tiny little bit.  My approach has been consistent:
> 
> I have said a zillion times that I want to know who the crazies are, what they are thinking, and (most importantly) who agrees with them.  I can't know that if people are attacked when they say things that I don't like, and they will not say those things if they are intimidated.  It is then, at that point, that perhaps we can open lines of communication to heal wounds.
> 
> Unlike those who have this narcissistic personal need to shout "racist" or "homophobe" or whatever --_ knowing quite well that such behavior accomplishes absolutely nothing positive_ -- I'm willing to do the heavy lifting of trying to calmly change hearts and minds.  Those who just want to attack and punish people who dare to say something they don't like -- in America! -- clearly have no such goals.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



You make a good point about knowing what the crazies are thinking.  I listened to Rush for about a week before my wife made me stop. I dont have a problem with people thinking whatever as it usually comes out in their actions. I full well think people have a right to free speech.  I just dont subscribe to the theory that "free speech" is actually free. Everything you do in the real world has a consequence even if it is not readily apparent. Why should speech be deemed off limits?  I too am willing to do heavy lifting to change hearts and mindsets provided they are respectful in their expression. I think forcing people own up to their consequences does more help for them in the long run.  They learn the natural law of all actions having a reaction.


----------



## kaz

Foxfyre said:


> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.



The problem with many intolerant, particularly liberals, is that their intolerance involves the removal of my own choice.

With conservative Christians, I can just avoid them.  Well, except those in my family, but that's a different issue...

In the former category, intolerance does need to be challenged.  In the latter, not necessarily.


----------



## Mac1958

Asclepias said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of people that feel like you do.  I'm sure they will march with you to censor people that wish to censor your right to say negative things about others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the difference:  I don't want to censor you, I am in no way trying to intimidate you from saying what you're thinking or calling you names or trying to get you fired.
> 
> I'm trying to use civility and reason and maturity to change your mind, even if just one tiny little bit.  My approach has been consistent:
> 
> I have said a zillion times that I want to know who the crazies are, what they are thinking, and (most importantly) who agrees with them.  I can't know that if people are attacked when they say things that I don't like, and they will not say those things if they are intimidated.  It is then, at that point, that perhaps we can open lines of communication to heal wounds.
> 
> Unlike those who have this narcissistic personal need to shout "racist" or "homophobe" or whatever --_ knowing quite well that such behavior accomplishes absolutely nothing positive_ -- I'm willing to do the heavy lifting of trying to calmly change hearts and minds.  Those who just want to attack and punish people who dare to say something they don't like -- in America! -- clearly have no such goals.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You make a good point about knowing what the crazies are thinking.  I listened to Rush for about a week before my wife made me stop. I dont have a problem with people thinking whatever as it usually comes out in their actions. I full well think people have a right to free speech.  I just dont subscribe to the theory that "free speech" is actually free. Everything you do in the real world has a consequence even if it is not readily apparent. Why should speech be deemed off limits?  I too am willing to do heavy lifting to change hearts and mindsets provided they are respectful in their expression.* I think forcing people own up to their consequences does more help for them in the long run.  They learn the natural law of all actions having a reaction*.
Click to expand...



What you're doing here is playing judge, jury and executioner.  You and those who think specifically like you are deciding what is right and wrong, what is acceptable and unacceptable, who is perpetrating the offenses, who is not, and you're condoning the punishment, whatever that may be. 

To use your own word, you're doing the "forcing".

I have no designs on such power.  I'd rather just try to change their minds with respect, humility and reason.

.


----------



## Asclepias

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> GT, first of all, seriously, thanks for directly answering my question, which is pretty freakin' RARE around here.
> 
> We both want our children to grow up in a better place.  I wonder if you think that firing the guy is actually doing that.  He hasn't been executed, so he's still around, and no doubt his racists views have been exacerbated by this firing.  No doubt the racist views of those around him have, as well.
> 
> I'd think your response would be something like, "yes, but now they know they need to keep their mouths shut or they're next."  This is where we part company, because I don't want my kids to grow up in a country where, if they say the wrong thing, someone who disagrees with them will go after them in some way.
> 
> I'd much rather have them grow up in a country where differences of opinion can be brought out and discussed.  They'll win some, they'll lose some, but at least they won't be afraid to say what's on their mind.   In my mind, openness to other ideas is a positive, not a negative.  Say what you're thinking, and let's discuss it.
> 
> .



You are not thinking about the lesson that your children should learn from such a situation. Actions have consequences.  It is a natural law.  Teaching otherwise thumbs your nose at this law and will have serious consequences later.  Sometimes its simply better to keep whats on your mind....on your mind.  Its arrogant to instill the thought you can say what you want without consequence.


----------



## hunarcy

G.T. said:


> This sounds nice, and works well in personal circles -> but it ignores reality. If people who were being subjugated by law just sat quietly about it, and didn't say a peep when people were publicly making it "normal" to speak of them as 3rd rate human beings - things would never change.
> 
> When a particular type of person has been a party to ridicule for quite some time, drawing attention to it when it occurs is the best resolve.



To my mind, it's not drawing attention to ridicule when it happens that is intolerant.  It's demanding a pound of flesh because you're offended that moves into intolerance.


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> You make a good point about knowing what the crazies are thinking.  I listened to Rush for about a week before my wife made me stop. I dont have a problem with people thinking whatever as it usually comes out in their actions. I full well think people have a right to free speech.  I just dont subscribe to the theory that "free speech" is actually free. Everything you do in the real world has a consequence even if it is not readily apparent. Why should speech be deemed off limits?  I too am willing to do heavy lifting to change hearts and mindsets provided they are respectful in their expression. I think forcing people own up to their consequences does more help for them in the long run.  They learn the natural law of all actions having a reaction.



Excellent!


----------



## hunarcy

BDBoop said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I assume nothing about you other than what you tell me about yourself.  I am the one who sees it as a problem.  And I also see it as tragic that it might come to down to whether there are more of me or more of you that will determine whether we will all remain free to be who and what we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are being overly dramatic.  Unless the first amendment is rescinded you have nothing to worry about. No one is the thought police.  However everyone is potentially the thought expression police.  You say something negative you should expect people to react negatively to your expression no matter how much of a right you have to express yourself.  It sounds to me like you want a free pass to say something without facing the consequences. That is not logical when considering human nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. And I perceive GLAAD to be necessary. Not a necessary evil, just necessary. Like paying taxes because we-the-many can work together to affect change, or provide a social safety net, or WHATEVER we put our minds to, than we-the-solitary.
> 
> And yes. To me it sounds like the OP wants to undermine the right to essentially peaceably assemble to affect change.
> 
> Rush Limbaugh, for example.
> 
> Westbrook Baptist Church.
> 
> They have the right to be hatemongers. We have the right, by whatever legal means necessary, to make it difficult for them to be heard.
> 
> We have the right to match their volume, effectively.
> 
> We HAVE that RIGHT.
Click to expand...


Of course you do.  But, do you have the right to go beyond their "volume" and impose your views on them?


----------



## Asclepias

Mac1958 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the difference:  I don't want to censor you, I am in no way trying to intimidate you from saying what you're thinking or calling you names or trying to get you fired.
> 
> I'm trying to use civility and reason and maturity to change your mind, even if just one tiny little bit.  My approach has been consistent:
> 
> I have said a zillion times that I want to know who the crazies are, what they are thinking, and (most importantly) who agrees with them.  I can't know that if people are attacked when they say things that I don't like, and they will not say those things if they are intimidated.  It is then, at that point, that perhaps we can open lines of communication to heal wounds.
> 
> Unlike those who have this narcissistic personal need to shout "racist" or "homophobe" or whatever --_ knowing quite well that such behavior accomplishes absolutely nothing positive_ -- I'm willing to do the heavy lifting of trying to calmly change hearts and minds.  Those who just want to attack and punish people who dare to say something they don't like -- in America! -- clearly have no such goals.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make a good point about knowing what the crazies are thinking.  I listened to Rush for about a week before my wife made me stop. I dont have a problem with people thinking whatever as it usually comes out in their actions. I full well think people have a right to free speech.  I just dont subscribe to the theory that "free speech" is actually free. Everything you do in the real world has a consequence even if it is not readily apparent. Why should speech be deemed off limits?  I too am willing to do heavy lifting to change hearts and mindsets provided they are respectful in their expression.* I think forcing people own up to their consequences does more help for them in the long run.  They learn the natural law of all actions having a reaction*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you're doing here is playing judge, jury and executioner.  You and those who think specifically like you are deciding what is right and wrong, what is acceptable and unacceptable, who is perpetrating the offenses, who is not, and you're condoning the punishment, whatever that may be.
> 
> To use your own word, you're doing the "forcing".
> 
> I have no designs on such power.  I'd rather just try to change their minds with respect, humility and reason.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Humans are social animals.  There is a group dynamic where you don't get to act as if you live alone. You have to adhere to the standards of the group and leave your perceived personal freedom to act as you wish on the shelf or face the groups chosen mode of punishment for transgression.  Thats how we developed and survived as a species.  Its not about you, its about the group.  It is incumbent on the person trying to change the mindset of the group to find a way to do that without offending people. Not the other way around.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd hurt some people physically for the things I read here on this message board if they said those things in my presence if I could get away with it legally. I'm big on being respectful. If you cannot be respectful in your expression then you deserve to be dealt with IMO. I think that is just human nature.  Why should you be allowed to say hurtful things without dealing with the consequences?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Because none of us have an unalienable right to not be offended*.  Because grown ups don't punch people out because they are insensitive jerks or verbal bullies.  It doesn't mean we have to accept what they say.  It doesn't mean we don't tell them off when appropriate to do so.  It doesn't mean that we don't remove them from our Christmas Card list or whatever.
> 
> But if we value liberty, that means that we have to allow liberty.  Even liberty to be awful people.   We can demand certain protocol in our own business.  We can demand certain protocol in our families or in our homes.  We can expect a certain conduct from those we associate with.  But otherwise we have no right to dictate to anybody else how they must think, believe, speak or else.  Because if we assume that right, then we should expect to be at the mercy of a bigger, stronger bully than we are.
> 
> But it is very late and I'm weary and I'm headed for bed.  But I will no doubt be back to fight the good fight.  Good night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of us have the unalienable right to offend without consequence as well.  True we dont *have* to punch people.  However, they don't _*have*_ to express things that wound far deeper than anything physical.  I don't subscribe to the sticks and stones theory because words can and often do more damage than physical actions.  Everyone tries to pretend it doesn't matter but it does.  Have someone tell you that you are worthless for years and see where you would be mentally. It would gradually destroy your self esteem and potentially affect later generations. I assert the right to demand respectful treatment. That right cannot be given to me as it is just a part of me. if someone comes along stronger than me they better pack a lunch because that would not change.  There is no need to fight. I understand your position but respectfully I just disagree.
Click to expand...


But the OP is not addressing one on one interpersonal relationships.  The OP is not suggesting that interpersonal violence--physical, emotional, psychological, verbal--is okay.  I think that is where the tolerance issue gets so confused when some are unable to distinguish the difference between holding a belief or opinion and doing something to somebody else.  For example there is a difference between believing the Bible condemns drunkenness, and trying to hurt or destroy somebody because he or she got drunk.  There is a difference between believing that adultery is a sin and demanding that somebody be branded with a scarlett letter and stoned.

Holding a belief or opinion is NOT doing something to somebody else.  Short of inciting to riot or encouraging harm to other people, we all should be able to hold and express our beliefs and opinions without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after us to hurt or destroy us.

You expressed an opinion that you think it is okay to strike somebody if they sufficiently offend you.  I think you are very wrong about that as I believe anger and hitting are two very different things.   You should not be allowed to strike another purely because that person offended you.  But you should be allowed your opinion that you think punching him/her out would be okay.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Because none of us have an unalienable right to not be offended*.  Because grown ups don't punch people out because they are insensitive jerks or verbal bullies.  It doesn't mean we have to accept what they say.  It doesn't mean we don't tell them off when appropriate to do so.  It doesn't mean that we don't remove them from our Christmas Card list or whatever.
> 
> But if we value liberty, that means that we have to allow liberty.  Even liberty to be awful people.   We can demand certain protocol in our own business.  We can demand certain protocol in our families or in our homes.  We can expect a certain conduct from those we associate with.  But otherwise we have no right to dictate to anybody else how they must think, believe, speak or else.  Because if we assume that right, then we should expect to be at the mercy of a bigger, stronger bully than we are.
> 
> But it is very late and I'm weary and I'm headed for bed.  But I will no doubt be back to fight the good fight.  Good night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of us have the unalienable right to offend without consequence as well.  True we dont *have* to punch people.  However, they don't _*have*_ to express things that wound far deeper than anything physical.  I don't subscribe to the sticks and stones theory because words can and often do more damage than physical actions.  Everyone tries to pretend it doesn't matter but it does.  Have someone tell you that you are worthless for years and see where you would be mentally. It would gradually destroy your self esteem and potentially affect later generations. I assert the right to demand respectful treatment. That right cannot be given to me as it is just a part of me. if someone comes along stronger than me they better pack a lunch because that would not change.  There is no need to fight. I understand your position but respectfully I just disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But the OP is not addressing one on one interrelationships*.  The OP is not suggesting that interpersonal violence--physical, emotional, psychological, verbal--is okay.  I think that is where the tolerance issue gets so confused when some are unable to distinguish the difference between holding a belief or opinion and doing something to somebody else.  For example there is a difference between believing the Bible condemns drunkenness, and trying to hurt or destroy somebody because he or she got drunk.  There is a difference between believing that adultery is a sin and demanding that somebody be branded with a scarlett letter and stoned.
> 
> *Holding a belief or opinion is NOT doing something to somebody else.*  We all should be able to hold our beliefs and opinions without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after us to hurt or destroy us.
> 
> You expressed an opinion that you think it is okay to strike somebody if they sufficiently offend you.  I think you are very wrong about that as I believe anger and hitting are two very different things.   You should not be allowed to strike another purely because that person offended you.  But you should be allowed your opinion that you think punching him/her out would be okay.
Click to expand...


I don't think there is much difference in one to one relationships and one to many relationships except you get to offend more people and influence more people in the one to many. 

There is a difference between holding an opinion and doing something because of that opinion. There is a third element which is expressing that opinion and influencing or offending others. i have a problem with this element more than the others in our society because of this concept of free speech being actually free.  Its not.  It has consequences.

My opinion of striking someone is a personal issue I have to work on but indicative of just how much it angers me when someone talks down to a woman, berates a child, or uses a slur. Me hitting someone could have consequences.  I understand and accept that.  I dont think people who believe free speech is actually free understand it.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of us have the unalienable right to offend without consequence as well.  True we dont *have* to punch people.  However, they don't _*have*_ to express things that wound far deeper than anything physical.  I don't subscribe to the sticks and stones theory because words can and often do more damage than physical actions.  Everyone tries to pretend it doesn't matter but it does.  Have someone tell you that you are worthless for years and see where you would be mentally. It would gradually destroy your self esteem and potentially affect later generations. I assert the right to demand respectful treatment. That right cannot be given to me as it is just a part of me. if someone comes along stronger than me they better pack a lunch because that would not change.  There is no need to fight. I understand your position but respectfully I just disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But the OP is not addressing one on one interrelationships*.  The OP is not suggesting that interpersonal violence--physical, emotional, psychological, verbal--is okay.  I think that is where the tolerance issue gets so confused when some are unable to distinguish the difference between holding a belief or opinion and doing something to somebody else.  For example there is a difference between believing the Bible condemns drunkenness, and trying to hurt or destroy somebody because he or she got drunk.  There is a difference between believing that adultery is a sin and demanding that somebody be branded with a scarlett letter and stoned.
> 
> *Holding a belief or opinion is NOT doing something to somebody else.*  We all should be able to hold our beliefs and opinions without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after us to hurt or destroy us.
> 
> You expressed an opinion that you think it is okay to strike somebody if they sufficiently offend you.  I think you are very wrong about that as I believe anger and hitting are two very different things.   You should not be allowed to strike another purely because that person offended you.  But you should be allowed your opinion that you think punching him/her out would be okay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think there is much difference in one to one relationships and one to many relationships except you get to offend more people and influence more people in the one to many.
> 
> There is a difference between holding an opinion and doing something because of that opinion. There is a third element which is expressing that opinion and influencing or offending others. i have a problem with this element more than the others in our society because of this concept of free speech being actually free.  Its not.  It has consequences.
> 
> My opinion of striking someone is a personal issue I have to work on but indicative of just how much it angers me when someone talks down to a woman, berates a child, or uses a slur. Me hitting someone could have consequences.  I understand and accept that.  I dont think people who believe free speech is actually free understand it.
Click to expand...


Free speech is a concept of allowing people to believe, think, and express their opinions without fear of retaliation from the federal government.  The premise of the OP is NOT a free speech issue.

Tolerance is a concept of allowing people to believe, think, and express their opinions without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after them and try to hurt, ruin, and/or destroy them because they express an opinion somebody else disagrees with or doesn't like.  It is not a constitutional or legal issue.  It is a moral, ethical, and right and wrong issue.  So long as they do not tread on the rights of others, it is allowing people to be who and what they are.

My purpose for this thread, for instance, is to do some consciousness raising.  I am alarmed, saddened, and even frightened at the trend of some, both right and left, who would intentionally, and will malice and forethought, try to hurt and ruin people for no other reason than those people expressed an opinion not shared by or resented by somebody else.  I have enough sense of history to know how dangerous this is to all our liberties as well as being immoral and shameful from an ethical perspective.  I have no illusion that it will have much affect on anybody.  But I hope it does.

Should I be forbidden to post this thread at USMB because it just might influence somebody's thinking?

If your concern is that expressed opinions might influence the thinking of somebody else, how do you presume to govern that?  Who gets to decide who will be allowed to influence people with impunity and who will be punished for attempting to influence people?   Who gets to choose whether the pro-traditional marriage or the pro same sex marriage people are the group allowed opportunity to influence others?  Will the freedom of choice people or the pro-government mandated healthcare people be allowed a forum to express their views with impunity?  Will the Ladies Temperance League be silenced while the Eat Drink and Be Merry people are allowed full license to promote the party spirit?

And is this just limited to people expressing their opinions?  Or shall we start censoring the media, books, magazines, movies, television shows, music lyrics, and video games that also have power to influence?

In this case the slippery slope concept is very much a reality.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Because sometimes what people believe, and then say in public, harms others (bullying, bigotry, etc. et al.) going after such people is warranted and just. Wiccan Rede's a good standard to go by, "If it harms none, do as you will." But if you're hurting someone with what you're saying, expect to be hurt in return.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But the OP is not addressing one on one interrelationships*.  The OP is not suggesting that interpersonal violence--physical, emotional, psychological, verbal--is okay.  I think that is where the tolerance issue gets so confused when some are unable to distinguish the difference between holding a belief or opinion and doing something to somebody else.  For example there is a difference between believing the Bible condemns drunkenness, and trying to hurt or destroy somebody because he or she got drunk.  There is a difference between believing that adultery is a sin and demanding that somebody be branded with a scarlett letter and stoned.
> 
> *Holding a belief or opinion is NOT doing something to somebody else.*  We all should be able to hold our beliefs and opinions without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after us to hurt or destroy us.
> 
> You expressed an opinion that you think it is okay to strike somebody if they sufficiently offend you.  I think you are very wrong about that as I believe anger and hitting are two very different things.   You should not be allowed to strike another purely because that person offended you.  But you should be allowed your opinion that you think punching him/her out would be okay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there is much difference in one to one relationships and one to many relationships except you get to offend more people and influence more people in the one to many.
> 
> There is a difference between holding an opinion and doing something because of that opinion. There is a third element which is expressing that opinion and influencing or offending others. i have a problem with this element more than the others in our society because of this concept of free speech being actually free.  Its not.  It has consequences.
> 
> My opinion of striking someone is a personal issue I have to work on but indicative of just how much it angers me when someone talks down to a woman, berates a child, or uses a slur. Me hitting someone could have consequences.  I understand and accept that.  I dont think people who believe free speech is actually free understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free speech is a concept of allowing people to believe, think, and express their opinions without fear of retaliation from the federal government.  The premise of the OP is NOT a free speech issue.
> 
> Tolerance is a concept of allowing people to believe, think, and express their opinions without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after them and try to hurt, ruin, and/or destroy them because they express an opinion somebody else disagrees with or doesn't like.  It is not a constitutional or legal issue.  It is a moral, ethical, and right and wrong issue.  So long as they do not tread on the rights of others, it is allowing people to be who and what they are.
> 
> My purpose for this thread, for instance, is to do some consciousness raising.  I am alarmed, saddened, and even frightened at the trend of some, both right and left, who would intentionally, and will malice and forethought, try to hurt and ruin people for no other reason than those people expressed an opinion not shared by or resented by somebody else.  I have enough sense of history to know how dangerous this is to all our liberties as well as being immoral and shameful from an ethical perspective.  I have no illusion that it will have much affect on anybody.  But I hope it does.
> 
> Should I be forbidden to post this thread at USMB because it just might influence somebody's thinking?
> 
> If your concern is that expressed opinions might influence the thinking of somebody else, how do you presume to govern that?  Who gets to decide who will be allowed to influence people with impunity and who will be punished for attempting to influence people?   Who gets to choose whether the pro-traditional marriage or the pro same sex marriage people are the group allowed opportunity to influence others?  Will the freedom of choice people or the pro-government mandated healthcare people be allowed a forum to express their views with impunity?  Will the Ladies Temperance League be silenced while the Eat Drink and Be Merry people are allowed full license to promote the party spirit?
> 
> And is this just limited to people expressing their opinions?  Or shall we start censoring the media, books, magazines, movies, television shows, music lyrics, and video games that also have power to influence?
> 
> In this case the slippery slope concept is very much a reality.
Click to expand...


Thank you for bringing the distinction between free speech and tolerance back into focus. However, later in your post you do get back into free speech again. To me it just highlights  the point that people need to self-regulate what they say. Morally and ethically you do not have a right to say what you want to without consequence. Words do damage and impede progress. If people think they have something earth shattering to say then they should do it in a forum where it can be challenged and dissected and spoken in a respectful manner. Getting up on national T.V. for example and saying that women get raped because of the way they dress without challenge or consequence is a cowardly act.



> Should I be forbidden to post this thread at USMB because it just might influence somebody's thinking?



No. Personally I see nothing at all wrong with the intent of what you are saying. I just disagree.



> If your concern is that expressed opinions might influence the thinking of somebody else, how do you presume to govern that?



I don't presume to govern it. I would hope that the person feeling the need to express themselves would do that. If not, public reaction will govern it in the form of boycotts, job loss, etc.  I think that is fair, just, and part of natural law.  What you are advocating is a departure from natural law and contrary to human nature.


----------



## Foxfyre

Delta4Embassy said:


> Because sometimes what people believe, and then say in public, harms others (bullying, bigotry, etc. et al.) going after such people is warranted and just. Wiccan Rede's a good standard to go by, "If it harms none, do as you will." But if you're hurting someone with what you're saying, expect to be hurt in return.



Define 'hurting someone'.   There are laws against libel and slander that use manipulated facts or lies to impune somebody's reputation and/or that physically and/or materially damage somebody.

But let's say that a guy--maybe Phil Robertson--is asked a direct question by a magazine interviewer and honestly says that he believes homosexuality, among a whole lot of other things, is a sin.

Who exactly is he hurting?

And would he be 'hurting' somebody if he said that Christianity is a flawed religion that has done more harm than good?   Would he be 'hurting' somebody if he said it is okay to deny white people work in order to make more room for minorities?   Would he be 'hurting' somebody if he said the Bible teaches that the rich should sell what they have and give it all to the poor or the rich won't go to heaven?   Would be be 'hurting' somebody if he said the Bible teaches that we are supposed to be our brother's keeper as a justification for higher taxes to expand welfare programs?

Is there an unalienable right to hear only what we want to hear?   To not be offended?  Who gets to determine who has the unalienable right to be affirmed and unoffended and who does not?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Delta4Embassy said:


> Because sometimes what people believe, and then say in public, harms others (bullying, bigotry, etc. et al.) going after such people is warranted and just. Wiccan Rede's a good standard to go by, "If it harms none, do as you will." But if you're hurting someone with what you're saying, expect to be hurt in return.



In which case it comes down to the definition of "hurt". In the instance of the OP Foxy is alleging that PR did not "hurt" anyone with his homophobic opinion. However from the perspective of GLAAD they obviously perceived his opinion to be "hurting" gays by egregiously lumping them in with terrorists. Does that justify GLAAD retaliating with their own intention to "hurt" PR? Do 2 wrongs make a right? At what point does the escalation cease? 

Technically if GLAAD were to apply the standard stipulated above they should not have called for retributive "hurt". Equally so PR should have applied the standard and done some serious thinking before he made his "hurtful" comment. But that is an ideal situation. We are dealing with reality instead.


----------



## Asclepias

Derideo_Te said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because sometimes what people believe, and then say in public, harms others (bullying, bigotry, etc. et al.) going after such people is warranted and just. Wiccan Rede's a good standard to go by, "If it harms none, do as you will." But if you're hurting someone with what you're saying, expect to be hurt in return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In which case it comes down to the definition of "hurt". In the instance of the OP Foxy is alleging that PR did not "hurt" anyone with his homophobic opinion. However from the perspective of GLAAD they obviously perceived his opinion to be "hurting" gays by egregiously lumping them in with terrorists. Does that justify GLAAD retaliating with their own intention to "hurt" PR? *Do 2 wrongs make a right?* At what point does the escalation cease?
> 
> Technically if GLAAD were to apply the standard stipulated above they should not have called for retributive "hurt". Equally so PR should have applied the standard and done some serious thinking before he made his "hurtful" comment. *But that is an ideal situation. We are dealing with reality instead.*
Click to expand...


The problem I am having is that you cant make a stupid hurtful comment then pull the moral clause of "2 wrongs dont make a right" to protect yourself from backlash.  it doesn't fit and is not realistic.


----------



## Foxfyre

Derideo_Te said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because sometimes what people believe, and then say in public, harms others (bullying, bigotry, etc. et al.) going after such people is warranted and just. Wiccan Rede's a good standard to go by, "If it harms none, do as you will." But if you're hurting someone with what you're saying, expect to be hurt in return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In which case it comes down to the definition of "hurt". In the instance of the OP Foxy is alleging that PR did not "hurt" anyone with his homophobic opinion. However from the perspective of GLAAD they obviously perceived his opinion to be "hurting" gays by egregiously lumping them in with terrorists. Does that justify GLAAD retaliating with their own intention to "hurt" PR? Do 2 wrongs make a right? At what point does the escalation cease?
> 
> Technically if GLAAD were to apply the standard stipulated above they should not have called for retributive "hurt". Equally so PR should have applied the standard and done some serious thinking before he made his "hurtful" comment. But that is an ideal situation. We are dealing with reality instead.
Click to expand...


But again, who did he 'hurt' by expressing what he believes the Bible says?  Did he snatch food from the mouths of babes?  Violate their women?  Burn crosses on their lawn?  Accuse them of vile acts?  Urge anybody to harm a gay person in any way?  Even if he hadn't modified his remarks with his statement that he includes himself among the sinners and that he loves his gay brothers and sisters, exactly who did he 'hurt'?

Just as there is a difference between anger and hitting, there is a difference between an 'offensive' opinion and verbal assault.  And there is a huge difference between stating an honest opinion or belief and in the malicious and dishonest way in which GLAAD manipulated and mischaracterized his remarks to make them appear much worse than they were.

The only group that intended 'hurt' and harm was GLAAD.  And in my opinion GLAAD was the entity that came out of this looking small, petty, hateful, intolerant, unethical, and vindictive.   Phil Robertson at worst comes out of it as holding an indefensible opinion, but he didn't 'hurt' anybody.

Morally, ethically, and practically, a free people is allowed their beliefs and opinions as an unalienable right.  And they have an unalienable right to associate with those of like mind and character should they choose to do that.  They have no unalienable right to not be offended by the opinion of another.   And it is that truth that we need to re-establish in our American culture.


----------



## Mac1958

Foxfyre said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because sometimes what people believe, and then say in public, harms others (bullying, bigotry, etc. et al.) going after such people is warranted and just. Wiccan Rede's a good standard to go by, "If it harms none, do as you will." But if you're hurting someone with what you're saying, expect to be hurt in return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In which case it comes down to the definition of "hurt". In the instance of the OP Foxy is alleging that PR did not "hurt" anyone with his homophobic opinion. However from the perspective of GLAAD they obviously perceived his opinion to be "hurting" gays by egregiously lumping them in with terrorists. Does that justify GLAAD retaliating with their own intention to "hurt" PR? Do 2 wrongs make a right? At what point does the escalation cease?
> 
> Technically if GLAAD were to apply the standard stipulated above they should not have called for retributive "hurt". Equally so PR should have applied the standard and done some serious thinking before he made his "hurtful" comment. But that is an ideal situation. We are dealing with reality instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But again, who did he 'hurt' by expressing what he believes the Bible says?  Did he snatch food from the mouths of babes?  Violate their women?  Burn crosses on their lawn?  Accuse them of vile acts?  Urge anybody to harm a gay person in any way?  Even if he hadn't modified his remarks with his statement that he includes himself among the sinners and that he loves his gay brothers and sisters, exactly who did he 'hurt'?
> 
> Just as there is a difference between anger and hitting, there is a difference between an 'offensive' opinion and verbal assault.  And there is a huge difference between stating an honest opinion or belief and in the malicious and dishonest way in which GLAAD manipulated and mischaracterized his remarks to make them appear much worse than they were.
> 
> The only group that intended 'hurt' and harm was GLAAD.  And in my opinion GLAAD was the entity that came out of this looking small, petty, hateful, intolerant, unethical, and vindictive.   Phil Robertson at worst comes out of it as holding an indefensible opinion, but he didn't 'hurt' anybody.
> 
> Morally, ethically, and practically, a free people is allowed their beliefs and opinions as an unalienable right.  And they have an unalienable right to associate with those of like mind and character should they choose to do that.  They have no unalienable right to not be offended by the opinion of another.   And it is that truth that we need to re-establish in our American culture.
Click to expand...



Well, since we have a group of people who have appointed themselves judge, jury and executioner in terms what is acceptable, who is guilty and how punishment will be delivered, you and I don't have to bother ourselves with such reasonable points and issues.

Just be careful what you say.  After all, this is America.

.


----------



## Foxfyre

Mac1958 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> In which case it comes down to the definition of "hurt". In the instance of the OP Foxy is alleging that PR did not "hurt" anyone with his homophobic opinion. However from the perspective of GLAAD they obviously perceived his opinion to be "hurting" gays by egregiously lumping them in with terrorists. Does that justify GLAAD retaliating with their own intention to "hurt" PR? Do 2 wrongs make a right? At what point does the escalation cease?
> 
> Technically if GLAAD were to apply the standard stipulated above they should not have called for retributive "hurt". Equally so PR should have applied the standard and done some serious thinking before he made his "hurtful" comment. But that is an ideal situation. We are dealing with reality instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But again, who did he 'hurt' by expressing what he believes the Bible says?  Did he snatch food from the mouths of babes?  Violate their women?  Burn crosses on their lawn?  Accuse them of vile acts?  Urge anybody to harm a gay person in any way?  Even if he hadn't modified his remarks with his statement that he includes himself among the sinners and that he loves his gay brothers and sisters, exactly who did he 'hurt'?
> 
> Just as there is a difference between anger and hitting, there is a difference between an 'offensive' opinion and verbal assault.  And there is a huge difference between stating an honest opinion or belief and in the malicious and dishonest way in which GLAAD manipulated and mischaracterized his remarks to make them appear much worse than they were.
> 
> The only group that intended 'hurt' and harm was GLAAD.  And in my opinion GLAAD was the entity that came out of this looking small, petty, hateful, intolerant, unethical, and vindictive.   Phil Robertson at worst comes out of it as holding an indefensible opinion, but he didn't 'hurt' anybody.
> 
> Morally, ethically, and practically, a free people is allowed their beliefs and opinions as an unalienable right.  And they have an unalienable right to associate with those of like mind and character should they choose to do that.  They have no unalienable right to not be offended by the opinion of another.   And it is that truth that we need to re-establish in our American culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since we have a group of people who have appointed themselves judge, jury and executioner in terms what is acceptable, who is guilty and how punishment will be delivered, you and I don't have to bother ourselves with such reasonable points and issues.
> 
> Just be careful what you say.  After all, this is America.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


And therein is the very real material danger in political correctness above and beyond the moral and ethical implications.  When one side sets itself up as the judge, jury, and executioner to control what people are allowed to express as beliefs or opinions, it is only one small additional step to making certain speech enforcibly illegal.  And when that happens, the government can do anything to anybody with impunity.

I'm not suggesting anybody should agree with Phil Robertson or appreciate what he said or how he said it.  I didn't appreciate what he said or how he said it actually.  But unless he has the right to say it without having some angry mob, group, or organization coming after him to physically and/or materially hurt him, we have no rights at all.  And the bullies of society will control it all.  In which case, if you value your liberty and ability to think, speak, and hold opinions freely, you better pray that you're on the same side as the bullies.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But the OP is not addressing one on one interrelationships*.  The OP is not suggesting that interpersonal violence--physical, emotional, psychological, verbal--is okay.  I think that is where the tolerance issue gets so confused when some are unable to distinguish the difference between holding a belief or opinion and doing something to somebody else.  For example there is a difference between believing the Bible condemns drunkenness, and trying to hurt or destroy somebody because he or she got drunk.  There is a difference between believing that adultery is a sin and demanding that somebody be branded with a scarlett letter and stoned.
> 
> *Holding a belief or opinion is NOT doing something to somebody else.*  We all should be able to hold our beliefs and opinions without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after us to hurt or destroy us.
> 
> You expressed an opinion that you think it is okay to strike somebody if they sufficiently offend you.  I think you are very wrong about that as I believe anger and hitting are two very different things.   You should not be allowed to strike another purely because that person offended you.  But you should be allowed your opinion that you think punching him/her out would be okay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there is much difference in one to one relationships and one to many relationships except you get to offend more people and influence more people in the one to many.
> 
> There is a difference between holding an opinion and doing something because of that opinion. There is a third element which is expressing that opinion and influencing or offending others. i have a problem with this element more than the others in our society because of this concept of free speech being actually free.  Its not.  It has consequences.
> 
> My opinion of striking someone is a personal issue I have to work on but indicative of just how much it angers me when someone talks down to a woman, berates a child, or uses a slur. Me hitting someone could have consequences.  I understand and accept that.  I dont think people who believe free speech is actually free understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free speech is a concept of allowing people to believe, think, and express their opinions without fear of retaliation* from the federal government*.  The premise of the OP is NOT a free speech issue.
> 
> Tolerance is a concept of allowing people to believe, think, and express their opinions without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after them and try to hurt, ruin, and/or destroy them because they express an opinion somebody else disagrees with or doesn't like.  It is not a constitutional or legal issue.  It is a moral, ethical, and right and wrong issue.  So long as they do not tread on the rights of others, it is allowing people to be who and what they are.
> 
> My purpose for this thread, for instance, is to do some consciousness raising.  I am alarmed, saddened, and even frightened at the trend of some, both right and left, who would intentionally, and will malice and forethought, try to hurt and ruin people for no other reason than those people expressed an opinion not shared by or resented by somebody else.  I have enough sense of history to know how dangerous this is to all our liberties as well as being immoral and shameful from an ethical perspective.  I have no illusion that it will have much affect on anybody.  But I hope it does.
> 
> Should I be forbidden to post this thread at USMB because it just might influence somebody's thinking?
> 
> If your concern is that expressed opinions might influence the thinking of somebody else, how do you presume to govern that?  *Who gets to decide who will be allowed to influence people with impunity and who will be punished for attempting to influence people?*   Who gets to choose whether the pro-traditional marriage or the pro same sex marriage people are the group allowed opportunity to influence others?  Will the freedom of choice people or the pro-government mandated healthcare people be allowed a forum to express their views with impunity?  Will the Ladies Temperance League be silenced while the Eat Drink and Be Merry people are allowed full license to promote the party spirit?
> 
> And is this just limited to people expressing their opinions?  Or shall we start censoring the media, books, magazines, movies, television shows, music lyrics, and video games that also have power to influence?
> 
> In this case the slippery slope concept is very much a reality.
Click to expand...


Well, actually, also from State Government, when you get down to it... 


So, how did we get from "free speech" to trying to influence people?

If someone says or does something so vulgar, so inhumane, so that I am compelled to respond, if for no other reason than to preserve my own sense of human decency, is that suddenly an attempt to influence?

I think not.

I do this that on the whole, the idea of this thread, here in the CDZ, is a pretty good idea. I also think you are doing good work of suggesting things to raise some consciousness about this.

But please remember, a good democracy is sometimes loud, sometimes raucous.

I am not sure that we are that much more of less "tolerant" (I really do dislike that word, it is so very lacking in so many ways...) than say, in 1800... for we are talking about a human condition here, namely, distrust of "the other".


----------



## Derideo_Te

Asclepias said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because sometimes what people believe, and then say in public, harms others (bullying, bigotry, etc. et al.) going after such people is warranted and just. Wiccan Rede's a good standard to go by, "If it harms none, do as you will." But if you're hurting someone with what you're saying, expect to be hurt in return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In which case it comes down to the definition of "hurt". In the instance of the OP Foxy is alleging that PR did not "hurt" anyone with his homophobic opinion. However from the perspective of GLAAD they obviously perceived his opinion to be "hurting" gays by egregiously lumping them in with terrorists. Does that justify GLAAD retaliating with their own intention to "hurt" PR? *Do 2 wrongs make a right?* At what point does the escalation cease?
> 
> Technically if GLAAD were to apply the standard stipulated above they should not have called for retributive "hurt". Equally so PR should have applied the standard and done some serious thinking before he made his "hurtful" comment. *But that is an ideal situation. We are dealing with reality instead.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem I am having is that you cant make a stupid hurtful comment then pull the moral clause of "2 wrongs dont make a right" to protect yourself from backlash.  it doesn't fit and is not realistic.
Click to expand...


I was only postulating. As MAC put it the idea of having a civil discourse to resolve differences is preferable. However that requires that both sides must be willing to do so. Those who hold their positions as a matter of religious conviction are not likely to be willing to have them questioned since that undermines their belief system.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Foxfyre said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because sometimes what people believe, and then say in public, harms others (bullying, bigotry, etc. et al.) going after such people is warranted and just. Wiccan Rede's a good standard to go by, "If it harms none, do as you will." But if you're hurting someone with what you're saying, expect to be hurt in return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In which case it comes down to the definition of "hurt". In the instance of the OP Foxy is alleging that PR did not "hurt" anyone with his homophobic opinion. However from the perspective of GLAAD they obviously perceived his opinion to be "hurting" gays by egregiously lumping them in with terrorists. Does that justify GLAAD retaliating with their own intention to "hurt" PR? Do 2 wrongs make a right? At what point does the escalation cease?
> 
> Technically if GLAAD were to apply the standard stipulated above they should not have called for retributive "hurt". Equally so PR should have applied the standard and done some serious thinking before he made his "hurtful" comment. But that is an ideal situation. We are dealing with reality instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But again, who did he 'hurt' by expressing what he believes the Bible says? * Did he snatch food from the mouths of babes?  Violate their women?  Burn crosses on their lawn?  Accuse them of vile acts?  Urge anybody to harm a gay person in any way?  Even if he hadn't modified his remarks with his statement that he includes himself among the sinners and that he loves his gay brothers and sisters, exactly who did he 'hurt'?
> 
> Just as there is a difference between anger and hitting, there is a difference between an 'offensive' opinion and verbal assault.  And there is a huge difference between stating an honest opinion or belief and in the malicious and dishonest way in which GLAAD manipulated and mischaracterized his remarks to make them appear much worse than they were.
> 
> The only group that intended 'hurt' and harm was GLAAD.  And in my opinion GLAAD was the entity that came out of this looking small, petty, hateful, intolerant, unethical, and vindictive.   Phil Robertson at worst comes out of it as holding an indefensible opinion, but he didn't 'hurt' anybody.
> 
> Morally, ethically, and practically, a free people is allowed their beliefs and opinions as an unalienable right.  And they have an unalienable right to associate with those of like mind and character should they choose to do that.  They have no unalienable right to not be offended by the opinion of another.   And it is that truth that we need to re-establish in our American culture.
Click to expand...


With all due respect, Foxy, nowhere does the bible conflate homosexuality with terrorism. That was PR's bizarre spin on it and he doesn't get a pass by blaming it on the bible in my opinion.


----------



## Foxfyre

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> In which case it comes down to the definition of "hurt". In the instance of the OP Foxy is alleging that PR did not "hurt" anyone with his homophobic opinion. However from the perspective of GLAAD they obviously perceived his opinion to be "hurting" gays by egregiously lumping them in with terrorists. Does that justify GLAAD retaliating with their own intention to "hurt" PR? Do 2 wrongs make a right? At what point does the escalation cease?
> 
> Technically if GLAAD were to apply the standard stipulated above they should not have called for retributive "hurt". Equally so PR should have applied the standard and done some serious thinking before he made his "hurtful" comment. But that is an ideal situation. We are dealing with reality instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But again, who did he 'hurt' by expressing what he believes the Bible says? * Did he snatch food from the mouths of babes?  Violate their women?  Burn crosses on their lawn?  Accuse them of vile acts?  Urge anybody to harm a gay person in any way?  Even if he hadn't modified his remarks with his statement that he includes himself among the sinners and that he loves his gay brothers and sisters, exactly who did he 'hurt'?
> 
> Just as there is a difference between anger and hitting, there is a difference between an 'offensive' opinion and verbal assault.  And there is a huge difference between stating an honest opinion or belief and in the malicious and dishonest way in which GLAAD manipulated and mischaracterized his remarks to make them appear much worse than they were.
> 
> The only group that intended 'hurt' and harm was GLAAD.  And in my opinion GLAAD was the entity that came out of this looking small, petty, hateful, intolerant, unethical, and vindictive.   Phil Robertson at worst comes out of it as holding an indefensible opinion, but he didn't 'hurt' anybody.
> 
> Morally, ethically, and practically, a free people is allowed their beliefs and opinions as an unalienable right.  And they have an unalienable right to associate with those of like mind and character should they choose to do that.  They have no unalienable right to not be offended by the opinion of another.   And it is that truth that we need to re-establish in our American culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all due respect, Foxy, nowhere does the bible conflate homosexuality with terrorism. That was PR's bizarre spin on it and he doesn't get a pass by blaming it on the bible in my opinion.
Click to expand...


Nor did Phil Robertson conflate homosexuality with terrorism.  That was GLAAD's dishonest and inexcusable spin they put on it.  But even if he had, so do people equate people with strong religious beliefs as Nazis, terrorists, and worse.  The issue is NOT that anybody is expected to agree with anybody.  Nobody is expected to endorse or appreciate the point of view of anybody else or not comment on what others say.  The point is not what anybody acts out against somebody else.  The point is not that we not object or rebut what somebody else says.  Nobody should be immune from criticism.

The issue is whether we should be able to hold the beliefs, opinions, convictions, perceptions, points of view that we hold, no matter how bizarre, wrong, intolerant, or stupid they are, without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after us to physically and/or materially hurt us.


----------



## Asclepias

Derideo_Te said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> In which case it comes down to the definition of "hurt". In the instance of the OP Foxy is alleging that PR did not "hurt" anyone with his homophobic opinion. However from the perspective of GLAAD they obviously perceived his opinion to be "hurting" gays by egregiously lumping them in with terrorists. Does that justify GLAAD retaliating with their own intention to "hurt" PR? *Do 2 wrongs make a right?* At what point does the escalation cease?
> 
> Technically if GLAAD were to apply the standard stipulated above they should not have called for retributive "hurt". Equally so PR should have applied the standard and done some serious thinking before he made his "hurtful" comment. *But that is an ideal situation. We are dealing with reality instead.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem I am having is that you cant make a stupid hurtful comment then pull the moral clause of "2 wrongs dont make a right" to protect yourself from backlash.  it doesn't fit and is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was only postulating. As MAC put it the idea of having a civil discourse to resolve differences is preferable. However that requires that both sides must be willing to do so. Those who hold their positions as a matter of religious conviction are not likely to be willing to have them questioned since that undermines their belief system.
Click to expand...


Discussing issues are always the best option if both parties come to the table with an intent to learn. I find much of the time that is rarely the case. Especially on this board.  People form opinions off of very limited information and think their conclusions are the gospel. Like you said they are resistant to having those conclusions changed as it exposes their belief systems


----------



## Derideo_Te

Foxfyre said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But again, who did he 'hurt' by expressing what he believes the Bible says? * Did he snatch food from the mouths of babes?  Violate their women?  Burn crosses on their lawn?  Accuse them of vile acts?  Urge anybody to harm a gay person in any way?  Even if he hadn't modified his remarks with his statement that he includes himself among the sinners and that he loves his gay brothers and sisters, exactly who did he 'hurt'?
> 
> Just as there is a difference between anger and hitting, there is a difference between an 'offensive' opinion and verbal assault.  And there is a huge difference between stating an honest opinion or belief and in the malicious and dishonest way in which GLAAD manipulated and mischaracterized his remarks to make them appear much worse than they were.
> 
> The only group that intended 'hurt' and harm was GLAAD.  And in my opinion GLAAD was the entity that came out of this looking small, petty, hateful, intolerant, unethical, and vindictive.   Phil Robertson at worst comes out of it as holding an indefensible opinion, but he didn't 'hurt' anybody.
> 
> Morally, ethically, and practically, a free people is allowed their beliefs and opinions as an unalienable right.  And they have an unalienable right to associate with those of like mind and character should they choose to do that.  They have no unalienable right to not be offended by the opinion of another.   And it is that truth that we need to re-establish in our American culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, Foxy, nowhere does the bible conflate homosexuality with terrorism. That was PR's bizarre spin on it and he doesn't get a pass by blaming it on the bible in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor did Phil Robertson conflate homosexuality with terrorism.  That was GLAAD's dishonest and inexcusable spin they put on it.  But even if he had, so do people equate people with strong religious beliefs as Nazis, terrorists, and worse.  The issue is NOT that anybody is expected to agree with anybody.  Nobody is expected to endorse or appreciate the point of view of anybody else or not comment on what others say.  The point is not what anybody acts out against somebody else.  The point is not that we object or rebut what somebody else says.
> 
> The issue is whether we should be able to hold the beliefs, opinions, convictions, perceptions, points of view that we hold, no matter how bizarre, wrong, intolerant, or stupid they are, without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after us to physically and/or materially hurt us.
Click to expand...


Robertson's own words do the conflating;



> We never, ever judge someone on whos going to heaven, hell. Thats the Almightys job. We just love em, give em the good news about Jesuswhether theyre homosexuals, drunks, terrorists," Robertson said. "We let God sort em out later, you see what Im saying?"





> conflate (k&#601;n&#712;fle&#618;t)
> 
> v.t. -flated, -flating.
> to fuse into one entity; merge; combine.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Foxfyre said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But again, who did he 'hurt' by expressing what he believes the Bible says?  Did he snatch food from the mouths of babes?  Violate their women?  Burn crosses on their lawn?  Accuse them of vile acts?  Urge anybody to harm a gay person in any way?  Even if he hadn't modified his remarks with his statement that he includes himself among the sinners and that he loves his gay brothers and sisters, exactly who did he 'hurt'?
> 
> Just as there is a difference between anger and hitting, there is a difference between an 'offensive' opinion and verbal assault.  And there is a huge difference between stating an honest opinion or belief and in the malicious and dishonest way in which GLAAD manipulated and mischaracterized his remarks to make them appear much worse than they were.
> 
> The only group that intended 'hurt' and harm was GLAAD.  And in my opinion GLAAD was the entity that came out of this looking small, petty, hateful, intolerant, unethical, and vindictive.   Phil Robertson at worst comes out of it as holding an indefensible opinion, but he didn't 'hurt' anybody.
> 
> Morally, ethically, and practically, a free people is allowed their beliefs and opinions as an unalienable right.  And they have an unalienable right to associate with those of like mind and character should they choose to do that.  They have no unalienable right to not be offended by the opinion of another.   And it is that truth that we need to re-establish in our American culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since we have a group of people who have appointed themselves judge, jury and executioner in terms what is acceptable, who is guilty and how punishment will be delivered, you and I don't have to bother ourselves with such reasonable points and issues.
> 
> Just be careful what you say.  After all, this is America.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And therein is the very real material danger in political correctness above and beyond the moral and ethical implications.  When one side sets itself up as the judge, jury, and executioner to control what people are allowed to express as beliefs or opinions, it is only one small additional step to making certain speech enforcibly illegal.  And when that happens, the government can do anything to anybody with impunity.
> 
> I'm not suggesting anybody should agree with Phil Robertson or appreciate what he said or how he said it.  I didn't appreciate what he said or how he said it actually.  But unless he has the right to say it without having some angry mob, group, or organization coming after him to physically and/or materially hurt him, we have no rights at all.  And the bullies of society will control it all.  In which case, if you value your liberty and ability to think, speak, and hold opinions freely, you better pray that you're on the same side as the bullies.
Click to expand...


As a public figure/entertainer, Mr. Robertson is open to retaliation for anything and everything he, or anyone else might say. If you don't want that kind of vulnerability, don't be a reality star. But if you are on tv or otherwise in the public light, you can't expect the same kind of protections whether in-law, or in theory as someone at a neighborhood picnic.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem I am having is that you cant make a stupid hurtful comment then pull the moral clause of "2 wrongs dont make a right" to protect yourself from backlash.  it doesn't fit and is not realistic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was only postulating. As MAC put it the idea of having a civil discourse to resolve differences is preferable. However that requires that both sides must be willing to do so. Those who hold their positions as a matter of religious conviction are not likely to be willing to have them questioned since that undermines their belief system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Discussing issues are always the best option if both parties come to the table with an intent to learn. I find much of the time that is rarely the case. Especially on this board.  People form opinions off of very limited information and think their conclusions are the gospel. Like you said they are resistant to having those conclusions changed as it exposes their belief systems
Click to expand...


But we can return to a culture in which people are allowed their belief systems so long as they don't demand that others adopt them.  We can, as a group, become a small nucleus that might be able to grow and persuade others to make political correctness bullying so socially unacceptable that it becomes a distant memory.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was only postulating. As MAC put it the idea of having a civil discourse to resolve differences is preferable. However that requires that both sides must be willing to do so. Those who hold their positions as a matter of religious conviction are not likely to be willing to have them questioned since that undermines their belief system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discussing issues are always the best option if both parties come to the table with an intent to learn. I find much of the time that is rarely the case. Especially on this board.  People form opinions off of very limited information and think their conclusions are the gospel. Like you said they are resistant to having those conclusions changed as it exposes their belief systems
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we can return to a culture in which people are allowed their belief systems so long as they don't demand that others adopt them.  We can, as a group, become a small nucleus that might be able to grow and persuade others to make political correctness bullying so socially unacceptable that it becomes a distant memory.
Click to expand...


I dont have a problem with people having their own beliefs.  I have a problem with them thinking they can say what they want to without consequences.  I think its more important to teach people how to express their beliefs in a manner that is acceptable to those they may offend than try and correct PC.  IMO, PC is a direct result of and reaction to people not having the ability to express their ideas without offending.


----------



## Mac1958

Derideo_Te said:


> As MAC put it the idea of having a civil discourse to resolve differences is preferable. However that requires that both sides must be willing to do so.




I don't really agree with that.

If both "sides" wait for the other to suddenly become civil and mature, civil discourse will probably never occur, not in this toxic environment.

That's why I think it will take some brave folks to rise above it first, to be the adults in the room.  And they could even look at it as a strategy - be civil, let the other guys look like the children, and essentially shame them until they get it, until they see that their behavior is making them look bad, and grow up.

I think that's the only way it can happen.

.


----------



## Foxfyre

Mac1958 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> As MAC put it the idea of having a civil discourse to resolve differences is preferable. However that requires that both sides must be willing to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really agree with that.
> 
> If both "sides" wait for the other to suddenly become civil and mature, civil discourse will probably never occur, not in this toxic environment.
> 
> That's why I think it will take some brave folks to rise above it first, to be the adults in the room.  And they could even look at it as a strategy - be civil, let the other guys look like the children, and essentially shame them until they get it, until they see that their behavior is making them look bad, and grow up.
> 
> I think that's the only way it can happen.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Amen.  Amen.  Amen.


----------



## Foxfyre

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, Foxy, nowhere does the bible conflate homosexuality with terrorism. That was PR's bizarre spin on it and he doesn't get a pass by blaming it on the bible in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did Phil Robertson conflate homosexuality with terrorism.  That was GLAAD's dishonest and inexcusable spin they put on it.  But even if he had, so do people equate people with strong religious beliefs as Nazis, terrorists, and worse.  The issue is NOT that anybody is expected to agree with anybody.  Nobody is expected to endorse or appreciate the point of view of anybody else or not comment on what others say.  The point is not what anybody acts out against somebody else.  The point is not that we object or rebut what somebody else says.
> 
> The issue is whether we should be able to hold the beliefs, opinions, convictions, perceptions, points of view that we hold, no matter how bizarre, wrong, intolerant, or stupid they are, without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after us to physically and/or materially hurt us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Robertson's own words do the conflating;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8220;We never, ever judge someone on who&#8217;s going to heaven, hell. That&#8217;s the Almighty&#8217;s job. We just love &#8217;em, give &#8217;em the good news about Jesus&#8212;whether they&#8217;re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists," Robertson said. "We let God sort &#8217;em out later, you see what I&#8217;m saying?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> con&#8226;flate (k&#601;n&#712;fle&#618;t)
> 
> v.t. -flat&#8226;ed, -flat&#8226;ing.
> to fuse into one entity; merge; combine.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


If I say I am going to the store to buy corn flakes, radishes, and tomato soup and ya'll can decide what you want for supper, is that conflating those things?  What Robertson did was provide a list of things that he believes are sins.  That is NOT conflating the things that he listed.  And even if he did, how does that hurt you or anybody else in any way?


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Discussing issues are always the best option if both parties come to the table with an intent to learn. I find much of the time that is rarely the case. Especially on this board.  People form opinions off of very limited information and think their conclusions are the gospel. Like you said they are resistant to having those conclusions changed as it exposes their belief systems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we can return to a culture in which people are allowed their belief systems so long as they don't demand that others adopt them.  We can, as a group, become a small nucleus that might be able to grow and persuade others to make political correctness bullying so socially unacceptable that it becomes a distant memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont have a problem with people having their own beliefs.  I have a problem with them thinking they can say what they want to without consequences.  I think its more important to teach people how to express their beliefs in a manner that is acceptable to those they may offend than try and correct PC.  IMO, PC is a direct result of and reaction to people not having the ability to express their ideas without offending.
Click to expand...


Really?  Okay, then you have no problem that I DEMAND what words or opinions are acceptable for you to express about Christians?  About Republicans?  About conservatives?  About AGW skeptics?  About gospel or country music?   About pro-traditional marriage advocates?   About pro-lifers?   And its okay with you if I physically and/or materially hurt you if you express any negative opinion about any of these folks or use any word that offends me ?   Is that what you are saying?


----------



## Montrovant

Delta4Embassy said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since we have a group of people who have appointed themselves judge, jury and executioner in terms what is acceptable, who is guilty and how punishment will be delivered, you and I don't have to bother ourselves with such reasonable points and issues.
> 
> Just be careful what you say.  After all, this is America.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And therein is the very real material danger in political correctness above and beyond the moral and ethical implications.  When one side sets itself up as the judge, jury, and executioner to control what people are allowed to express as beliefs or opinions, it is only one small additional step to making certain speech enforcibly illegal.  And when that happens, the government can do anything to anybody with impunity.
> 
> I'm not suggesting anybody should agree with Phil Robertson or appreciate what he said or how he said it.  I didn't appreciate what he said or how he said it actually.  But unless he has the right to say it without having some angry mob, group, or organization coming after him to physically and/or materially hurt him, we have no rights at all.  And the bullies of society will control it all.  In which case, if you value your liberty and ability to think, speak, and hold opinions freely, you better pray that you're on the same side as the bullies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a public figure/entertainer, Mr. Robertson is open to retaliation for anything and everything he, or anyone else might say. If you don't want that kind of vulnerability, don't be a reality star. But if you are on tv or otherwise in the public light, you can't expect the same kind of protections whether in-law, or in theory as someone at a neighborhood picnic.
Click to expand...


I think this is one of the most important points of this discussion.

There is a difference between holding an opinion and voicing it publicly.  While anyone has the right to both, the more publicly one voices an opinion, the more likely they are to have people react negatively to it.

That has become more confused with the rise of social media, and could probably be a long discussion in and of itself.

However, what we don't generally see are groups or organizations going after people for voicing their opinions privately or in very limited formats.  It is when someone, in effect, shouts it out for the world to hear that these kinds of situations arise.

While these groups may often be doing things I don't personally approve of, organizing to publicly condemn someone for their views or call for a boycott should remain their right.  The only way they should be prevented, if at all, is through the ethics generally held by society.  Just the same as the only way a person's opinions, however vile they might be, should be prevented is through those same ethics.

In other words, the only reason these kinds of expressions of opinion (and yes, a boycott is an expression of opinion) should be prevented is because the people expressing them know that society in general is opposed to them.

Now it is an unfortunate truth, IMO, that any kind of changing of social norms is going to be far more easily accomplished, or at least begun, but those with power, money, and influence.  I think that has always been the case, though.  The average person simply doesn't have that great an effect on the world around them.

So, [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], I would say that people have the right to express their opinions and be who they are.  They do not have the right to do so unopposed by conflicting expressions of opinion.  A boycott is a collective expression of opinion.  Lawsuits are different and, as I believe I've said in the other thread, I feel differently about.  There are different ways to attempt to oppose or silence someone's opinion, and I have different thoughts about the morality of each.

I consider there to be a difference between attempting to harm someone and attempting to keep their voice out of public forums.  Trying to get an individual fired because of their beliefs as expressed on a television show is very similar to trying to have an entire television show removed from the air because one finds it offensive.  Would you consider an organization working to get a show cancelled to be in the same category?  Doing so would cause material and/or physical harm to far more people than going after a single public personality.

To simplify it, I think anyone has the right to say what they want (within fairly obvious limits) and that includes trying to convince others not to buy or associate with any person for any reason.


----------



## Foxfyre

Delta4Embassy said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since we have a group of people who have appointed themselves judge, jury and executioner in terms what is acceptable, who is guilty and how punishment will be delivered, you and I don't have to bother ourselves with such reasonable points and issues.
> 
> Just be careful what you say.  After all, this is America.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And therein is the very real material danger in political correctness above and beyond the moral and ethical implications.  When one side sets itself up as the judge, jury, and executioner to control what people are allowed to express as beliefs or opinions, it is only one small additional step to making certain speech enforcibly illegal.  And when that happens, the government can do anything to anybody with impunity.
> 
> I'm not suggesting anybody should agree with Phil Robertson or appreciate what he said or how he said it.  I didn't appreciate what he said or how he said it actually.  But unless he has the right to say it without having some angry mob, group, or organization coming after him to physically and/or materially hurt him, we have no rights at all.  And the bullies of society will control it all.  In which case, if you value your liberty and ability to think, speak, and hold opinions freely, you better pray that you're on the same side as the bullies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a public figure/entertainer, Mr. Robertson is open to retaliation for anything and everything he, or anyone else might say. If you don't want that kind of vulnerability, don't be a reality star. But if you are on tv or otherwise in the public light, you can't expect the same kind of protections whether in-law, or in theory as someone at a neighborhood picnic.
Click to expand...


I don't agree with this at all.  Every American, regardless of their occupation or whether they are isolated hermits or whether or not their face is recognized by everybody or their name is a household word, whether they are Phil Robertson or Nancy Pelosi or Donald Trump or Barack Obama or Miley Cyrus should be able to be who and what they are and speak their opinions without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after them to physically and/or materially hurt them.

Nobody from the hermit to the President should be immune from criticism or even condemnation for their opinions, but as long as they are expressing their opinions and not acting on them, they should not have to fear for their persons, their property, or their livelihood.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we can return to a culture in which people are allowed their belief systems so long as they don't demand that others adopt them.  We can, as a group, become a small nucleus that might be able to grow and persuade others to make political correctness bullying so socially unacceptable that it becomes a distant memory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have a problem with people having their own beliefs.  I have a problem with them thinking they can say what they want to without consequences.  I think its more important to teach people how to express their beliefs in a manner that is acceptable to those they may offend than try and correct PC.  IMO, PC is a direct result of and reaction to people not having the ability to express their ideas without offending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Okay, then you have no problem that I DEMAND what words or opinions are acceptable for you to express about Christians?  About Republicans?  About conservatives?  About AGW skeptics?  About gospel or country music?   About pro-traditional marriage advocates?   About pro-lifers?   And its okay with you if I physically and/or materially hurt you if you express any negative opinion about any of these folks or use any word that offends me ?   Is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...


No. I have no problem with you *asking* for me to be polite when addressing a topic that I may not know is sensitive to you.  Your use of the word "demand" is disingenuous and clouds the issue. If I were to continue to do so then I am only being rude and the discussion will never work.

No. It is not ok if you try to physically or materially hurt me if I express a negative opinion.  However, I would not be amazed you would want to do so as I understand that what I say has consequences.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Foxfyre said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did Phil Robertson conflate homosexuality with terrorism.  That was GLAAD's dishonest and inexcusable spin they put on it.  But even if he had, so do people equate people with strong religious beliefs as Nazis, terrorists, and worse.  The issue is NOT that anybody is expected to agree with anybody.  Nobody is expected to endorse or appreciate the point of view of anybody else or not comment on what others say.  The point is not what anybody acts out against somebody else.  The point is not that we object or rebut what somebody else says.
> 
> The issue is whether we should be able to hold the beliefs, opinions, convictions, perceptions, points of view that we hold, no matter how bizarre, wrong, intolerant, or stupid they are, without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after us to physically and/or materially hurt us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robertson's own words do the conflating;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> conflate (k&#601;n&#712;fle&#618;t)
> 
> v.t. -flated, -flating.
> to fuse into one entity; merge; combine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I say I am going to the store to buy corn flakes, radishes, and tomato soup and ya'll can decide what you want for supper, is that conflating those things?  What Robertson did was provide a list of things that he believes are sins.  That is NOT conflating the things that he listed.
Click to expand...


Actually it is. You combined the things you are buying into a shopping list. PR combined homosexuality into a list of other despicable things. In essence he said that there is no difference whatsoever between the terrorists who murdered 3000 innocent people on 9/11 and the gay couple who live next door. How would you feel if someone lumped you in with mass murderers? You would have every right to be be offended and call out the person who did that to you irrespective of their belief that their "bible" was telling them that retired ladies in NM are plotting to fly planes into tall buildings using radishes and soup cans.


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And therein is the very real material danger in political correctness above and beyond the moral and ethical implications.  When one side sets itself up as the judge, jury, and executioner to control what people are allowed to express as beliefs or opinions, it is only one small additional step to making certain speech enforcibly illegal.  And when that happens, the government can do anything to anybody with impunity.
> 
> I'm not suggesting anybody should agree with Phil Robertson or appreciate what he said or how he said it.  I didn't appreciate what he said or how he said it actually.  But unless he has the right to say it without having some angry mob, group, or organization coming after him to physically and/or materially hurt him, we have no rights at all.  And the bullies of society will control it all.  In which case, if you value your liberty and ability to think, speak, and hold opinions freely, you better pray that you're on the same side as the bullies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a public figure/entertainer, Mr. Robertson is open to retaliation for anything and everything he, or anyone else might say. If you don't want that kind of vulnerability, don't be a reality star. But if you are on tv or otherwise in the public light, you can't expect the same kind of protections whether in-law, or in theory as someone at a neighborhood picnic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think this is one of the most important points of this discussion.
> 
> There is a difference between holding an opinion and voicing it publicly.  While anyone has the right to both, the more publicly one voices an opinion, the more likely they are to have people react negatively to it.
> 
> That has become more confused with the rise of social media, and could probably be a long discussion in and of itself.
> 
> However, what we don't generally see are groups or organizations going after people for voicing their opinions privately or in very limited formats.  It is when someone, in effect, shouts it out for the world to hear that these kinds of situations arise.
> 
> While these groups may often be doing things I don't personally approve of, organizing to publicly condemn someone for their views or call for a boycott should remain their right.  The only way they should be prevented, if at all, is through the ethics generally held by society.  Just the same as the only way a person's opinions, however vile they might be, should be prevented is through those same ethics.
> 
> In other words, the only reason these kinds of expressions of opinion (and yes, a boycott is an expression of opinion) should be prevented is because the people expressing them know that society in general is opposed to them.
> 
> Now it is an unfortunate truth, IMO, that any kind of changing of social norms is going to be far more easily accomplished, or at least begun, but those with power, money, and influence.  I think that has always been the case, though.  The average person simply doesn't have that great an effect on the world around them.
> 
> So, [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], I would say that people have the right to express their opinions and be who they are.  They do not have the right to do so unopposed by conflicting expressions of opinion.  A boycott is a collective expression of opinion.  Lawsuits are different and, as I believe I've said in the other thread, I feel differently about.  There are different ways to attempt to oppose or silence someone's opinion, and I have different thoughts about the morality of each.
> 
> I consider there to be a difference between attempting to harm someone and attempting to keep their voice out of public forums.  Trying to get an individual fired because of their beliefs as expressed on a television show is very similar to trying to have an entire television show removed from the air because one finds it offensive.  Would you consider an organization working to get a show cancelled to be in the same category?  Doing so would cause material and/or physical harm to far more people than going after a single public personality.
> 
> To simplify it, I think anyone has the right to say what they want (within fairly obvious limits) and that includes trying to convince others not to buy or associate with any person for any reason.
Click to expand...


Having the legal right is different from a moral and ethical right.  I will continue to believe it is morally and ethically wrong to form an angry mob or intentionally organize an effort to hurt somebody for no other reason than that person is somebody we don't like or said something we don't agree with.   For GLAAD to inform its members that Phil Robertson is on their blacklist and therefore their members should boycott products he endorses and not watch A&E is their right, however small and petty they are exercising it.  But that is a very different thing than going after A&E with threats and bullying tacts and threatening A&E's advertisers if A&E doesn't fire Phil.


----------



## G.T.

Foxfyre said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But again, who did he 'hurt' by expressing what he believes the Bible says? * Did he snatch food from the mouths of babes?  Violate their women?  Burn crosses on their lawn?  Accuse them of vile acts?  Urge anybody to harm a gay person in any way?  Even if he hadn't modified his remarks with his statement that he includes himself among the sinners and that he loves his gay brothers and sisters, exactly who did he 'hurt'?
> 
> Just as there is a difference between anger and hitting, there is a difference between an 'offensive' opinion and verbal assault.  And there is a huge difference between stating an honest opinion or belief and in the malicious and dishonest way in which GLAAD manipulated and mischaracterized his remarks to make them appear much worse than they were.
> 
> The only group that intended 'hurt' and harm was GLAAD.  And in my opinion GLAAD was the entity that came out of this looking small, petty, hateful, intolerant, unethical, and vindictive.   Phil Robertson at worst comes out of it as holding an indefensible opinion, but he didn't 'hurt' anybody.
> 
> Morally, ethically, and practically, a free people is allowed their beliefs and opinions as an unalienable right.  And they have an unalienable right to associate with those of like mind and character should they choose to do that.  They have no unalienable right to not be offended by the opinion of another.   And it is that truth that we need to re-establish in our American culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, Foxy, nowhere does the bible conflate homosexuality with terrorism. That was PR's bizarre spin on it and he doesn't get a pass by blaming it on the bible in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor did Phil Robertson conflate homosexuality with terrorism.  That was GLAAD's dishonest and inexcusable spin they put on it.  But even if he had, so do people equate people with strong religious beliefs as Nazis, terrorists, and worse.  The issue is NOT that anybody is expected to agree with anybody.  Nobody is expected to endorse or appreciate the point of view of anybody else or not comment on what others say.  The point is not what anybody acts out against somebody else.  The point is not that we not object or rebut what somebody else says.  Nobody should be immune from criticism.
> 
> The issue is whether we should be able to hold the beliefs, opinions, convictions, perceptions, points of view that we hold, no matter how bizarre, wrong, intolerant, or stupid they are, without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after us to physically and/or materially hurt us.
Click to expand...


no, you shouldn't be able to.

save for the physically part.

if a neo Nazi worked for my company, I'd be fucking happy someone brought that up, and he'd be out on his ass where he should be.


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And therein is the very real material danger in political correctness above and beyond the moral and ethical implications.  When one side sets itself up as the judge, jury, and executioner to control what people are allowed to express as beliefs or opinions, it is only one small additional step to making certain speech enforcibly illegal.  And when that happens, the government can do anything to anybody with impunity.
> 
> I'm not suggesting anybody should agree with Phil Robertson or appreciate what he said or how he said it.  I didn't appreciate what he said or how he said it actually.  But unless he has the right to say it without having some angry mob, group, or organization coming after him to physically and/or materially hurt him, we have no rights at all.  And the bullies of society will control it all.  In which case, if you value your liberty and ability to think, speak, and hold opinions freely, you better pray that you're on the same side as the bullies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a public figure/entertainer, Mr. Robertson is open to retaliation for anything and everything he, or anyone else might say. If you don't want that kind of vulnerability, don't be a reality star. But if you are on tv or otherwise in the public light, you can't expect the same kind of protections whether in-law, or in theory as someone at a neighborhood picnic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree with this at all.  Every American, regardless of their occupation or whether they are isolated hermits or whether or not their face is recognized by everybody or their name is a household word, whether they are Phil Robertson or Nancy Pelosi or Donald Trump or Barack Obama or Miley Cyrus should be able to be who and what they are and speak their opinions without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after them to physically and/or materially hurt them.
> 
> Nobody from the hermit to the President should be immune from criticism or even condemnation for their opinions, *but as long as they are expressing their opinions and not acting on them, they should not have to fear for their persons, their property, or their livelihood.*
Click to expand...


Ah, but when that expression of their opinions IS their livelihood, doesn't it make things a bit more complex?

For a political pundit, or a movie reviewer, or anyone who's livelihood is so intrinsically tied to their opinion, things are a bit grayer.  If you try to convince people to have their show cancelled, is it because of that person being who and what they are?  Is it morally acceptable to work to have a fictional show cancelled because you dislike it, or find it offensive?  Is it also acceptable to have a political show cancelled for the same reason?  Can you do either of those things without actually intending to harm anyone, merely because you want to see different programming on the air?

This doesn't directly tie to any examples that have been given in these threads, I just thought it was an interesting point.

And I do wonder how you feel about organizing to have a politician removed from office in comparison to having a person fired from an entertainment job, or even organizing to support a political opponent because you disagree with the current office-holder.  Those are different situations, but have some strong similarities, in that you could be said to be attempting to materially harm someone for being who and what they are (depending on what they actually do while in office, of course).

This is a discussion with a lot of layers to it.


----------



## Foxfyre

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robertson's own words do the conflating;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I say I am going to the store to buy corn flakes, radishes, and tomato soup and ya'll can decide what you want for supper, is that conflating those things?  What Robertson did was provide a list of things that he believes are sins.  That is NOT conflating the things that he listed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it is. You combined the things you are buying into a shopping list. PR combined homosexuality into a list of other despicable things. In essence he said that there is no difference whatsoever between the terrorists who murdered 3000 innocent people on 9/11 and the gay couple who live next door. How would you feel if someone lumped you in with mass murderers? You would have every right to be be offended and call out the person who did that to you irrespective of their belief that their "bible" was telling them that retired ladies in NM are plotting to fly planes into tall buildings using radishes and soup cans.
Click to expand...


Well I respectfully say you are dead wrong with your opinion there sir, but I will fight to the death your right to hold it.  And yes, I would be offended if somebody accused me of being a mass murderer.  But would I be offended if I was included in a list of people they hate that included a generic term mass murderers?  Not in the least.  I think I am bright enough to understand that a list is not conflation unless it is specifically intended to do that.  I do not have any more right to be loved, appreciated, or understood than GLAAD has a right to be appreciated and honored by Phil Robertson.


----------



## Mac1958

Foxfyre said:


> Having the legal right is different from a moral and ethical right.




Precisely.  It's not as though these people are under some legal obligation to go after people who utter words they don't like.  *This is a choice they make. * Certainly, it's much easier than doing the heavy lifting of changing hearts & minds, and no doubt it makes them feel relevant and powerful (back to my comments about narcissism), but they're not being forced to do it.

.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a public figure/entertainer, Mr. Robertson is open to retaliation for anything and everything he, or anyone else might say. If you don't want that kind of vulnerability, don't be a reality star. But if you are on tv or otherwise in the public light, you can't expect the same kind of protections whether in-law, or in theory as someone at a neighborhood picnic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is one of the most important points of this discussion.
> 
> There is a difference between holding an opinion and voicing it publicly.  While anyone has the right to both, the more publicly one voices an opinion, the more likely they are to have people react negatively to it.
> 
> That has become more confused with the rise of social media, and could probably be a long discussion in and of itself.
> 
> However, what we don't generally see are groups or organizations going after people for voicing their opinions privately or in very limited formats.  It is when someone, in effect, shouts it out for the world to hear that these kinds of situations arise.
> 
> While these groups may often be doing things I don't personally approve of, organizing to publicly condemn someone for their views or call for a boycott should remain their right.  The only way they should be prevented, if at all, is through the ethics generally held by society.  Just the same as the only way a person's opinions, however vile they might be, should be prevented is through those same ethics.
> 
> In other words, the only reason these kinds of expressions of opinion (and yes, a boycott is an expression of opinion) should be prevented is because the people expressing them know that society in general is opposed to them.
> 
> Now it is an unfortunate truth, IMO, that any kind of changing of social norms is going to be far more easily accomplished, or at least begun, but those with power, money, and influence.  I think that has always been the case, though.  The average person simply doesn't have that great an effect on the world around them.
> 
> So, [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], I would say that people have the right to express their opinions and be who they are.  They do not have the right to do so unopposed by conflicting expressions of opinion.  A boycott is a collective expression of opinion.  Lawsuits are different and, as I believe I've said in the other thread, I feel differently about.  There are different ways to attempt to oppose or silence someone's opinion, and I have different thoughts about the morality of each.
> 
> I consider there to be a difference between attempting to harm someone and attempting to keep their voice out of public forums.  Trying to get an individual fired because of their beliefs as expressed on a television show is very similar to trying to have an entire television show removed from the air because one finds it offensive.  Would you consider an organization working to get a show cancelled to be in the same category?  Doing so would cause material and/or physical harm to far more people than going after a single public personality.
> 
> To simplify it, I think anyone has the right to say what they want (within fairly obvious limits) and that includes trying to convince others not to buy or associate with any person for any reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having the legal right is different from a moral and ethical right.  I will continue to believe it is morally and ethically wrong to form an angry mob or intentionally organize an effort to hurt somebody for no other reason than that person is somebody we don't like or said something we don't agree with.   For GLAAD to inform its members that Phil Robertson is on their blacklist and therefore their members should boycott products he endorses and not watch A&E is their right, however small and petty they are exercising it.  But that is a very different thing than going after A&E with threats and bullying tacts and threatening A&E's advertisers if A&E doesn't fire Phil.
Click to expand...


Again i maintain that you lost your right to have a moral and ethic ground to stand on when you violated those same morals and ethics by denigrating whatever person or group you chose to speak on. Someone financially ruining you is the publics right to tell you we disagree with the method you choose to express yourself with. Its called boycotting and short of imprisoning you or hurting you physically its is the most humane option to deal with you.


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a public figure/entertainer, Mr. Robertson is open to retaliation for anything and everything he, or anyone else might say. If you don't want that kind of vulnerability, don't be a reality star. But if you are on tv or otherwise in the public light, you can't expect the same kind of protections whether in-law, or in theory as someone at a neighborhood picnic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with this at all.  Every American, regardless of their occupation or whether they are isolated hermits or whether or not their face is recognized by everybody or their name is a household word, whether they are Phil Robertson or Nancy Pelosi or Donald Trump or Barack Obama or Miley Cyrus should be able to be who and what they are and speak their opinions without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after them to physically and/or materially hurt them.
> 
> Nobody from the hermit to the President should be immune from criticism or even condemnation for their opinions, *but as long as they are expressing their opinions and not acting on them, they should not have to fear for their persons, their property, or their livelihood.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, but when that expression of their opinions IS their livelihood, doesn't it make things a bit more complex?
> 
> For a political pundit, or a movie reviewer, or anyone who's livelihood is so intrinsically tied to their opinion, things are a bit grayer.  If you try to convince people to have their show cancelled, is it because of that person being who and what they are?  Is it morally acceptable to work to have a fictional show cancelled because you dislike it, or find it offensive?  Is it also acceptable to have a political show cancelled for the same reason?  Can you do either of those things without actually intending to harm anyone, merely because you want to see different programming on the air?
> 
> This doesn't directly tie to any examples that have been given in these threads, I just thought it was an interesting point.
> 
> And I do wonder how you feel about organizing to have a politician removed from office in comparison to having a person fired from an entertainment job, or even organizing to support a political opponent because you disagree with the current office-holder.  Those are different situations, but have some strong similarities, in that you could be said to be attempting to materially harm someone for being who and what they are (depending on what they actually do while in office, of course).
> 
> This is a discussion with a lot of layers to it.
Click to expand...


Phil Robertson was asked a direct question by a GQ interviewer and he answered it as honestly as he could.  GQ editors then edited his comments and printed them in the magazine.  Phil Robertson's remarks had zero to do with Duck Dynasty, zero to do with A&E, zero to do with any of A&E's advertisers.

Did GLAAD go after GQ magazine for publishing the remarks?  For making them public?  Nope.  Wouldn't that have been the logical target for what they characterized as 'defamation'?  No, they went after Phil Robertson to punish him for stating his opinion when he was asked for it.  And, even if they had not dishonestly and maliciously mischaracterized what he said, to attempt to physically and materially hurt him for nothing more than expressing a personal opinion is morally and ethically wrong.


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a public figure/entertainer, Mr. Robertson is open to retaliation for anything and everything he, or anyone else might say. If you don't want that kind of vulnerability, don't be a reality star. But if you are on tv or otherwise in the public light, you can't expect the same kind of protections whether in-law, or in theory as someone at a neighborhood picnic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is one of the most important points of this discussion.
> 
> There is a difference between holding an opinion and voicing it publicly.  While anyone has the right to both, the more publicly one voices an opinion, the more likely they are to have people react negatively to it.
> 
> That has become more confused with the rise of social media, and could probably be a long discussion in and of itself.
> 
> However, what we don't generally see are groups or organizations going after people for voicing their opinions privately or in very limited formats.  It is when someone, in effect, shouts it out for the world to hear that these kinds of situations arise.
> 
> While these groups may often be doing things I don't personally approve of, organizing to publicly condemn someone for their views or call for a boycott should remain their right.  The only way they should be prevented, if at all, is through the ethics generally held by society.  Just the same as the only way a person's opinions, however vile they might be, should be prevented is through those same ethics.
> 
> In other words, the only reason these kinds of expressions of opinion (and yes, a boycott is an expression of opinion) should be prevented is because the people expressing them know that society in general is opposed to them.
> 
> Now it is an unfortunate truth, IMO, that any kind of changing of social norms is going to be far more easily accomplished, or at least begun, but those with power, money, and influence.  I think that has always been the case, though.  The average person simply doesn't have that great an effect on the world around them.
> 
> So, [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], I would say that people have the right to express their opinions and be who they are.  They do not have the right to do so unopposed by conflicting expressions of opinion.  A boycott is a collective expression of opinion.  Lawsuits are different and, as I believe I've said in the other thread, I feel differently about.  There are different ways to attempt to oppose or silence someone's opinion, and I have different thoughts about the morality of each.
> 
> I consider there to be a difference between attempting to harm someone and attempting to keep their voice out of public forums.  Trying to get an individual fired because of their beliefs as expressed on a television show is very similar to trying to have an entire television show removed from the air because one finds it offensive.  Would you consider an organization working to get a show cancelled to be in the same category?  Doing so would cause material and/or physical harm to far more people than going after a single public personality.
> 
> To simplify it, I think anyone has the right to say what they want (within fairly obvious limits) and that includes trying to convince others not to buy or associate with any person for any reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having the legal right is different from a moral and ethical right.  I will continue to believe it is morally and ethically wrong to form an angry mob or intentionally organize an effort to hurt somebody for no other reason than that person is somebody we don't like or said something we don't agree with.   For GLAAD to inform its members that Phil Robertson is on their blacklist and therefore their members should boycott products he endorses and not watch A&E is their right, however small and petty they are exercising it.  *But that is a very different thing than going after A&E with threats and bullying tacts and threatening A&E's advertisers if A&E doesn't fire Phil.*
Click to expand...


Certainly that is different.  It depends on what those 'bullying tactics' are and what threats are actually used, though.

If the threat is a threat to boycott, I have no moral qualms with that.

If it is threats of frivolous lawsuits, I am opposed to that.

If it is threats of going to the CEOs of advertisers and telling them that GLAAD will run massive advertising campaigns against those companies if they don't fire an individual, I'm opposed to that as well.

I'm not really sure what other threats or tactics might be used, but I'd need to look at them individually to know how I feel about them.

I suppose my point is that I don't agree that it is always wrong to oppose someone for what they believe, even if that might lead to them losing a job.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is one of the most important points of this discussion.
> 
> There is a difference between holding an opinion and voicing it publicly.  While anyone has the right to both, the more publicly one voices an opinion, the more likely they are to have people react negatively to it.
> 
> That has become more confused with the rise of social media, and could probably be a long discussion in and of itself.
> 
> However, what we don't generally see are groups or organizations going after people for voicing their opinions privately or in very limited formats.  It is when someone, in effect, shouts it out for the world to hear that these kinds of situations arise.
> 
> While these groups may often be doing things I don't personally approve of, organizing to publicly condemn someone for their views or call for a boycott should remain their right.  The only way they should be prevented, if at all, is through the ethics generally held by society.  Just the same as the only way a person's opinions, however vile they might be, should be prevented is through those same ethics.
> 
> In other words, the only reason these kinds of expressions of opinion (and yes, a boycott is an expression of opinion) should be prevented is because the people expressing them know that society in general is opposed to them.
> 
> Now it is an unfortunate truth, IMO, that any kind of changing of social norms is going to be far more easily accomplished, or at least begun, but those with power, money, and influence.  I think that has always been the case, though.  The average person simply doesn't have that great an effect on the world around them.
> 
> So, [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], I would say that people have the right to express their opinions and be who they are.  They do not have the right to do so unopposed by conflicting expressions of opinion.  A boycott is a collective expression of opinion.  Lawsuits are different and, as I believe I've said in the other thread, I feel differently about.  There are different ways to attempt to oppose or silence someone's opinion, and I have different thoughts about the morality of each.
> 
> I consider there to be a difference between attempting to harm someone and attempting to keep their voice out of public forums.  Trying to get an individual fired because of their beliefs as expressed on a television show is very similar to trying to have an entire television show removed from the air because one finds it offensive.  Would you consider an organization working to get a show cancelled to be in the same category?  Doing so would cause material and/or physical harm to far more people than going after a single public personality.
> 
> To simplify it, I think anyone has the right to say what they want (within fairly obvious limits) and that includes trying to convince others not to buy or associate with any person for any reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having the legal right is different from a moral and ethical right.  I will continue to believe it is morally and ethically wrong to form an angry mob or intentionally organize an effort to hurt somebody for no other reason than that person is somebody we don't like or said something we don't agree with.   For GLAAD to inform its members that Phil Robertson is on their blacklist and therefore their members should boycott products he endorses and not watch A&E is their right, however small and petty they are exercising it.  But that is a very different thing than going after A&E with threats and bullying tacts and threatening A&E's advertisers if A&E doesn't fire Phil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again i maintain that you lost your right to have a moral and ethic ground to stand on when you violated those same morals and ethics by denigrating whatever person or group you chose to speak on. Someone financially ruining you is the publics right to tell you we disagree with the method you choose to express yourself with. Its called boycotting and short of imprisoning you are hurting you physically its is the most humane option to deal with you.
Click to expand...


Are you intentionally refusing to see the difference between a decision to boycott somebody because of what that person DID and a decision to physically (remove from a position) or materially hurt somebody for an opinion the person holds?  Are you intentionally refusing to see the difference between objecting to what somebody said and striking that person--hurting that person--because you don't like who they are and/or don't like their point of view?

I suppose you aren't able to see the difference.  But I'm hoping many here do.


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with this at all.  Every American, regardless of their occupation or whether they are isolated hermits or whether or not their face is recognized by everybody or their name is a household word, whether they are Phil Robertson or Nancy Pelosi or Donald Trump or Barack Obama or Miley Cyrus should be able to be who and what they are and speak their opinions without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after them to physically and/or materially hurt them.
> 
> Nobody from the hermit to the President should be immune from criticism or even condemnation for their opinions, *but as long as they are expressing their opinions and not acting on them, they should not have to fear for their persons, their property, or their livelihood.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but when that expression of their opinions IS their livelihood, doesn't it make things a bit more complex?
> 
> For a political pundit, or a movie reviewer, or anyone who's livelihood is so intrinsically tied to their opinion, things are a bit grayer.  If you try to convince people to have their show cancelled, is it because of that person being who and what they are?  Is it morally acceptable to work to have a fictional show cancelled because you dislike it, or find it offensive?  Is it also acceptable to have a political show cancelled for the same reason?  Can you do either of those things without actually intending to harm anyone, merely because you want to see different programming on the air?
> 
> This doesn't directly tie to any examples that have been given in these threads, I just thought it was an interesting point.
> 
> And I do wonder how you feel about organizing to have a politician removed from office in comparison to having a person fired from an entertainment job, or even organizing to support a political opponent because you disagree with the current office-holder.  Those are different situations, but have some strong similarities, in that you could be said to be attempting to materially harm someone for being who and what they are (depending on what they actually do while in office, of course).
> 
> This is a discussion with a lot of layers to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Phil Robertson was asked a direct question by a GQ interviewer and he answered it as honestly as he could.  GQ editors then edited his comments and printed them in the magazine.  Phil Robertson's remarks had zero to do with Duck Dynasty, zero to do with A&E, zero to do with any of A&E's advertisers.
> 
> Did GLAAD go after GQ magazine for publishing the remarks?  For making them public?  Nope.  Wouldn't that have been the logical target for what they characterized as 'defamation'?  No, they went after Phil Robertson to punish him for stating his opinion when he was asked for it.  And, even if they had not dishonestly and maliciously mischaracterized what he said, to attempt to physically and materially hurt him for nothing more than expressing a personal opinion is morally and ethically wrong.
Click to expand...


I specified that my post did not have to do with any of the examples that have been given in these threads.  I wasn't talking about Phil Robertson or GLAAD.

However, to comment on your point about GLAAD going after GQ, conducting an interview is not usually considered a form of support for the opinions in the interview.  It's a bit closer to support to employ someone on a show based on showing them in 'real life' and expressing those kinds of opinions, which is why I can understand going after A&E and not GQ.

Not that I agree with it, but I can see the reasoning behind it.  I would understand if someone wanted to boycott a company that broadcast a 'Charles Manson's afternoon lessons' show but not a magazine that interviewed him.


----------



## G.T.

If I were glaad, I'd have done what they did. 

Straight up.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having the legal right is different from a moral and ethical right.  I will continue to believe it is morally and ethically wrong to form an angry mob or intentionally organize an effort to hurt somebody for no other reason than that person is somebody we don't like or said something we don't agree with.   For GLAAD to inform its members that Phil Robertson is on their blacklist and therefore their members should boycott products he endorses and not watch A&E is their right, however small and petty they are exercising it.  But that is a very different thing than going after A&E with threats and bullying tacts and threatening A&E's advertisers if A&E doesn't fire Phil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again i maintain that you lost your right to have a moral and ethic ground to stand on when you violated those same morals and ethics by denigrating whatever person or group you chose to speak on. Someone financially ruining you is the publics right to tell you we disagree with the method you choose to express yourself with. Its called boycotting and short of imprisoning you are hurting you physically its is the most humane option to deal with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you intentionally refusing to see the difference between a decision to boycott somebody because of what that person DID and a decision to physically (remove from a position) or materially hurt somebody for an opinion the person holds?  Are you intentionally refusing to see the difference between objecting to what somebody said and striking that person--hurting that person--because you don't like who they are and/or don't like their point of view?
> 
> I suppose you aren't able to see the difference.  But I'm hoping many here do.
Click to expand...


I think I outlined those differences in my response you quoted. I have no problem with what view you may hold. If you *say something *publicly that I do not like or agree with I can punish you for being rude with any method I see fit. All these methods have different consequences for both you and myself. 

If I chose to boycott your firm I would lose use of your service or product. Your firm could lose money and you could lose your job. You could also lose future employment due to your views.

If I chose to go after you maliciously and file lawsuits you could be out of a financial amount or lose your home fighting it. You could also be seen as a liability and lose present or future employment. I could incur court costs due to losing the suit. 

If I chose to attack you physically you could get hurt, I could get hurt or wind up in prison for assault.


----------



## G.T.

Exactly.

And it should be noted, glaad has no power to "materially" hurt phil. They only have the power to compel his company to do so. Of course, if there's a boycott of said company it's up to those who disagree with it to also use their first amendment rights, but the boycott is not wrong to do, to begin with. 

They also don't have the freedom to harm him physically. that is illegal, they would be punished by the law. 

This is all about being a big baby. It's exactly what it boils down to. 

For all the people joining in protest, the counter protesters maintain their freedoms to counter protest louder. 

Also - Tolerance is far greater today than throughout American history. That is a fact.


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but when that expression of their opinions IS their livelihood, doesn't it make things a bit more complex?
> 
> For a political pundit, or a movie reviewer, or anyone who's livelihood is so intrinsically tied to their opinion, things are a bit grayer.  If you try to convince people to have their show cancelled, is it because of that person being who and what they are?  Is it morally acceptable to work to have a fictional show cancelled because you dislike it, or find it offensive?  Is it also acceptable to have a political show cancelled for the same reason?  Can you do either of those things without actually intending to harm anyone, merely because you want to see different programming on the air?
> 
> This doesn't directly tie to any examples that have been given in these threads, I just thought it was an interesting point.
> 
> And I do wonder how you feel about organizing to have a politician removed from office in comparison to having a person fired from an entertainment job, or even organizing to support a political opponent because you disagree with the current office-holder.  Those are different situations, but have some strong similarities, in that you could be said to be attempting to materially harm someone for being who and what they are (depending on what they actually do while in office, of course).
> 
> This is a discussion with a lot of layers to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phil Robertson was asked a direct question by a GQ interviewer and he answered it as honestly as he could.  GQ editors then edited his comments and printed them in the magazine.  Phil Robertson's remarks had zero to do with Duck Dynasty, zero to do with A&E, zero to do with any of A&E's advertisers.
> 
> Did GLAAD go after GQ magazine for publishing the remarks?  For making them public?  Nope.  Wouldn't that have been the logical target for what they characterized as 'defamation'?  No, they went after Phil Robertson to punish him for stating his opinion when he was asked for it.  And, even if they had not dishonestly and maliciously mischaracterized what he said, to attempt to physically and materially hurt him for nothing more than expressing a personal opinion is morally and ethically wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I specified that my post did not have to do with any of the examples that have been given in these threads.  I wasn't talking about Phil Robertson or GLAAD.
> 
> However, to comment on your point about GLAAD going after GQ, conducting an interview is not usually considered a form of support for the opinions in the interview.  It's a bit closer to support to employ someone on a show based on showing them in 'real life' and expressing those kinds of opinions, which is why I can understand going after A&E and not GQ.
> 
> Not that I agree with it, but I can see the reasoning behind it.  I would understand if someone wanted to boycott a company that broadcast a 'Charles Manson's afternoon lessons' show but not a magazine that interviewed him.
Click to expand...


My purpose here is not to focus on any particular incident though we all are using known incidents as illustration.  My purpose is to raise consciousness beween honest differences of opinion, objection, being able to express our opinion about what is and is not acceptable, without acting out to physically or materially hurt others.  To express our opinions, positive or negative, was seen as an unalienable right by the Founders.  To act out to violate the rights of others was not.

I was one of several who were instrumental in founding and developing the Domestic Violence Association of Central Kansas and my (different) agency was doing some intensive work to deal with and combat domestic violence well before we founded DVACK.    One thing my agency did was to sponsor self help groups for domestic violence abusers.   Many of the abusers had grown up to equate anger and hitting as inseparable.  Whether via parents or siblings or others, anger was always expressed by striking out.  But when we taught them that anger and hitting are separate things--that feeling anger is okay but hitting to express it is not--that had honestly never occurred to them. It was by no means effective with all, but more than once we would see a lightbulb go on.   Such people who understand that can be rehabilitated and can be trusted to not be repeat offenders.

And I am hoping that we have more American citizens who can understand that disagreeing with, even objecting to and/or condemning the expressed opinions and beliefs of others is a separate thing from striking out to hurt others physically and/or materially.  You can morally and ethically do one without doing the other.  And in a free society, I believe freedom loving people will do one without doing the other.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Tolerance" is a meaningless phrase.
> 
> Most of the examples of "intolerance" that you've mentioned in the OP are simply people disagreeing.
> 
> "Tolerance" doesn't mean that I have to agree with you, and the act of disagreeing, even being vocal with my disagreement, isn't being "intolerant".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one.  Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.
> 
> But I have to disagree that 'tolerance' is a meaningless phrase.  I am not speaking about disagreement or our voicing our disagreement.  And I didn't GIVE any examples in the OP.
> 
> But here are some examples of intolerance of people for no other reason than they are who and what they are.  These are by no means the ONLY examples:
> 
> 
> A demand that Phil Robertson be fired from A&E due to his answer given to a GQ Magazine interviewer.
> 
> A demand that Chick-fil-a be boycotted for no other reason than the CEO supports traditional marriage.
> 
> A demand that Ellen Degeneres be dumped from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason that she is gay.
> 
> An effort to financially ruin a talk show host for characterizing Sandra Fluke as a 'slut'.
> 
> A demand to censure Trent Lott by accusing him of supporting segregation when he was extemporaneously praising a colleague on his 100th birthday.
> 
> A campaign to intimidate advertisers of Saturday Night Live to dump the show due to 'offensive' content.
> 
> Shouting down or refusing to allow somebody to speak on a college campus who was invited to do so.​
> Note that none of the targets of these campaigns were doing anything to anybody.  They were not requiring contribution or participation by anybody.  The targets were being targeted purely for being who and what they are.
> 
> It was not sufficient for the attacking organizations to urge their membership to register their disagreement with or boycott the 'offending' parties.   They were out to physically and/or materially harm/punish those parties--actively hurt them--anyway they could.  For no other reason than they expressed an opinion the attacking organization didn't like and/or are who they are.
> 
> Even if such attacking organizations were not politically motivated--they never go after their own who behave or say things badly--this is not something any freedom loving person should allow.  Yes, we all are subject to certain protocols required of our immediate associations, employers, etc.  But none of us should be afraid to be who and what we are out of fear that some unrelated angry mob, group, or organization will come after us and attempt to physically and/or materially punish us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you endorse something as divisive and incendiary as Evan Sayet's diatribe says all I need to know about you. You are a hyper-partisan fraud.
> 
> Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
> Barry Goldwater
Click to expand...


So much for this being the Clean Debate Zone. Perhaps you should reconsider your words and speak more carefully. 

There is no such thing as equality. Never will any man be exactly equal to another. There will always be differences. Superiority and inferiority will exist until the end of time. Equality as I understand it, will be when someone can tolerate the opinion of others without needing to exact their displeasure via deleterious means.

The fact you are intolerant of Fox's views means you aren't tolerant. Equality only exists when expressed views match yours.


----------



## Statistikhengst

TemplarKormac said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one.  Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.
> 
> But I have to disagree that 'tolerance' is a meaningless phrase.  I am not speaking about disagreement or our voicing our disagreement.  And I didn't GIVE any examples in the OP.
> 
> But here are some examples of intolerance of people for no other reason than they are who and what they are.  These are by no means the ONLY examples:
> 
> 
> A demand that Phil Robertson be fired from A&E due to his answer given to a GQ Magazine interviewer.
> 
> A demand that Chick-fil-a be boycotted for no other reason than the CEO supports traditional marriage.
> 
> A demand that Ellen Degeneres be dumped from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason that she is gay.
> 
> An effort to financially ruin a talk show host for characterizing Sandra Fluke as a 'slut'.
> 
> A demand to censure Trent Lott by accusing him of supporting segregation when he was extemporaneously praising a colleague on his 100th birthday.
> 
> A campaign to intimidate advertisers of Saturday Night Live to dump the show due to 'offensive' content.
> 
> Shouting down or refusing to allow somebody to speak on a college campus who was invited to do so.​
> Note that none of the targets of these campaigns were doing anything to anybody.  They were not requiring contribution or participation by anybody.  The targets were being targeted purely for being who and what they are.
> 
> It was not sufficient for the attacking organizations to urge their membership to register their disagreement with or boycott the 'offending' parties.   They were out to physically and/or materially harm/punish those parties--actively hurt them--anyway they could.  For no other reason than they expressed an opinion the attacking organization didn't like and/or are who they are.
> 
> Even if such attacking organizations were not politically motivated--they never go after their own who behave or say things badly--this is not something any freedom loving person should allow.  Yes, we all are subject to certain protocols required of our immediate associations, employers, etc.  But none of us should be afraid to be who and what we are out of fear that some unrelated angry mob, group, or organization will come after us and attempt to physically and/or materially punish us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you endorse something as divisive and incendiary as Evan Sayet's diatribe says all I need to know about you. You are a hyper-partisan fraud.
> 
> Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
> Barry Goldwater
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So much for this being the Clean Debate Zone. Perhaps you should reconsider your words and speak more carefully.
> 
> *There is no such thing as equality. Never will any man be exactly equal to another. There will always be differences*. Superiority and inferiority will exist until the end of time. Equality as I understand it, will be when someone can tolerate the opinion of others without needing to exact their displeasure via deleterious means.
> 
> The fact you are intolerant of Fox's views means you aren't tolerant. Equality only exists when expressed views match yours.
Click to expand...


the bolded: I concur with you.

And [MENTION=19018]Bfgrn[/MENTION] - I think that TK is right in his advice to you. In the CDZ there are stricter rules. You can vigorously attack an idea or a concept with facts, but we are not allowed to attack a person. If you feel you have been attacked, as I was once counseled by a good member here, just report the posting and then forget about it.


----------



## Care4all

Let's see...trying to take the Dixie Chicks livelyhood away is okay, bashing to no end Michelle Obama is okay, bashing Barbara Streisand is okay, bashing John Kerry is okay and Teresa Heinz is okay, and Obama is okay, and Hillary when first lady is okay and Alec Baldwin is okay and the guy fired on Msnbc martin bashir is okay, And trying to take Michael Moore's livelihood away is okay.....and bashing the Reverend Wright and trying to take his livelihood away for his different opinion is all okay....

The list goes on and on and on and on, on both sides of the aisle, yet this Robertson thing surprises you all and makes you want to draw up "what is Fair" rules all of a sudden?

Sure it's a great discussion, yet won't change a thing....

Sadly, in this internet world where everyone has an opinion and can express their opinion anonymously in writing, I don't see the bashing and lies and trying to take someone's livelihood away because you differ with them.... ever changing...we crossed the tipping point and unfortunately there is no going back....unless a miracle from God.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Foxfyre said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I say I am going to the store to buy corn flakes, radishes, and tomato soup and ya'll can decide what you want for supper, is that conflating those things?  What Robertson did was provide a list of things that he believes are sins.  That is NOT conflating the things that he listed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it is. You combined the things you are buying into a shopping list. PR combined homosexuality into a list of other despicable things. In essence he said that there is no difference whatsoever between the terrorists who murdered 3000 innocent people on 9/11 and the gay couple who live next door. How would you feel if someone lumped you in with mass murderers? You would have every right to be be offended and call out the person who did that to you irrespective of their belief that their "bible" was telling them that retired ladies in NM are plotting to fly planes into tall buildings using radishes and soup cans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I respectfully say you are dead wrong with your opinion there sir, but I will fight to the death your right to hold it.  And yes, I would be offended if somebody accused me of being a mass murderer.  But would I be offended if I was included in a list of people they hate that included a generic term mass murderers?  Not in the least.  I think I am bright enough to understand that a list is not conflation unless it is specifically intended to do that.  I do not have any more right to be loved, appreciated, or understood than GLAAD has a right to be appreciated and honored by Phil Robertson.
Click to expand...


This has nothing to do with being "appreciated and honored". It has everything to do with being denigrated. As a public figure PR chose to openly disparage a group of ordinary people who had never done him any harm whatsoever. His excuse for doing so merely brings dishonor upon the God you worship. Jesus would not cast the first stone at PR but he would admonish him to "sin no more" thereby making it as clear as daylight that what PR has done is wrong in the eyes of the Lord. (Jesus never condemned homosexuality by calling it a "sin".) 

So what PR did was bring dishonor on you and every other upstanding Christian who respects the life of all of the people on this earth irrespective of their gender, creed, race or sexual orientation. His intolerance taints you all because he did this in the name of your God. No one is expecting you to judge him but defending his intolerance means that you are tacitly condoning his intolerance. Is that what all Christians should do? Uphold the intolerance of bigots and homophobes? Does that slippery slope mean defending the molestation of choirboys next? Where is the line here?

Either PR is an intolerant bigot who has to deal with the consequences of his own words or he is some poor addled fool who doesn't know what he said and should not be allowed out in public without adult supervision. Of course he is the former and GLAAD had every right to hold him accountable for his despicable denigration of innocent people who have never done him any harm. 

But what matters now is where you stand. Do you continue to defend his intolerance and bigotry and rail against GLAAD? Or do you look inside yourself and ask if it is right to be defending someone who believes such unchristian thoughts and brings dishonor and shame upon your religion and your beliefs?

Peace
DT


----------



## Statistikhengst

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it is. You combined the things you are buying into a shopping list. PR combined homosexuality into a list of other despicable things. In essence he said that there is no difference whatsoever between the terrorists who murdered 3000 innocent people on 9/11 and the gay couple who live next door. How would you feel if someone lumped you in with mass murderers? You would have every right to be be offended and call out the person who did that to you irrespective of their belief that their "bible" was telling them that retired ladies in NM are plotting to fly planes into tall buildings using radishes and soup cans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I respectfully say you are dead wrong with your opinion there sir, but I will fight to the death your right to hold it.  And yes, I would be offended if somebody accused me of being a mass murderer.  But would I be offended if I was included in a list of people they hate that included a generic term mass murderers?  Not in the least.  I think I am bright enough to understand that a list is not conflation unless it is specifically intended to do that.  I do not have any more right to be loved, appreciated, or understood than GLAAD has a right to be appreciated and honored by Phil Robertson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with being "appreciated and honored". It has everything to do with being denigrated. As a public figure PR chose to openly disparage a group of ordinary people who had never done him any harm whatsoever. His excuse for doing so merely brings dishonor upon the God you worship. Jesus would not cast the first stone at PR but he would admonish him to "sin no more" thereby making it as clear as daylight that what PR has done is wrong in the eyes of the Lord. (Jesus never condemned homosexuality by calling it a "sin".)
> 
> So what PR did was bring dishonor on you and every other upstanding Christian who respects the life of all of the people on this earth irrespective of their gender, creed, race or sexual orientation. His intolerance taints you all because he did this in the name of your God. No one is expecting you to judge him but defending his intolerance means that you are tacitly condoning his intolerance. Is that what all Christians should do? Uphold the intolerance of bigots and homophobes? Does that slippery slope mean defending the molestation of choirboys next? Where is the line here?
> 
> Either PR is an intolerant bigot who has to deal with the consequences of his own words or he is some poor addled fool who doesn't know what he said and should not be allowed out in public without adult supervision. Of course he is the former and GLAAD had every right to hold him accountable for his despicable denigration of innocent people who have never done him any harm.
> 
> But what matters now is where you stand. Do you continue to defend his intolerance and bigotry and rail against GLAAD? Or do you look inside yourself and ask if it is right to be defending someone who believes such unchristian thoughts and brings dishonor and shame upon your religion and your beliefs?
> 
> Peace
> DT
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

Care4all said:


> Let's see...trying to take the Dixie Chicks livelyhood away is okay, bashing to no end Michelle Obama is okay, bashing Barbara Streisand is okay, bashing John Kerry is okay and Teresa Heinz is okay, and Obama is okay, and Hillary when first lady is okay and Alec Baldwin is okay and the guy fired on Msnbc martin bashir is okay, And trying to take Michael Moore's livelihood away is okay.....and bashing the Reverend Wright and trying to take his livelihood away for his different opinion is all okay....
> 
> The list goes on and on and on and on, on both sides of the aisle, yet this Robertson thing surprises you all and makes you want to draw up "what is Fair" rules all of a sudden?
> 
> Sure it's a great discussion, yet won't change a thing....
> 
> Sadly, in this internet world where everyone has an opinion and can express their opinion anonymously in writing, I don't see the bashing and lies and trying to take someone's livelihood away because you differ with them.... ever changing...we crossed the tipping point and unfortunately there is no going back....unless a miracle from God.



If anybody can find any place where I have approved ANYBODY intentionally going after somebody to physically or materially hurt them purely for expressing an opinion somebody didn't like, please post it.  I have done my damndest to find examples on all sides of the political spectrum because this is not a partisan issue.

Otherwise, equating crticism of people as no different than intentionally physically and/or materially hurting them for no other reason than you don't like them or they express an opinon somebody doesn't like is the very attitude I am objecting to in this thread.  It is that really destructive concept that anger and hitting are the same thing that brought us to this sorry state.

But I am the eternal optimist.  We got to this sorry state by a slow creep, step by step, and I refuse to believe that good people cannot turn it around and swing that pendulum back the other way.  All we need is the will to do it.


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> My purpose here is not to focus on any particular incident though we all are using known incidents as illustration.  My purpose is to raise consciousness beween honest differences of opinion, objection, being able to express our opinion about what is and is not acceptable, without acting out to physically or materially hurt others.  To express our opinions, positive or negative, was seen as an unalienable right by the Founders.  To act out to violate the rights of others was not.
> 
> I was one of several who were instrumental in founding and developing the Domestic Violence Association of Central Kansas and my (different) agency was doing some intensive work to deal with and combat domestic violence well before we founded DVACK.    One thing my agency did was to sponsor self help groups for domestic violence abusers.   Many of the abusers had grown up to equate anger and hitting as inseparable.  Whether via parents or siblings or others, anger was always expressed by striking out.  But when we taught them that anger and hitting are separate things--that feeling anger is okay but hitting to express it is not--that had honestly never occurred to them. It was by no means effective with all, but more than once we would see a lightbulb go on.   Such people who understand that can be rehabilitated and can be trusted to not be repeat offenders.
> 
> And I am hoping that we have more American citizens who can understand that disagreeing with, even objecting to and/or condemning the expressed opinions and beliefs of others is a separate thing from striking out to hurt others physically and/or materially.  You can morally and ethically do one without doing the other.  And in a free society, I believe freedom loving people will do one without doing the other.



I know what you've said you want this to be about.  I pointed out an area where the issue can become clouded : when a person's livelihood and expressed opinion are inseparably linked.  I am curious if your opinion is at all different in such a situation.  I'm also curious how you feel about 'going after' a politician because of their opinions, as that is also a murky point.

And I also would like to know if you think there can be a distinction between striking out to hurt others and trying to keep their opinions from being broadcast or supported publicly.


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> My purpose here is not to focus on any particular incident though we all are using known incidents as illustration.  My purpose is to raise consciousness beween honest differences of opinion, objection, being able to express our opinion about what is and is not acceptable, without acting out to physically or materially hurt others.  To express our opinions, positive or negative, was seen as an unalienable right by the Founders.  To act out to violate the rights of others was not.
> 
> I was one of several who were instrumental in founding and developing the Domestic Violence Association of Central Kansas and my (different) agency was doing some intensive work to deal with and combat domestic violence well before we founded DVACK.    One thing my agency did was to sponsor self help groups for domestic violence abusers.   Many of the abusers had grown up to equate anger and hitting as inseparable.  Whether via parents or siblings or others, anger was always expressed by striking out.  But when we taught them that anger and hitting are separate things--that feeling anger is okay but hitting to express it is not--that had honestly never occurred to them. It was by no means effective with all, but more than once we would see a lightbulb go on.   Such people who understand that can be rehabilitated and can be trusted to not be repeat offenders.
> 
> And I am hoping that we have more American citizens who can understand that disagreeing with, even objecting to and/or condemning the expressed opinions and beliefs of others is a separate thing from striking out to hurt others physically and/or materially.  You can morally and ethically do one without doing the other.  And in a free society, I believe freedom loving people will do one without doing the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you've said you want this to be about.  I pointed out an area where the issue can become clouded : when a person's livelihood and expressed opinion are inseparably linked.  I am curious if your opinion is at all different in such a situation.  I'm also curious how you feel about 'going after' a politician because of their opinions, as that is also a murky point.
> 
> And I also would like to know if you think there can be a distinction between striking out to hurt others and trying to keep their opinions from being broadcast or supported publicly.
Click to expand...


We should all push back on those who do harm to others and/or encourage harm be done to others purely because of who or what those others are.  That is an iron clad principle and is a very different thing than physically and/or materially hurting somebody for nothing more than expressing an unpopular opinion.

I myself have participated in active boycotts against corporations that I believed were engaged in practices that were hurting people.  Nestle was one such corporation back in the 70's and the boycott was effective and persuaded Nestle to stop the indefensible marketing practices we objected to.  Once Nestle stopped, we all resumed buying Nestle products.

But lets say the CEO of Nestle made a negative comment about Republicans, Christians, conservatives, New Mexicans, or whatever.  Is that justification to organize a boycott of Nestle products?  Not to me.  To me to try to hurt them for nothing more than expressing an opinion is morally and ethically wrong.

To go after a politician and attempt to materially and/or physically hurt him/her purely because he/she expresses an opinion I don't share is also morally and ethically wrong.  To campaign for and use my vote to replace a politician with somebody who I believe will represent me/us more ethically, honestly, and competently is perfectly moral and ethical.


----------



## emilynghiem

Foxfyre said:


> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?



Hi Foxfyre:
I was thinking along similar lines, in particular, for members of political parties to be tolerant and inclusive of different views and beliefs, similar to religious freedom and equal protection of the laws from discrimination.

I thought of drafting a petition or resolution for members of parties to list their affiliations
and the views they have which they ask to be included and not excluded; and which views they themselves agree to recognize and not exclude or discriminate against as invalid.

Then I could list the issues I see as most divisive currently:

* judging people by their views of Christianity, Atheism, or Islam
* judging people by their views of homosexuality and either for or against gay marriage
* judging or penalizing people for their views of health care, and either for or against state rights vs. federal govt authority (recognizing these differences as RELIGIOUS and not discriminating or penalizing people for believing in free choice of health care options)

I think it would challenge people to recognize which biases they have against the views of others, in relation to the biases they disagree being imposed on them.

So just filling out the list of which issues apply to them might be educational and raise awareness of how polarized we have become, dividing and judging people for views as if these are "right" or "wrong" instead of including and respecting them equally under law.

I find people don't even realize when they are imposing a prejudice because they have already assumed the other person or party's viewpoint is "wrong." So sad.

I started off just wanting to acknowledge that imposing the ACA by laws violates and excludes people's rights who believe that health care choices belong to the people or the states, and that passing and enforcing such a policy amounts to "establishing a national religion" without the consent of the public, citizens and taxpayers affected by the policies.

by the same token, this need to include and not discriminate against people for their views applies to policies either for or against gay marriage, as well as unresolved religious conflicts over abortion restrictions, drug legalization, immigration policies and citizenship requirements, the death penalty and other issues that invoke religious beliefs.

I think we overlook how much of the problems with political differences are from religious beliefs that are fundamental and not subject to government regulation and decisions.

So if we could agree to respect these differences under Constitutional laws of inclusion and equal protection and representation, maybe we could start the dialogue from there, and seek solutions that people can agree on despite areas where we disagree religiously. And just limit govt policies to those solutions and avoid making decisions that impose on people's beliefs. Which govt is never supposed to be abused to do in the first place! Duh!


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> To go after a politician and attempt to materially and/or physically hurt him/her purely because he/she expresses an opinion I don't share is also morally and ethically wrong.  To campaign for and use my vote to replace a politician with somebody who I believe will represent me/us more ethically, honestly, and competently is perfectly moral and ethical.




Who says you are correct in feeling that it is morally and ethically wrong?  Who makes that determination?


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> To go after a politician and attempt to materially and/or physically hurt him/her purely because he/she expresses an opinion I don't share is also morally and ethically wrong.  To campaign for and use my vote to replace a politician with somebody who I believe will represent me/us more ethically, honestly, and competently is perfectly moral and ethical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who says you are correct in feeling that it is morally and ethically wrong?  Who makes that determination?
Click to expand...


I do.  And it is my opinion that you should be able to agree or disagree with my opinion about that without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after you and physically and/or materially punish you for disagreeing with my point of view.

This is the whole problem with any of us thinking anger justifies hitting somebody if the other person is 'wrong',  Who gets to set the standard for what is right and what is wrong?    Are you on the left willing for conservatives to be the authority of what will and will not be physically and/or materially punishable?   Are you on the right willing for liberals to set the standards for what can and cannot be physically and/or materially punished?

Or is it the moral and ethical position to allow everybody their opinion or belief or point of view so long as they do not require others to share it?


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> To go after a politician and attempt to materially and/or physically hurt him/her purely because he/she expresses an opinion I don't share is also morally and ethically wrong.  To campaign for and use my vote to replace a politician with somebody who I believe will represent me/us more ethically, honestly, and competently is perfectly moral and ethical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who says you are correct in feeling that it is morally and ethically wrong?  Who makes that determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do.  And it is my opinion that you should be able to agree or disagree with my opinion about that without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after you and physically and/or materially punish you for disagreeing with my point of view.
> 
> This is the whole problem with any of us thinking anger justifies hitting somebody if the other person is 'wrong',  Who gets to set the standard for what is right and what is wrong?    Are you on the left willing for conservatives to be the authority of what will and will not be physically and/or materially punishable?   Are you on the right willing for liberals to set the standards for what can and cannot be physically and/or materially punished?
> 
> Or is it the moral and ethical position to allow everybody their opinion or belief or point of view so long as they do not require others to share it?
Click to expand...


That goes back to my point that it should be a self regulating process and if that fails then the group has to regulate you. If your opinion is not the opinion of the group why do you think anyone is going to let your expression go unpunished just because you feel something they don't agree with?  Thats not how it works in reality.  If you are trying to make a new reality then you need everyones buy in eventually correct?


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who says you are correct in feeling that it is morally and ethically wrong?  Who makes that determination?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do.  And it is my opinion that you should be able to agree or disagree with my opinion about that without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after you and physically and/or materially punish you for disagreeing with my point of view.
> 
> This is the whole problem with any of us thinking anger justifies hitting somebody if the other person is 'wrong',  Who gets to set the standard for what is right and what is wrong?    Are you on the left willing for conservatives to be the authority of what will and will not be physically and/or materially punishable?   Are you on the right willing for liberals to set the standards for what can and cannot be physically and/or materially punished?
> 
> Or is it the moral and ethical position to allow everybody their opinion or belief or point of view so long as they do not require others to share it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That goes back to my point that it should be a self regulating process and if that fails then the group has to regulate you. If your opinion is not the opinion of the group why do you think anyone is going to let your expression go unpunished just because you feel something they don't agree with?  Thats not how it works in reality.  If you are trying to make a new reality then you need everyones buy in eventually correct?
Click to expand...


I've already stated my opinion about that.  Your opinions should be regulated by nobody but you.  My opinions should be regulated by nobody but me.   I may voluntarily sign on to certain rules  or expectations in order to participate in a particular occupation or group or venue, but conformity to those rules is then between me and that entity and should involve nobody else.

Disagreement does not justify hitting.
Anger does not justify hitting.
Being offended or having our feelings hurt does not justify hitting.

Within the boundaries of common courtesy and decency, it is okay to state our opinion about what somebody else said.  But it is not okay to hit them.  It is not okay to organize a campaign that will hurt them physically and/or materially for no reason other than they are who they are and/or expressed an opinion we don't like.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Mac1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, that makes sense, and it opens up a couple of things:
> 
> When you say that you can "completely reject an idea that he espouses", which makes sense too, what exactly do you mean by "reject"?  Would that include supporting that person being punished in some way, such as losing their job?
> 
> Also, if someone advocates breaking the law, "chopping off someone's head", that's clearly a different thing.  But what if a guy being interviewed on TV says he doesn't like Obama simply because of the color of his skin?  Should anything happen to that person, and if so, what would you like to see?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mistake boycotts for something nefarious?
> 
> That's how freedom of speech works.
> 
> There will be supporters of said boycotts, and there will be detractors.
> 
> Expressing what you want to happen as a result of someone being disagreeable is not the same as the company pulling the trigger. The actual firing (and subsequent rehiring) is on the shoulders of the corporation period, and not on the boycotters.
> 
> Boycotting is a way to shun what you find distasteful because you don't want your children in a world where it is promoted. Free speech is being able to express that in any way you see fit, within the law. That is a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could actually answer my questions.
> 
> What would you like to see happen to the guy who talked on TV about Obama's skin color?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


What someone would like to see happen is irrelevant. 

But there are things that *might* happen, however, each as appropriate as the other in the context of private society. 

For example: nothing might happen. 

Or those who find the interviewees statement offensive might seek equal time on the program to express their opposition. Or those offended might call for the interviewee to be disallowed to appear on the program again. Or those offended might call for a boycott of the interviewees program, if he has one; and call the interviewees sponsors to demand they withdraw support. If the interviewee owns a business, private citizens may call for a boycott of that business, or demand others not do business with him. 

It is also possible private society might evaluate the merits of a boycott and refuse to participate; and sponsors likewise are at liberty to do the same and continue financial support of the interviewees program. 

Again, assuming no one violates the law, all of the above and more are perfectly appropriate in the context of a private, free, and democratic society. 

Consequently, its naïve and unrealistic to expect everyone to behave when offended as you would like them to  youll never be able to make a free and democratic society neat and tidy and clean and perfect; you are of course at liberty to try, provided you dont seek the authority of the state to compel compliance.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do.  And it is my opinion that you should be able to agree or disagree with my opinion about that without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after you and physically and/or materially punish you for disagreeing with my point of view.
> 
> This is the whole problem with any of us thinking anger justifies hitting somebody if the other person is 'wrong',  Who gets to set the standard for what is right and what is wrong?    Are you on the left willing for conservatives to be the authority of what will and will not be physically and/or materially punishable?   Are you on the right willing for liberals to set the standards for what can and cannot be physically and/or materially punished?
> 
> Or is it the moral and ethical position to allow everybody their opinion or belief or point of view so long as they do not require others to share it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That goes back to my point that it should be a self regulating process and if that fails then the group has to regulate you. If your opinion is not the opinion of the group why do you think anyone is going to let your expression go unpunished just because you feel something they don't agree with?  Thats not how it works in reality.  If you are trying to make a new reality then you need everyones buy in eventually correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already stated my opinion about that.  Your opinions should be regulated by nobody but you.  My opinions should be regulated by nobody but me.   I may voluntarily sign on to certain rules  or expectations in order to participate in a particular occupation or group or venue, but conformity to those rules is then between me and that entity and should involve nobody else.
> 
> *Disagreement does not justify hitting.
> Anger does not justify hitting.
> Being offended or having our feelings hurt does not justify hitting.
> *
> Within the boundaries of common courtesy and decency, it is okay to state our opinion about what somebody else said.  But it is not okay to hit them.  It is not okay to organize a campaign that will hurt them physically and/or materially for no reason other than they are who they are and/or expressed an opinion we don't like.
Click to expand...


I wasn't specifically talking about hitting someone but lets take a look at your scenario.  What if I feel hitting is justified? What makes you more correct than me?


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> That goes back to my point that it should be a self regulating process and if that fails then the group has to regulate you. If your opinion is not the opinion of the group why do you think anyone is going to let your expression go unpunished just because you feel something they don't agree with?  Thats not how it works in reality.  If you are trying to make a new reality then you need everyones buy in eventually correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already stated my opinion about that.  Your opinions should be regulated by nobody but you.  My opinions should be regulated by nobody but me.   I may voluntarily sign on to certain rules  or expectations in order to participate in a particular occupation or group or venue, but conformity to those rules is then between me and that entity and should involve nobody else.
> 
> *Disagreement does not justify hitting.
> Anger does not justify hitting.
> Being offended or having our feelings hurt does not justify hitting.
> *
> Within the boundaries of common courtesy and decency, it is okay to state our opinion about what somebody else said.  But it is not okay to hit them.  It is not okay to organize a campaign that will hurt them physically and/or materially for no reason other than they are who they are and/or expressed an opinion we don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't specifically talking about hitting someone but lets take a look at your scenario.  What if I feel hitting is justified? What makes you more correct than me?
Click to expand...


If you have been reading my posts, you know that 'hitting' is the term I'm using for anything that physically or materially hurts somebody else.  And I see my opinion as more defensible than yours because if we become a society that settles all differences of opinion by hitting, the biggest bully will be able to force everybody else to conform to what the bully wants.  And it is a near certainty, based on history over thousands of years, that such a bully will be one that pretty much nobody but the bully's toadies will want to be the dominant bully.  And none of us will have any rights other than what the bully wants to allow.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already stated my opinion about that.  Your opinions should be regulated by nobody but you.  My opinions should be regulated by nobody but me.   I may voluntarily sign on to certain rules  or expectations in order to participate in a particular occupation or group or venue, but conformity to those rules is then between me and that entity and should involve nobody else.
> 
> *Disagreement does not justify hitting.
> Anger does not justify hitting.
> Being offended or having our feelings hurt does not justify hitting.
> *
> Within the boundaries of common courtesy and decency, it is okay to state our opinion about what somebody else said.  But it is not okay to hit them.  It is not okay to organize a campaign that will hurt them physically and/or materially for no reason other than they are who they are and/or expressed an opinion we don't like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't specifically talking about hitting someone but lets take a look at your scenario.  What if I feel hitting is justified? What makes you more correct than me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have been reading my posts, you know that 'hitting' is the term I'm using for anything that physically or materially hurts somebody else.  And I see my opinion as more defensible than yours because if we become a society that settles all differences of opinion by hitting, the biggest bully will be able to force everybody else to conform to what the bully wants.  And it is a near certainty, based on history over thousands of years, that such a bully will be one that pretty much nobody but the bully's toadies will want to be the dominant bully.  And none of us will have any rights other than what the bully wants to allow.
Click to expand...


I understand your point but I dont feel that is an answer.  Who determines if bullies should rule or not?  Where does this directive come from?


----------



## Mac1958

.

Intolerance is always "okay" when "my" side does it.

.


----------



## hunarcy

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robertson's own words do the conflating;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I say I am going to the store to buy corn flakes, radishes, and tomato soup and ya'll can decide what you want for supper, is that conflating those things?  What Robertson did was provide a list of things that he believes are sins.  That is NOT conflating the things that he listed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it is. You combined the things you are buying into a shopping list. PR combined homosexuality into a list of other despicable things. In essence he said that there is no difference whatsoever between the terrorists who murdered 3000 innocent people on 9/11 and the gay couple who live next door. How would you feel if someone lumped you in with mass murderers? You would have every right to be be offended and call out the person who did that to you irrespective of their belief that their "bible" was telling them that retired ladies in NM are plotting to fly planes into tall buildings using radishes and soup cans.
Click to expand...


His religious beliefs (as far as I can tell, he's a member of the Church of Christ) teach him that there is no difference in sins, that all are equally offensive to God.  So, while man may differentiate and attach degrees of "badness", he believes that is wrong.  YOU react according to how you "feel" and you certainly don't have to agree with that interpretation, but he has a right to believe what his church teaches.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't specifically talking about hitting someone but lets take a look at your scenario.  What if I feel hitting is justified? What makes you more correct than me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have been reading my posts, you know that 'hitting' is the term I'm using for anything that physically or materially hurts somebody else.  And I see my opinion as more defensible than yours because if we become a society that settles all differences of opinion by hitting, the biggest bully will be able to force everybody else to conform to what the bully wants.  And it is a near certainty, based on history over thousands of years, that such a bully will be one that pretty much nobody but the bully's toadies will want to be the dominant bully.  And none of us will have any rights other than what the bully wants to allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your point but I dont feel that is an answer.  Who determines if bullies should rule or not?  Where does this directive come from?
Click to expand...


My hope is that it will come from a free people governing themselves and establishing a societal norm of liberty and freedom to be who and what we are without fear that the bully will beat us up if we are who and what we are.


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> My purpose here is not to focus on any particular incident though we all are using known incidents as illustration.  My purpose is to raise consciousness beween honest differences of opinion, objection, being able to express our opinion about what is and is not acceptable, without acting out to physically or materially hurt others.  To express our opinions, positive or negative, was seen as an unalienable right by the Founders.  To act out to violate the rights of others was not.
> 
> I was one of several who were instrumental in founding and developing the Domestic Violence Association of Central Kansas and my (different) agency was doing some intensive work to deal with and combat domestic violence well before we founded DVACK.    One thing my agency did was to sponsor self help groups for domestic violence abusers.   Many of the abusers had grown up to equate anger and hitting as inseparable.  Whether via parents or siblings or others, anger was always expressed by striking out.  But when we taught them that anger and hitting are separate things--that feeling anger is okay but hitting to express it is not--that had honestly never occurred to them. It was by no means effective with all, but more than once we would see a lightbulb go on.   Such people who understand that can be rehabilitated and can be trusted to not be repeat offenders.
> 
> And I am hoping that we have more American citizens who can understand that disagreeing with, even objecting to and/or condemning the expressed opinions and beliefs of others is a separate thing from striking out to hurt others physically and/or materially.  You can morally and ethically do one without doing the other.  And in a free society, I believe freedom loving people will do one without doing the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you've said you want this to be about.  I pointed out an area where the issue can become clouded : when a person's livelihood and expressed opinion are inseparably linked.  I am curious if your opinion is at all different in such a situation.  I'm also curious how you feel about 'going after' a politician because of their opinions, as that is also a murky point.
> 
> And I also would like to know if you think there can be a distinction between striking out to hurt others and trying to keep their opinions from being broadcast or supported publicly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should all push back on those who do harm to others and/or encourage harm be done to others purely because of who or what those others are.  That is an iron clad principle and is a very different thing than physically and/or materially hurting somebody for nothing more than expressing an unpopular opinion.
> 
> I myself have participated in active boycotts against corporations that I believed were engaged in practices that were hurting people.  Nestle was one such corporation back in the 70's and the boycott was effective and persuaded Nestle to stop the indefensible marketing practices we objected to.  Once Nestle stopped, we all resumed buying Nestle products.
> 
> But lets say the CEO of Nestle made a negative comment about Republicans, Christians, conservatives, New Mexicans, or whatever.  Is that justification to organize a boycott of Nestle products?  Not to me.  To me to try to hurt them for nothing more than expressing an opinion is morally and ethically wrong.
> 
> To go after a politician and attempt to materially and/or physically hurt him/her purely because he/she expresses an opinion I don't share is also morally and ethically wrong.  To campaign for and use my vote to replace a politician with somebody who I believe will represent me/us more ethically, honestly, and competently is perfectly moral and ethical.
Click to expand...


Let me give a hypothetical example. 

Let's say I find Alex Jones's radio show offensive.  I think he is rude and insensitive to victims of various incidents, I think he's promoting a culture in which people's privacy is meaningless, I think he's promoting a mentality where people are unwilling to accept that sometimes bad things just happen.  I decide that I want to try and get his radio show cancelled so his messages are no longer promoted on the air.  If I organize a boycott, am I attempting to hurt him, or am I just trying to promote my own programming choices?

Now let's say I don't like the television show Supernatural.  I think it promotes a godless life, it idealizes witchcraft and sin.  I organize a boycott to get it cancelled and replaced with a better program.  Am I attempting to hurt the cast and crew, or am I simply expressing my opinion on the station's programming?

Is the intent of an attempt to get a person fired or program cancelled or product shelved the important factor, or is it the end result that matters?

If it is the intent, can you see how it would be possible to hurt someone without that being the goal?

Thanks for answering the politician question.


----------



## Plasmaball

> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.



Yes it did. 



> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.



you cant have one without the other, and we know why this doesnt want to be brought up. It then goes into the realm of Legal and illegal, and this the argument falls apart rather fast. 



> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.



Impossible, Cause and affect and unless you never say anything your words will affect other people. 



> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not. There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share



Welcome to the world of 24 hour news and the internets. This has already been explained to you so we can move. 



> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.



Nope...dead wrong. 



> What do you think?



I think it shows a lack of understanding of how the world works.


----------



## hunarcy

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you've said you want this to be about.  I pointed out an area where the issue can become clouded : when a person's livelihood and expressed opinion are inseparably linked.  I am curious if your opinion is at all different in such a situation.  I'm also curious how you feel about 'going after' a politician because of their opinions, as that is also a murky point.
> 
> And I also would like to know if you think there can be a distinction between striking out to hurt others and trying to keep their opinions from being broadcast or supported publicly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should all push back on those who do harm to others and/or encourage harm be done to others purely because of who or what those others are.  That is an iron clad principle and is a very different thing than physically and/or materially hurting somebody for nothing more than expressing an unpopular opinion.
> 
> I myself have participated in active boycotts against corporations that I believed were engaged in practices that were hurting people.  Nestle was one such corporation back in the 70's and the boycott was effective and persuaded Nestle to stop the indefensible marketing practices we objected to.  Once Nestle stopped, we all resumed buying Nestle products.
> 
> But lets say the CEO of Nestle made a negative comment about Republicans, Christians, conservatives, New Mexicans, or whatever.  Is that justification to organize a boycott of Nestle products?  Not to me.  To me to try to hurt them for nothing more than expressing an opinion is morally and ethically wrong.
> 
> To go after a politician and attempt to materially and/or physically hurt him/her purely because he/she expresses an opinion I don't share is also morally and ethically wrong.  To campaign for and use my vote to replace a politician with somebody who I believe will represent me/us more ethically, honestly, and competently is perfectly moral and ethical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me give a hypothetical example.
> 
> Let's say I find Alex Jones's radio show offensive.  I think he is rude and insensitive to victims of various incidents, I think he's promoting a culture in which people's privacy is meaningless, I think he's promoting a mentality where people are unwilling to accept that sometimes bad things just happen.  I decide that I want to try and get his radio show cancelled so his messages are no longer promoted on the air.  If I organize a boycott, am I attempting to hurt him, or am I just trying to promote my own programming choices?
> 
> Now let's say I don't like the television show Supernatural.  I think it promotes a godless life, it idealizes witchcraft and sin.  I organize a boycott to get it cancelled and replaced with a better program.  Am I attempting to hurt the cast and crew, or am I simply expressing my opinion on the station's programming?
> 
> Is the intent of an attempt to get a person fired or program cancelled or product shelved the important factor, or is it the end result that matters?
> 
> If it is the intent, can you see how it would be possible to hurt someone without that being the goal?
> 
> Thanks for answering the politician question.
Click to expand...


The difference, IMO, is that with a boycott, you are refusing to support an entity that you don't agree with and I support that with all my heart.

However, to blackball someone so they never work again is wrong...and that's what GLAAD was aiming at when they began to "research" Robertson to find all of his former and current employers.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you've said you want this to be about.  I pointed out an area where the issue can become clouded : when a person's livelihood and expressed opinion are inseparably linked.  I am curious if your opinion is at all different in such a situation.  I'm also curious how you feel about 'going after' a politician because of their opinions, as that is also a murky point.
> 
> And I also would like to know if you think there can be a distinction between striking out to hurt others and trying to keep their opinions from being broadcast or supported publicly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should all push back on those who do harm to others and/or encourage harm be done to others purely because of who or what those others are.  That is an iron clad principle and is a very different thing than physically and/or materially hurting somebody for nothing more than expressing an unpopular opinion.
> 
> I myself have participated in active boycotts against corporations that I believed were engaged in practices that were hurting people.  Nestle was one such corporation back in the 70's and the boycott was effective and persuaded Nestle to stop the indefensible marketing practices we objected to.  Once Nestle stopped, we all resumed buying Nestle products.
> 
> But lets say the CEO of Nestle made a negative comment about Republicans, Christians, conservatives, New Mexicans, or whatever.  Is that justification to organize a boycott of Nestle products?  Not to me.  To me to try to hurt them for nothing more than expressing an opinion is morally and ethically wrong.
> 
> To go after a politician and attempt to materially and/or physically hurt him/her purely because he/she expresses an opinion I don't share is also morally and ethically wrong.  To campaign for and use my vote to replace a politician with somebody who I believe will represent me/us more ethically, honestly, and competently is perfectly moral and ethical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me give a hypothetical example.
> 
> Let's say I find Alex Jones's radio show offensive.  I think he is rude and insensitive to victims of various incidents, I think he's promoting a culture in which people's privacy is meaningless, I think he's promoting a mentality where people are unwilling to accept that sometimes bad things just happen.  I decide that I want to try and get his radio show cancelled so his messages are no longer promoted on the air.  If I organize a boycott, am I attempting to hurt him, or am I just trying to promote my own programming choices?
> 
> Now let's say I don't like the television show Supernatural.  I think it promotes a godless life, it idealizes witchcraft and sin.  I organize a boycott to get it cancelled and replaced with a better program.  Am I attempting to hurt the cast and crew, or am I simply expressing my opinion on the station's programming?
> 
> Is the intent of an attempt to get a person fired or program cancelled or product shelved the important factor, or is it the end result that matters?
> 
> If it is the intent, can you see how it would be possible to hurt someone without that being the goal?
> 
> Thanks for answering the politician question.
Click to expand...


Obviously youre just trying to promote your own programming choices and you are simply expressing your opinion on the station's programming. 

Moreover, this determination is not yours alone to make. 

The radio station and the shows sponsors could simply ignore you and continue with their scheduled programming. Likewise the private community could ignore your call for a boycott having determined such an action is not warranted.


----------



## whitehall

Tolerance works both ways. Tolerance should include long standing religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin and an aberration and devout religious Americans should not be forced to contribute to sodomy by renting or selling property to overt homosexuals or hiring them. Why not?


----------



## Plasmaball

Mac1958 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> In which case it comes down to the definition of "hurt". In the instance of the OP Foxy is alleging that PR did not "hurt" anyone with his homophobic opinion. However from the perspective of GLAAD they obviously perceived his opinion to be "hurting" gays by egregiously lumping them in with terrorists. Does that justify GLAAD retaliating with their own intention to "hurt" PR? Do 2 wrongs make a right? At what point does the escalation cease?
> 
> Technically if GLAAD were to apply the standard stipulated above they should not have called for retributive "hurt". Equally so PR should have applied the standard and done some serious thinking before he made his "hurtful" comment. But that is an ideal situation. We are dealing with reality instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But again, who did he 'hurt' by expressing what he believes the Bible says?  Did he snatch food from the mouths of babes?  Violate their women?  Burn crosses on their lawn?  Accuse them of vile acts?  Urge anybody to harm a gay person in any way?  Even if he hadn't modified his remarks with his statement that he includes himself among the sinners and that he loves his gay brothers and sisters, exactly who did he 'hurt'?
> 
> Just as there is a difference between anger and hitting, there is a difference between an 'offensive' opinion and verbal assault.  And there is a huge difference between stating an honest opinion or belief and in the malicious and dishonest way in which GLAAD manipulated and mischaracterized his remarks to make them appear much worse than they were.
> 
> The only group that intended 'hurt' and harm was GLAAD.  And in my opinion GLAAD was the entity that came out of this looking small, petty, hateful, intolerant, unethical, and vindictive.   Phil Robertson at worst comes out of it as holding an indefensible opinion, but he didn't 'hurt' anybody.
> 
> Morally, ethically, and practically, a free people is allowed their beliefs and opinions as an unalienable right.  And they have an unalienable right to associate with those of like mind and character should they choose to do that.  They have no unalienable right to not be offended by the opinion of another.   And it is that truth that we need to re-establish in our American culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since we have a group of people who have appointed themselves judge, jury and executioner in terms what is acceptable, who is guilty and how punishment will be delivered, you and I don't have to bother ourselves with such reasonable points and issues.
> 
> Just be careful what you say.  After all, this is America.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

you are joking right? this has been going on long before America was a thought.


----------



## hunarcy

whitehall said:


> Tolerance works both ways. Tolerance should include long standing religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin and an aberration and devout religious Americans should not be forced to contribute to sodomy by renting or selling property to overt homosexuals or hiring them. Why not?



Because denying someone quality housing based on their sexual preference is vile and reprehensible.  You aren't "contributing to sodomy" by treating people fairly.  You contribute to making this world a better place.  It's not up to you to judge.


----------



## Foxfyre

hunarcy said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should all push back on those who do harm to others and/or encourage harm be done to others purely because of who or what those others are.  That is an iron clad principle and is a very different thing than physically and/or materially hurting somebody for nothing more than expressing an unpopular opinion.
> 
> I myself have participated in active boycotts against corporations that I believed were engaged in practices that were hurting people.  Nestle was one such corporation back in the 70's and the boycott was effective and persuaded Nestle to stop the indefensible marketing practices we objected to.  Once Nestle stopped, we all resumed buying Nestle products.
> 
> But lets say the CEO of Nestle made a negative comment about Republicans, Christians, conservatives, New Mexicans, or whatever.  Is that justification to organize a boycott of Nestle products?  Not to me.  To me to try to hurt them for nothing more than expressing an opinion is morally and ethically wrong.
> 
> To go after a politician and attempt to materially and/or physically hurt him/her purely because he/she expresses an opinion I don't share is also morally and ethically wrong.  To campaign for and use my vote to replace a politician with somebody who I believe will represent me/us more ethically, honestly, and competently is perfectly moral and ethical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me give a hypothetical example.
> 
> Let's say I find Alex Jones's radio show offensive.  I think he is rude and insensitive to victims of various incidents, I think he's promoting a culture in which people's privacy is meaningless, I think he's promoting a mentality where people are unwilling to accept that sometimes bad things just happen.  I decide that I want to try and get his radio show cancelled so his messages are no longer promoted on the air.  If I organize a boycott, am I attempting to hurt him, or am I just trying to promote my own programming choices?
> 
> Now let's say I don't like the television show Supernatural.  I think it promotes a godless life, it idealizes witchcraft and sin.  I organize a boycott to get it cancelled and replaced with a better program.  Am I attempting to hurt the cast and crew, or am I simply expressing my opinion on the station's programming?
> 
> Is the intent of an attempt to get a person fired or program cancelled or product shelved the important factor, or is it the end result that matters?
> 
> If it is the intent, can you see how it would be possible to hurt someone without that being the goal?
> 
> Thanks for answering the politician question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference, IMO, is that with a boycott, you are refusing to support an entity that you don't agree with and I support that with all my heart.
> 
> However, to blackball someone so they never work again is wrong...and that's what GLAAD was aiming at when they began to "research" Robertson to find all of his former and current employers.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  We all have a personal choice of what we watch on television or listen to on the radio, what newspapers and magazines we read, what websites we visit on the internet, or what movies we watch.  I simply don't buy or watch or read or otherwise patronize a publication, program, or entity that I find offensive. That is my choice and in some case my moral and ethical obligation.   If the medium offends enough people he or she will likely lose all his/her audience and the forum in which to be offensive.

But I don't have the moral or ethical license to tell YOU or anybody else what you are allowed to watch or not watch and punish you if you don't bow to my will.  And for me to go after and try to physically and/or materially hurt somebody for no other reason than he or she expressed an opinion I don't like is, in my opinion, morally and ethically wrong.  And I will continue to do what I can to promote a culture in which enough people agree that it is morally and ethically wrong so that bullies who now do that sort of thing will choose not to do it.


----------



## Mac1958

Plasmaball said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But again, who did he 'hurt' by expressing what he believes the Bible says?  Did he snatch food from the mouths of babes?  Violate their women?  Burn crosses on their lawn?  Accuse them of vile acts?  Urge anybody to harm a gay person in any way?  Even if he hadn't modified his remarks with his statement that he includes himself among the sinners and that he loves his gay brothers and sisters, exactly who did he 'hurt'?
> 
> Just as there is a difference between anger and hitting, there is a difference between an 'offensive' opinion and verbal assault.  And there is a huge difference between stating an honest opinion or belief and in the malicious and dishonest way in which GLAAD manipulated and mischaracterized his remarks to make them appear much worse than they were.
> 
> The only group that intended 'hurt' and harm was GLAAD.  And in my opinion GLAAD was the entity that came out of this looking small, petty, hateful, intolerant, unethical, and vindictive.   Phil Robertson at worst comes out of it as holding an indefensible opinion, but he didn't 'hurt' anybody.
> 
> Morally, ethically, and practically, a free people is allowed their beliefs and opinions as an unalienable right.  And they have an unalienable right to associate with those of like mind and character should they choose to do that.  They have no unalienable right to not be offended by the opinion of another.   And it is that truth that we need to re-establish in our American culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since we have a group of people who have appointed themselves judge, jury and executioner in terms what is acceptable, who is guilty and how punishment will be delivered, you and I don't have to bother ourselves with such reasonable points and issues.
> 
> Just be careful what you say.  After all, this is America.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are joking right? this has been going on long before America was a thought.
Click to expand...



What a strange point.  Well of course it has.

That doesn't make it right, does it?  Or perhaps you think it does?

The First Amendment was a stroke of brilliance -- at least to those of us who don't believe in a powerful, highly authoritarian central government, maybe not someone like you -- and its natural and unofficial cousin freedom of expression are (in my humble opinion) more instrumental than any other right in making America the amazing country that it is/was.  

Whether it's an official First Amendment issue or a more simple, culture-based freedom of expression issue, I cherish those rights, I rejoice in an environment of freedom of expression, I treasure *tolerance* and* diversity* of opinions.  

Clearly not all do.  This is one of the big lies of the American Left:  They proudly claim ownership of "tolerance" and "diversity", when in fact they do not truly practice either.

.


----------



## Iceweasel

hunarcy said:


> Because denying someone quality housing based on their sexual preference is vile and reprehensible.  You aren't "contributing to sodomy" by treating people fairly.  You contribute to making this world a better place.  It's not up to you to judge.


You just contradicted yourself. If someone truly finds homosexuality disgusting why should your morality fore them to rent to a same sex couple? You are saying your definition of vile is superior to theirs. 

I would agree with you if you are talking about a government job or housing since gays pay taxes as well. But you didn't buy the property so you shouldn't decide if a guy wants to rent to a young black heterosexual couple instead of two white lesbians.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Mac1958 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since we have a group of people who have appointed themselves judge, jury and executioner in terms what is acceptable, who is guilty and how punishment will be delivered, you and I don't have to bother ourselves with such reasonable points and issues.
> 
> Just be careful what you say.  After all, this is America.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> you are joking right? this has been going on long before America was a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What a strange point.  Well of course it has.
> 
> That doesn't make it right, does it?  Or perhaps you think it does?
> 
> The First Amendment was a stroke of brilliance -- at least to those of us who don't believe in a powerful, highly authoritarian central government, maybe not someone like you -- and its natural and unofficial cousin freedom of expression are (in my humble opinion) more instrumental than any other right in making America the amazing country that it is/was.
> 
> Whether it's an official First Amendment issue or a more simple, culture-based freedom of expression issue, I cherish those rights, I rejoice in an environment of freedom of expression, I treasure *tolerance* and* diversity* of opinions.
> 
> *Clearly not all do.  This is one of the big lies of the American Left:  They proudly claim ownership of "tolerance" and "diversity", when in fact they do not truly practice either*.
> 
> .
Click to expand...




Just as the American Right lies about "religious freedom", "individual rights" and "privacy" when they are the first to stomp on them when it suits their agenda.

*Neither side has "clean hands" which is why the 1st amendment protects both sides from each other. *

In essence it is the pragmatic implementation of the "tolerance" that the OP wants while being blind to the faults on their own side.


----------



## editec

The Masters are obviously ratcheting up the fear and hate  levels on purpose.

Tolerance is discouraged, dismissed as weakness or moral shortcoming.

Victims of systemic forces far beyond their control are faulted as self destructive and/or parasitic and written off as worthless losers.

The insanity of Old Testament values is revered and New Testament values are reviled.

This zeitgeist  is NOT by accident. This is contrived for some grand scheme that is unfolding before our very eyes in living color via 24/7 propaganda coverage.


----------



## Derideo_Te

editec said:


> The Masters are obviously ratcheting up the fear and hate  levels on purpose.
> 
> Tolerance is discouraged, dismissed as weakness or moral shortcoming.
> 
> Victims of systemic forces far beyond their control are faulted as self destructive and/or parasitic and written off as worthless losers.
> 
> The insanity of Old Testament values is revered and New Testament values are reviled.
> 
> This zeitgeist  is NOT by accident. This is contrived for some grand scheme that is unfolding before our very eyes in living color via 24/7 propaganda coverage.



The only problem with riding the hate and fear tiger is that at some point the masters have to get off.

And that is when the tiger leaps upon the closest prey...the masters themselves.


----------



## editec

Derideo_Te said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Masters are obviously ratcheting up the fear and hate  levels on purpose.
> 
> Tolerance is discouraged, dismissed as weakness or moral shortcoming.
> 
> Victims of systemic forces far beyond their control are faulted as self destructive and/or parasitic and written off as worthless losers.
> 
> The insanity of Old Testament values is revered and New Testament values are reviled.
> 
> This zeitgeist  is NOT by accident. This is contrived for some grand scheme that is unfolding before our very eyes in living color via 24/7 propaganda coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only problem with riding the hate and fear tiger is that at some point the masters have to get off.
> 
> And that is when the tiger leaps upon the closest prey...the masters themselves.
Click to expand...


The Masters are invisible, my friend.  

Its their tools that might suffer.  

But in their case not until they are no longer useful.


----------



## Mac1958

Derideo_Te said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are joking right? this has been going on long before America was a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a strange point.  Well of course it has.
> 
> That doesn't make it right, does it?  Or perhaps you think it does?
> 
> The First Amendment was a stroke of brilliance -- at least to those of us who don't believe in a powerful, highly authoritarian central government, maybe not someone like you -- and its natural and unofficial cousin freedom of expression are (in my humble opinion) more instrumental than any other right in making America the amazing country that it is/was.
> 
> Whether it's an official First Amendment issue or a more simple, culture-based freedom of expression issue, I cherish those rights, I rejoice in an environment of freedom of expression, I treasure *tolerance* and* diversity* of opinions.
> 
> *Clearly not all do.  This is one of the big lies of the American Left:  They proudly claim ownership of "tolerance" and "diversity", when in fact they do not truly practice either*.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the American Right lies about "religious freedom", "individual rights" and "privacy" when they are the first to stomp on them when it suits their agenda.
> 
> *Neither side has "clean hands" which is why the 1st amendment protects both sides from each other. *
> 
> In essence it is the pragmatic implementation of the "tolerance" that the OP wants while being blind to the faults on their own side.
Click to expand...



Good points.  I have, however, seen *many* conservatives *proudly *say that they're not tolerant.  I don't think it's a stretch to say that the Left trumpets "tolerance" and "diversity" as part of their very DNA, when that just isn't true, not even close.

I like your notion that "the 1st amendment protects both sides from each other."

.

.


----------



## Iceweasel

Mac1958 said:


> Good points.  I have, however, seen *many* conservatives *proudly *say that they're not tolerant.


And I've never seen a liberal say they are not tolerant. They say they are but what they mean is they tolerate opinions like their own.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have been reading my posts, you know that 'hitting' is the term I'm using for anything that physically or materially hurts somebody else.  And I see my opinion as more defensible than yours because if we become a society that settles all differences of opinion by hitting, the biggest bully will be able to force everybody else to conform to what the bully wants.  And it is a near certainty, based on history over thousands of years, that such a bully will be one that pretty much nobody but the bully's toadies will want to be the dominant bully.  And none of us will have any rights other than what the bully wants to allow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your point but I dont feel that is an answer.  Who determines if bullies should rule or not?  Where does this directive come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My hope is that it will come from a free people governing themselves and establishing a societal norm of liberty and freedom to be who and what we are without fear that the bully will beat us up if we are who and what we are.
Click to expand...


Do you feel that in order for this to be achieved then acceptance of all parties involved needs to be accomplished first?  To me it doesn't make sense that this would work for the following reasons:

Some parties are looked down upon due to propaganda.

Some are looked down upon due to fear.

Some are seen to be intellectually or physically inferior.

Some are seen to be evil.

How can you achieve such a utopian society with those existing elements?


----------



## Asclepias

Iceweasel said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good points.  I have, however, seen *many* conservatives *proudly *say that they're not tolerant.
> 
> 
> 
> And I've never seen a liberal say they are not tolerant. They say they are but what they mean is they tolerate opinions like their own.
Click to expand...


I think they mean they are tolerant of everyone except those that are intolerant.  I pointed this out earlier in the thread. Its against human nature to patiently listen to something that you see as backwards thinking because you see no benefit from listening to it other than reinforcing your conviction that you are right and the backwards speaker is wrong.


----------



## Katzndogz

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your point but I dont feel that is an answer.  Who determines if bullies should rule or not?  Where does this directive come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My hope is that it will come from a free people governing themselves and establishing a societal norm of liberty and freedom to be who and what we are without fear that the bully will beat us up if we are who and what we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you feel that in order for this to be achieved then acceptance of all parties involved needs to be accomplished first?  To me it doesn't make sense that this would work for the following reasons:
> 
> Some parties are looked down upon due to propaganda.
> 
> Some are looked down upon due to fear.
> 
> Some are seen to be intellectually or physically inferior.
> 
> Some are seen to be evil.
> 
> How can you achieve such a utopian society with those existing elements?
Click to expand...


There is no utopian society without absolute tyranny of even the most mundane and trivial matters.


----------



## whitehall

Asclepias said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good points.  I have, however, seen *many* conservatives *proudly *say that they're not tolerant.
> 
> 
> 
> And I've never seen a liberal say they are not tolerant. They say they are but what they mean is they tolerate opinions like their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think they mean they are tolerant of everyone except those that are intolerant.  I pointed this out earlier in the thread. Its against human nature to patiently listen to something that you see as backwards thinking because you see no benefit from listening to it other than reinforcing your conviction that you are right and the backwards speaker is wrong.
Click to expand...


The fact that you lump a segment of society under a convenient label and call (only) conservatives "intolerant" indicates bigotry and intolerance on your part.


----------



## Iceweasel

Asclepias said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I've never seen a liberal say they are not tolerant. They say they are but what they mean is they tolerate opinions like their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they mean they are tolerant of everyone except those that are intolerant.  I pointed this out earlier in the thread. Its against human nature to patiently listen to something that you see as backwards thinking because you see no benefit from listening to it other than reinforcing your conviction that you are right and the backwards speaker is wrong.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Hypocrisy is natural. Not good but perfectly natural. Not tolerating what you think is intolerance (defined by disagreeing with the left) is like saying you hate haters.


----------



## Asclepias

whitehall said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I've never seen a liberal say they are not tolerant. They say they are but what they mean is they tolerate opinions like their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they mean they are tolerant of everyone except those that are intolerant.  I pointed this out earlier in the thread. Its against human nature to patiently listen to something that you see as backwards thinking because you see no benefit from listening to it other than reinforcing your conviction that you are right and the backwards speaker is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you lump a segment of society under a convenient label and call (only) conservatives "intolerant" indicates bigotry and intolerance on your part.
Click to expand...


I think you are being sensitive as evidenced by seeing "conservative" in my post where there is no mention. From a Liberals viewpoint Conservatives or any other group that espouses intolerant ideas such as being against gay marriage is in fact intolerant.  Are you trying to say such a stance is tolerant?


----------



## whitehall

Liberals like to play the tolerance game. Michael Savage might be right when he calls liberalism a mental illness (is that intolerant?). Libs make a big show of being tolerant of sodomy, hairy men in dresses and boys using the girls room but they reserve the right to be intolerant of Christians and people who disagree with them.


----------



## Asclepias

whitehall said:


> Liberals like to play the tolerance game. Michael Savage might be right when he calls liberalism a mental illness (is that intolerant?). Libs make a big show of being tolerant of sodomy, hairy men in dresses and boys using the girls room but they reserve the right to be intolerant of Christians and people who disagree with them.



Now look who is labeling and avoiding my question to boot.


----------



## Derideo_Te

whitehall said:


> Liberals like to play the tolerance game. Michael Savage might be right when he calls liberalism a mental illness (is that intolerant?). Libs make a big show of being tolerant of sodomy, hairy men in dresses and boys using the girls room but they reserve the right to be intolerant of Christians and people who disagree with them.



If "liberalism a mental illness" then so are religion and conservatism by the same definition. If you want to believe someone with zero credibility when it comes to the facts then you are off on a tangent all on your own.


----------



## Plasmaball

Mac1958 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since we have a group of people who have appointed themselves judge, jury and executioner in terms what is acceptable, who is guilty and how punishment will be delivered, you and I don't have to bother ourselves with such reasonable points and issues.
> 
> Just be careful what you say.  After all, this is America.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> you are joking right? this has been going on long before America was a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What a strange point.  Well of course it has.
> 
> That doesn't make it right, does it?  Or perhaps you think it does?
> 
> The First Amendment was a stroke of brilliance -- at least to those of us who don't believe in a powerful, highly authoritarian central government, maybe not someone like you -- and its natural and unofficial cousin freedom of expression are (in my humble opinion) more instrumental than any other right in making America the amazing country that it is/was.
> 
> Whether it's an official First Amendment issue or a more simple, culture-based freedom of expression issue, I cherish those rights, I rejoice in an environment of freedom of expression, I treasure *tolerance* and* diversity* of opinions.
> 
> Clearly not all do.  This is one of the big lies of the American Left:  They proudly claim ownership of "tolerance" and "diversity", when in fact they do not truly practice either.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

yeah thats neat and all. This was never a first amendment issue to begin with so thats not a tangent we really needed to go down. 
But i'll humor you and put you in your place with assuming what i think with the first amendment. 

you should be able to say whatever you like and be protected under the first amendment. What the 1st does not do is protect you from people having opinions that disagree with you, mock you, shun you, and outright insult you. 

They have he right to boycott you and request that people not follow or watch you. They have the right to demand advertisers  not sponsor programs.

See you and Fox missed the problem on whats going on. Its not the fact that people are demanding firings. Its the fact for the most part these companies cave and do it. Which empowers these groups even more. Think of it like this. You state something and Fox agrees with it, even reps you. You are now reinforced with your opinion that yours is the right way.  Same goes for these groups. 

The reality is these companies should be ignoring these demands. They will see nothing will happen and the general public will move on to the next fight. This wont always be the case because sometimes people need to be fired. 

You and Fox are treating this as if its the Spanish Inquisition when its not. again thats the extreme end of what could happen. Sure it makes for a neat headline, but the reality is its not. 

Again something you both want to ignore. I have the right to ask the mods to ban you from this forum,because of something you stated.  the mods in turn have the right to tell me No. 

What you and Fox seem to want are no consequences for peoples actions. We dont live in that type of world, and we never will. 

*There is nothing more fundamentally more American than rising up and removing problems from our society. Has we had it your ways, We would still be under British rule. Because what the hell do you think the revolutionary war was? It was a group of people disliking what someone was doing and demanding they basically be fired from their position of ruling us. *]

In fact i find the Opinion the Op has been carrying to highly unamerican to the fullest.


----------



## Mac1958

.

Plasma, you want to be able to punish people for daring to voice their opinions.

I have no such goals, and I think such behavior is counterproductive.  

I'd rather keep lines of communication open, so that we can try to fix our problems.

I believe in tolerance for and diversity of opinion.  You don't have to.

We're not going to agree.

.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Foxfyre said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Tolerance" is a meaningless phrase.
> 
> Most of the examples of "intolerance" that you've mentioned in the OP are simply people disagreeing.
> 
> "Tolerance" doesn't mean that I have to agree with you, and the act of disagreeing, even being vocal with my disagreement, isn't being "intolerant".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one.  Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.
> 
> But I have to disagree that 'tolerance' is a meaningless phrase.  I am not speaking about disagreement or our voicing our disagreement.  And I didn't GIVE any examples in the OP.
> 
> But here are some examples of intolerance of people for no other reason than they are who and what they are.  These are by no means the ONLY examples:
> 
> 
> A demand that Phil Robertson be fired from A&E due to his answer given to a GQ Magazine interviewer.
> 
> A demand that Chick-fil-a be boycotted for no other reason than the CEO supports traditional marriage.
> 
> A demand that Ellen Degeneres be dumped from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason that she is gay.
> 
> An effort to financially ruin a talk show host for characterizing Sandra Fluke as a 'slut'.
> 
> A demand to censure Trent Lott by accusing him of supporting segregation when he was extemporaneously praising a colleague on his 100th birthday.
> 
> A campaign to intimidate advertisers of Saturday Night Live to dump the show due to 'offensive' content.
> 
> Shouting down or refusing to allow somebody to speak on a college campus who was invited to do so.​
> Note that none of the targets of these campaigns were doing anything to anybody.  They were not requiring contribution or participation by anybody.  The targets were being targeted purely for being who and what they are.
> 
> It was not sufficient for the attacking organizations to urge their membership to register their disagreement with or boycott the 'offending' parties.   They were out to physically and/or materially harm/punish those parties--actively hurt them--anyway they could.  For no other reason than they expressed an opinion the attacking organization didn't like and/or are who they are.
Click to expand...


GLAAD did  nothing wrong.


----------



## BillyZane

Foxfyre said:


> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?




I think you're exactly right. More people need to learn to just mind their own business. If you don't like what someone else says or does, oh well.Life goes on.

Some , slash that , many, people need to learn what actual harm means


----------



## Asclepias

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Plasma, you want to be able to punish people for daring to voice their opinions.
> 
> I have no such goals, and I think such behavior is counterproductive.
> 
> I'd rather keep lines of communication open, so that we can try to fix our problems.
> 
> I believe in tolerance for and diversity of opinion.  You don't have to.
> 
> We're not going to agree.
> 
> .



I think the removal or punishment of expression of ideas from society that are intolerant to the rights of other people to exist and enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else is beneficial.  There is no room in a progressive society for racism, sexism, bigotry etc. Maybe you can point out the benefit of such ideas?


----------



## R.D.

Care4all said:


> Let's see...trying to take the Dixie Chicks livelyhood away is okay, bashing to no end Michelle Obama is okay, bashing Barbara Streisand is okay, bashing John Kerry is okay and Teresa Heinz is okay, and Obama is okay, and Hillary when first lady is okay and Alec Baldwin is okay and the guy fired on Msnbc martin bashir is okay, And trying to take Michael Moore's livelihood away is okay.....and bashing the Reverend Wright and trying to take his livelihood away for his different opinion is all okay....
> 
> The list goes on and on and on and on, on both sides of the aisle, yet this Robertson thing surprises you all and makes you want to draw up "what is Fair" rules all of a sudden?
> 
> Sure it's a great discussion, yet won't change a thing....
> 
> Sadly, in this internet world where everyone has an opinion and can express their opinion anonymously in writing, I don't see the bashing and lies and trying to take someone's livelihood away because you differ with them.... ever changing...we crossed the tipping point and unfortunately there is no going back....unless a miracle from God.


 There is a huge difference.    Robertson wasn't bashed and/or threatened by pundits, consumers or loudmouths causing the uproar.   He  was fired for his religious beliefs in violation of civil rights laws and many people could care less.  

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-section 703


----------



## Asclepias

R.D. said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see...trying to take the Dixie Chicks livelyhood away is okay, bashing to no end Michelle Obama is okay, bashing Barbara Streisand is okay, bashing John Kerry is okay and Teresa Heinz is okay, and Obama is okay, and Hillary when first lady is okay and Alec Baldwin is okay and the guy fired on Msnbc martin bashir is okay, And trying to take Michael Moore's livelihood away is okay.....and bashing the Reverend Wright and trying to take his livelihood away for his different opinion is all okay....
> 
> The list goes on and on and on and on, on both sides of the aisle, yet this Robertson thing surprises you all and makes you want to draw up "what is Fair" rules all of a sudden?
> 
> Sure it's a great discussion, yet won't change a thing....
> 
> Sadly, in this internet world where everyone has an opinion and can express their opinion anonymously in writing, I don't see the bashing and lies and trying to take someone's livelihood away because you differ with them.... ever changing...we crossed the tipping point and unfortunately there is no going back....unless a miracle from God.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference.    Robertson wasn't bashed and/or threatened by pundits, consumers or loudmouths causing the uproar.   He  was fired for his religious beliefs in violation of civil rights laws and many people could care less.
> 
> Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-section 703
Click to expand...


Someone pointed out that was not applicable on another thread due to his contractual obligation to not give A&E a black eye.


----------



## R.D.

Asclepias said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see...trying to take the Dixie Chicks livelyhood away is okay, bashing to no end Michelle Obama is okay, bashing Barbara Streisand is okay, bashing John Kerry is okay and Teresa Heinz is okay, and Obama is okay, and Hillary when first lady is okay and Alec Baldwin is okay and the guy fired on Msnbc martin bashir is okay, And trying to take Michael Moore's livelihood away is okay.....and bashing the Reverend Wright and trying to take his livelihood away for his different opinion is all okay....
> 
> The list goes on and on and on and on, on both sides of the aisle, yet this Robertson thing surprises you all and makes you want to draw up "what is Fair" rules all of a sudden?
> 
> Sure it's a great discussion, yet won't change a thing....
> 
> Sadly, in this internet world where everyone has an opinion and can express their opinion anonymously in writing, I don't see the bashing and lies and trying to take someone's livelihood away because you differ with them.... ever changing...we crossed the tipping point and unfortunately there is no going back....unless a miracle from God.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference.    Robertson wasn't bashed and/or threatened by pundits, consumers or loudmouths causing the uproar.   He  was fired for his religious beliefs in violation of civil rights laws and many people could care less.
> 
> Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-section 703
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone pointed out that was not applicable on another thread due to his contractual obligation to not give A&E a black eye.
Click to expand...


Suspended, not fired.  My bad

He has already been reinstated, so much for that load of silly 'black eye'  defense.


----------



## hunarcy

Iceweasel said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because denying someone quality housing based on their sexual preference is vile and reprehensible.  You aren't "contributing to sodomy" by treating people fairly.  You contribute to making this world a better place.  It's not up to you to judge.
> 
> 
> 
> You just contradicted yourself. If someone truly finds homosexuality disgusting why should your morality fore them to rent to a same sex couple? You are saying your definition of vile is superior to theirs.
> 
> I would agree with you if you are talking about a government job or housing since gays pay taxes as well. But you didn't buy the property so you shouldn't decide if a guy wants to rent to a young black heterosexual couple instead of two white lesbians.
Click to expand...


No, I didn't contradict myself at all.  If you offer the housing to the public for rent, then anyone who is part of the public should be allowed to rent it, unless there's some reasonable reason (bad credit or a history of trashing rental properties) to say no.  Being a same sex couple is not a reasonable reason.


----------



## BillyZane

Asclepias said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see...trying to take the Dixie Chicks livelyhood away is okay, bashing to no end Michelle Obama is okay, bashing Barbara Streisand is okay, bashing John Kerry is okay and Teresa Heinz is okay, and Obama is okay, and Hillary when first lady is okay and Alec Baldwin is okay and the guy fired on Msnbc martin bashir is okay, And trying to take Michael Moore's livelihood away is okay.....and bashing the Reverend Wright and trying to take his livelihood away for his different opinion is all okay....
> 
> The list goes on and on and on and on, on both sides of the aisle, yet this Robertson thing surprises you all and makes you want to draw up "what is Fair" rules all of a sudden?
> 
> Sure it's a great discussion, yet won't change a thing....
> 
> Sadly, in this internet world where everyone has an opinion and can express their opinion anonymously in writing, I don't see the bashing and lies and trying to take someone's livelihood away because you differ with them.... ever changing...we crossed the tipping point and unfortunately there is no going back....unless a miracle from God.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference.    Robertson wasn't bashed and/or threatened by pundits, consumers or loudmouths causing the uproar.   He  was fired for his religious beliefs in violation of civil rights laws and many people could care less.
> 
> Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-section 703
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone pointed out that was not applicable on another thread due to his contractual obligation to not give A&E a black eye.
Click to expand...


If a contract violates federal law it is invalid.

Now I happen to believe that an employer ought be able hire/fire and or serve anyone he likes, but that is not the case, and you can not sign a contract which violates that law.


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good points.  I have, however, seen *many* conservatives *proudly *say that they're not tolerant.
> 
> 
> 
> And I've never seen a liberal say they are not tolerant. They say they are but what they mean is they tolerate opinions like their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think they mean they are tolerant of everyone except those that are intolerant.  I pointed this out earlier in the thread. Its against human nature to patiently listen to something that you see as backwards thinking because you see no benefit from listening to it other than reinforcing your conviction that you are right and the backwards speaker is wrong.
Click to expand...


But, perhaps as you listen to the "backwards" thinking, you'll be able to point out the flaw in the argument and sway people away from that sort of thinking.  The only people I put on ignore are those who are so dogmatic that they can't listen to an opposing viewpoint and those I'm sure are trolling to disrupt a conversation.  I tolerate everyone else's opinions and try to discuss things.


----------



## Plasmaball

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Plasma, you want to be able to punish people for daring to voice their opinions.
> 
> I have no such goals, and I think such behavior is counterproductive.
> 
> I'd rather keep lines of communication open, so that we can try to fix our problems.
> 
> I believe in tolerance for and diversity of opinion.  You don't have to.
> 
> We're not going to agree.
> 
> .



Damn right i do, and if such company decides to hear my voice then so be it. If they decide to ignore it then so be it. 

Not all opinions are valid, and the fact in this day in age that all opinions must be heard because thats the set-up we have now. You damn right i will mock, insult, shun any opinion i deem moronic. 

See i was Tolerant of Phil saying what he said. I am also tolerant of Glaad asking for A&E to fire him. I am also tolerant of A&E not firing him. 

*Opinions are a wonderful thing. But this is what you are doing. You are taking a Scientist who says the data shows Global warming is an issue,a person on a random message board, and giving them equal weight because you think they both have valid opinions. *

this is everything wrong with the current set-up. You legitimize invalid arguments. 

Lastly thats the response you give me? I never want to see you complain about nobody giving you answers back in your threads.


----------



## Asclepias

R.D. said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference.    Robertson wasn't bashed and/or threatened by pundits, consumers or loudmouths causing the uproar.   He  was fired for his religious beliefs in violation of civil rights laws and many people could care less.
> 
> Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-section 703
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone pointed out that was not applicable on another thread due to his contractual obligation to not give A&E a black eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suspended, not fired.  My bad
> 
> He has already been reinstated, so much for that load of silly 'black eye'  defense.
Click to expand...


It wasn't silly, it was a preemptive move on the part of A&E. Once they realized the only people that watched the show were like minded ignorant people they unsuspended him. Money speaks more than morals.


----------



## hunarcy

BillyZane said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference.    Robertson wasn't bashed and/or threatened by pundits, consumers or loudmouths causing the uproar.   He  was fired for his religious beliefs in violation of civil rights laws and many people could care less.
> 
> Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-section 703
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone pointed out that was not applicable on another thread due to his contractual obligation to not give A&E a black eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a contract violates federal law it is invalid.
> 
> Now I happen to believe that an employer ought be able hire/fire and or serve anyone he likes, but that is not the case, and you can not sign a contract which violates that law.
Click to expand...


The contract argument would be so much more effective if Robertson HAD a contract with A&E.


----------



## Asclepias

BillyZane said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference.    Robertson wasn't bashed and/or threatened by pundits, consumers or loudmouths causing the uproar.   He  was fired for his religious beliefs in violation of civil rights laws and many people could care less.
> 
> Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-section 703
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone pointed out that was not applicable on another thread due to his contractual obligation to not give A&E a black eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a contract violates federal law it is invalid.
> 
> Now I happen to believe that an employer ought be able hire/fire and or serve anyone he likes, but that is not the case, and you can not sign a contract which violates that law.
Click to expand...


It was not invalid. Embarrassing the company is not specific to religion.


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone pointed out that was not applicable on another thread due to his contractual obligation to not give A&E a black eye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suspended, not fired.  My bad
> 
> He has already been reinstated, so much for that load of silly 'black eye'  defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't silly, it was a preemptive move on the part of A&E. Once they realized the only people that watched the show were like minded ignorant people they unsuspended him. Money speaks more than morals.
Click to expand...


Is calling people names to marginalize and belittle them intolerant and bigoted?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

NYcarbineer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Tolerance" is a meaningless phrase.
> 
> Most of the examples of "intolerance" that you've mentioned in the OP are simply people disagreeing.
> 
> "Tolerance" doesn't mean that I have to agree with you, and the act of disagreeing, even being vocal with my disagreement, isn't being "intolerant".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one.  Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.
> 
> But I have to disagree that 'tolerance' is a meaningless phrase.  I am not speaking about disagreement or our voicing our disagreement.  And I didn't GIVE any examples in the OP.
> 
> But here are some examples of intolerance of people for no other reason than they are who and what they are.  These are by no means the ONLY examples:
> 
> 
> A demand that Phil Robertson be fired from A&E due to his answer given to a GQ Magazine interviewer.
> 
> A demand that Chick-fil-a be boycotted for no other reason than the CEO supports traditional marriage.
> 
> A demand that Ellen Degeneres be dumped from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason that she is gay.
> 
> An effort to financially ruin a talk show host for characterizing Sandra Fluke as a 'slut'.
> 
> A demand to censure Trent Lott by accusing him of supporting segregation when he was extemporaneously praising a colleague on his 100th birthday.
> 
> A campaign to intimidate advertisers of Saturday Night Live to dump the show due to 'offensive' content.
> 
> Shouting down or refusing to allow somebody to speak on a college campus who was invited to do so.​
> Note that none of the targets of these campaigns were doing anything to anybody.  They were not requiring contribution or participation by anybody.  The targets were being targeted purely for being who and what they are.
> 
> It was not sufficient for the attacking organizations to urge their membership to register their disagreement with or boycott the 'offending' parties.   They were out to physically and/or materially harm/punish those parties--actively hurt them--anyway they could.  For no other reason than they expressed an opinion the attacking organization didn't like and/or are who they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GLAAD did  nothing wrong.
Click to expand...


Correct.

It responded as it saw fit, where the merits of its argument will be evaluated by private society.


----------



## Iceweasel

hunarcy said:


> No, I didn't contradict myself at all.  If you offer the housing to the public for rent, then anyone who is part of the public should be allowed to rent it, unless there's some reasonable reason (bad credit or a history of trashing rental properties) to say no.  Being a same sex couple is not a reasonable reason.


Landlords aren't offering services to the public. They are offering the service to an individual(s). Landlords pick and choose until the next time. It isn't like a public swimming pool. And you are not qualified to dictate what is reasonable for everyone else. In fact, that's very unreasonable. Liberals seem to always feel that society as a whole owns the business. Except when paying the bills comes along.


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I've never seen a liberal say they are not tolerant. They say they are but what they mean is they tolerate opinions like their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they mean they are tolerant of everyone except those that are intolerant.  I pointed this out earlier in the thread. Its against human nature to patiently listen to something that you see as backwards thinking because you see no benefit from listening to it other than reinforcing your conviction that you are right and the backwards speaker is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, perhaps as you listen to the "backwards" thinking, you'll be able to point out the flaw in the argument and sway people away from that sort of thinking.  The only people I put on ignore are those who are so dogmatic that they can't listen to an opposing viewpoint and those I'm sure are trolling to disrupt a conversation.  I tolerate everyone else's opinions and try to discuss things.
Click to expand...


I do. I stated earlier I listened to Rush for a while.  The problem is that people would rather go on being intolerant instead of admitting they could be wrong.



> Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
> 
> John Kenneth Galbraith


----------



## BillyZane

hunarcy said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because denying someone quality housing based on their sexual preference is vile and reprehensible.  You aren't "contributing to sodomy" by treating people fairly.  You contribute to making this world a better place.  It's not up to you to judge.
> 
> 
> 
> You just contradicted yourself. If someone truly finds homosexuality disgusting why should your morality fore them to rent to a same sex couple? You are saying your definition of vile is superior to theirs.
> 
> I would agree with you if you are talking about a government job or housing since gays pay taxes as well. But you didn't buy the property so you shouldn't decide if a guy wants to rent to a young black heterosexual couple instead of two white lesbians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't contradict myself at all.  If you offer the housing to the public for rent, then anyone who is part of the public should be allowed to rent it, unless there's some reasonable reason (bad credit or a history of trashing rental properties) to say no.  Being a same sex couple is not a reasonable reason.
Click to expand...


Why? If I own something I damned well should be able to sell it to whomever I like, including my labor

I concede this was good law back in the 60s when for the most part minorities were being turned down from nearly every business, but even at that its UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as the federal government is given NO authority to demand such things..


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suspended, not fired.  My bad
> 
> He has already been reinstated, so much for that load of silly 'black eye'  defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't silly, it was a preemptive move on the part of A&E. Once they realized the only people that watched the show were like minded ignorant people they unsuspended him. Money speaks more than morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is calling people names to marginalize and belittle them intolerant and bigoted?
Click to expand...


Yes


----------



## hunarcy

Iceweasel said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't contradict myself at all.  If you offer the housing to the public for rent, then anyone who is part of the public should be allowed to rent it, unless there's some reasonable reason (bad credit or a history of trashing rental properties) to say no.  Being a same sex couple is not a reasonable reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Landlords aren't offering services to the public. They are offering the service to an individual(s). Landlords pick and choose until the next time. It isn't like a public swimming pool. And you are not qualified to dictate what is reasonable for everyone else. In fact, that's very unreasonable. Liberals seem to always feel that society as a whole owns the business. Except when paying the bills comes along.
Click to expand...


Good grief.  When the landlord advertises a property, he offers it to the public.  If you can't be serious in your argument, there's no point in continuing.  And, don't think you're more conservative than I am.


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they mean they are tolerant of everyone except those that are intolerant.  I pointed this out earlier in the thread. Its against human nature to patiently listen to something that you see as backwards thinking because you see no benefit from listening to it other than reinforcing your conviction that you are right and the backwards speaker is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, perhaps as you listen to the "backwards" thinking, you'll be able to point out the flaw in the argument and sway people away from that sort of thinking.  The only people I put on ignore are those who are so dogmatic that they can't listen to an opposing viewpoint and those I'm sure are trolling to disrupt a conversation.  I tolerate everyone else's opinions and try to discuss things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do. I stated earlier I listened to Rush for a while.  The problem is that people would rather go on being intolerant instead of admitting they could be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
> 
> John Kenneth Galbraith
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


And yet, now we have integrated schools, fair housing laws and a black president.  Seems there's tolerance after all.


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't silly, it was a preemptive move on the part of A&E. Once they realized the only people that watched the show were like minded ignorant people they unsuspended him. Money speaks more than morals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is calling people names to marginalize and belittle them intolerant and bigoted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes
Click to expand...


I agree.  So, let's stop calling people names like "ignorant".  I know you'll say that it was just a description, but it stifles discussion.


----------



## R.D.

Asclepias said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone pointed out that was not applicable on another thread due to his contractual obligation to not give A&E a black eye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suspended, not fired.  My bad
> 
> He has already been reinstated, so much for that load of silly 'black eye'  defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't silly, it was a preemptive move on the part of A&E. Once they realized the only people that watched the show were like minded ignorant people they unsuspended him. Money speaks more than morals.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.  

You see it exactly for what it was but prefer to ignore it at the same time.  None so blind than those who refuse to see


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, perhaps as you listen to the "backwards" thinking, you'll be able to point out the flaw in the argument and sway people away from that sort of thinking.  The only people I put on ignore are those who are so dogmatic that they can't listen to an opposing viewpoint and those I'm sure are trolling to disrupt a conversation.  I tolerate everyone else's opinions and try to discuss things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do. I stated earlier I listened to Rush for a while.  The problem is that people would rather go on being intolerant instead of admitting they could be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
> 
> John Kenneth Galbraith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, now we have integrated schools, fair housing laws and a black president.  Seems there's tolerance after all.
Click to expand...


Do you think thats a result of giving intolerant people a voice or inspite of?  it was forced tolerance which again points out that being intolerant of intolerance is not a vice.


----------



## hunarcy

BillyZane said:


> Why? If I own something I damned well should be able to sell it to whomever I like, including my labor
> 
> I concede this was good law back in the 60s when for the most part minorities were being turned down from nearly every business, but even at that its UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as the federal government is given NO authority to demand such things..



True.  But, if you offer it publically, everyone should have an equal chance to buy it.  And, the criteria for selling should be best price, not who sleeps with who.


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is calling people names to marginalize and belittle them intolerant and bigoted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  So, let's stop calling people names like "ignorant".  I know you'll say that it was just a description, but it stifles discussion.
Click to expand...


Ignorant simply means you do not know. I'm not being derogatory. There are plenty of things I am ignorant about.


----------



## R.D.

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't silly, it was a preemptive move on the part of A&E. Once they realized the only people that watched the show were like minded ignorant people they unsuspended him. Money speaks more than morals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is calling people names to marginalize and belittle them intolerant and bigoted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes
Click to expand...


----------



## Asclepias

R.D. said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suspended, not fired.  My bad
> 
> He has already been reinstated, so much for that load of silly 'black eye'  defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't silly, it was a preemptive move on the part of A&E. Once they realized the only people that watched the show were like minded ignorant people they unsuspended him. Money speaks more than morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> You see it exactly for what it was but prefer to ignore it at the same time.  None so blind than those who refuse to see
Click to expand...

What is it that I am ignoring?


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do. I stated earlier I listened to Rush for a while.  The problem is that people would rather go on being intolerant instead of admitting they could be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, now we have integrated schools, fair housing laws and a black president.  Seems there's tolerance after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think thats a result of giving intolerant people a voice or inspite of?  it was forced tolerance which again points out that being intolerant of intolerance is not a vice.
Click to expand...


No, it shows why we should allow tolerance to all ideas.  For, if society had not been tolerant to the idea of integration, people would never have been able to push the change through.


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, now we have integrated schools, fair housing laws and a black president.  Seems there's tolerance after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think thats a result of giving intolerant people a voice or inspite of?  it was forced tolerance which again points out that being intolerant of intolerance is not a vice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it shows why we should allow tolerance to all ideas.  For, if society had not been tolerant to the idea of integration, people would never have been able to push the change through.
Click to expand...


Are you trying to be funny here? Society was not tolerant. In your on words it had to be  pushed through after a lot of people died.


----------



## Iceweasel

hunarcy said:


> Good grief.  When the landlord advertises a property, he offers it to the public.  If you can't be serious in your argument, there's no point in continuing.  And, don't think you're more conservative than I am.


An insult is a poor excuse for an argument. Landlord do screen, the "public" is only a candidate, he or she has no right to be served. Even so, it should not be up to the state to tell the landlord who to rent to.


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think thats a result of giving intolerant people a voice or inspite of?  it was forced tolerance which again points out that being intolerant of intolerance is not a vice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it shows why we should allow tolerance to all ideas.  For, if society had not been tolerant to the idea of integration, people would never have been able to push the change through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to be funny here? Society was not tolerant. In your on words it had to be  pushed through after a lot of people died.
Click to expand...


No, I'm not trying to be funny.  If society had been as intolerant as you perceive it, the idea of integration would never have been allowed to be proposed.  However, the idea WAS tolerated and enough people were convinced by the argument that court cases were brought forward and change began.  As people learned, more and more reforms were accepted.  Yet, you would censor people who have ideas that are different than yours, which is the same position that Bull Connor would have taken back in Alabama.


----------



## Iceweasel

Asclepias said:


> Are you trying to be funny here? Society was not tolerant. In your on words it had to be  pushed through after a lot of people died.


Exactly. I lived in the segregated south and can tell you that integration wasn't popular. In fact, they were intergrating schools as slowly as possible and only up to the fourth grade at the time I was in high school. 

It had more to do with the Constitution than tolerance.


----------



## hunarcy

Iceweasel said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief.  When the landlord advertises a property, he offers it to the public.  If you can't be serious in your argument, there's no point in continuing.  And, don't think you're more conservative than I am.
> 
> 
> 
> An insult is a poor excuse for an argument. Landlord do screen, the "public" is only a candidate, he or she has no right to be served. Even so, it should not be up to the state to tell the landlord who to rent to.
Click to expand...


I wasn't trying to insult you, I merely want  you to be serious in your argument.  I can agree that no one has the right to tell you who to choose, but it is wrong headed to base the choice on who sleeps with who.  It should be based on who will pay the price while taking the best care of the property.

And, the State doesn't tell you who to rent to...it tells you what criteria you may NOT use to make your choice, but it never says you must rent to a specific person or group of people.


----------



## hunarcy

Iceweasel said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to be funny here? Society was not tolerant. In your on words it had to be  pushed through after a lot of people died.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. I lived in the segregated south and can tell you that integration wasn't popular. In fact, they were intergrating schools as slowly as possible and only up to the fourth grade at the time I was in high school.
> 
> It had more to do with the Constitution than tolerance.
Click to expand...


I agree integration came slowly.  And it came slower in the North than it did in the South.  But, as integration showed that society could continue without collapse, tolerance began to grow.  

Where did the Constitution get its tolerance?


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it shows why we should allow tolerance to all ideas.  For, if society had not been tolerant to the idea of integration, people would never have been able to push the change through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to be funny here? Society was not tolerant. In your on words it had to be  pushed through after a lot of people died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not trying to be funny.  If society had been as intolerant as you perceive it, the idea of integration would never have been allowed to be proposed.  However, the idea WAS tolerated and enough people were convinced by the argument that court cases were brought forward and change began.  As people learned, more and more reforms were accepted.  Yet, you would censor people who have ideas that are different than yours, which is the same position that Bull Connor would have taken back in Alabama.
Click to expand...


I think you are confused with what my premise is. Advocating for equal rights does not restrict the rights of others. Advocating for banning gay marriage for example does. If my idea is tolerant of everyone minus the intolerant people then thumbs up. If my idea is intolerant of other people then thumbs down. I'm not banning different ideas I'm banning intolerant ones


----------



## Asclepias

Iceweasel said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to be funny here? Society was not tolerant. In your on words it had to be  pushed through after a lot of people died.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. I lived in the segregated south and can tell you that integration wasn't popular. In fact, they were intergrating schools as slowly as possible and only up to the fourth grade at the time I was in high school.
> 
> *It had more to do with the Constitution than tolerance*.
Click to expand...


What do you mean by the bolded statement?


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to be funny here? Society was not tolerant. In your on words it had to be  pushed through after a lot of people died.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not trying to be funny.  If society had been as intolerant as you perceive it, the idea of integration would never have been allowed to be proposed.  However, the idea WAS tolerated and enough people were convinced by the argument that court cases were brought forward and change began.  As people learned, more and more reforms were accepted.  Yet, you would censor people who have ideas that are different than yours, which is the same position that Bull Connor would have taken back in Alabama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are confused with what my premise is. Advocating for equal rights does not restrict the rights of others. Advocating for banning gay marriage for example does. If my idea is tolerant of everyone minus the intolerant people then thumbs up. If my idea is intolerant of other people then thumbs down. I'm not banning different ideas I'm banning intolerant ones
Click to expand...


But, the "intolerant ones" ARE different ideas than you have.  If you think an idea is intolerant, you must argue against the merits of the intolerant idea.  But, you shouldn't try to stifle the idea and punish people for having it.


----------



## R.D.

Asclepias said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't silly, it was a preemptive move on the part of A&E. Once they realized the only people that watched the show were like minded ignorant people they unsuspended him. Money speaks more than morals.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> You see it exactly for what it was but prefer to ignore it at the same time.  None so blind than those who refuse to see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is it that I am ignoring?
Click to expand...


Preemptive strike how?   Black eye from what?  Religious people are ignorant, but you are not conenscending?   

Your view is all that matters, but you want to convince yourself you're tolerant and openminded on the issue.   They, having caved so fast, is more an indication they were both wrong legally and they overestimated how many would cheer and embrace a true showing of intolerance and bigotry....both from the left and the right.


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not trying to be funny.  If society had been as intolerant as you perceive it, the idea of integration would never have been allowed to be proposed.  However, the idea WAS tolerated and enough people were convinced by the argument that court cases were brought forward and change began.  As people learned, more and more reforms were accepted.  Yet, you would censor people who have ideas that are different than yours, which is the same position that Bull Connor would have taken back in Alabama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are confused with what my premise is. Advocating for equal rights does not restrict the rights of others. Advocating for banning gay marriage for example does. If my idea is tolerant of everyone minus the intolerant people then thumbs up. If my idea is intolerant of other people then thumbs down. I'm not banning different ideas I'm banning intolerant ones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, the "intolerant ones" ARE different ideas than you have.  If you think an idea is intolerant, you must argue against the merits of the intolerant idea.  But, you shouldn't try to stifle the idea and punish people for having it.
Click to expand...


The intolerant ideas are only a subset of the different ideas. For example I believe the way to true wealth is being an business owner. Some people may think its by working for someone else. I dont agree but it does not make their idea intolerant.


----------



## Asclepias

R.D. said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> You see it exactly for what it was but prefer to ignore it at the same time.  None so blind than those who refuse to see
> 
> 
> 
> What is it that I am ignoring?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Preemptive strike how?   Black eye from what?  Religious people are ignorant, but you are not conenscending?
> 
> Your view is all that matters, but you want to convince yourself you're tolerant and openminded on the issue.   They, having caved so fast, is more an indication they were both wrong legally and they overestimated how many would cheer and embrace a true showing of intolerance and bigotry....both from the left and the right.
Click to expand...


Preemptive:
A&E upon hearing the comments in the media decided to look like they disapproved.

Black Eye?
Does this really need to be explained?

Ignorant
Black people were happy being oppressed.


----------



## R.D.

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are confused with what my premise is. Advocating for equal rights does not restrict the rights of others. Advocating for banning gay marriage for example does. If my idea is tolerant of everyone minus the intolerant people then thumbs up. If my idea is intolerant of other people then thumbs down. I'm not banning different ideas I'm banning intolerant ones
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, the "intolerant ones" ARE different ideas than you have.  If you think an idea is intolerant, you must argue against the merits of the intolerant idea.  But, you shouldn't try to stifle the idea and punish people for having it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The intolerant ideas are only a subset of the different ideas. For example I believe the way to true wealth is being an business owner. Some people may think its by working for someone else. I dont agree but it does not make their idea intolerant.
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

It seems that some here are intentionally refusing or failing to discern the difference between thinking/believing something and doing something to somebody else.  I may think Asclepias to be the most bigoted, intolerant, and ignorant person in the world because he thinks people who watch A&E's Duck Dynasty are ignorant, but I do not harm Asclepias in the least because I think that.  Nor does he harm a single Duck Dynasty fan by holding that opinion of them.

I am an advocate for demonizing and squelching the current concept of political correctness that translates into a politics of personal destruction for anybody who wanders off the PC plantation of th day or offends anybody in a 'protected' class.  But I am not demanding that any one of you who do not agree with me on that be harmed or disciplined in any way.

The opinions that we hold harm nobody.  It is ACTING on those opinions or intending to act on those opinions that can harm people.  But too many here can't seem to make the distinction between those two things.


----------



## Asclepias

R.D. said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, the "intolerant ones" ARE different ideas than you have.  If you think an idea is intolerant, you must argue against the merits of the intolerant idea.  But, you shouldn't try to stifle the idea and punish people for having it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The intolerant ideas are only a subset of the different ideas. For example I believe the way to true wealth is being an business owner. Some people may think its by working for someone else. I dont agree but it does not make their idea intolerant.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


What is it you don't understand?


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are confused with what my premise is. Advocating for equal rights does not restrict the rights of others. Advocating for banning gay marriage for example does. If my idea is tolerant of everyone minus the intolerant people then thumbs up. If my idea is intolerant of other people then thumbs down. I'm not banning different ideas I'm banning intolerant ones
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, the "intolerant ones" ARE different ideas than you have.  If you think an idea is intolerant, you must argue against the merits of the intolerant idea.  But, you shouldn't try to stifle the idea and punish people for having it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The intolerant ideas are only a subset of the different ideas. For example I believe the way to true wealth is being an business owner. Some people may think its by working for someone else. I dont agree but it does not make their idea intolerant.
Click to expand...


Ok, but what you seem to be trying to do is say "I'm tolerant, sometimes."  But, that doesn't absolve you from being intolerant other times.  To me, it's an offshoot of the "I have a black friend so I can't be a racist" argument and that ultimately fails.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> It seems that some here are intentionally refusing or failing to discern the difference between thinking/believing something and doing something to somebody else.  I may think Asclepias to be the most bigoted, intolerant, and ignorant person in the world because he thinks people who watch A&E's Duck Dynasty are ignorant, but I do not harm Asclepias in the least because I think that.  Nor does he harm a single Duck Dynasty fan by holding that opinion of them.
> 
> I am an advocate for demonizing and squelching the current concept of political correctness that translates into a politics of personal destruction for anybody who wanders off the demanded plantation or offends anybody in a 'protected' class.  But I am not demanding that any one of you who do not agree with me on that be harmed or disciplined in any way.
> 
> The opinions that we hold harm nobody.  It is ACTING on those opinions or intending to act on those opinions that can harm people.  But too many here can't seem to make the distinction between those two things.



I agree with Fox up to the point that once a intolerant idea is expressed for public consumption, any and all means are fair play to rid the earth of that sentiment being circulated again. Progress is slowed down by intolerant ideas. Squashing them from being expressed and allowing the concept of gradualism to deal with the inherent damaging aspects of those thoughts will speed up progress.


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> Ignorant
> Black people were happy being oppressed.



That would have been ignorant if that was what he said.

I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. Im with the blacks, because were white trash. Were going across the field.... Theyre singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, I tell you what: These doggone white peoplenot a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.

He never said Blacks were happy being oppressed.


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, the "intolerant ones" ARE different ideas than you have.  If you think an idea is intolerant, you must argue against the merits of the intolerant idea.  But, you shouldn't try to stifle the idea and punish people for having it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The intolerant ideas are only a subset of the different ideas. For example I believe the way to true wealth is being an business owner. Some people may think its by working for someone else. I dont agree but it does not make their idea intolerant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, but what you seem to be trying to do is say "I'm tolerant, sometimes."  But, that doesn't absolve you from being intolerant other times.  To me, it's an offshoot of the "I have a black friend so I can't be a racist" argument and that ultimately fails.
Click to expand...


You are correct. I am tolerant until I encounter intolerance. I have no moral dilemma with that stance.  I don't see how it relates to "having a black friend so I cant be racist".


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to be funny here? Society was not tolerant. In your on words it had to be  pushed through after a lot of people died.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not trying to be funny.  If society had been as intolerant as you perceive it, the idea of integration would never have been allowed to be proposed.  However, the idea WAS tolerated and enough people were convinced by the argument that court cases were brought forward and change began.  As people learned, more and more reforms were accepted.  Yet, you would censor people who have ideas that are different than yours, which is the same position that Bull Connor would have taken back in Alabama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are confused with what my premise is. Advocating for equal rights does not restrict the rights of others. Advocating for banning gay marriage for example does. If my idea is tolerant of everyone minus the intolerant people then thumbs up. If my idea is intolerant of other people then thumbs down. I'm not banning different ideas I'm banning intolerant ones
Click to expand...


You might wish to ban ideas that YOU see as intolerant but where do you get the authority to determine what is intolerant?  Unless we tolerate the 'intolerant' ideas of others--ideas that coerce or harm nobody--are we not just as intolerant?

That is the paradox.  The conundrum comes in what separates critical conclusions from intolerance in the first place, and should we not be intolerant of what we believe to be harmful?


----------



## midcan5

Sigmund Freud here, well I'll be, this here OP purports to be about intolerance about intolerance and thus the only intolerance is intolerance about intolerance. And some thought ego id and superego were complicated. Seems to this old codger that some just seem to want to apologize for intolerance, like apologies make it all go away, why I sure don't remember this sorta apology for Mr Bashir or the Dixie Chicks, must be intolerance about intolerance ain't all the same intolerance. Therein lies the complexity about intolerance, seems some like some intolerance but not other intolerance or is that some intolerance ain't intolerance while other intolerance is intolerant. Jeez soon I gonna need to get on the couch myself and see if I can clear up this here complexity of intolerances. Or just maybe this intolerance is kinda relative to the relativist. You think. 

"Acts are not made right or wrong simply by people believing that they are right or wrong. ... Relativists think that moral absolutism is a bad view, encouraging intolerance and so on. But I ask them: Is absolutism only bad in a relative way -- only wrong for them and not necessarily for others? If so, then it might not be wrong for me. I can believe in it and act on it. On the other hand, if it is wrong for everybody, then it is absolutely wrong, which contradicts the relativist's [own] position. So moral relativism is either self-refuting or it has no claim on my moral beliefs."  Colin McGinn


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that some here are intentionally refusing or failing to discern the difference between thinking/believing something and doing something to somebody else.  I may think Asclepias to be the most bigoted, intolerant, and ignorant person in the world because he thinks people who watch A&E's Duck Dynasty are ignorant, but I do not harm Asclepias in the least because I think that.  Nor does he harm a single Duck Dynasty fan by holding that opinion of them.
> 
> I am an advocate for demonizing and squelching the current concept of political correctness that translates into a politics of personal destruction for anybody who wanders off the demanded plantation or offends anybody in a 'protected' class.  But I am not demanding that any one of you who do not agree with me on that be harmed or disciplined in any way.
> 
> The opinions that we hold harm nobody.  It is ACTING on those opinions or intending to act on those opinions that can harm people.  But too many here can't seem to make the distinction between those two things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Fox up to the point that once a intolerant idea is expressed for public consumption, any and all means are fair play to rid the earth of that sentiment being circulated again. Progress is slowed down by intolerant ideas. Squashing them from being expressed and allowing the concept of gradualism to deal with the inherent damaging aspects of those thoughts will speed up progress.
Click to expand...


I can't agree that "any and all means are fair play".  Censorship is never an answer.  Even if it slows down that which you consider progress, allowing everyone to express their ideas and then judging those ideas on their merits are the ONLY way that true progress will be achieved.


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant
> Black people were happy being oppressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would have been ignorant if that was what he said.
> 
> I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. Im with the blacks, because were white trash. Were going across the field.... *Theyre singing and happy*. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, I tell you what: These doggone white peoplenot a word!... *Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues*.
> 
> He never said Blacks were happy being oppressed.
Click to expand...


Those were my words or I would have quoted them.  I bolded the ignorant ones.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not trying to be funny.  If society had been as intolerant as you perceive it, the idea of integration would never have been allowed to be proposed.  However, the idea WAS tolerated and enough people were convinced by the argument that court cases were brought forward and change began.  As people learned, more and more reforms were accepted.  Yet, you would censor people who have ideas that are different than yours, which is the same position that Bull Connor would have taken back in Alabama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are confused with what my premise is. Advocating for equal rights does not restrict the rights of others. Advocating for banning gay marriage for example does. If my idea is tolerant of everyone minus the intolerant people then thumbs up. If my idea is intolerant of other people then thumbs down. I'm not banning different ideas I'm banning intolerant ones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might wish to ban ideas that YOU see as intolerant but where do you get the authority to determine what is intolerant?  Unless we tolerate the 'intolerant' ideas of others--ideas that coerce or harm nobody--are we not just as intolerant?
> 
> That is the paradox.  The conundrum comes in what separates critical conclusions from intolerance in the first place, and should we not be intolerant of what we believe to be harmful?
Click to expand...


I get that authority from a variety of sources but mainly myself. I agree that banning intolerant ideas is intolerance.  However, intolerance in the face of intolerance provides no paradox or conundrum for me. I'm very comfortable with it.  I dont believe in harming people but I will if they do something to me. Same exact principle.


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The intolerant ideas are only a subset of the different ideas. For example I believe the way to true wealth is being an business owner. Some people may think its by working for someone else. I dont agree but it does not make their idea intolerant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but what you seem to be trying to do is say "I'm tolerant, sometimes."  But, that doesn't absolve you from being intolerant other times.  To me, it's an offshoot of the "I have a black friend so I can't be a racist" argument and that ultimately fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct. I am tolerant until I encounter intolerance. I have no moral dilemma with that stance.  I don't see how it relates to "having a black friend so I cant be racist".
Click to expand...


So, you are tolerant until you aren't tolerant and then you become a censor, but you don't see how it "having a black friend so I cant be racist".?   The people who had a "black friend" were fine with their friend, but when they encountered a Black they didn't agree with, they felt fully justified to punish that Black person because he was "uppity", right?  And you feel perfectly fine tolerating anything that's said except that which you deem intolerant, then you feel fully justified to use any means to punish that person for having a different idea.

I feel you have the most excellent hopes for all of us and our society, but in my opinion, the way you want to go about it will not lead to the society you hope to achieve.


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that some here are intentionally refusing or failing to discern the difference between thinking/believing something and doing something to somebody else.  I may think Asclepias to be the most bigoted, intolerant, and ignorant person in the world because he thinks people who watch A&E's Duck Dynasty are ignorant, but I do not harm Asclepias in the least because I think that.  Nor does he harm a single Duck Dynasty fan by holding that opinion of them.
> 
> I am an advocate for demonizing and squelching the current concept of political correctness that translates into a politics of personal destruction for anybody who wanders off the demanded plantation or offends anybody in a 'protected' class.  But I am not demanding that any one of you who do not agree with me on that be harmed or disciplined in any way.
> 
> The opinions that we hold harm nobody.  It is ACTING on those opinions or intending to act on those opinions that can harm people.  But too many here can't seem to make the distinction between those two things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Fox up to the point that once a intolerant idea is expressed for public consumption, any and all means are fair play to rid the earth of that sentiment being circulated again. Progress is slowed down by intolerant ideas. Squashing them from being expressed and allowing the concept of gradualism to deal with the inherent damaging aspects of those thoughts will speed up progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't agree that "any and all means are fair play".  Censorship is never an answer.  Even if it slows down that which you consider progress, allowing everyone to express their ideas and then judging those ideas on their merits are the ONLY way that true progress will be achieved.
Click to expand...


My lone exception would be if it was actually a new idea. For example if scientist discovered you could catch being "gay" and had some evidence to support it then I'd be open to discussion.


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant
> Black people were happy being oppressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would have been ignorant if that was what he said.
> 
> I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. Im with the blacks, because were white trash. Were going across the field.... *Theyre singing and happy*. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, I tell you what: These doggone white peoplenot a word!... *Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues*.
> 
> He never said Blacks were happy being oppressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those were my words or I would have quoted them.  I bolded the ignorant ones.
Click to expand...


You're saying they were not singing and happy; that at the time, he was looking at silent morose people and pretended they were singing and happy?  

He said that the Blacks he knew were godly and happy people.  He never said they were pleased with their circumstances or didn't wish for better, which WOULD have been ignorant.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant
> Black people were happy being oppressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would have been ignorant if that was what he said.
> 
> I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. Im with the blacks, because were white trash. Were going across the field.... *Theyre singing and happy*. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, I tell you what: These doggone white peoplenot a word!... *Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues*.
> 
> He never said Blacks were happy being oppressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those were my words or I would have quoted them.  I bolded the ignorant ones.
Click to expand...


I also grew up working and playing side by side with black people who were still mired in segregation.  And they WERE happy people.  And they did sing while they worked, and good naturedly teased me, and I also never heard any bitterness or complaints any more than the white folks complained.  To me they were loving, happy, caring people and I loved them.

It was later--after I became a young adult--that I ran across any angry, depressed, unhappy black people.  That was a whole different ball game.

So who are you to say that Phil Robertson's experience was any different than what he described?  And how is he being intolerant by describing it, not that he doesn't have the right to his opinion however intolerant it looks to us.


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but what you seem to be trying to do is say "I'm tolerant, sometimes."  But, that doesn't absolve you from being intolerant other times.  To me, it's an offshoot of the "I have a black friend so I can't be a racist" argument and that ultimately fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. I am tolerant until I encounter intolerance. I have no moral dilemma with that stance.  I don't see how it relates to "having a black friend so I cant be racist".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are tolerant until you aren't tolerant and then you become a censor, but you don't see how it "having a black friend so I cant be racist".?   The people who had a "black friend" were fine with their friend, but when they encountered a Black they didn't agree with, they felt fully justified to punish that Black person because he was "uppity", right?  And you feel perfectly fine tolerating anything that's said except that which you deem intolerant, then you feel fully justified to use any means to punish that person for having a different idea.
> 
> I feel you have the most excellent hopes for all of us and our society, but in my opinion, the way you want to go about it will not lead to the society you hope to achieve.
Click to expand...


I still fail to see the black friend correlation.  It just sounds like the guy was simply a racist from the beginning to me. He inherently felt he was superior and his "friend" merely reinforced that.  I don't feel superior in my views. I feel they are what they are. They are on the side of equality. Where is the racist thoughts and mindset on the side of equality?


----------



## Mac1958

Asclepias said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Plasma, you want to be able to punish people for daring to voice their opinions.
> 
> I have no such goals, and I think such behavior is counterproductive.
> 
> I'd rather keep lines of communication open, so that we can try to fix our problems.
> 
> I believe in tolerance for and diversity of opinion.  You don't have to.
> 
> We're not going to agree.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the removal or punishment of expression of ideas from society that are intolerant to the rights of other people to exist and enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else is beneficial.  There is no room in a progressive society for racism, sexism, bigotry etc. Maybe you can point out the benefit of such ideas?
Click to expand...



Your question makes it absolutely clear that you simply don't understand what I'm saying.

But, since I rarely get straight answers here, I want to be sure to answer yours:  I see no benefit of ideas such as racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.

Now, to get more serious, I would like to see all of the above gone, as well.  And it's my opinion that the best way to do that is organically, by changing hearts and minds with reason, maturity, civility and patience - not with threats, punishment and intolerance.

Further, the only way I can identify the hearts and minds that I want to change is if they can speak freely.  Then it's my opportunity to communicate with them.  I'll win some, I'll lose some, but I know that punishing and intimidating them might somehow feed my ego, but it would also exacerbate their animosities.  That is clearly counterproductive. 

I sincerely don't know why this is so difficult to grasp.  My guess is that it has to do with something I mentioned before on this thread - narcissism.  Some people just have a need to tell others what to do, what not to do, how to live, and most importantly, what offends them.  For these people, it seems clear that actually solving problems is secondary, at best.

We want the same end result.  I'd just prefer to reach it with freedom of expression, civility, maturity, reason, diversity of opinion and tolerance.  And humility. 

.


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would have been ignorant if that was what he said.
> 
> I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. Im with the blacks, because were white trash. Were going across the field.... *Theyre singing and happy*. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, I tell you what: These doggone white peoplenot a word!... *Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues*.
> 
> He never said Blacks were happy being oppressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those were my words or I would have quoted them.  I bolded the ignorant ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're saying they were not singing and happy; that at the time, he was looking at silent morose people and pretended they were singing and happy?
> 
> He said that the Blacks he knew were godly and happy people.  He never said they were pleased with their circumstances or didn't wish for better, which WOULD have been ignorant.
Click to expand...


No. I'm saying he was ignorant of what was really going on. I'm Black and have heard the stories from both sides of my family and countless other families as well as to the conditions at those times.  No one was happy with the situation. It was ignorant of him to assume that and lends credibility to the thought that Black people were happy being oppressed. If you can follow the pattern its the same thought pattern that leads to Blacks being happy they were rescued from Africa and were happy to be slaves. I havent even started on the gay bashing.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would have been ignorant if that was what he said.
> 
> I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. Im with the blacks, because were white trash. Were going across the field.... *Theyre singing and happy*. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, I tell you what: These doggone white peoplenot a word!... *Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues*.
> 
> He never said Blacks were happy being oppressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those were my words or I would have quoted them.  I bolded the ignorant ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I also grew up working and playing side by side with black people who were still mired in segregation.  And they WERE happy people.  And they did sing while they worked, and good naturedly teased me, and I also never heard any bitterness or complaints any more than the white folks complained.  To me they were loving, happy, caring people and I loved them.
> 
> *It was later--after I became a young adult--that I ran across any angry, depressed, unhappy black people.  That was a whole different ball game.*
> 
> So who are you to say that Phil Robertson's experience was any different than what he described?  And how is he being intolerant by describing it, not that he doesn't have the right to his opinion however intolerant it looks to us.
Click to expand...


Could it be that what you saw was a bursting of the dam so to speak? The result of centuries of pent up anger?


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. I am tolerant until I encounter intolerance. I have no moral dilemma with that stance.  I don't see how it relates to "having a black friend so I cant be racist".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you are tolerant until you aren't tolerant and then you become a censor, but you don't see how it "having a black friend so I cant be racist".?   The people who had a "black friend" were fine with their friend, but when they encountered a Black they didn't agree with, they felt fully justified to punish that Black person because he was "uppity", right?  And you feel perfectly fine tolerating anything that's said except that which you deem intolerant, then you feel fully justified to use any means to punish that person for having a different idea.
> 
> I feel you have the most excellent hopes for all of us and our society, but in my opinion, the way you want to go about it will not lead to the society you hope to achieve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still fail to see the black friend correlation.  It just sounds like the guy was simply a racist from the beginning to me. He inherently felt he was superior and his "friend" merely reinforced that.  I don't feel superior in my views. I feel they are what they are. They are on the side of equality. Where is the racist thoughts and mindset on the side of equality?
Click to expand...


You are tolerant...until you are intolerant.  Doesn't that mean that you are really intolerant because you feel your position is superior to people who don't agree with you?  That would be the parallel.  

I don't mean to say you shouldn't feel your position is superior, just that you shouldn't use that belief to stifle someone else's ideas.  Denouncing stupidity is good, but censoring it is not.


----------



## R.D.

Asclepias said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The intolerant ideas are only a subset of the different ideas. For example I believe the way to true wealth is being an business owner. Some people may think its by working for someone else. I dont agree but it does not make their idea intolerant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it you don't understand?
Click to expand...

Your example leads one to wonder if you're dealing with a full deck.


----------



## BillyZane

Mac1958 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Plasma, you want to be able to punish people for daring to voice their opinions.
> 
> I have no such goals, and I think such behavior is counterproductive.
> 
> I'd rather keep lines of communication open, so that we can try to fix our problems.
> 
> I believe in tolerance for and diversity of opinion.  You don't have to.
> 
> We're not going to agree.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the removal or punishment of expression of ideas from society that are intolerant to the rights of other people to exist and enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else is beneficial.  There is no room in a progressive society for racism, sexism, bigotry etc. Maybe you can point out the benefit of such ideas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your question makes it absolutely clear that you simply don't understand what I'm saying.
> 
> But, since I rarely get straight answers here, I want to be sure to answer yours:  I see no benefit of ideas such as racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.
> 
> Now, to get more serious, I would like to see all of the above gone, as well.  And it's my opinion that the best way to do that is organically, by changing hearts and minds with reason, maturity, civility and patience - not with threats, punishment and intolerance.
> 
> Further, the only way I can identify the hearts and minds that I want to change is if they can speak freely.  Then it's my opportunity to communicate with them.  I'll win some, I'll lose some, but I know that punishing and intimidating them might somehow feed my ego, but it would also exacerbate their animosities.  That is clearly counterproductive.
> 
> I sincerely don't know why this is so difficult to grasp.  My guess is that it has to do with something I mentioned before on this thread - narcissism.  Some people just have a need to tell others what to do, what not to do, how to live, and most importantly, what offends them.  For these people, it seems clear that actually solving problems is secondary, at best.
> 
> We want the same end result.  I'd just prefer to reach it with freedom of expression, civility, maturity, reason, diversity of opinion and tolerance.  And humility.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Why are you against the expression of ANY ideas?

In fact, I would argue that allowing the expression of ideas can lower the number of incidents we have where ACTIONS are taken. 

How many people are just venting that they hate them queers and ******* but do nothing more than vent? How many of them would take action against those they hate if they couldn't legally express their opinions?

Probably quite a few. 

Words don't hurt anyone. I don't care how hateful, ignorant, or uncaring they are , words will never EVER hurt anyone.

The very creation of our nation was at that time considered a vulgar, hateful , ignorant opinion. I mean how dare those colonials express the idea that they had the right to denounce the King of England.

Etc, etc.


----------



## Asclepias

Mac1958 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Plasma, you want to be able to punish people for daring to voice their opinions.
> 
> I have no such goals, and I think such behavior is counterproductive.
> 
> I'd rather keep lines of communication open, so that we can try to fix our problems.
> 
> I believe in tolerance for and diversity of opinion.  You don't have to.
> 
> We're not going to agree.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the removal or punishment of expression of ideas from society that are intolerant to the rights of other people to exist and enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else is beneficial.  There is no room in a progressive society for racism, sexism, bigotry etc. Maybe you can point out the benefit of such ideas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your question makes it absolutely clear that you simply don't understand what I'm saying.
> 
> But, since I rarely get straight answers here, I want to be sure to answer yours:  I see no benefit of ideas such as racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.
> 
> Now, to get more serious, I would like to see all of the above gone, as well.  And it's my opinion that the best way to do that is organically, by changing hearts and minds with reason, maturity, civility and patience - not with threats, punishment and intolerance.
> 
> Further, the only way I can identify the hearts and minds that I want to change is if they can speak freely.  Then it's my opportunity to communicate with them.  I'll win some, I'll lose some, but I know that punishing and intimidating them might somehow feed my ego, but it would also exacerbate their animosities.  That is clearly counterproductive.
> 
> I sincerely don't know why this is so difficult to grasp.  My guess is that it has to do with something I mentioned before on this thread - narcissism.  Some people just have a need to tell others what to do, what not to do, how to live, and most importantly, what offends them.  For these people, it seems clear that actually solving problems is secondary, at best.
> 
> We want the same end result.  I'd just prefer to reach it with freedom of expression, civility, maturity, reason, diversity of opinion and tolerance.  And humility.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I get exactly what you are saying. I just disagree.  I asked you that question because I wanted to see what benefit you thought these ideas brought.  What you are going to find regardless of which path we choose as a society this is going to get repetitive. I believe my method deals with it faster than yours.  The ideas will keep coming back as long as we have a us against them mentality.  That mentality is hardwired into us as humans and the very reason we have become the dominant species on earth.


----------



## R.D.

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The intolerant ideas are only a subset of the different ideas. For example I believe the way to true wealth is being an business owner. Some people may think its by working for someone else. I dont agree but it does not make their idea intolerant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but what you seem to be trying to do is say "I'm tolerant, sometimes."  But, that doesn't absolve you from being intolerant other times.  To me, it's an offshoot of the "I have a black friend so I can't be a racist" argument and that ultimately fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct. I am tolerant until I encounter intolerance. I have no moral dilemma with that stance.  I don't see how it relates to "having a black friend so I cant be racist".
Click to expand...


Then you lose.   You can't be both.  I am tolerant of your obvious intolerance.   What you express is situational tolerance or situation ethics...which makes you intolerant with  favoritism tendencies towards those who share your intolerant views.


----------



## Asclepias

BillyZane said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the removal or punishment of expression of ideas from society that are intolerant to the rights of other people to exist and enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else is beneficial.  There is no room in a progressive society for racism, sexism, bigotry etc. Maybe you can point out the benefit of such ideas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your question makes it absolutely clear that you simply don't understand what I'm saying.
> 
> But, since I rarely get straight answers here, I want to be sure to answer yours:  I see no benefit of ideas such as racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.
> 
> Now, to get more serious, I would like to see all of the above gone, as well.  And it's my opinion that the best way to do that is organically, by changing hearts and minds with reason, maturity, civility and patience - not with threats, punishment and intolerance.
> 
> Further, the only way I can identify the hearts and minds that I want to change is if they can speak freely.  Then it's my opportunity to communicate with them.  I'll win some, I'll lose some, but I know that punishing and intimidating them might somehow feed my ego, but it would also exacerbate their animosities.  That is clearly counterproductive.
> 
> I sincerely don't know why this is so difficult to grasp.  My guess is that it has to do with something I mentioned before on this thread - narcissism.  Some people just have a need to tell others what to do, what not to do, how to live, and most importantly, what offends them.  For these people, it seems clear that actually solving problems is secondary, at best.
> 
> We want the same end result.  I'd just prefer to reach it with freedom of expression, civility, maturity, reason, diversity of opinion and tolerance.  And humility.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you against the expression of ANY ideas?
> 
> In fact, I would argue that allowing the expression of ideas can lower the number of incidents we have where ACTIONS are taken.
> 
> How many people are just venting that they hate them queers and ******* but do nothing more than vent? How many of them would take action against those they hate if they couldn't legally express their opinions?
> 
> Probably quite a few.
> 
> *Words don't hurt anyone. I don't care how hateful, ignorant, or uncaring they are , words will never EVER hurt anyone*.
> 
> The very creation of our nation was at that time considered a vulgar, hateful , ignorant opinion. I mean how dare those colonials express the idea that they had the right to denounce the King of England.
> 
> Etc, etc.
Click to expand...



That is simply false beyond belief.


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those were my words or I would have quoted them.  I bolded the ignorant ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying they were not singing and happy; that at the time, he was looking at silent morose people and pretended they were singing and happy?
> 
> He said that the Blacks he knew were godly and happy people.  He never said they were pleased with their circumstances or didn't wish for better, which WOULD have been ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I'm saying he was ignorant of what was really going on. I'm Black and have heard the stories from both sides of my family and countless other families as well as to the conditions at those times.  No one was happy with the situation. It was ignorant of him to assume that and lends credibility to the thought that Black people were happy being oppressed. If you can follow the pattern its the same thought pattern that leads to Blacks being happy they were rescued from Africa and were happy to be slaves. I havent even started on the gay bashing.
Click to expand...


As his comments show, he was merely talking about his life as he remembered it but he was a kid and was probably sheltered from the ugliest stuff by both groups.   I don't believe that anyone would conclude he was saying Blacks were happy being oppressed.  I have never heard the argument that Blacks were happy being "rescued" from Africa and were happy to be slaves.  I would have to laugh in the face of anyone who seriously stated that.


----------



## Asclepias

R.D. said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but what you seem to be trying to do is say "I'm tolerant, sometimes."  But, that doesn't absolve you from being intolerant other times.  To me, it's an offshoot of the "I have a black friend so I can't be a racist" argument and that ultimately fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. I am tolerant until I encounter intolerance. I have no moral dilemma with that stance.  I don't see how it relates to "having a black friend so I cant be racist".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you lose.   You can't be both.  I am tolerant of your obvious intolerance.   What you express is situational tolerance or situation ethics...which makes you intolerant with  favoritism tendencies towards those who share your intolerant views.
Click to expand...


Lose what?  I didn't know I was in a contest.  Yes I can be both. Its called transisitoning. I can be tolerant of one idea and then be intolerant of a intolerant idea. This is not a hard concept to grasp nor is it a all or nothing proposition.


----------



## Asclepias

R.D. said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it you don't understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your example leads one to wonder if you're dealing with a full deck.
Click to expand...


I assure you I am. Is that your frustrated response because at least one other person had no problem with understanding what i said?


----------



## Foxfyre

Mac1958 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Plasma, you want to be able to punish people for daring to voice their opinions.
> 
> I have no such goals, and I think such behavior is counterproductive.
> 
> I'd rather keep lines of communication open, so that we can try to fix our problems.
> 
> I believe in tolerance for and diversity of opinion.  You don't have to.
> 
> We're not going to agree.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the removal or punishment of expression of ideas from society that are intolerant to the rights of other people to exist and enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else is beneficial.  There is no room in a progressive society for racism, sexism, bigotry etc. Maybe you can point out the benefit of such ideas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your question makes it absolutely clear that you simply don't understand what I'm saying.
> 
> But, since I rarely get straight answers here, I want to be sure to answer yours:  I see no benefit of ideas such as racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.
> 
> Now, to get more serious, I would like to see all of the above gone, as well.  And it's my opinion that the best way to do that is organically, by changing hearts and minds with reason, maturity, civility and patience - not with threats, punishment and intolerance.
> 
> Further, the only way I can identify the hearts and minds that I want to change is if they can speak freely.  Then it's my opportunity to communicate with them.  I'll win some, I'll lose some, but I know that punishing and intimidating them might somehow feed my ego, but it would also exacerbate their animosities.  That is clearly counterproductive.
> 
> I sincerely don't know why this is so difficult to grasp.  My guess is that it has to do with something I mentioned before on this thread - narcissism.  Some people just have a need to tell others what to do, what not to do, how to live, and most importantly, what offends them.  For these people, it seems clear that actually solving problems is secondary, at best.
> 
> We want the same end result.  I'd just prefer to reach it with freedom of expression, civility, maturity, reason, diversity of opinion and tolerance.  And humility.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It looks to me like there is no interest in solving problems or achieving tolerance when it comes to the PC activists.  All they are interested in is advocating for THEIR group, THEIR cause, THEIR point of view and they do appear to be more than willing to physically and/or materially punish anybody who doesn't toe the line that THEY say is the tolerant, correct, open minded, acceptable attitude, speech, belief, opinion.  They can't see what an oxymoron it is to say that their opinion is tolerant and somebody else's opinion is not.

Unless we allow people to be bigoted--that is BE bigoted, not act out bigotry--there will always be bigotry because you can't denounce bigotry without demonstrating it toward the bigot that you condemn.   And so much of it is really relative.

Who is the more bigoted?   The man who denounces and approves physical and/or material punishment against a Don Imus or somebody else who makes a politically incorrect joke or observation about a black person--a man who claims to be pure as the driven snow re his attitudes toward black people--but who seeks out non-black friends, colleagues, associates, and venues and sees black people as victims who can't make it on their own without 'Whitey's' help?

Or the guy who is open and honest that he sees black people as inferior to whites or dumb as rocks or just different, but who hires black people and treats them as well as any other employees, who goes out of his way to help a black person in trouble, who offers a black neighbor a ride, who contributes to a scholarship fund for a young black person to go to college, or who steps in and defends a black person who is being threatened or abused?  We're talking Archie Bunker type prejudice here.

There is the kind of intolerance that actively hurts people--intends to hurt people.  And then their is the kind of intolerance that hurts nobody--that is nothing more than an attitude or opinion or belief.

I think intelligent people make the distinction between these two things and will push back against that which is truly harmful and be tolerant of that which is not.


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your question makes it absolutely clear that you simply don't understand what I'm saying.
> 
> But, since I rarely get straight answers here, I want to be sure to answer yours:  I see no benefit of ideas such as racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.
> 
> Now, to get more serious, I would like to see all of the above gone, as well.  And it's my opinion that the best way to do that is organically, by changing hearts and minds with reason, maturity, civility and patience - not with threats, punishment and intolerance.
> 
> Further, the only way I can identify the hearts and minds that I want to change is if they can speak freely.  Then it's my opportunity to communicate with them.  I'll win some, I'll lose some, but I know that punishing and intimidating them might somehow feed my ego, but it would also exacerbate their animosities.  That is clearly counterproductive.
> 
> I sincerely don't know why this is so difficult to grasp.  My guess is that it has to do with something I mentioned before on this thread - narcissism.  Some people just have a need to tell others what to do, what not to do, how to live, and most importantly, what offends them.  For these people, it seems clear that actually solving problems is secondary, at best.
> 
> We want the same end result.  I'd just prefer to reach it with freedom of expression, civility, maturity, reason, diversity of opinion and tolerance.  And humility.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you against the expression of ANY ideas?
> 
> In fact, I would argue that allowing the expression of ideas can lower the number of incidents we have where ACTIONS are taken.
> 
> How many people are just venting that they hate them queers and ******* but do nothing more than vent? How many of them would take action against those they hate if they couldn't legally express their opinions?
> 
> Probably quite a few.
> 
> *Words don't hurt anyone. I don't care how hateful, ignorant, or uncaring they are , words will never EVER hurt anyone*.
> 
> The very creation of our nation was at that time considered a vulgar, hateful , ignorant opinion. I mean how dare those colonials express the idea that they had the right to denounce the King of England.
> 
> Etc, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply false beyond belief.
Click to expand...


Words only hurt if you CHOOSE to be hurt by them.  But, the younger you are, the harder that lesson is to learn, so while you have a point, it's not "false beyond belief".


----------



## R.D.

Asclepias said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. I am tolerant until I encounter intolerance. I have no moral dilemma with that stance.  I don't see how it relates to "having a black friend so I cant be racist".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you lose.   You can't be both.  I am tolerant of your obvious intolerance.   What you express is situational tolerance or situation ethics...which makes you intolerant with  favoritism tendencies towards those who share your intolerant views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lose what?  I didn't know I was in a contest.  Yes I can be both. Its called transisitoning. I can be tolerant of one idea and then be intolerant of a intolerant idea. This is not a hard concept to grasp nor is it a all or nothing proposition.
Click to expand...


No it's not.  And no you can't.   By your own  definition you lack tolerance, period.   Your trying to bully others to your superior intolerant viewpoints is nothing short of sophomoric in its complete lack of self awareness.


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying they were not singing and happy; that at the time, he was looking at silent morose people and pretended they were singing and happy?
> 
> He said that the Blacks he knew were godly and happy people.  He never said they were pleased with their circumstances or didn't wish for better, which WOULD have been ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm saying he was ignorant of what was really going on. I'm Black and have heard the stories from both sides of my family and countless other families as well as to the conditions at those times.  No one was happy with the situation. It was ignorant of him to assume that and lends credibility to the thought that Black people were happy being oppressed. If you can follow the pattern its the same thought pattern that leads to Blacks being happy they were rescued from Africa and were happy to be slaves. I havent even started on the gay bashing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As his comments show, he was merely talking about his life as he remembered it but he was a kid and was probably sheltered from the ugliest stuff by both groups.   I don't believe that anyone would conclude he was saying Blacks were happy being oppressed.  I have never heard the argument that Blacks were happy being "rescued" from Africa and were happy to be slaves.  I would have to laugh in the face of anyone who seriously stated that.
Click to expand...


He is an adult now and a successful businessman.  He should have known better and the reality and impact of his words. Lots of people concluded exactly what I did from his comments.  I agree its is funny to hear people say stuff like that but it stops being funny when you understand that was the rationale used to resolve the conflict between being a Christian and participating in a slave owning culture.


----------



## R.D.

Asclepias said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it you don't understand?
> 
> 
> 
> Your example leads one to wonder if you're dealing with a full deck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assure you I am. Is that your frustrated response because at least one other person had no problem with understanding what i said?
Click to expand...


I understood what you meant too.    It was dumb nonetheless


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you against the expression of ANY ideas?
> 
> In fact, I would argue that allowing the expression of ideas can lower the number of incidents we have where ACTIONS are taken.
> 
> How many people are just venting that they hate them queers and ******* but do nothing more than vent? How many of them would take action against those they hate if they couldn't legally express their opinions?
> 
> Probably quite a few.
> 
> *Words don't hurt anyone. I don't care how hateful, ignorant, or uncaring they are , words will never EVER hurt anyone*.
> 
> The very creation of our nation was at that time considered a vulgar, hateful , ignorant opinion. I mean how dare those colonials express the idea that they had the right to denounce the King of England.
> 
> Etc, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply false beyond belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words only hurt if you CHOOSE to be hurt by them.  But, the younger you are, the harder that lesson is to learn, so while you have a point, it's not "false beyond belief".
Click to expand...


I never knew people chose to be hurt. I thought we avoided it like the plague as a result of instinct.  So yes it is false beyond belief. Ask any abused woman about her self worth after leaving that relationship.


----------



## Plasmaball

Foxfyre said:


> It seems that some here are intentionally refusing or failing to discern the difference between thinking/believing something and doing something to somebody else.  I may think Asclepias to be the most bigoted, intolerant, and ignorant person in the world because he thinks people who watch A&E's Duck Dynasty are ignorant, but I do not harm Asclepias in the least because I think that.  Nor does he harm a single Duck Dynasty fan by holding that opinion of them.
> 
> I am an advocate for demonizing and squelching the current concept of political correctness that translates into a politics of personal destruction for anybody who wanders off the PC plantation of th day or offends anybody in a 'protected' class.  But I am not demanding that any one of you who do not agree with me on that be harmed or disciplined in any way.
> 
> The opinions that we hold harm nobody.  It is ACTING on those opinions or intending to act on those opinions that can harm people.  But too many here can't seem to make the distinction between those two things.



we got it the first 30 times you posted this, and everytime you've posted it you are wrong. 

You cant have an opinion on what someone thinks unless they state it. 

 Nobody is saying you are not allowed to think/believe in what you want. What you are seemingly having trouble with is the concept of freedom. We have the freedom in this nation to protest, boycott and demand things. If you say something on national tv, I have the right if i don't like it to demand you to be fired. 

Again like Mac had this been 1774 you would be arguing that we shouldn't be boycotting the Crown. You are against the very notion of the Tea party, Which is EXACTLY what you are arguing against. Sure its an extreme example, but hey fuck it. According to you and Mac we should have been able to "talk" it out politely where everyones opinion is heard. What a wonderful liberal utopia fantasy world that is. 

You are actually pissing me off because all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want. You are so wrong it borderlines on the absurd.You can remain in the land of grey opinion and you are wrong. You can venture over to the legal area and you are wrong. The end result is your opinion is very anti-freedom, and massively ignorant of how this all works. 

You don't get to express your opinion and have zero consequences for stating such opinions. 

There is no protected class. There never was. You have the right to say ******, retard, gay, fag, etc all you want. If the general population doesnt approve of such opinions. Then they have to right to shun, mock and in the case you own a business take their money elsewhere. Which when you think about it, if you are a tv network and you loose viewers, you loose sponsors. The people could literally say nothing, walk away and the sponsors would pull out anyways. 

A&E and other network are about making as much money as they can. Lets make up a term and call it capitalism for fun. In this world of capitalism the idea is to go out and make as much money as possible. So you want to reach as many people as possible in order to gain more profits. 

There is nothing more fundamentally capitalistic than boycotting. Within this you will have people calling for firings and sponsor pullouts. 

Its time to face the reality you are just wrong.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the removal or punishment of expression of ideas from society that are intolerant to the rights of other people to exist and enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else is beneficial.  There is no room in a progressive society for racism, sexism, bigotry etc. Maybe you can point out the benefit of such ideas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your question makes it absolutely clear that you simply don't understand what I'm saying.
> 
> But, since I rarely get straight answers here, I want to be sure to answer yours:  I see no benefit of ideas such as racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.
> 
> Now, to get more serious, I would like to see all of the above gone, as well.  And it's my opinion that the best way to do that is organically, by changing hearts and minds with reason, maturity, civility and patience - not with threats, punishment and intolerance.
> 
> Further, the only way I can identify the hearts and minds that I want to change is if they can speak freely.  Then it's my opportunity to communicate with them.  I'll win some, I'll lose some, but I know that punishing and intimidating them might somehow feed my ego, but it would also exacerbate their animosities.  That is clearly counterproductive.
> 
> I sincerely don't know why this is so difficult to grasp.  My guess is that it has to do with something I mentioned before on this thread - narcissism.  Some people just have a need to tell others what to do, what not to do, how to live, and most importantly, what offends them.  For these people, it seems clear that actually solving problems is secondary, at best.
> 
> We want the same end result.  I'd just prefer to reach it with freedom of expression, civility, maturity, reason, diversity of opinion and tolerance.  And humility.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It looks to me like there is no interest in solving problems or achieving tolerance when it comes to the PC activists.  All they are interested in is advocating for THEIR group, THEIR cause, THEIR point of view and they do appear to be more than willing to physically and/or materially punish anybody who doesn't toe the line that THEY say is the tolerant, correct, open minded, acceptable attitude, speech, belief, opinion.  They can't see what an oxymoron it is to say that their opinion is tolerant and somebody else's opinion is not.
> 
> Unless we allow people to be bigoted--that is BE bigoted, not act out bigotry--there will always be bigotry because you can't denounce bigotry without demonstrating it toward the bigot that you condemn.   And so much of it is really relative.
> 
> Who is the more bigoted?   The man who denounces and approves physical and/or material punishment against a Don Imus or somebody else who makes a politically incorrect joke or observation about a black person--a man who claims to be pure as the driven snow re his attitudes toward black people--but who seeks out non-black friends, colleagues, associates, and venues and sees black people as victims who can't make it on their own without 'Whitey's' help?
> 
> *Or the guy who is open and honest that he sees black people as inferior to whites or dumb as rocks or just different, but who hires black people and treats them as well as any other employees*, who goes out of his way to help a black person in trouble, who offers a black neighbor a ride, who contributes to a scholarship fund for a young black person to go to college, or who steps in and defends a black person who is being threatened or abused?  We're talking Archie Bunker type prejudice here.
> 
> There is the kind of intolerance that actively hurts people--intends to hurt people.  And then their is the kind of intolerance that hurts nobody--that is nothing more than an attitude or opinion or belief.
> 
> I think intelligent people make the distinction between these two things and will push back against that which is truly harmful and be tolerant of that which is not.
Click to expand...


Wow!  That was highly amusing.


----------



## Plasmaball

Mac1958 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Plasma, you want to be able to punish people for daring to voice their opinions.
> 
> I have no such goals, and I think such behavior is counterproductive.
> 
> I'd rather keep lines of communication open, so that we can try to fix our problems.
> 
> I believe in tolerance for and diversity of opinion.  You don't have to.
> 
> We're not going to agree.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the removal or punishment of expression of ideas from society that are intolerant to the rights of other people to exist and enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else is beneficial.  There is no room in a progressive society for racism, sexism, bigotry etc. Maybe you can point out the benefit of such ideas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your question makes it absolutely clear that you simply don't understand what I'm saying.
> 
> *But, since I rarely get straight answers here, *I want to be sure to answer yours:  I see no benefit of ideas such as racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


sigh you did it anyways...such a shame.


----------



## Asclepias

R.D. said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you lose.   You can't be both.  I am tolerant of your obvious intolerance.   What you express is situational tolerance or situation ethics...which makes you intolerant with  favoritism tendencies towards those who share your intolerant views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lose what?  I didn't know I was in a contest.  Yes I can be both. Its called transisitoning. I can be tolerant of one idea and then be intolerant of a intolerant idea. This is not a hard concept to grasp nor is it a all or nothing proposition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not.  And no you can't.   By your own  definition you lack tolerance, period.   Your trying to bully others to your superior intolerant viewpoints is nothing short of sophomoric in its complete lack of self awareness.
Click to expand...


I take it you disagree?  Thats fine but just remember I define what I am not you.


----------



## R.D.

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply false beyond belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Words only hurt if you CHOOSE to be hurt by them.  But, the younger you are, the harder that lesson is to learn, so while you have a point, it's not "false beyond belief".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never knew people chose to be hurt. I thought we avoided it like the plague as a result of instinct.  So yes it is false beyond belief. Ask any abused woman about her self worth after leaving that relationship.
Click to expand...


Wrong.

Again, you admit a clear lack of knowledge but want to convince yourself you know the answers.    

Woman in an abusive relationship choose to be there...once they choose to leave the hurt can be healed. 

You would have been better served using children to try to prove your pont.  You swung and you missed.


----------



## Montrovant

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant
> Black people were happy being oppressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would have been ignorant if that was what he said.
> 
> I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. Im with the blacks, because were white trash. Were going across the field.... Theyre singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, I tell you what: These doggone white peoplenot a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.
> 
> He never said Blacks were happy being oppressed.
Click to expand...


I think it depends on just what he was responding to.  Was he asked to describe his interactions with blacks as a child/young man?  Was he asked if he felt blacks felt oppressed in his youth?  The context is important.

I could easily see this as a way of saying blacks weren't unhappy with the way things were before the civil rights movement, and I could easily see this as a simple description of his own observations.


----------



## Foxfyre

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you against the expression of ANY ideas?
> 
> In fact, I would argue that allowing the expression of ideas can lower the number of incidents we have where ACTIONS are taken.
> 
> How many people are just venting that they hate them queers and ******* but do nothing more than vent? How many of them would take action against those they hate if they couldn't legally express their opinions?
> 
> Probably quite a few.
> 
> *Words don't hurt anyone. I don't care how hateful, ignorant, or uncaring they are , words will never EVER hurt anyone*.
> 
> The very creation of our nation was at that time considered a vulgar, hateful , ignorant opinion. I mean how dare those colonials express the idea that they had the right to denounce the King of England.
> 
> Etc, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply false beyond belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words only hurt if you CHOOSE to be hurt by them.  But, the younger you are, the harder that lesson is to learn, so while you have a point, it's not "false beyond belief".
Click to expand...


It is true that bullying is especially hurtful and harmful to the young and nobody can be more cruel than kids who are taunting/bullying/ridiculing another.   And there can be people no more loving than kids who choose to care about another who is grieving or has other serious problems.   It is incumbant upon adults to a) teach civility to children and expect it of them and b) to demonstate it themselves and c) teach and learn for themselves to respect themselves enough that they will not allow others to dictate how they will feel or respond to hurtful words of another.

Part of being a grown up is that another's opinion is just that.  An opinion.  And does not have to be accepted as fact.   We can choose not to believe or accept the opinion of another or take it seriously and we can believe it is stupid, hateful, arrogant, ignorant or whatever.  But we should not choose to try to hurt somebody physically or materially purely because he is who he is or said something we don't like.   To allow people who aren't hurting or interfering with anybody else to be stupid, hateful, arrogant, ignorant, or whatever is the very core of tolerance.


----------



## R.D.

Asclepias said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lose what?  I didn't know I was in a contest.  Yes I can be both. Its called transisitoning. I can be tolerant of one idea and then be intolerant of a intolerant idea. This is not a hard concept to grasp nor is it a all or nothing proposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.  And no you can't.   By your own  definition you lack tolerance, period.   Your trying to bully others to your superior intolerant viewpoints is nothing short of sophomoric in its complete lack of self awareness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take it you disagree?  Thats fine but just remember I define what I am not you.
Click to expand...

 Yes, you did.   As intolerant, a bully and confused.   We all see that.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your question makes it absolutely clear that you simply don't understand what I'm saying.
> 
> But, since I rarely get straight answers here, I want to be sure to answer yours:  I see no benefit of ideas such as racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.
> 
> Now, to get more serious, I would like to see all of the above gone, as well.  And it's my opinion that the best way to do that is organically, by changing hearts and minds with reason, maturity, civility and patience - not with threats, punishment and intolerance.
> 
> Further, the only way I can identify the hearts and minds that I want to change is if they can speak freely.  Then it's my opportunity to communicate with them.  I'll win some, I'll lose some, but I know that punishing and intimidating them might somehow feed my ego, but it would also exacerbate their animosities.  That is clearly counterproductive.
> 
> I sincerely don't know why this is so difficult to grasp.  My guess is that it has to do with something I mentioned before on this thread - narcissism.  Some people just have a need to tell others what to do, what not to do, how to live, and most importantly, what offends them.  For these people, it seems clear that actually solving problems is secondary, at best.
> 
> We want the same end result.  I'd just prefer to reach it with freedom of expression, civility, maturity, reason, diversity of opinion and tolerance.  And humility.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks to me like there is no interest in solving problems or achieving tolerance when it comes to the PC activists.  All they are interested in is advocating for THEIR group, THEIR cause, THEIR point of view and they do appear to be more than willing to physically and/or materially punish anybody who doesn't toe the line that THEY say is the tolerant, correct, open minded, acceptable attitude, speech, belief, opinion.  They can't see what an oxymoron it is to say that their opinion is tolerant and somebody else's opinion is not.
> 
> Unless we allow people to be bigoted--that is BE bigoted, not act out bigotry--there will always be bigotry because you can't denounce bigotry without demonstrating it toward the bigot that you condemn.   And so much of it is really relative.
> 
> Who is the more bigoted?   The man who denounces and approves physical and/or material punishment against a Don Imus or somebody else who makes a politically incorrect joke or observation about a black person--a man who claims to be pure as the driven snow re his attitudes toward black people--but who seeks out non-black friends, colleagues, associates, and venues and sees black people as victims who can't make it on their own without 'Whitey's' help?
> 
> *Or the guy who is open and honest that he sees black people as inferior to whites or dumb as rocks or just different, but who hires black people and treats them as well as any other employees*, who goes out of his way to help a black person in trouble, who offers a black neighbor a ride, who contributes to a scholarship fund for a young black person to go to college, or who steps in and defends a black person who is being threatened or abused?  We're talking Archie Bunker type prejudice here.
> 
> There is the kind of intolerance that actively hurts people--intends to hurt people.  And then there is the kind of intolerance that hurts nobody--that is nothing more than an attitude or opinion or belief.
> 
> I think intelligent people make the distinction between these two things and will push back against that which is truly harmful and be tolerant of that which is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!  That was highly amusing.
Click to expand...


Well I am happy to be your amusement for the day.  But the fact is such people do exist just as there are sexist, mysogynistic, arrogant SOBs as bosses who have given me some excellent opportunities over the years and have not disadvantaged me in any way because I am a woman.  There are black people who are very prejudiced against whites who can still conduct themselves appropriately and without discriminating against people.   Holding an opinion and acting it out are two different things.  I know that.  You seem to have a problem with it.  And I notice you picked a phrase out of context to ridicule and did not answer the question.


----------



## Asclepias

R.D. said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Words only hurt if you CHOOSE to be hurt by them.  But, the younger you are, the harder that lesson is to learn, so while you have a point, it's not "false beyond belief".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never knew people chose to be hurt. I thought we avoided it like the plague as a result of instinct.  So yes it is false beyond belief. Ask any abused woman about her self worth after leaving that relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Again, you admit a clear lack of knowledge but want to convince yourself you know the answers.
> 
> Woman in an abusive relationship choose to be there...once they choose to leave the hurt can be healed.
> 
> You would have been better served using children to try to prove your pont.  You swung and you missed.
Click to expand...

I think you meant right. Words are more powerful than anything going. Adults are only physically mature children. The very fact you bush your teeth every day is an example of the power of words.


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm saying he was ignorant of what was really going on. I'm Black and have heard the stories from both sides of my family and countless other families as well as to the conditions at those times.  No one was happy with the situation. It was ignorant of him to assume that and lends credibility to the thought that Black people were happy being oppressed. If you can follow the pattern its the same thought pattern that leads to Blacks being happy they were rescued from Africa and were happy to be slaves. I havent even started on the gay bashing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As his comments show, he was merely talking about his life as he remembered it but he was a kid and was probably sheltered from the ugliest stuff by both groups.   I don't believe that anyone would conclude he was saying Blacks were happy being oppressed.  I have never heard the argument that Blacks were happy being "rescued" from Africa and were happy to be slaves.  I would have to laugh in the face of anyone who seriously stated that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is an adult now and a successful businessman.  He should have known better and the reality and impact of his words. Lots of people concluded exactly what I did from his comments.  I agree its is funny to hear people say stuff like that but it stops being funny when you understand that was the rationale used to resolve the conflict between being a Christian and participating in a slave owning culture.
Click to expand...


Do you know what question he was asked that led to the comments?  I can't see it in the article, but it would matter.


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply false beyond belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Words only hurt if you CHOOSE to be hurt by them.  But, the younger you are, the harder that lesson is to learn, so while you have a point, it's not "false beyond belief".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never knew people chose to be hurt. I thought we avoided it like the plague as a result of instinct.  So yes it is false beyond belief. Ask any abused woman about her self worth after leaving that relationship.
Click to expand...


*sigh*  It is not false beyond belief.  If you call me a "cracker" or "hokey" or anything else in an attempt to hurt my feelings, I have to choose to accept it for it to have effect.  If not, it's totally ineffective.


----------



## hunarcy

Asclepias said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lose what?  I didn't know I was in a contest.  Yes I can be both. Its called transisitoning. I can be tolerant of one idea and then be intolerant of a intolerant idea. This is not a hard concept to grasp nor is it a all or nothing proposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.  And no you can't.   By your own  definition you lack tolerance, period.   Your trying to bully others to your superior intolerant viewpoints is nothing short of sophomoric in its complete lack of self awareness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take it you disagree?  Thats fine but just remember I define what I am not you.
Click to expand...


"That's fine but just remember I define what I am not you."  How can that be if his words can hurt you so?


----------



## R.D.

Asclepias said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never knew people chose to be hurt. I thought we avoided it like the plague as a result of instinct.  So yes it is false beyond belief. Ask any abused woman about her self worth after leaving that relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Again, you admit a clear lack of knowledge but want to convince yourself you know the answers.
> 
> Woman in an abusive relationship choose to be there...once they choose to leave the hurt can be healed.
> 
> You would have been better served using children to try to prove your pont.  You swung and you missed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you meant right. Words are more powerful than anything going. Adults are only physically mature children. The very fact you bush your teeth every day is an example of the power of words.
Click to expand...

With this post I will wish you a good day.  I suspect you might be  fooling around, but you're ill equipped for the game.  If not, the shallow end of the thought pool you're in leaves nothing more to discuss.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It looks to me like there is no interest in solving problems or achieving tolerance when it comes to the PC activists.  All they are interested in is advocating for THEIR group, THEIR cause, THEIR point of view and they do appear to be more than willing to physically and/or materially punish anybody who doesn't toe the line that THEY say is the tolerant, correct, open minded, acceptable attitude, speech, belief, opinion.  They can't see what an oxymoron it is to say that their opinion is tolerant and somebody else's opinion is not.
> 
> Unless we allow people to be bigoted--that is BE bigoted, not act out bigotry--there will always be bigotry because you can't denounce bigotry without demonstrating it toward the bigot that you condemn.   And so much of it is really relative.
> 
> Who is the more bigoted?   The man who denounces and approves physical and/or material punishment against a Don Imus or somebody else who makes a politically incorrect joke or observation about a black person--a man who claims to be pure as the driven snow re his attitudes toward black people--but who seeks out non-black friends, colleagues, associates, and venues and sees black people as victims who can't make it on their own without 'Whitey's' help?
> 
> *Or the guy who is open and honest that he sees black people as inferior to whites or dumb as rocks or just different, but who hires black people and treats them as well as any other employees*, who goes out of his way to help a black person in trouble, who offers a black neighbor a ride, who contributes to a scholarship fund for a young black person to go to college, or who steps in and defends a black person who is being threatened or abused?  We're talking Archie Bunker type prejudice here.
> 
> There is the kind of intolerance that actively hurts people--intends to hurt people.  And then their is the kind of intolerance that hurts nobody--that is nothing more than an attitude or opinion or belief.
> 
> I think intelligent people make the distinction between these two things and will push back against that which is truly harmful and be tolerant of that which is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  That was highly amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am happy to be your amusement for the day.  But the fact is such people do exist just as there are sexist, mysogynistic, arrogant SOBs as bosses who have given me some excellent opportunities over the years and have not disadvantaged me in any way because I am a woman.  Holding an opinion and acting it out are two different things.  I know that.  You seem to have a problem with it.  And I notice you picked a phrase out of context to ridicule and did not answer the question.
Click to expand...


I think you missed the fact that inherently if you think someone is inferior you are not going to treat them equal unless forced to. You may be condescending and treat them comparatively better than a vicious racist or sexist but you are still a racist/sexist. You will not give them equal consideration for opportunity etc etc.  Which question in particular did you want answered? You asked alot of them.


----------



## Foxfyre

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.  And no you can't.   By your own  definition you lack tolerance, period.   Your trying to bully others to your superior intolerant viewpoints is nothing short of sophomoric in its complete lack of self awareness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you disagree?  Thats fine but just remember I define what I am not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "That's fine but just remember I define what I am not you."  How can that be if his words can hurt you so?
Click to expand...


More important, assuming the unalienable right to define who and what we are does not translate into the unalienable right to define who and what somebody else is or must be.  All a free people should be allowed to deal with are actions--what people do--not who and what people are, think, believe, or embrace.


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Words only hurt if you CHOOSE to be hurt by them.  But, the younger you are, the harder that lesson is to learn, so while you have a point, it's not "false beyond belief".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never knew people chose to be hurt. I thought we avoided it like the plague as a result of instinct.  So yes it is false beyond belief. Ask any abused woman about her self worth after leaving that relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*  It is not false beyond belief.  If you call me a "cracker" or "hokey" or anything else in an attempt to hurt my feelings, I have to choose to accept it for it to have effect.  If not, it's totally ineffective.
Click to expand...


Did you acquire this knowledge innately or were you lucky enough to have someone educate you as a youth?


----------



## R.D.

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It looks to me like there is no interest in solving problems or achieving tolerance when it comes to the PC activists.  All they are interested in is advocating for THEIR group, THEIR cause, THEIR point of view and they do appear to be more than willing to physically and/or materially punish anybody who doesn't toe the line that THEY say is the tolerant, correct, open minded, acceptable attitude, speech, belief, opinion.  They can't see what an oxymoron it is to say that their opinion is tolerant and somebody else's opinion is not.
> 
> Unless we allow people to be bigoted--that is BE bigoted, not act out bigotry--there will always be bigotry because you can't denounce bigotry without demonstrating it toward the bigot that you condemn.   And so much of it is really relative.
> 
> Who is the more bigoted?   The man who denounces and approves physical and/or material punishment against a Don Imus or somebody else who makes a politically incorrect joke or observation about a black person--a man who claims to be pure as the driven snow re his attitudes toward black people--but who seeks out non-black friends, colleagues, associates, and venues and sees black people as victims who can't make it on their own without 'Whitey's' help?
> 
> *Or the guy who is open and honest that he sees black people as inferior to whites or dumb as rocks or just different, but who hires black people and treats them as well as any other employees*, who goes out of his way to help a black person in trouble, who offers a black neighbor a ride, who contributes to a scholarship fund for a young black person to go to college, or who steps in and defends a black person who is being threatened or abused?  We're talking Archie Bunker type prejudice here.
> 
> There is the kind of intolerance that actively hurts people--intends to hurt people.  And then there is the kind of intolerance that hurts nobody--that is nothing more than an attitude or opinion or belief.
> 
> I think intelligent people make the distinction between these two things and will push back against that which is truly harmful and be tolerant of that which is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  That was highly amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am happy to be your amusement for the day.  But the fact is such people do exist just as there are sexist, mysogynistic, arrogant SOBs as bosses who have given me some excellent opportunities over the years and have not disadvantaged me in any way because I am a woman.  There are black people who are very prejudiced against whites who can still conduct themselves appropriately and without discriminating against people.   Holding an opinion and acting it out are two different things.  I know that.  You seem to have a problem with it.  And I notice you picked a phrase out of context to ridicule and did not answer the question.
Click to expand...


That always confuses me.  Are they bigots for show only  in that case?  Just messed up!


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the removal or punishment of expression of ideas from society that are intolerant to the rights of other people to exist and enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else is beneficial.  There is no room in a progressive society for racism, sexism, bigotry etc. Maybe you can point out the benefit of such ideas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your question makes it absolutely clear that you simply don't understand what I'm saying.
> 
> But, since I rarely get straight answers here, I want to be sure to answer yours:  I see no benefit of ideas such as racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.
> 
> Now, to get more serious, I would like to see all of the above gone, as well.  And it's my opinion that the best way to do that is organically, by changing hearts and minds with reason, maturity, civility and patience - not with threats, punishment and intolerance.
> 
> Further, the only way I can identify the hearts and minds that I want to change is if they can speak freely.  Then it's my opportunity to communicate with them.  I'll win some, I'll lose some, but I know that punishing and intimidating them might somehow feed my ego, but it would also exacerbate their animosities.  That is clearly counterproductive.
> 
> I sincerely don't know why this is so difficult to grasp.  My guess is that it has to do with something I mentioned before on this thread - narcissism.  Some people just have a need to tell others what to do, what not to do, how to live, and most importantly, what offends them.  For these people, it seems clear that actually solving problems is secondary, at best.
> 
> We want the same end result.  I'd just prefer to reach it with freedom of expression, civility, maturity, reason, diversity of opinion and tolerance.  And humility.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It looks to me like there is no interest in solving problems or achieving tolerance when it comes to the PC activists.  All they are interested in is advocating for THEIR group, THEIR cause, THEIR point of view and they do appear to be more than willing to physically and/or materially punish anybody who doesn't toe the line that THEY say is the tolerant, correct, open minded, acceptable attitude, speech, belief, opinion.  They can't see what an oxymoron it is to say that their opinion is tolerant and somebody else's opinion is not.
> 
> Unless we allow people to be bigoted--that is BE bigoted, not act out bigotry--there will always be bigotry because you can't denounce bigotry without demonstrating it toward the bigot that you condemn.   And so much of it is really relative.
> 
> Who is the more bigoted?   The man who denounces and approves physical and/or material punishment against a Don Imus or somebody else who makes a politically incorrect joke or observation about a black person--a man who claims to be pure as the driven snow re his attitudes toward black people--but who seeks out non-black friends, colleagues, associates, and venues and sees black people as victims who can't make it on their own without 'Whitey's' help?
> 
> Or the guy who is open and honest that he sees black people as inferior to whites or dumb as rocks or just different, but who hires black people and treats them as well as any other employees, who goes out of his way to help a black person in trouble, who offers a black neighbor a ride, who contributes to a scholarship fund for a young black person to go to college, or who steps in and defends a black person who is being threatened or abused?  We're talking Archie Bunker type prejudice here.
> 
> *There is the kind of intolerance that actively hurts people--intends to hurt people.  And then their is the kind of intolerance that hurts nobody--that is nothing more than an attitude or opinion or belief.*
> 
> I think intelligent people make the distinction between these two things and will push back against that which is truly harmful and be tolerant of that which is not.
Click to expand...


Is there no intolerance that passively hurts people?  Is there no intolerance that unintentionally hurts people?


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> As his comments show, he was merely talking about his life as he remembered it but he was a kid and was probably sheltered from the ugliest stuff by both groups.   I don't believe that anyone would conclude he was saying Blacks were happy being oppressed.  I have never heard the argument that Blacks were happy being "rescued" from Africa and were happy to be slaves.  I would have to laugh in the face of anyone who seriously stated that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is an adult now and a successful businessman.  He should have known better and the reality and impact of his words. Lots of people concluded exactly what I did from his comments.  I agree its is funny to hear people say stuff like that but it stops being funny when you understand that was the rationale used to resolve the conflict between being a Christian and participating in a slave owning culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know what question he was asked that led to the comments?  I can't see it in the article, but it would matter.
Click to expand...


I dont recall the question but I dont believe it really matters. He knew he was being interviewed.


----------



## Iceweasel

hunarcy said:


> I wasn't trying to insult you, I merely want  you to be serious in your argument.  I can agree that no one has the right to tell you who to choose, but it is wrong headed to base the choice on who sleeps with who.  It should be based on who will pay the price while taking the best care of the property.
> 
> And, the State doesn't tell you who to rent to...it tells you what criteria you may NOT use to make your choice, but it never says you must rent to a specific person or group of people.


Larger companies have to be careful of that. If you have 1,000 employees and none of them are black, or female, or male, you will come under scrutiny. If a restaraunt won't serve a group, it too will have problems (although I don't agree with it). How can you enforce a law that says a landlord can't rule out a gay couple? Unless he has a large complex and tells them to their face or on the lease it's going to be tough to prosecute, assuming the locale has such a law. I'm unaware of sexual orientation being a Constitutionally protected class but bring me up to speed if I'm wrong.

YOU may not think it matters, but someone else may. That's the point.


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.  And no you can't.   By your own  definition you lack tolerance, period.   Your trying to bully others to your superior intolerant viewpoints is nothing short of sophomoric in its complete lack of self awareness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you disagree?  Thats fine but just remember I define what I am not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "That's fine but just remember I define what I am not you."  How can that be if his words can hurt you so?
Click to expand...


Who said his words hurt me?


----------



## Asclepias

R.D. said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Again, you admit a clear lack of knowledge but want to convince yourself you know the answers.
> 
> Woman in an abusive relationship choose to be there...once they choose to leave the hurt can be healed.
> 
> You would have been better served using children to try to prove your pont.  You swung and you missed.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you meant right. Words are more powerful than anything going. Adults are only physically mature children. The very fact you bush your teeth every day is an example of the power of words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With this post I will wish you a good day.  I suspect you might be  fooling around, but you're ill equipped for the game.  If not, the shallow end of the thought pool you're in leaves nothing more to discuss.
Click to expand...


Thats what people always say when they are faced with the truth. Good day.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you disagree?  Thats fine but just remember I define what I am not you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "That's fine but just remember I define what I am not you."  How can that be if his words can hurt you so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More important, assuming the unalienable right to define who and what we are does not translate into the unalienable right to define who and what somebody else is or must be.  All a free people should be allowed to deal with are actions--what people do--not who and what people are, think, believe, or embrace.
Click to expand...


As a group choosing to exist together that is exactly what we do.  We sacrifice individualism for the better of the group.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "That's fine but just remember I define what I am not you."  How can that be if his words can hurt you so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More important, assuming the unalienable right to define who and what we are does not translate into the unalienable right to define who and what somebody else is or must be.  All a free people should be allowed to deal with are actions--what people do--not who and what people are, think, believe, or embrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a group choosing to exist together that is exactly what we do.  We sacrifice individualism for the better of the group.
Click to expand...


Do we?  I don't.  I don't become somebody I am not for the 'betterment of the group.'  I believe allowing people to be who and what they are contributes to the betterment of the group.  That does not mean that we don't develop cultural norms and expectations that allow us to live together harmoniously, pleasantly, and productively.  But whenever the group decides that it will exercise thought, belief, mind control and dictate who and what people must be in order to be acceptable, you will never have betterment of the group.  You will have oppression, active acted out prejudice and bigotry, and power over all transferred to a few of the strongest.

That is what I hope this thread will accomplish--raise consciousness to the point that more people will understand that.  Control destructive BEHAVIOR--yes, a moral society does that.   ENCOURAGE etiquette including our language and conduct, yes a moral society can do that too.  But control thought?  Beliefs?  Expressed opinions?  Concepts?  No, that cannot be done without serious destruction of people's liberties options, choices, and opportunities.  It will always produce a more coarse, angry, hateful, and oppressed society among those tryng to doing it and those it is done to.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> More important, assuming the unalienable right to define who and what we are does not translate into the unalienable right to define who and what somebody else is or must be.  All a free people should be allowed to deal with are actions--what people do--not who and what people are, think, believe, or embrace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a group choosing to exist together that is exactly what we do.  We sacrifice individualism for the better of the group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Do we?  I don't.*  I don't become somebody I am not for the 'betterment of the group.'  I believe allowing people to be who and what they are contributes to the betterment of the group.  That does not mean that we don't develop cultural norms and expectations that allow us to live together harmoniously, pleasantly, and productively.  But whenever the group decides that it will exercise thought, belief, mind control and dictate who and what people must be in order to be acceptable, you will never have betterment of the group.  You will have oppression, active acted out prejudice and bigotry, and power over all transferred to a few of the strongest.
> 
> That is what I hope this thread will accomplish--raise consciousness to the point that more people will understand that.  Control destructive BEHAVIOR--yes, a moral society does that.   ENCOURAGE etiquette including our language and conduct, yes a moral society can do that too.  But control thought?  Beliefs?  Expressed opinions?  Concepts?  No, that cannot be done without serious destruction of people's liberties options, choices, and opportunities.  It will always produce a more coarse, angry, hateful, and oppressed society among those tryng to doing it and those it is done to.
Click to expand...


I do not pretend to read your mind but I would wager that statement was a falsehood.  I highly doubt you do whatever you want without regard of law and social norms.  People like that wind up in prison or mental institutions. I dont believe that people expressing intolerant ideas help to move society along in a positive manner.  I dont care if you think intolerant thoughts. I care if you potentially influence others with those thoughts. I disagree that allowing expression of those thoughts will do away with oppression. I think the opposite is true in that it will take longer each time the idea comes around to get rid of oppression. I don't seek to forcefully control thought only the *expression* of intolerant thought that leads to or has led to oppression of others.


----------



## Derideo_Te

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suspended, not fired.  My bad
> 
> He has already been reinstated, so much for that load of silly 'black eye'  defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't silly, it was a preemptive move on the part of A&E. Once they realized the only people that watched the show were like minded ignorant people they unsuspended him. Money speaks more than morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is calling people names to marginalize and belittle them intolerant and bigoted?
Click to expand...


That is not specifically a sign of intolerance and bigotry. Instead it speaks more of ignorance and the inability to make a coherent argument in support of their position. Another driver is low self esteem on the part of the name caller. Attempting to belittle their opponent in order to boost their own fragile ego. 

Granted those techniques are used by intolerant bigots but that is not to say that all name callers are automatically intolerant bigots. Some are merely incapable of engaging in civil discourse. 

And no, it is not intolerance on your part to ignore them. You are under no obligation to tolerate uncouth boors. However if you respond in kind then you risk being perceived as being no better than them yourself.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Iceweasel said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't contradict myself at all.  If you offer the housing to the public for rent, then anyone who is part of the public should be allowed to rent it, unless there's some reasonable reason (bad credit or a history of trashing rental properties) to say no.  Being a same sex couple is not a reasonable reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Landlords aren't offering services to the public. They are offering the service to an individual(s). Landlords pick and choose until the next time. It isn't like a public swimming pool. And you are not qualified to dictate what is reasonable for everyone else. In fact, that's very unreasonable. Liberals seem to always feel that society as a whole owns the business. Except when paying the bills comes along.
Click to expand...


A corporation is a legal contract with the state and as such must abide by state regulations. Simply because you own your own business does not give you the right to violate the Rule of Law. Landlords who are renting out their property for profit are corporations just like all others. Individuals who don't incorporate but instead make private rental arrangements for profit are also subject to the Rule of Law although it applies slightly differently.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a group choosing to exist together that is exactly what we do.  We sacrifice individualism for the better of the group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Do we?  I don't.*  I don't become somebody I am not for the 'betterment of the group.'  I believe allowing people to be who and what they are contributes to the betterment of the group.  That does not mean that we don't develop cultural norms and expectations that allow us to live together harmoniously, pleasantly, and productively.  But whenever the group decides that it will exercise thought, belief, mind control and dictate who and what people must be in order to be acceptable, you will never have betterment of the group.  You will have oppression, active acted out prejudice and bigotry, and power over all transferred to a few of the strongest.
> 
> That is what I hope this thread will accomplish--raise consciousness to the point that more people will understand that.  Control destructive BEHAVIOR--yes, a moral society does that.   ENCOURAGE etiquette including our language and conduct, yes a moral society can do that too.  But control thought?  Beliefs?  Expressed opinions?  Concepts?  No, that cannot be done without serious destruction of people's liberties options, choices, and opportunities.  It will always produce a more coarse, angry, hateful, and oppressed society among those tryng to doing it and those it is done to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not pretend to read your mind but I would wager that statement was a falsehood.  I highly doubt you do whatever you want without regard of law and social norms.  People like that wind up in prison or mental institutions. I dont believe that people expressing intolerant ideas help to move society along in a positive manner.  I dont care if you think intolerant thoughts. I care if you potentially influence others with those thoughts. I disagree that allowing expression of those thoughts will do away with oppression. I think the opposite is true in that it will take longer each time the idea comes around to get rid of oppression. I don't seek to forcefully control thought only the *expression* of intolerant thought that leads to or has led to oppression of others.
Click to expand...


As you said, you don't allow others to define you.  I don't allow others to define me either.    And please read more carefully.  I did not say, imply or suggest that I do whatever I want without regard of law and social norms.  I believe if you will honestly read what I wrote, I said the explicit opposite of that.  That I choose to conform to what is considered civil in my social groups and thereby achieve harmony and a pleasant and/or productive environment in no way changes who and and what I am.

Now try to focus.  I am speaking of controlling what people think, believe, perceive.  It is THAT which no society can try to control without oppressing the people.  How can you demand tolerance of thought in others without being aggressively and forcably intolerant yourself?  And who do you trust with the authority to determine what is okay for people to think, believe and express and what is not?

Would you trust me to make up such a list for you?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Foxfyre said:


> It seems that some here are intentionally refusing or failing to discern the difference between thinking/believing something and doing something to somebody else.  I may think Asclepias to be the most bigoted, intolerant, and ignorant person in the world because he thinks people who watch A&E's Duck Dynasty are ignorant, but I do not harm Asclepias in the least because I think that.  Nor does he harm a single Duck Dynasty fan by holding that opinion of them.
> 
> I am an advocate for demonizing and squelching the current concept of political correctness that translates into a politics of personal destruction for anybody who wanders off the PC plantation of th day or offends anybody in a 'protected' class.  But I am not demanding that any one of you who do not agree with me on that be harmed or disciplined in any way.
> 
> *The opinions that we hold harm nobody.  It is ACTING on those opinions or intending to act on those opinions that can harm people. * But too many here can't seem to make the distinction between those two things.



You are correct that *holding* an opinion is different to *ACTING* on that opinion.

PR *ACTED* on his opinion when he used his celebrity status to expound his intolerance. It was that *ACTION* on his part that caused the *REACTION* by GLAAD.


----------



## BDBoop

Plasmaball said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that some here are intentionally refusing or failing to discern the difference between thinking/believing something and doing something to somebody else.  I may think Asclepias to be the most bigoted, intolerant, and ignorant person in the world because he thinks people who watch A&E's Duck Dynasty are ignorant, but I do not harm Asclepias in the least because I think that.  Nor does he harm a single Duck Dynasty fan by holding that opinion of them.
> 
> I am an advocate for demonizing and squelching the current concept of political correctness that translates into a politics of personal destruction for anybody who wanders off the PC plantation of th day or offends anybody in a 'protected' class.  But I am not demanding that any one of you who do not agree with me on that be harmed or disciplined in any way.
> 
> The opinions that we hold harm nobody.  It is ACTING on those opinions or intending to act on those opinions that can harm people.  But too many here can't seem to make the distinction between those two things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we got it the first 30 times you posted this, and everytime you've posted it you are wrong.
> 
> You cant have an opinion on what someone thinks unless they state it.
> 
> Nobody is saying you are not allowed to think/believe in what you want. What you are seemingly having trouble with is the concept of freedom. We have the freedom in this nation to protest, boycott and demand things. If you say something on national tv, I have the right if i don't like it to demand you to be fired.
> 
> Again like Mac had this been 1774 you would be arguing that we shouldn't be boycotting the Crown. You are against the very notion of the Tea party, Which is EXACTLY what you are arguing against. Sure its an extreme example, but hey fuck it. According to you and Mac we should have been able to "talk" it out politely where everyones opinion is heard. What a wonderful liberal utopia fantasy world that is.
> 
> You are actually pissing me off because all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want. You are so wrong it borderlines on the absurd.You can remain in the land of grey opinion and you are wrong. You can venture over to the legal area and you are wrong. The end result is your opinion is very anti-freedom, and massively ignorant of how this all works.
> 
> You don't get to express your opinion and have zero consequences for stating such opinions.
> 
> There is no protected class. There never was. You have the right to say ******, retard, gay, fag, etc all you want. If the general population doesnt approve of such opinions. Then they have to right to shun, mock and in the case you own a business take their money elsewhere. Which when you think about it, if you are a tv network and you loose viewers, you loose sponsors. The people could literally say nothing, walk away and the sponsors would pull out anyways.
> 
> A&E and other network are about making as much money as they can. Lets make up a term and call it capitalism for fun. In this world of capitalism the idea is to go out and make as much money as possible. So you want to reach as many people as possible in order to gain more profits.
> 
> There is nothing more fundamentally capitalistic than boycotting. Within this you will have people calling for firings and sponsor pullouts.
> 
> Its time to face the reality you are just wrong.
Click to expand...


Excellent post. Extremely well-done.


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> More important, assuming the unalienable right to define who and what we are does not translate into the unalienable right to define who and what somebody else is or must be.  All a free people should be allowed to deal with are actions--what people do--not who and what people are, think, believe, or embrace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a group choosing to exist together that is exactly what we do.  We sacrifice individualism for the better of the group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we?  I don't.  I don't become somebody I am not for the 'betterment of the group.'  I believe allowing people to be who and what they are contributes to the betterment of the group.  That does not mean that we don't develop cultural norms and expectations that allow us to live together harmoniously, pleasantly, and productively.  But whenever the group decides that it will exercise thought, belief, mind control and dictate who and what people must be in order to be acceptable, you will never have betterment of the group.  You will have oppression, active acted out prejudice and bigotry, and power over all transferred to a few of the strongest.
> 
> That is what I hope this thread will accomplish--raise consciousness to the point that more people will understand that.  Control destructive BEHAVIOR--yes, a moral society does that.   ENCOURAGE etiquette including our language and conduct, yes a moral society can do that too.  But control thought?  Beliefs?  Expressed opinions?  Concepts?  No, that cannot be done without serious destruction of people's liberties options, choices, and opportunities.  It will always produce a more coarse, angry, hateful, and oppressed society among those tryng to doing it and those it is done to.
Click to expand...


Actually Foxy, as usual I think the argument is more of degree than a yes/no, right/wrong one.

Any society does it's best to control thought, in that it attempts to get the members to think the rules are right and good.  Yes, anyone can think whatever they want, but when the societal norm is to, to use your example, teach a particular form of etiquette as correct, that is a type of thought control.  The most effective, perhaps; teaching children what is right and correct.  In that way, society controls the thoughts of it's members to a degree.

It is not a complete control, as that is currently impossible.  No one (that I am aware of) can actually CONTROL anyone else's thoughts.  Punish someone for the expression of certain thoughts, yes, but not direct control.

So, call it control, call it encouragement, call it indoctrination, societies most definitely practice it, as do individuals.

No one is having their thoughts directly controlled.  What you disagree with is the degree of action taken to encourage or punish based on someone's thoughts, IMO.  Telling someone what they believe is incorrect can be a form of encouraging or punishing someone for their beliefs.  Deciding not to watch a show like Duck Dynasty because you disagree with Phil Robertson's views is an attempt to encourage your beliefs or punish for his.  The intent can even be the same; there is no reason an individual cannot wish to see Phil Robertson physically and materially punished for his beliefs and stop watching or buying DD products in an attempt to further that, or encourage others to do the same.  What you seem to oppose is a certain degree; you don't like it done in an organized fashion, you don't like to see it go further than a certain level.

Especially since this is not, by your own design, a legal issue, it is all about how far you think someone should go to try and change or suppress someone else's opinions, not whether you think they should try at all.  

Put another way, it is not about anyone's intent but about the end results.  Anyone can intend to hurt Phil Robertson physically and materially, but you only seem upset when they are able to accomplish it.


----------



## Derideo_Te

hunarcy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that some here are intentionally refusing or failing to discern the difference between thinking/believing something and doing something to somebody else.  I may think Asclepias to be the most bigoted, intolerant, and ignorant person in the world because he thinks people who watch A&E's Duck Dynasty are ignorant, but I do not harm Asclepias in the least because I think that.  Nor does he harm a single Duck Dynasty fan by holding that opinion of them.
> 
> I am an advocate for demonizing and squelching the current concept of political correctness that translates into a politics of personal destruction for anybody who wanders off the demanded plantation or offends anybody in a 'protected' class.  But I am not demanding that any one of you who do not agree with me on that be harmed or disciplined in any way.
> 
> The opinions that we hold harm nobody.  It is ACTING on those opinions or intending to act on those opinions that can harm people.  But too many here can't seem to make the distinction between those two things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Fox up to the point that once a intolerant idea is expressed for public consumption, any and all means are fair play to rid the earth of that sentiment being circulated again. Progress is slowed down by intolerant ideas. Squashing them from being expressed and allowing the concept of gradualism to deal with the inherent damaging aspects of those thoughts will speed up progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't agree that "any and all means are fair play".  Censorship is never an answer.  Even if it slows down that which you consider progress, allowing everyone to express their ideas and then judging those ideas on their merits are the ONLY way that true progress will be achieved.
Click to expand...


Just to play devils advocate here Conservatives believe that political correctness is a form of censorship and up to a point they are correct. However PCness is "censorship" imposed by a society choosing to no longer tolerate demeaning terms. It is *NOT* censorship imposed by the government via regulation. That distinction is the key here. Society does have the right to censor those who are disrespectful towards others. But the penalty for that censorship is merely societal disapproval. There is no legal penalty as would be the case if it were regulated censorship.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do we?  I don't.*  I don't become somebody I am not for the 'betterment of the group.'  I believe allowing people to be who and what they are contributes to the betterment of the group.  That does not mean that we don't develop cultural norms and expectations that allow us to live together harmoniously, pleasantly, and productively.  But whenever the group decides that it will exercise thought, belief, mind control and dictate who and what people must be in order to be acceptable, you will never have betterment of the group.  You will have oppression, active acted out prejudice and bigotry, and power over all transferred to a few of the strongest.
> 
> That is what I hope this thread will accomplish--raise consciousness to the point that more people will understand that.  Control destructive BEHAVIOR--yes, a moral society does that.   ENCOURAGE etiquette including our language and conduct, yes a moral society can do that too.  But control thought?  Beliefs?  Expressed opinions?  Concepts?  No, that cannot be done without serious destruction of people's liberties options, choices, and opportunities.  It will always produce a more coarse, angry, hateful, and oppressed society among those tryng to doing it and those it is done to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not pretend to read your mind but I would wager that statement was a falsehood.  I highly doubt you do whatever you want without regard of law and social norms.  People like that wind up in prison or mental institutions. I dont believe that people expressing intolerant ideas help to move society along in a positive manner.  I dont care if you think intolerant thoughts. I care if you potentially influence others with those thoughts. I disagree that allowing expression of those thoughts will do away with oppression. I think the opposite is true in that it will take longer each time the idea comes around to get rid of oppression. I don't seek to forcefully control thought only the *expression* of intolerant thought that leads to or has led to oppression of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you said, you don't allow others to define you.  I don't allow others to define me either.    And please read more carefully.  I did not say, imply or suggest that I do whatever I want without regard of law and social norms.  I believe if you will honestly read what I wrote, I said the explicit opposite of that.  *That I choose to conform to what is considered civil in my social groups and thereby achieve harmony and a pleasant and/or productive environment in no way changes who and and what I am.*
> 
> Now try to focus.  I am speaking of controlling what people think, believe, perceive.  It is THAT which no society can try to control without oppressing the people.  How can you demand tolerance of thought in others without being aggressively and forcably intolerant yourself?  And who do you trust with the authority to determine what is okay for people to think, believe and express and what is not?
> 
> Would you trust me to make up such a list for you?
Click to expand...


I could not have said it better myself. Those that do not wish to promote harmony are the problem. Their ideas are worthless and recycled. If they conform to social norms by not espousing their stale viewpoints we lose nothing but gain an enormous benefit in a more tolerant, progressive society. 

I think you are the one having an issue with focusing. I have said innumerable time I don't care what you think only the expression of it. As far as demanding tolerance goes its pretty easy as I pointed out previously. If your idea is to denigrate, subjugate, or any of those bad words then I get to punish you by boycott etc.  Again I dont have a problem with being intolerant of intolerance. I trust the people that are on the side of tolerance and equality to assist in defining what expressions of thought should be subjected to censorship just like we do now.  I dont know where you stand on issues so no I would not trust you.


----------



## Plasmaball

BDBoop said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that some here are intentionally refusing or failing to discern the difference between thinking/believing something and doing something to somebody else.  I may think Asclepias to be the most bigoted, intolerant, and ignorant person in the world because he thinks people who watch A&E's Duck Dynasty are ignorant, but I do not harm Asclepias in the least because I think that.  Nor does he harm a single Duck Dynasty fan by holding that opinion of them.
> 
> I am an advocate for demonizing and squelching the current concept of political correctness that translates into a politics of personal destruction for anybody who wanders off the PC plantation of th day or offends anybody in a 'protected' class.  But I am not demanding that any one of you who do not agree with me on that be harmed or disciplined in any way.
> 
> The opinions that we hold harm nobody.  It is ACTING on those opinions or intending to act on those opinions that can harm people.  But too many here can't seem to make the distinction between those two things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we got it the first 30 times you posted this, and everytime you've posted it you are wrong.
> 
> You cant have an opinion on what someone thinks unless they state it.
> 
> Nobody is saying you are not allowed to think/believe in what you want. What you are seemingly having trouble with is the concept of freedom. We have the freedom in this nation to protest, boycott and demand things. If you say something on national tv, I have the right if i don't like it to demand you to be fired.
> 
> Again like Mac had this been 1774 you would be arguing that we shouldn't be boycotting the Crown. You are against the very notion of the Tea party, Which is EXACTLY what you are arguing against. Sure its an extreme example, but hey fuck it. According to you and Mac we should have been able to "talk" it out politely where everyones opinion is heard. What a wonderful liberal utopia fantasy world that is.
> 
> You are actually pissing me off because all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want. You are so wrong it borderlines on the absurd.You can remain in the land of grey opinion and you are wrong. You can venture over to the legal area and you are wrong. The end result is your opinion is very anti-freedom, and massively ignorant of how this all works.
> 
> You don't get to express your opinion and have zero consequences for stating such opinions.
> 
> There is no protected class. There never was. You have the right to say ******, retard, gay, fag, etc all you want. If the general population doesnt approve of such opinions. Then they have to right to shun, mock and in the case you own a business take their money elsewhere. Which when you think about it, if you are a tv network and you loose viewers, you loose sponsors. The people could literally say nothing, walk away and the sponsors would pull out anyways.
> 
> A&E and other network are about making as much money as they can. Lets make up a term and call it capitalism for fun. In this world of capitalism the idea is to go out and make as much money as possible. So you want to reach as many people as possible in order to gain more profits.
> 
> There is nothing more fundamentally capitalistic than boycotting. Within this you will have people calling for firings and sponsor pullouts.
> 
> Its time to face the reality you are just wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent post. Extremely well-done.
Click to expand...

sadly they will just ignore it and then post the same tripe over again that nobody is understanding the overly simple question the OP created. 

Its really sad when people clamor for honest debating, and then either ignore it, or claim they rarely get it. Then brush it off when they get a serious answer that doesnt jive with their opinion. 

Regardless A&E did the right thing and didnt fire Phil. They should let things ride and they will see Glaad still hating Phil but their ratings will remain high.


----------



## Plasmaball

i wonder if if Fox is against protests when someone wants to open up a "adult store", and thus tries to pressure the local board to not allow it.


----------



## Mac1958

Foxfyre said:


> What do you think?




So, I guess you have your answer.

There are people who are going to do whatever they can to shut down opposing speech, and they are convinced that this is the way to fix our problems.

We'll see, huh?

.


----------



## R.D.

Plasmaball said:


> Nobody is saying you are not allowed to think/believe in what you want. What you are seemingly having trouble with is the concept of freedom. We have the freedom in this nation to protest, boycott and demand things. If you say something on national tv, I have the right if i don't like it to demand you to be fired. ....


So protest.  A&E crossed the line 



> You don't get to express your opinion and have zero consequences for stating such opinions........



As A&E swiftly discovered 



> There is nothing more fundamentally capitalistic than boycotting. Within this you will have people calling for firings and sponsor pullouts.....
> 
> Regardless A&E did the right thing and didnt fire Phil. They should let things ride and they will see Glaad still hating Phil but their ratings will remain high.



A&E didn't boycott them.  

They backed off because they were wrong and thankfully most voices saw their bs for what it was.


----------



## Plasmaball

Mac1958 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I guess you have your answer.
> 
> There are people who are going to do whatever they can to shut down opposing speech, and they are convinced that this is the way to fix our problems.
> 
> We'll see, huh?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


see what i mean..ill just repost these parts:

*had this been 1774 you would be arguing that we shouldn't be boycotting the Crown. You are against the very notion of the Tea party, Which is EXACTLY what you are arguing against. Sure its an extreme example, but hey fuck it. According to you and Mac we should have been able to "talk" it out politely where everyones opinion is heard. What a wonderful liberal utopia fantasy world that is. 

You are actually pissing me off because all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want. You are so wrong it borderlines on the absurd.You can remain in the land of grey opinion and you are wrong. You can venture over to the legal area and you are wrong. The end result is your opinion is very anti-freedom, and massively ignorant of how this all works.*
i bet you look good with a wig


----------



## Foxfyre

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that some here are intentionally refusing or failing to discern the difference between thinking/believing something and doing something to somebody else.  I may think Asclepias to be the most bigoted, intolerant, and ignorant person in the world because he thinks people who watch A&E's Duck Dynasty are ignorant, but I do not harm Asclepias in the least because I think that.  Nor does he harm a single Duck Dynasty fan by holding that opinion of them.
> 
> I am an advocate for demonizing and squelching the current concept of political correctness that translates into a politics of personal destruction for anybody who wanders off the PC plantation of th day or offends anybody in a 'protected' class.  But I am not demanding that any one of you who do not agree with me on that be harmed or disciplined in any way.
> 
> *The opinions that we hold harm nobody.  It is ACTING on those opinions or intending to act on those opinions that can harm people. * But too many here can't seem to make the distinction between those two things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct that *holding* an opinion is different to *ACTING* on that opinion.
> 
> PR *ACTED* on his opinion when he used his celebrity status to expound his intolerance. It was that *ACTION* on his part that caused the *REACTION* by GLAAD.
Click to expand...


I disagree.  It was no doubt his celebrity status that got him the interview with GQ Magazine.  But his expressing an opinion when asked for that opinion is not acting on anything.  It is expressing an opinion.  And it doesn't matter if it is a bowery gutter bum, a preacher, a Buddhist monk, a CEO of a corporation, a movie star, a Duck Dynasty character, or the President of the United States, expressing an opinion is expressing an opinion and nothing else.  The ACTION came from GQ Magazine that chose to publish the opinion they gathered in the interview.

Would GLAAD have been justified in going after GQ Magazine for pubishing that opinion?  No, they would not any more than they were justified going after A&E and Phil Robertson.  Would they have been justified in publishing or speaking or advertising their own opinion of that opinion?  Yes they would.

But it's back to the difference between telling somebody off and physically assaulting or punching them out.  To object to another's public opinion is fair game.  To go after him to physically and/or materially hurt him for nothing more than expressing an opinion they didn't like  is not.

If it is okiay to punch Phil out for expressing an unpopular belief, then it is okay for me to punch out any member of GLAAD for expressing an opinion I don't agree with or to threaten or punch out or hurt anybody I disagree with.  It doesn't take a whole lot to start a whole new civil war if everybody thinks its okay to hurt somebody who says something they don't like.


----------



## Mac1958

Plasmaball said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I guess you have your answer.
> 
> There are people who are going to do whatever they can to shut down opposing speech, and they are convinced that this is the way to fix our problems.
> 
> We'll see, huh?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> see what i mean..ill just repost these parts:
> 
> *had this been 1774 you would be arguing that we shouldn't be boycotting the Crown. You are against the very notion of the Tea party, Which is EXACTLY what you are arguing against. Sure its an extreme example, but hey fuck it. According to you and Mac we should have been able to "talk" it out politely where everyones opinion is heard. What a wonderful liberal utopia fantasy world that is.
> 
> You are actually pissing me off because all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want. You are so wrong it borderlines on the absurd.You can remain in the land of grey opinion and you are wrong. You can venture over to the legal area and you are wrong. The end result is your opinion is very anti-freedom, and massively ignorant of how this all works.*
> i bet you look good with a wig
Click to expand...



Did I say something wrong in that post?

.


----------



## Plasmaball

R.D. said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is saying you are not allowed to think/believe in what you want. What you are seemingly having trouble with is the concept of freedom. We have the freedom in this nation to protest, boycott and demand things. If you say something on national tv, I have the right if i don't like it to demand you to be fired. ....
> 
> 
> 
> So protest.  A&E crossed the line
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to express your opinion and have zero consequences for stating such opinions........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As A&E swiftly discovered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing more fundamentally capitalistic than boycotting. Within this you will have people calling for firings and sponsor pullouts.....
> 
> Regardless A&E did the right thing and didnt fire Phil. They should let things ride and they will see Glaad still hating Phil but their ratings will remain high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A&E didn't boycott them.
> 
> They backed off because they were wrong and thankfully most voices saw their bs for what it was.
Click to expand...


No they didnt. They did what they felt would make them the most money by reaching the most viewers. They suspended him so they would not alienate any gay viewers they might have. 

True, but so did Phil. Ten to one Phil nor the rest of the group will be making such statements in the future. 

I never stated A&E boycotted them. 

They backed off because either this was a PR stunt for the new season or they saw that the reality was more people who watch Ducks would have left and that hurt their bottom line


----------



## Plasmaball

Mac1958 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I guess you have your answer.
> 
> There are people who are going to do whatever they can to shut down opposing speech, and they are convinced that this is the way to fix our problems.
> 
> We'll see, huh?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> see what i mean..ill just repost these parts:
> 
> *had this been 1774 you would be arguing that we shouldn't be boycotting the Crown. You are against the very notion of the Tea party, Which is EXACTLY what you are arguing against. Sure its an extreme example, but hey fuck it. According to you and Mac we should have been able to "talk" it out politely where everyones opinion is heard. What a wonderful liberal utopia fantasy world that is.
> 
> You are actually pissing me off because all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want. You are so wrong it borderlines on the absurd.You can remain in the land of grey opinion and you are wrong. You can venture over to the legal area and you are wrong. The end result is your opinion is very anti-freedom, and massively ignorant of how this all works.*
> i bet you look good with a wig
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say something wrong in that post?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


 all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want.


----------



## Mac1958

Plasmaball said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> see what i mean..ill just repost these parts:
> 
> *had this been 1774 you would be arguing that we shouldn't be boycotting the Crown. You are against the very notion of the Tea party, Which is EXACTLY what you are arguing against. Sure its an extreme example, but hey fuck it. According to you and Mac we should have been able to "talk" it out politely where everyones opinion is heard. What a wonderful liberal utopia fantasy world that is.
> 
> You are actually pissing me off because all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want. You are so wrong it borderlines on the absurd.You can remain in the land of grey opinion and you are wrong. You can venture over to the legal area and you are wrong. The end result is your opinion is very anti-freedom, and massively ignorant of how this all works.*
> i bet you look good with a wig
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say something wrong in that post?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want.
Click to expand...



That's okay, I never expect straight answers here.

.


----------



## R.D.

Mac1958 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say something wrong in that post?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want.
Click to expand...


You already said that


----------



## Mac1958

R.D. said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say something wrong in that post?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already said that
Click to expand...





Just say it, folks.  Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.

Just say it, it's okay.   We already know.

.


----------



## Plasmaball

Mac1958 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say something wrong in that post?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's okay, I never expect straight answers here.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


but you where given them a few times, and they where brushed off or ignored so you could continue on your little whatever quest about how people want to do blah blah even though you are wrong.


----------



## R.D.

Plasmaball said:


> They did what they felt would make them the most money by reaching the most viewers. They suspended him so they would not alienate any gay viewers they might have. ..
> 
> 
> They backed off because either this was a PR stunt for the new season or they saw that the reality was more people who watch Ducks would have left and that hurt their bottom line



Which is it? 

You're applying what you want to be the motive not what they claim to be the motive.   By backing off they admit they were both  wrong and out maneuvered by the public outrage 

I don't doubt PR played them and he will speak up again if asked.


----------



## Asclepias

R.D. said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is saying you are not allowed to think/believe in what you want. What you are seemingly having trouble with is the concept of freedom. We have the freedom in this nation to protest, boycott and demand things. If you say something on national tv, I have the right if i don't like it to demand you to be fired. ....
> 
> 
> 
> So protest.  A&E crossed the line
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to express your opinion and have zero consequences for stating such opinions........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As A&E swiftly discovered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing more fundamentally capitalistic than boycotting. Within this you will have people calling for firings and sponsor pullouts.....
> 
> Regardless A&E did the right thing and didnt fire Phil. They should let things ride and they will see Glaad still hating Phil but their ratings will remain high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A&E didn't boycott them.
> 
> They backed off because they were wrong and thankfully most voices saw their bs for what it was.
Click to expand...


Why would someone protest if they thought A&E took the correct actions albeit for monetary reasons?

Yes A&E discovered their viewers felt the same way the duck guy does. Thats how it works.  I bet that also taught the duck guy to watch what he says in public and A&E is probably already looking to create more shows that cater to open minded individuals to replace the revenue stream.

A&E is about making money. Their decisions reflected that in both moves.


----------



## Plasmaball

Mac1958 said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already said that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just say it, folks.  Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.
> 
> Just say it, it's okay.   We already know.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


this isnt a free speech issue nor is any of this. Phil, and everyone else who the OP listed still have their freedom of speech intact. For the love of dogs you cant even get that right, how do you even expect to have any of the rest right?


----------



## Mac1958

Plasmaball said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You already said that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just say it, folks.  Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.
> 
> Just say it, it's okay.   We already know.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this isnt a free speech issue nor is any of this. Phil, and everyone else who the OP listed still have their freedom of speech intact. For the love of dogs you cant even get that right, how do you even expect to have any of the rest right?
Click to expand...



I think you folks are genetically incapable of providing straight, honest responses.

Come on, say it:  Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.

Aren't you proud of that?  What are you afraid of?

.


----------



## Asclepias

Mac1958 said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already said that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just say it, folks.  Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down *speech that you don't like*, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.
> 
> Just say it, it's okay.   We already know.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


With a slight correction I have admitted it several times. Speech that denigrates and slows down progress.


----------



## Plasmaball

Asclepias said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is saying you are not allowed to think/believe in what you want. What you are seemingly having trouble with is the concept of freedom. We have the freedom in this nation to protest, boycott and demand things. If you say something on national tv, I have the right if i don't like it to demand you to be fired. ....
> 
> 
> 
> So protest.  A&E crossed the line
> 
> 
> 
> As A&E swiftly discovered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing more fundamentally capitalistic than boycotting. Within this you will have people calling for firings and sponsor pullouts.....
> 
> Regardless A&E did the right thing and didnt fire Phil. They should let things ride and they will see Glaad still hating Phil but their ratings will remain high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A&E didn't boycott them.
> 
> They backed off because they were wrong and thankfully most voices saw their bs for what it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would someone protest if they thought A&E took the correct actions albeit for monetary reasons?
> 
> Yes A&E discovered their viewers felt the same way the duck guy does. Thats how it works.  I bet that also taught the duck guy to watch what he says in public and A&E is probably already looking to create more shows that cater to open minded individuals to replace the revenue stream.
> 
> A&E is about making money. Their decisions reflected that in both moves.
Click to expand...


Principle. Glaad protested Phil and the Phil likers protested Glaad..

Nobody is going anywhere. I doubt they will loose viewers. The thing people dont understand is after a week people forget and move onto the next drama.


----------



## R.D.

Plasmaball said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You already said that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just say it, folks.  Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.
> 
> Just say it, it's okay.   We already know.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this isnt a free speech issue nor is any of this. Phil, and everyone else who the OP listed still have their freedom of speech intact. For the love of dogs you cant even get that right, how do you even expect to have any of the rest right?
Click to expand...

It certainly is about shutting him down...based on what he said.   Be honest.


----------



## Mac1958

Asclepias said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You already said that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just say it, folks.  Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down *speech that you don't like*, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.
> 
> Just say it, it's okay.   We already know.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With a slight correction I have admitted it several times. Speech that denigrates and slows down progress.
Click to expand...




There ya go, I appreciate your honesty.

I don't know what Plasmaball is so afraid of.

.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Uh, this is the Clean Debate Zone, right?

Just checking...


----------



## Plasmaball

Mac1958 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just say it, folks.  Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.
> 
> Just say it, it's okay.   We already know.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this isnt a free speech issue nor is any of this. Phil, and everyone else who the OP listed still have their freedom of speech intact. For the love of dogs you cant even get that right, how do you even expect to have any of the rest right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think you folks are genetically incapable of providing straight, honest responses.
> 
> Come on, say it:  Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.
> 
> Aren't you proud of that?  What are you afraid of?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You folks? you know how many times i've gone into your threads you've made and gave you an actual answer when nobody else would give you the time of day Mac? 
Numerous. 

When you going to admit you would have sided with the crown?


----------



## Asclepias

Plasmaball said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So protest.  A&E crossed the line
> 
> 
> 
> As A&E swiftly discovered
> 
> 
> 
> A&E didn't boycott them.
> 
> They backed off because they were wrong and thankfully most voices saw their bs for what it was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would someone protest if they thought A&E took the correct actions albeit for monetary reasons?
> 
> Yes A&E discovered their viewers felt the same way the duck guy does. Thats how it works.  I bet that also taught the duck guy to watch what he says in public and A&E is probably already looking to create more shows that cater to open minded individuals to replace the revenue stream.
> 
> A&E is about making money. Their decisions reflected that in both moves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Principle. Glaad protested Phil and the Phil likers protested Glaad..
> 
> Nobody is going anywhere. I doubt they will loose viewers. The thing people dont understand is after a week people forget and move onto the next drama.
Click to expand...


That is true. Our society has the attention span of a gnat.  The only good thing is that we are now aware of where the duck guy and A&E stand.


----------



## Plasmaball

R.D. said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just say it, folks.  Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.
> 
> Just say it, it's okay.   We already know.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this isnt a free speech issue nor is any of this. Phil, and everyone else who the OP listed still have their freedom of speech intact. For the love of dogs you cant even get that right, how do you even expect to have any of the rest right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly is about shutting him down...based on what he said.   Be honest.
Click to expand...


they wanted him off the air yes, but that didnt take away his freedom of speech. Need not to confuse the two.


----------



## Plasmaball

Asclepias said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would someone protest if they thought A&E took the correct actions albeit for monetary reasons?
> 
> Yes A&E discovered their viewers felt the same way the duck guy does. Thats how it works.  I bet that also taught the duck guy to watch what he says in public and A&E is probably already looking to create more shows that cater to open minded individuals to replace the revenue stream.
> 
> A&E is about making money. Their decisions reflected that in both moves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Principle. Glaad protested Phil and the Phil likers protested Glaad..
> 
> Nobody is going anywhere. I doubt they will loose viewers. The thing people dont understand is after a week people forget and move onto the next drama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true. Our society has the attention span of a gnat.  The only good thing is that we are now aware of where the duck guy and A&E stand.
Click to expand...


we always knew where they stood, least i did. Dont worry the next media outrage is already about to happen.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Mac1958 said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already said that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just say it, folks.  Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.
> 
> Just say it, it's okay.   We already know.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Society has the right to mold itself into whatever form it believes is right. That was true when taxpayers chose to revolt against what they saw as British oppression. It was also true when blacks chose to revolt against southern oppression. The intimidation in both of those instances took the form of physical violence against transgressors which makes them extreme but the principle is the same.

Society today is going through a phase where it is shrugging off the oppression of gays. Granted the oppressive violence against gays was not on the same scale but it existed all the same. The societal oppression of gays was far more insidious.

So yes, now that the majority of society has realized that it is just as wrong to oppress gays as it was to oppress blacks and women and taxpayers it is transforming itself. Like any transformation it involves turmoil and conflict and it makes some people unhappy.

But as you have said many times in this thread it is better that this is openly discussed in a civilized manner than the alternative.


----------



## Plasmaball

Mac1958 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just say it, folks.  Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down *speech that you don't like*, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.
> 
> Just say it, it's okay.   We already know.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With a slight correction I have admitted it several times. Speech that denigrates and slows down progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There ya go, I appreciate your honesty.
> 
> I don't know what Plasmaball is so afraid of.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


im for the free market to decide what happens. I really dont give a shit what you say out in public, just dont come crying like a little baby when the reaction is negative.


----------



## R.D.

Plasmaball said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> this isnt a free speech issue nor is any of this. Phil, and everyone else who the OP listed still have their freedom of speech intact. For the love of dogs you cant even get that right, how do you even expect to have any of the rest right?
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly is about shutting him down...based on what he said.   Be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they wanted him off the air yes, but that didnt take away his freedom of speech. Need not to confuse the two.
Click to expand...


That's true, they don't have that ability.  What they actually infringed on were his civil rights.    No too smart.  Hence the back peddling.  Smart


----------



## Asclepias

Plasmaball said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Principle. Glaad protested Phil and the Phil likers protested Glaad..
> 
> Nobody is going anywhere. I doubt they will loose viewers. The thing people dont understand is after a week people forget and move onto the next drama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is true. Our society has the attention span of a gnat.  The only good thing is that we are now aware of where the duck guy and A&E stand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we always knew where they stood, least i did. Dont worry the next media outrage is already about to happen.
Click to expand...


I never heard of the show until this little episode but yes there is a constant supply of controversial events lined up for public consumption so we wont focus on whats really going on.


----------



## Plasmaball

R.D. said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly is about shutting him down...based on what he said.   Be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they wanted him off the air yes, but that didnt take away his freedom of speech. Need not to confuse the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's true, they don't have that ability.  What they actually infringed on were his civil rights.    No too smart.  Hence the back peddling.  Smart
Click to expand...


what civil rights? he signed a contract.


----------



## R.D.

Plasmaball said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> they wanted him off the air yes, but that didnt take away his freedom of speech. Need not to confuse the two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's true, they don't have that ability.  What they actually infringed on were his civil rights.    No too smart.  Hence the back peddling.  Smart
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what civil rights? he signed a contract.
Click to expand...

There is no contract that can trump the law. 

Not to my knowledge


----------



## Plasmaball

R.D. said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's true, they don't have that ability.  What they actually infringed on were his civil rights.    No too smart.  Hence the back peddling.  Smart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what civil rights? he signed a contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no contract that can trump the law.
> 
> Not to my knowledge
Click to expand...


what civil right?


----------



## Derideo_Te

R.D. said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's true, they don't have that ability.  What they actually infringed on were his civil rights.    No too smart.  Hence the back peddling.  Smart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what civil rights? he signed a contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no contract that can trump the law.
> 
> Not to my knowledge
Click to expand...


Your employer can make you sign a contract not to say anything that will cause your employer any loss of reputation and/or income and can legally terminate your employment if you violate that contract. 

So if you work for ACME, inc and you go on Facebook or Twitter and post that ACME makes lousy explosives that always blow up in the coyote's face ACME can fire you.

Yes, those contracts actually exist and they are perfectly legal.


----------



## alisonxanderson

human has destroying nature but stimulus are increasing in our society to rose these behavior.


----------



## R.D.

Derideo_Te said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> what civil rights? he signed a contract.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no contract that can trump the law.
> 
> Not to my knowledge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your employer can make you sign a contract not to say anything that will cause your employer any loss of reputation and/or income and can legally terminate your employment if you violate that contract.
> 
> So if you work for ACME, inc and you go on Facebook or Twitter and post that ACME makes lousy explosives that always blow up in the coyote's face ACME can fire you.
> 
> Yes, those contracts actually exist and they are perfectly legal.
Click to expand...


Red herring.  His expressed views to GQ have zero reflection on A&E.   They are not a competing religion or moral authority  as much as they might like to believe


----------



## Plasmaball

R.D. said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no contract that can trump the law.
> 
> Not to my knowledge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your employer can make you sign a contract not to say anything that will cause your employer any loss of reputation and/or income and can legally terminate your employment if you violate that contract.
> 
> So if you work for ACME, inc and you go on Facebook or Twitter and post that ACME makes lousy explosives that always blow up in the coyote's face ACME can fire you.
> 
> Yes, those contracts actually exist and they are perfectly legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Red herring.  His expressed views to GQ have zero reflection on A&E.   They are not a competing religion or moral authority  as much as they might like to believe
Click to expand...


irrelevant, you don't have the contract in front of you, thus you cant provide the actual section where he is allowed to do so. I can not provide evidence to the contrary, so its a moot point really.


----------



## R.D.

Plasmaball said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> what civil rights? he signed a contract.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no contract that can trump the law.
> 
> Not to my knowledge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what civil right?
Click to expand...



 section 7 of the civil rights act: EC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.


Like it or not our laws apply to everyone.


----------



## R.D.

Plasmaball said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your employer can make you sign a contract not to say anything that will cause your employer any loss of reputation and/or income and can legally terminate your employment if you violate that contract.
> 
> So if you work for ACME, inc and you go on Facebook or Twitter and post that ACME makes lousy explosives that always blow up in the coyote's face ACME can fire you.
> 
> Yes, those contracts actually exist and they are perfectly legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring.  His expressed views to GQ have zero reflection on A&E.   They are not a competing religion or moral authority  as much as they might like to believe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> irrelevant, you don't have the contract in front of you, thus you cant provide the actual section where he is allowed to do so. I can not provide evidence to the contrary, so its a moot point really.
Click to expand...


No so.   But do you honestly believe he signed aways his rights to express and practice his faith?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Mac1958 said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already said that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just say it, folks.  Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.
> 
> Just say it, it's okay.   We already know.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


No one is seeking to do any such thing, and no one is seeking to shut down speech he doesnt like. 

In fact, quite the opposite is being advocated. 

What is being advocated is a free, unbridled, full-throated exchange of ideas in the context of a free, private, and democratic society  nothing more. 

Thats why theres no such thing as political correctness, because all views are valid, all ideas are equal, and all members of private society will evaluate the merits of the ideas and views expressed to determine what is appropriate and what is not.


----------



## Derideo_Te

R.D. said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no contract that can trump the law.
> 
> Not to my knowledge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your employer can make you sign a contract not to say anything that will cause your employer any loss of reputation and/or income and can legally terminate your employment if you violate that contract.
> 
> So if you work for ACME, inc and you go on Facebook or Twitter and post that ACME makes lousy explosives that always blow up in the coyote's face ACME can fire you.
> 
> Yes, those contracts actually exist and they are perfectly legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Red herring.  His expressed views to GQ have zero reflection on A&E.   They are not a competing religion or moral authority  as much as they might like to believe
Click to expand...


He was interviewed by GQ *because* he was *employed by A&E*. If he had been self employed there would have been no issue but he was an active employee of A&E at the time.

The only red herring is this deflection of yours into utter irrelevancy;


> They are not a competing religion or moral authority  as much as they might like to believe


----------



## Plasmaball

R.D. said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no contract that can trump the law.
> 
> Not to my knowledge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what civil right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> section 7 of the civil rights act: EC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
> 
> (a) Employer practices
> 
> It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
> 
> (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
> 
> (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
> 
> 
> Like it or not our laws apply to everyone.
Click to expand...


thats thin..if you can prove it. Thats if he didnt sign in his contract a public speaking clause.


----------



## Derideo_Te

R.D. said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no contract that can trump the law.
> 
> Not to my knowledge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what civil right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> section 7 of the civil rights act: EC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
> 
> (a) Employer practices
> 
> It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
> 
> (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
> 
> (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
> 
> 
> Like it or not our laws apply to everyone.
Click to expand...


None of the above applies in this instance.


----------



## Plasmaball

R.D. said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring.  His expressed views to GQ have zero reflection on A&E.   They are not a competing religion or moral authority  as much as they might like to believe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irrelevant, you don't have the contract in front of you, thus you cant provide the actual section where he is allowed to do so. I can not provide evidence to the contrary, so its a moot point really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No so.   But do you honestly believe he signed aways his rights to express and practice his faith?
Click to expand...


he didnt so irrelevant again.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Plasmaball said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> what civil right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> section 7 of the civil rights act: EC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
> 
> (a) Employer practices
> 
> It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
> 
> (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
> 
> (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
> 
> 
> Like it or not our laws apply to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thats thin..if you can prove it. Thats if he didnt sign in his contract a public speaking clause.
Click to expand...


Highly unlikely since lawyers include those as a matter of course these days to protect the employer.


----------



## Plasmaball

Derideo_Te said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> section 7 of the civil rights act: EC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
> 
> (a) Employer practices
> 
> It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
> 
> (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
> 
> (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
> 
> 
> Like it or not our laws apply to everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats thin..if you can prove it. Thats if he didnt sign in his contract a public speaking clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Highly unlikely since lawyers include those as a matter of course these days to protect the employer.
Click to expand...


yeah..lawyers....all about the details....Had they not you would have seen Phil arguing this i assume.


----------



## Mac1958

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one is seeking to do any such thing, and no one is seeking to &#8216;shut down&#8217; speech he doesn&#8217;t like.
> 
> In fact, quite the opposite is being advocated.
> 
> What is being advocated is a free, unbridled, full-throated exchange of ideas in the context of a free, private, and democratic society &#8211; nothing more.
> 
> That&#8217;s why there&#8217;s no such thing as &#8216;political correctness,&#8217; because all views are valid, all ideas are equal, and all members of private society will evaluate the merits of the ideas and views expressed to determine what is appropriate and what is not.




One of the more inexplicable posts I've seen in a while.

First, on this ongoing attempt of yours to pretend that Political Correctness doesn't even exist, when people on your own side of the spectrum here are defending it;  when it's not difficult to go to Dictionary.com or Google or any number of other sources to get both myriad descriptions and examples of PC.  My guess is that, by pretending it doesn't exist you are trying to make it go away.  Okay, certainly your call there, but it's just very odd to me.

See, we tend to assign terms to groups of behaviors.  Examples might be the groups of behaviors that are collectively called dementia or prejudice or conservatism or liberalism or love.  To a fairly well-defined group of behaviors we ascribe the term "Political Correctness".  And I beg you, please don't insult me by going obtuse and asking for examples.  We all know what I'm talking about, and I know you do, too.

But then you say the following, which caused my eyes to bug out my head like those of Marty Feldman:  

"What is being advocated is a free, unbridled, full-throated exchange of ideas in the context of a free, private, and democratic society &#8211; nothing more. 

"That&#8217;s why there&#8217;s no such thing as &#8216;political correctness,&#8217; because all views are valid, all ideas are equal, and all members of private society will evaluate the merits of the ideas and views expressed to determine what is appropriate and what is not."

I am stunned.  "Free, unbridled, full-throated exchange of ideas"?  I assume you mean by those who are not intimidated into silence by others who would go after their livelihood or their reputation.  Those who would immediately resort to shouts of "racist" and/or "homophobe" at the slightest excuse to intimidate their target, put them on the defensive and thereby  control the conversation.

And "all views are valid, all ideas are equal"?  This one may be even MORE stunning.   Even your own allies on the Left would laugh you out of the auditorium with that one.  Tell me how Rush Limbaugh qualifies, that should be amusing.

Maybe you were being facetious.  But reading this attempt at altruistic tolerance is insulting if you're not playing around.  You people proudly admit that you want to shut down speech of those with whom you disagree.  The PC Police are intolerant and do NOT believe in a diversity of opinions.

Gawd, I hope I can un-see that post.

.


----------



## Plasmaball

> And "all views are valid, all ideas are equal"? This one may be even MORE stunning. Even your own allies on the Left would laugh you out of the auditorium with that one. Tell me how Rush Limbaugh qualifies, that should be amusing.


thank the internet and fox news model. 

political correctness does happen but these examples are not it. its fun repeating things that have already been answered.


----------



## Plasmaball

Plasmaball said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> With a slight correction I have admitted it several times. Speech that denigrates and slows down progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There ya go, I appreciate your honesty.
> 
> I don't know what Plasmaball is so afraid of.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> im for the free market to decide what happens. I really dont give a shit what you say out in public, just dont come crying like a little baby when the reaction is negative.
Click to expand...




Plasmaball said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> this isnt a free speech issue nor is any of this. Phil, and everyone else who the OP listed still have their freedom of speech intact. For the love of dogs you cant even get that right, how do you even expect to have any of the rest right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you folks are genetically incapable of providing straight, honest responses.
> 
> Come on, say it:  Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.
> 
> Aren't you proud of that?  What are you afraid of?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You folks? you know how many times i've gone into your threads you've made and gave you an actual answer when nobody else would give you the time of day Mac?
> Numerous.
> 
> When you going to admit you would have sided with the crown?
Click to expand...


----------



## Katzndogz

Derideo_Te said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> what civil right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> section 7 of the civil rights act: EC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
> 
> (a) Employer practices
> 
> It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
> 
> (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
> 
> (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
> 
> 
> Like it or not our laws apply to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the above applies in this instance.
Click to expand...


Not only does it not apply, but A&E already gave up any argument they might have had.


----------



## Mac1958

Plasmaball said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There ya go, I appreciate your honesty.
> 
> I don't know what Plasmaball is so afraid of.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> im for the free market to decide what happens. I really dont give a shit what you say out in public, just dont come crying like a little baby when the reaction is negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you folks are genetically incapable of providing straight, honest responses.
> 
> Come on, say it:  Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.
> 
> Aren't you proud of that?  What are you afraid of?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You folks? you know how many times i've gone into your threads you've made and gave you an actual answer when nobody else would give you the time of day Mac?
> Numerous.
> 
> When you going to admit you would have sided with the crown?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Unlike you, I'm more than happy to provide straight answers.  Just do me a favor and try to drag your question -- which even *you* admitted was "extreme" -- to within a few zip codes of the topic.  You're putting so much effort into diversion that you're just not making sense.

Is the crown supposed to represent the PC Police or the rest of us?

Make some sense here and I'll try to give you a response.

.


----------



## Plasmaball

Mac1958 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> im for the free market to decide what happens. I really dont give a shit what you say out in public, just dont come crying like a little baby when the reaction is negative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> You folks? you know how many times i've gone into your threads you've made and gave you an actual answer when nobody else would give you the time of day Mac?
> Numerous.
> 
> When you going to admit you would have sided with the crown?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I'm more than happy to provide straight answers.  Just do me a favor and try to drag your question -- which even *you* admitted was "extreme" -- to within a few zip codes of the topic.  You're putting so much effort into diversion that you're just not making sense.
> 
> Is the crown supposed to represent the PC Police or the rest of us?
> 
> Make some sense here and I'll try to give you a response.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


everyone else got what i am saying. Ive also been very clear,and playing stupid might work on others.
its clear you rather just avoid any real challenge to your weak arguments.


----------



## R.D.

Derideo_Te said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your employer can make you sign a contract not to say anything that will cause your employer any loss of reputation and/or income and can legally terminate your employment if you violate that contract.
> 
> So if you work for ACME, inc and you go on Facebook or Twitter and post that ACME makes lousy explosives that always blow up in the coyote's face ACME can fire you.
> 
> Yes, those contracts actually exist and they are perfectly legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring.  His expressed views to GQ have zero reflection on A&E.   They are not a competing religion or moral authority  as much as they might like to believe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was interviewed by GQ *because* he was *employed by A&E*. If he had been self employed there would have been no issue but he was an active employee of A&E at the time.
> 
> The only red herring is this deflection of yours into utter irrelevancy;
> 
> 
> 
> They are not a competing religion or moral authority  as much as they might like to believe
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That's just pure  silliness.   

Because he was employed by A&E is why they cannot fire him for his religious beliefs.   That his association with the channel made him fodder is of no consequence where the law applies.   A&E's attempt to stifle him backfired.  Big time.  Again


----------



## Plasmaball

R.D. said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring.  His expressed views to GQ have zero reflection on A&E.   They are not a competing religion or moral authority  as much as they might like to believe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was interviewed by GQ *because* he was *employed by A&E*. If he had been self employed there would have been no issue but he was an active employee of A&E at the time.
> 
> The only red herring is this deflection of yours into utter irrelevancy;
> 
> 
> 
> They are not a competing religion or moral authority  as much as they might like to believe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just pure  silliness.
> 
> Because he was employed by A&E is why they cannot fire him for his religious beliefs.   That his association with the channel made him fodder is of no consequence where the law applies.   A&E's attempt to stifle him backfired.  Big time.  Again
Click to expand...


how do you argue around the scores of lawyers who most likely covered this.


----------



## R.D.

Plasmaball said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> irrelevant, you don't have the contract in front of you, thus you cant provide the actual section where he is allowed to do so. I can not provide evidence to the contrary, so its a moot point really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No so.   But do you honestly believe he signed aways his rights to express and practice his faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he didnt so irrelevant again.
Click to expand...

So you think he signed a contract, lawfully dismissing  his civil  rights, but didn't?


----------



## Mac1958

Plasmaball said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I'm more than happy to provide straight answers.  Just do me a favor and try to drag your question -- which even *you* admitted was "extreme" -- to within a few zip codes of the topic.  You're putting so much effort into diversion that you're just not making sense.
> 
> Is the crown supposed to represent the PC Police or the rest of us?
> 
> Make some sense here and I'll try to give you a response.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> everyone else got what i am saying. Ive also been very clear,and playing stupid might work on others.
> its clear you rather just avoid any real challenge to your weak arguments.
Click to expand...



Everyone?  Huh?  I went back a few pages and one leftwinger predictably thought your 1774 thing was delightful.  Should I have kept going?  Could you provide the posts in which everyone was getting what you're saying?

Or could you just re-phrase?

This diversionary stuff just gets old.  

.


----------



## Plasmaball

R.D. said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No so.   But do you honestly believe he signed aways his rights to express and practice his faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he didnt so irrelevant again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think he signed a contract, lawfully dismissing  his civil  rights, but didn't?
Click to expand...


nope but then he didnt have his violated.


----------



## R.D.

Derideo_Te said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> what civil right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> section 7 of the civil rights act: EC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
> 
> (a) Employer practices
> 
> It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
> 
> (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
> 
> (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
> 
> 
> Like it or not our laws apply to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the above applies in this instance.
Click to expand...


'Cause you say so? 

Fact is they backed off, so you are actually right now.


----------



## Plasmaball

Mac1958 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I'm more than happy to provide straight answers.  Just do me a favor and try to drag your question -- which even *you* admitted was "extreme" -- to within a few zip codes of the topic.  You're putting so much effort into diversion that you're just not making sense.
> 
> Is the crown supposed to represent the PC Police or the rest of us?
> 
> Make some sense here and I'll try to give you a response.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> everyone else got what i am saying. Ive also been very clear,and playing stupid might work on others.
> its clear you rather just avoid any real challenge to your weak arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone?  Huh?  I went back a few pages and one leftwinger predictably thought your 1774 thing was delightful.  Should I have kept going?  Could you provide the posts in which everyone was getting what you're saying?
> 
> Or could you just re-phrase?
> 
> *This diversionary stuff just gets old.
> *
> .
Click to expand...


i agree so can you stay on topic please.



> im for the free market to decide what happens. I really dont give a shit what you say out in public, just dont come crying like a little baby when the reaction is negative.



thus proving you wrong...

when you going to admit you are a crown lover mac?


----------



## Mac1958

Plasmaball said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> everyone else got what i am saying. Ive also been very clear,and playing stupid might work on others.
> its clear you rather just avoid any real challenge to your weak arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone?  Huh?  I went back a few pages and one leftwinger predictably thought your 1774 thing was delightful.  Should I have kept going?  Could you provide the posts in which everyone was getting what you're saying?
> 
> Or could you just re-phrase?
> 
> *This diversionary stuff just gets old.
> *
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i agree so can you stay on topic please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> im for the free market to decide what happens. I really dont give a shit what you say out in public, just dont come crying like a little baby when the reaction is negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thus proving you wrong...
> 
> when you going to admit you are a crown lover mac?
Click to expand...



I guess this means you're not going to clarify your question, as I have now asked multiple times in multiple ways.  Okay, I tried.

Yet another example of why it's essentially impossible to have an honest conversation with a partisan ideologue.

.


----------



## R.D.

Plasmaball said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> he didnt so irrelevant again.
> 
> 
> 
> So you think he signed a contract, lawfully dismissing  his civil  rights, but didn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope but then he didnt have his violated.
Click to expand...


Right.   They backed off.


----------



## Derideo_Te

R.D. said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> section 7 of the civil rights act: EC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
> 
> (a) Employer practices
> 
> It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
> 
> (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
> 
> (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
> 
> 
> Like it or not our laws apply to everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the above applies in this instance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Cause you say so?
> 
> Fact is they backed off, so you are actually right now.
Click to expand...


Onus is on you to prove relevancy.  So far you haven't.


----------



## Derideo_Te

R.D. said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring.  His expressed views to GQ have zero reflection on A&E.   They are not a competing religion or moral authority  as much as they might like to believe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was interviewed by GQ *because* he was *employed by A&E*. If he had been self employed there would have been no issue but he was an active employee of A&E at the time.
> 
> The only red herring is this deflection of yours into utter irrelevancy;
> 
> 
> 
> They are not a competing religion or moral authority  as much as they might like to believe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just pure  silliness.
> 
> Because he was employed by A&E is why they cannot fire him for his religious beliefs.   That his association with the channel made him fodder is of no consequence where the law applies.   A&E's attempt to stifle him backfired.  Big time.  Again
Click to expand...


Only silliness  is on your part by pretending that he was free to harm his employer.


----------



## Plasmaball

R.D. said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think he signed a contract, lawfully dismissing  his civil  rights, but didn't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nope but then he didnt have his violated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.   They backed off.
Click to expand...


but you dont know the reason why. His civil rights.....why am i repeating this to you? I know why because you want to be right.


----------



## R.D.

Derideo_Te said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the above applies in this instance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Cause you say so?
> 
> Fact is they backed off, so you are actually right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Onus is on you to prove relevancy.  So far you haven't.
Click to expand...


Wrong.

They caved.  There is nothing more to prove. The simple fact of the matter is they tried to play hard ball and lost.   Big time.


----------



## Plasmaball

Mac1958 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone?  Huh?  I went back a few pages and one leftwinger predictably thought your 1774 thing was delightful.  Should I have kept going?  Could you provide the posts in which everyone was getting what you're saying?
> 
> Or could you just re-phrase?
> 
> *This diversionary stuff just gets old.
> *
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i agree so can you stay on topic please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> im for the free market to decide what happens. I really dont give a shit what you say out in public, just dont come crying like a little baby when the reaction is negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thus proving you wrong...
> 
> when you going to admit you are a crown lover mac?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this means you're not going to clarify your question, as I have now asked multiple times in multiple ways.  Okay, I tried.
> 
> Yet another example of why it's essentially impossible to have an honest conversation with a partisan ideologue.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



so you have resorted to just making things up in order to i guess win the argument. 

I've left you with rather good responses to your simple questions and thus this is what i get. Hack games i would expect from Rabbi or Stephanie. 

Ive lost all respect i had for you mac. Good job!


----------



## R.D.

Plasmaball said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope but then he didnt have his violated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.   They backed off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but you dont know the reason why. His civil rights.....why am i repeating this to you? I know why because you want to be right.
Click to expand...


Neither do you, but you still pretend to have that answer.   

"Wanting" to be right is the wrong side  clawing desperately  at the facts for a lifeline.  Reality is they DID cave, so all the pretending they woulda coulda shoulda is meaningless feel good garbage.


----------



## Plasmaball

R.D. said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right.   They backed off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but you dont know the reason why. His civil rights.....why am i repeating this to you? I know why because you want to be right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Neither do you*, but you still pretend to have that answer.
> 
> "Wanting" to be right is the wrong side  clawing desperately  at the facts for a lifeline.  Reality is they DID cave, so all the pretending they woulda coulda shoulda is meaningless feel good garbage.
Click to expand...


but i already stated I didnt......WTF is this....Do you not read?


----------



## R.D.

Derideo_Te said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was interviewed by GQ *because* he was *employed by A&E*. If he had been self employed there would have been no issue but he was an active employee of A&E at the time.
> 
> The only red herring is this deflection of yours into utter irrelevancy;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just pure  silliness.
> 
> Because he was employed by A&E is why they cannot fire him for his religious beliefs.   That his association with the channel made him fodder is of no consequence where the law applies.   A&E's attempt to stifle him backfired.  Big time.  Again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only silliness  is on your part by pretending that he was free to harm his employer.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mertex

Derideo_Te said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.
> 
> The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.
> 
> Here is a link to it.
> 
> Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.
> 
> Really.
> 
> It's THAT good!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that anyone could actually swallow that kind of partisan drivel!
Click to expand...


Heritage Foundation - as if Heritage Foundation is going to offer anything that is not right-wing biased.....made me laugh the dude was so outrageously out in left field.....I didn't bother to hear the entire diabribe, right at first you can tell it's nothing but partisan dribble.


----------



## Mertex

Asclepias said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it even possible to be tolerant of intolerant people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!
> 
> I ignore them right here in the USMB.
> 
> They can spout off as much as they like and I have no problem with it whatsoever. In fact I support their right to do so. I tolerate their intolerance because their freedom and mine are indivisible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would you feel if someone on here influenced a person to kill a school full of say Asians because you were tolerant of their view and ignored them?  What if your voice in opposition was the lone reason that person decided not to do it?
Click to expand...



But, but, the voice of opposition is sometimes so annoying and rings so much more hateful that tis best to just ignore it too......your scenario could also go the other way....you have no statistics to prove that hateful opposition deters evil doings.


----------



## R.D.

Plasmaball said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you dont know the reason why. His civil rights.....why am i repeating this to you? I know why because you want to be right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Neither do you*, but you still pretend to have that answer.
> 
> "Wanting" to be right is the wrong side  clawing desperately  at the facts for a lifeline.  Reality is they DID cave, so all the pretending they woulda coulda shoulda is meaningless feel good garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but i already stated I didnt......WTF is this....Do you not read?
Click to expand...


I do.  And I tend to reply to  inane accusations.

Since you don't know, why not stop pretending you have the answers?

 Possible violations of his civil rights,as you now clearly state you know nothing of, were wisely avoided after a stupid move by  A&E


----------



## Plasmaball

R.D. said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Neither do you*, but you still pretend to have that answer.
> 
> "Wanting" to be right is the wrong side  clawing desperately  at the facts for a lifeline.  Reality is they DID cave, so all the pretending they woulda coulda shoulda is meaningless feel good garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but i already stated I didnt......WTF is this....Do you not read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do.  And I tend to reply to  inane accusations.
> 
> Since you don't know, why not stop pretending you have the answers?
> 
> Possible violations of his civil rights,as you now clearly state you know nothing of, were wisely avoided after a stupid move by  A&E
Click to expand...


and its possible it was all for ratings and their was a clause saying he could do what he did or A&E had the right to suspend him. 

YAY!


----------



## Mertex

Mac1958 said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone walks up to me on the street and tells me that he hates black people, is it "intolerant" of me to say "You're a racist"?
> 
> If someone goes on television and says he hates black people, would it be "intolerant" of me to go on TV and say "That guy is a racist"?
> 
> If someone builds a following of hundreds of people who support his hatred of black people, is it "intolerant" if I were to build a following of people to call him a racist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, yes, because I want to know what other people thinking whether I agree with it or not.  Frankly, I want to know who the REAL racists are so that I know not to associate with them.  But that's just me, I know, many (most) would disagree.
Click to expand...

Frankly, you will know who the real racists are because they will sooner or later make a comment that will identify them as such.  And his comment about calling them racists isn't going to change their stance, anyway.



> Here's what I'm curious about:  Using your example, when you call someone a racist, what precisely are you trying to accomplish?  Do you think that by yelling "racist" at him, you're going to somehow change his mind?  What do you want to have happen by calling him a racist?


The same question can be applied to you.  What do you accomplish by making the comment that you "hate blacks"?  Do you think that by stating that you hate blacks that everyone is going to agree that we need to ship them somewhere else, because you hate them?  Who gives a crap, anyway, that you do? You want the freedom to make a nasty remark about someone but don't want them to have the freedom to call you a name back.



> Sincere question, I'd like to know.


There you have it.


----------



## R.D.

Plasmaball said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> but i already stated I didnt......WTF is this....Do you not read?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do.  And I tend to reply to  inane accusations.
> 
> Since you don't know, why not stop pretending you have the answers?
> 
> Possible violations of his civil rights,as you now clearly state you know nothing of, were wisely avoided after a stupid move by  A&E
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and its possible it was all for ratings and their was a clause saying he could do what he did or A&E had the right to suspend him.
> 
> YAY!
Click to expand...

And maybe  humans can breathe on the moon and sometimes bleed purple.   Whoo-hoo !  Nothing from nothing means nothing ....


----------



## Derideo_Te

R.D. said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Cause you say so?
> 
> Fact is they backed off, so you are actually right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onus is on you to prove relevancy.  So far you haven't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> They caved.  There is nothing more to prove. The simple fact of the matter is they tried to play hard ball and lost.   Big time.
Click to expand...


Thank you for conceding that your allegation about rights is utterly baseless. Have a nice day.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Something is fishy about this thread.

My scales and fins are all tired of this intolerance of my intolerance of intolerance.

Time to swim back upstream.







Now, if that made absolutely no sense to you, that is exactly my point about the twists and turns of this thread.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Statistikhengst said:


> Something is fishy about this thread.
> 
> My scales and fins are all tired of this intolerance of my intolerance of intolerance.
> 
> Time to swim back upstream.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, if that made absolutely no sense to you, that is exactly my point about the twists and turns of this thread.



Commencing with a conundrum continues to confound with consequential convolutions.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Derideo_Te said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something is fishy about this thread.
> 
> My scales and fins are all tired of this intolerance of my intolerance of intolerance.
> 
> Time to swim back upstream.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, if that made absolutely no sense to you, that is exactly my point about the twists and turns of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commencing with a conundrum continues to confound with consequential convolutions.
Click to expand...


The convolutability of canonical conundrums can be enhanced by the confoundaton of also consuming cannibis as core component of ingestion of said canonical conundrum as well.





_(Now, if that doesn't earn me a greenie, nothing will!!!)_


----------



## Mac1958

Mertex said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone walks up to me on the street and tells me that he hates black people, is it "intolerant" of me to say "You're a racist"?
> 
> If someone goes on television and says he hates black people, would it be "intolerant" of me to go on TV and say "That guy is a racist"?
> 
> If someone builds a following of hundreds of people who support his hatred of black people, is it "intolerant" if I were to build a following of people to call him a racist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, yes, because I want to know what other people thinking whether I agree with it or not.  Frankly, I want to know who the REAL racists are so that I know not to associate with them.  But that's just me, I know, many (most) would disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frankly, you will know who the real racists are because they will sooner or later make a comment that will identify them as such.  And his comment about calling them racists isn't going to change their stance, anyway.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what I'm curious about:  Using your example, when you call someone a racist, what precisely are you trying to accomplish?  Do you think that by yelling "racist" at him, you're going to somehow change his mind?  What do you want to have happen by calling him a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The same question can be applied to you.  What do you accomplish by making the comment that you "hate blacks"?  Do you think that by stating that you hate blacks that everyone is going to agree that we need to ship them somewhere else, because you hate them?  Who gives a crap, anyway, that you do? You want the freedom to make a nasty remark about someone but don't want them to have the freedom to call you a name back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sincere question, I'd like to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you have it.*
Click to expand...



That, of course, doesn't answer my question at all (you went directly and transparently into deflect mode, I'm used to that), so I'll try again.

Let's say (using your nasty example) that you say that you hate blacks.  You even have a big ol' butt tattoo that says that you hate blacks.

I scream "racist!" and try to get you fired.  I immediately "feel" good about myself, because I've "done something", and that's all I care about.

As for you, has this experience decreased your hatred of blacks in any way?  Have I helped to change your mind, heal wounds, build bridges?

Since I don't get straight answers here (yours was just another vivid example), I'll help:  No, you still hate blacks, probably even more, sadly.


.


----------



## R.D.

Derideo_Te said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Onus is on you to prove relevancy.  So far you haven't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> They caved.  There is nothing more to prove. The simple fact of the matter is they tried to play hard ball and lost.   Big time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for conceding that your allegation about rights is utterly baseless. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...


No such thing.   You're hard core need to ignore a simple fact is awe inspiring.


----------



## Derideo_Te

R.D. said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> They caved.  There is nothing more to prove. The simple fact of the matter is they tried to play hard ball and lost.   Big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for conceding that your allegation about rights is utterly baseless. Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No such thing.   You're hard core need to ignore a simple fact is awe inspiring.
Click to expand...


You don't get to play by your own set of rules. 

Failure to substantiate your allegation when called upon to do so is a de facto concession of your position.


----------



## Iceweasel

Derideo_Te said:


> A corporation is a legal contract with the state and as such must abide by state regulations. Simply because you own your own business does not give you the right to violate the Rule of Law. Landlords who are renting out their property for profit are corporations just like all others. Individuals who don't incorporate but instead make private rental arrangements for profit are also subject to the Rule of Law although it applies slightly differently.


Most landlords aren't incorporated. Words mean things. Which states list sexual preferences as a protected class? If it isn't universal nationally (Constitutional), it isn't a right but a state, city or town ordinance. Which is next to impossible to prove unless the landowner is dumb as a brick.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Iceweasel said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> A corporation is a legal contract with the state and as such must abide by state regulations. Simply because you own your own business does not give you the right to violate the Rule of Law. Landlords who are renting out their property for profit are corporations just like all others. Individuals who don't incorporate but instead make private rental arrangements for profit are also subject to the Rule of Law although it applies slightly differently.
> 
> 
> 
> Most landlords aren't incorporated. Words mean things. Which states list sexual preferences as a protected class? If it isn't universal nationally (Constitutional), it isn't a right but a state, city or town ordinance. Which is next to impossible to prove unless the landowner is dumb as a brick.
Click to expand...


When DOMA was overturned the SCOTUS de facto made it illegal to discriminate against gays at the Federal level. It is only a matter of time before it will be enforced at the state level given the rate at which gay marriage is being enacted nationwide. 

So you are on the losing side if you expect that will hold up in court.


----------



## Iceweasel

Derideo_Te said:


> When DOMA was overturned the SCOTUS de facto made it illegal to discriminate against gays at the Federal level. It is only a matter of time before it will be enforced at the state level given the rate at which gay marriage is being enacted nationwide.
> 
> So you are on the losing side if you expect that will hold up in court.


If it was a Constitution matter you wouldn't be saying "in a matter of time". Which has nothing to do with the defense of marriage act anyway.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Iceweasel said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> When DOMA was overturned the SCOTUS de facto made it illegal to discriminate against gays at the Federal level. It is only a matter of time before it will be enforced at the state level given the rate at which gay marriage is being enacted nationwide.
> 
> So you are on the losing side if you expect that will hold up in court.
> 
> 
> 
> If it was a Constitution matter you wouldn't be saying "in a matter of time". Which has nothing to do with the defense of marriage act anyway.
Click to expand...


The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is constitutional. They chickened out of overturning the entire act thereby leaving a loophole for the states to come up to speed by overturning their own discriminatory legislation. You would have been screeching about judicial activism if they had done so. You also appear to lack an understanding of how the process works in practice.


----------



## Asclepias

Mac1958 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, yes, because I want to know what other people thinking whether I agree with it or not.  Frankly, I want to know who the REAL racists are so that I know not to associate with them.  But that's just me, I know, many (most) would disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, you will know who the real racists are because they will sooner or later make a comment that will identify them as such.  And his comment about calling them racists isn't going to change their stance, anyway.
> *
> 
> The same question can be applied to you.  What do you accomplish by making the comment that you "hate blacks"?  Do you think that by stating that you hate blacks that everyone is going to agree that we need to ship them somewhere else, because you hate them?  Who gives a crap, anyway, that you do? You want the freedom to make a nasty remark about someone but don't want them to have the freedom to call you a name back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sincere question, I'd like to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you have it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That, of course, doesn't answer my question at all (you went directly and transparently into deflect mode, I'm used to that), so I'll try again.
> 
> Let's say (using your nasty example) that you say that you hate blacks.  You even have a big ol' butt tattoo that says that you hate blacks.
> 
> I scream "racist!" and try to get you fired.  I immediately "feel" good about myself, because I've "done something", and that's all I care about.
> 
> As for you, has this experience decreased your hatred of blacks in any way?  Have I helped to change your mind, heal wounds, build bridges?
> 
> Since I don't get straight answers here (yours was just another vivid example), I'll help:  *No, you still hate blacks, probably even more, sadly*.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Thats not true.  If that was true there is no need to place people in prison or put them to death. We would just apply your prefered method of correction. Some people are going to hate others regardless no matter how nice you are to them. You cannot convince someone not to be racist. They have to do that on their own. If they are too dense and or stubborn to see how crippling racism is right in this moment then you are not going to change their hearts. Thats something they have to understand themselves by looking at all the evidence to the contrary all around them and accepting that they are flat out wrong.


----------



## Mac1958

Asclepias said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, you will know who the real racists are because they will sooner or later make a comment that will identify them as such.  And his comment about calling them racists isn't going to change their stance, anyway.
> *
> 
> The same question can be applied to you.  What do you accomplish by making the comment that you "hate blacks"?  Do you think that by stating that you hate blacks that everyone is going to agree that we need to ship them somewhere else, because you hate them?  Who gives a crap, anyway, that you do? You want the freedom to make a nasty remark about someone but don't want them to have the freedom to call you a name back.
> 
> There you have it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That, of course, doesn't answer my question at all (you went directly and transparently into deflect mode, I'm used to that), so I'll try again.
> 
> Let's say (using your nasty example) that you say that you hate blacks.  You even have a big ol' butt tattoo that says that you hate blacks.
> 
> I scream "racist!" and try to get you fired.  I immediately "feel" good about myself, because I've "done something", and that's all I care about.
> 
> As for you, has this experience decreased your hatred of blacks in any way?  Have I helped to change your mind, heal wounds, build bridges?
> 
> Since I don't get straight answers here (yours was just another vivid example), I'll help:  *No, you still hate blacks, probably even more, sadly*.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not true.  If that was true there is no need to place people in prison or put them to death. We would just apply your prefered method of correction. Some people are going to hate others regardless no matter how nice you are to them. You cannot convince someone not to be racist. They have to do that on their own. If they are too dense and or stubborn to see how crippling racism is right in this moment then you are not going to change their hearts. Thats something they have to understand themselves by looking at all the evidence to the contrary all around them and accepting that they are flat out wrong.
Click to expand...



The continued presence of racism cannot be denied and cannot be avoided.  Here's the difference between you and I -- I have more faith in people than you do.  I think that people can grow and improve.  I have no need to punish people with whom I disagree, unless they break the law.  I think we all have potential.  One of the issues on which I regularly disagree with the Left.

.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Mac1958 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, yes, because I want to know what other people thinking whether I agree with it or not.  Frankly, I want to know who the REAL racists are so that I know not to associate with them.  But that's just me, I know, many (most) would disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, you will know who the real racists are because they will sooner or later make a comment that will identify them as such.  And his comment about calling them racists isn't going to change their stance, anyway.
> *
> 
> The same question can be applied to you.  What do you accomplish by making the comment that you "hate blacks"?  Do you think that by stating that you hate blacks that everyone is going to agree that we need to ship them somewhere else, because you hate them?  Who gives a crap, anyway, that you do? You want the freedom to make a nasty remark about someone but don't want them to have the freedom to call you a name back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sincere question, I'd like to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you have it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That, of course, doesn't answer my question at all (you went directly and transparently into deflect mode, I'm used to that), so I'll try again.
> 
> Let's say (using your nasty example) that you say that you hate blacks.  You even have a big ol' butt tattoo that says that you hate blacks.
> 
> I scream "racist!" and try to get you fired.  I immediately "feel" good about myself, because I've "done something", and that's all I care about.
> 
> As for you, has this experience decreased your hatred of blacks in any way?  Have I helped to change your mind, heal wounds, build bridges?
> 
> Since I don't get straight answers here (yours was just another vivid example), I'll help:  No, you still hate blacks, probably even more, sadly.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You are getting straight answers, that you don&#8217;t like the answers isn&#8217;t the respondents&#8217; fault. 

Seeking to compel people to *not *scream "racist!" and attempting to get the racist fired isn&#8217;t going to decrease someone&#8217;s hatred of blacks in any way, either; no minds will be changed, no wounds healed, no bridges built. 

Your campaign for civility might help decrease the more extreme and excessive examples of opposition to racism and hate, but it&#8217;s naïve to believe such examples will be eliminated altogether. 

My position is that I disagree with both sides on the issue: screaming "racist!" and attempting to get the racist fired is a completely pointless exercise; likewise, adhering to the myth of &#8216;political correctness&#8217; and accusing those opposed to expressions of hate and ignorance of being &#8216;intolerant,&#8217; &#8216;enemies of free expression,&#8217; or not allowing people to &#8216;be who they are&#8217; is just as pointless and inane. 

You&#8217;re just going to have to accept the fact that in a free and democratic society there will always be those who will feel the need to speak out against those who express hate and ignorance, including advocating that the livelihood of the racist be jeopardized, as they are at liberty to do, however wrong or inappropriate you might perceive that to be.


----------



## Foxfyre

Speaking out against practices, statements, opinions etc. we think are wrong, hurtful, immoral, destructive is one thing.  Activism against people who are intentionally and with purpose actively hurting people is one thing.  Activism against harmful practices that are inadvertently hurting people, but the group or entity will not cease doing such practices, is one thing.  Making a personal choice not to associate with or patronize people we find offensive is one thing.

But actively trying to hurt people physically and/or materially for nothing more than expressing an opinion that we don't like or for using a word that isn't allowed in the current politically correct dictionary or for presenting a theory or philosophy that we don't share is something quite different.  It is morally and ethically wrong.  It is evil.  And it does threaten the American culture as we know it.  Freedom loving people should not tolerate that from anybody regardless of their race, ethnicity, sociopolitical standing, political leanings, gender, or sexual orientation.


----------



## hunarcy

Foxfyre said:


> But actively trying to hurt people physically and/or materially for nothing more than expressing an opinion that we don't like or for using a word that isn't allowed in the current politically correct dictionary or for presenting a theory or philosophy that we don't share is something quite different.  It is morally and ethically wrong.  It is evil.  And it does threaten the American culture as we know it.  Freedom loving people should not tolerate that from anybody regardless of their race, ethnicity, sociopolitical standing, political leanings, gender, or sexual orientation.



It amazes me that some do everything that they can to not see that is your point and will throw up any irrelevancy to distract from it.


----------



## Foxfyre

hunarcy said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But actively trying to hurt people physically and/or materially for nothing more than expressing an opinion that we don't like or for using a word that isn't allowed in the current politically correct dictionary or for presenting a theory or philosophy that we don't share is something quite different.  It is morally and ethically wrong.  It is evil.  And it does threaten the American culture as we know it.  Freedom loving people should not tolerate that from anybody regardless of their race, ethnicity, sociopolitical standing, political leanings, gender, or sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me that some do everything that they can to not see that is your point and will throw up any irrelevancy to distract from it.
Click to expand...


Yes.  Some so want to see people punished who are different or think differently than they do, they refuse to even acknowledge, much less discuss the difference between telling somebody off and punching somebody out.

But again it comes down to who is fair game to be physically and/or materially punished, hurt, disciplined, destroyed?  Who gets to decide that THIS group should be allowed the blessings of free speech and expression of whatever they think or feel or believe, and THAT group should not be allowed the blessings of free speech and expression of whatever they think or feel or believe?

Will those on the left allow somebody like me to make up a list of who it is okay to critiize, describe with a bad word, slur, ridicule, or otherwise characterize unkindly?

Will those on the right allow somebody like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or any of our leftist friends here make up such a list they are expected to adhere to?

Is it possible for everybody still capable of critical thought to consider that if a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or spokespersons for GLAAD or Moveon.Org or the Dixie Chicks or Rosie O'Donnell or Michael Moore or MSNBC or anybody of like mind should be allowed the blessings of being who they are and saying what they think?  And if we allow those people to be who they are and express what they think, then also a Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity or Phil Robertson should be allowed the blessings of being who they are and saying what they think.

To physically and/or materially attack somebody for no other reason than you don't like them or they say something you don't consider politically correct is wrong, hateful, and evil.   You can believe that and still have full license to rebut anything they say and condemn what they say to your heart's content.   You can tell them off.  That's okay.  But it should not be okay to punch them out.


----------



## Asclepias

Mac1958 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/B]
> 
> That, of course, doesn't answer my question at all (you went directly and transparently into deflect mode, I'm used to that), so I'll try again.
> 
> Let's say (using your nasty example) that you say that you hate blacks.  You even have a big ol' butt tattoo that says that you hate blacks.
> 
> I scream "racist!" and try to get you fired.  I immediately "feel" good about myself, because I've "done something", and that's all I care about.
> 
> As for you, has this experience decreased your hatred of blacks in any way?  Have I helped to change your mind, heal wounds, build bridges?
> 
> Since I don't get straight answers here (yours was just another vivid example), I'll help:  *No, you still hate blacks, probably even more, sadly*.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not true.  If that was true there is no need to place people in prison or put them to death. We would just apply your prefered method of correction. Some people are going to hate others regardless no matter how nice you are to them. You cannot convince someone not to be racist. They have to do that on their own. If they are too dense and or stubborn to see how crippling racism is right in this moment then you are not going to change their hearts. Thats something they have to understand themselves by looking at all the evidence to the contrary all around them and accepting that they are flat out wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The continued presence of racism cannot be denied and cannot be avoided.  Here's the difference between you and I -- I have more faith in people than you do.  I think that people can grow and improve.  I have no need to punish people with whom I disagree, unless they break the law.  I think we all have potential.  One of the issues on which I regularly disagree with the Left.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I guess you would be wrong then. I have faith in people and I know people have potential but at the same time I am not in la la land about it. Legality is not the issue here as the OP has stated.  I don't have time to wait for a rapist, or racist to figure out they are wrong. They can do that after being punished by whatever methods are available. Since you disagree with the left I'd have to assume you are on the right?  If so that simply tells me you have just as much of a narcissistic attitude as anyone on the left.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Speaking out against practices, statements, opinions etc. we think are wrong, hurtful, immoral, destructive is one thing.  Activism against people who are intentionally and with purpose actively hurting people is one thing.  Activism against harmful practices that are inadvertently hurting people, but the group or entity will not cease doing such practices, is one thing.  Making a personal choice not to associate with or patronize people we find offensive is one thing.
> 
> But actively trying to hurt people physically and/or materially for nothing more than expressing an opinion that we don't like or for using a word that isn't allowed in the current politically correct dictionary or for presenting a theory or philosophy that we don't share is something quite different.  It is morally and ethically wrong.  It is evil.  And it does threaten the American culture as we know it.  Freedom loving people should not tolerate that from anybody regardless of their race, ethnicity, sociopolitical standing, political leanings, gender, or sexual orientation.



I think you are not getting the point. Expression of an intolerant idea moves to or reinforces that idea in more than 1 person. That is a despicable act IMO.  For said despicable act I will meet fire with fire. Its really that simple. You can wail about how immoral or unethical it is but that is not the issue. The issue is that the person running their mouth should have exercised restraint in the first place. Place the blame where it belongs. Thats with the intolerant person.


----------



## Plasmaball

Foxfyre said:


> Speaking out against practices, statements, opinions etc. we think are wrong, hurtful, immoral, destructive is one thing.  Activism against people who are intentionally and with purpose actively hurting people is one thing.  Activism against harmful practices that are inadvertently hurting people, but the group or entity will not cease doing such practices, is one thing.  Making a personal choice not to associate with or patronize people we find offensive is one thing.
> 
> But actively trying to hurt people physically and/or materially for nothing more than expressing an opinion that we don't like or for using a word that isn't allowed in the current politically correct dictionary or for presenting a theory or philosophy that we don't share is something quite different.  It is morally and ethically wrong.  It is evil.  And it does threaten the American culture as we know it.  Freedom loving people should not tolerate that from anybody regardless of their race, ethnicity, sociopolitical standing, political leanings, gender, or sexual orientation.



then counter those people with your own protests for all we care, but dont cry when you are being called intolerant as well. 


Not that we havent already covered this already


----------



## Plasmaball

> Will those on the right allow somebody like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or any of our leftist friends here make up such a list they are expected to adhere t



first off you dont allow anything. You dont get to make the rules. Society does.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking out against practices, statements, opinions etc. we think are wrong, hurtful, immoral, destructive is one thing.  Activism against people who are intentionally and with purpose actively hurting people is one thing.  Activism against harmful practices that are inadvertently hurting people, but the group or entity will not cease doing such practices, is one thing.  Making a personal choice not to associate with or patronize people we find offensive is one thing.
> 
> But actively trying to hurt people physically and/or materially for nothing more than expressing an opinion that we don't like or for using a word that isn't allowed in the current politically correct dictionary or for presenting a theory or philosophy that we don't share is something quite different.  It is morally and ethically wrong.  It is evil.  And it does threaten the American culture as we know it.  Freedom loving people should not tolerate that from anybody regardless of their race, ethnicity, sociopolitical standing, political leanings, gender, or sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are not getting the point. Expression of an intolerant idea moves to or reinforces that idea in more than 1 person. That is a despicable act IMO.  For said despicable act I will meet fire with fire. Its really that simple. You can wail about how immoral or unethical it is but that is not the issue. The issue is that the person running their mouth should have exercised restraint in the first place. Place the blame where it belongs. Thats with the intolerant person.
Click to expand...


But again, and this is maybe the third or fourth or more time I have asked you to answer the question, who gets to decide what is an intolerant idea or opinion?

Is the guy who promotes traditional marriage intolerant?
Is the guy who speaks against traditional marriage intolerant?
Is the guy who promotes same sex marriage intolerant of those who value the traditional definition of marriage?
Is the guy who wants civil unions but to leave the traditional definition of marriage intact intolerant?
Is the guy who speaks out against the welfare state intolerant?
Is the guy who objects to dissolving the welfare state intolerant?
Is the guy who thinks the Bible says certain things are sin intolerant?
Is the guy who thinks the Bible is a bunch of fairy tales and promotes hate intolerant?
Is the guy who thinks black people are mostly dumb as rocks intolerant?
Is the guy who thinks white people are mostly racist intolerant?
Is the guy who promotes passing out free condoms to kids intolerant?
Is the guy who promotes abstinance for kids intolerant?
Is the guy who promotes legalization of recreational drugs intolerant?
Is the guy who see legalization of recreational drugs as more dangerous than good intolerant?
Is the guy who thinks Republicans are terrible intolerant?
Is the guy who thinks Democxrats are terrible intolerant?
Is the guy who thinks women should be allowed to do anything men do intolerant?
Is the guy who thinks women should have to meet the same standards as the men do in order to do the same things men do intolerant?
Is the guy who thinks nobody should oppose free contraceptives to those who want them intolerant?
Is the guy who thinks people should buy their own contraceptives intolerant?
Is the guy who wants the traditional creche on the courthouse lawn at Christmas intolerant?
Is the guy who wants that creche removed from the courthouse lawn intolerant?
Is the guy who thinks historical religious symbols have a place on city, county, and state seals intolerant?
Is the guy who wants all religious imagery, symbolism, and expression removed from the public sector intolerant?

The list could go on and on and on and on.

Would you trust me to make up those things that society will consider tolerant and intolerant?  Who will be allowed to be who and what they are?
Or do you consider yourself competent to make up a list of what society will consider tolerant and intolerant?  Who and what they are?


----------



## Mertex

Mac1958 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, yes, because I want to know what other people thinking whether I agree with it or not.  Frankly, I want to know who the REAL racists are so that I know not to associate with them.  But that's just me, I know, many (most) would disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, you will know who the real racists are because they will sooner or later make a comment that will identify them as such.  And his comment about calling them racists isn't going to change their stance, anyway.
> *
> 
> The same question can be applied to you.  What do you accomplish by making the comment that you "hate blacks"?  Do you think that by stating that you hate blacks that everyone is going to agree that we need to ship them somewhere else, because you hate them?  Who gives a crap, anyway, that you do? You want the freedom to make a nasty remark about someone but don't want them to have the freedom to call you a name back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sincere question, I'd like to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you have it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That, of course, doesn't answer my question at all (you went directly and transparently into deflect mode, I'm used to that), so I'll try again.
Click to expand...

No, I actually did answer your question, that you were not able to grasp it is your problem not mine.


> Let's say (using your nasty example) that you say that you hate blacks.  You even have a big ol' butt tattoo that says that you hate blacks.
> 
> I scream "racist!" and try to get you fired.  I immediately "feel" good about myself, because I've "done something", and that's all I care about.


I seriously doubt that the boss is going to be looking at an employee's butt, so your scenario is quite a stretch.  And, I seriously doubt you can get someone fired because they make a statement  such as you mentioned.  Racists who violate the civil rights of another person, whether black, yellow or purple, are the only ones that can be charged with discrimination based on race.


> As for you, has this experience decreased your hatred of blacks in any way?  Have I helped to change your mind, heal wounds, build bridges?


Since I'm not racist, I can't even imagine how a racist would feel, whether being called racist has any effect on them and whether or not they can even be compelled to change.

Are you saying that you are racist, and that being called a racist doesn't decrease your hatred for blacks in anyway?  That it doesn't change your mind, heal your wounds or help you build bridges?



> Since I don't get straight answers here (yours was just another vivid example), I'll help:  No, you still hate blacks, probably even more, sadly.



You haven't uncovered anything that we didn't already know.  Racists don't change just because someone calls them racists, and they certainly can't be forced to change, but racists that discriminate and violate the civil rights can be brought to accountability, and if they lose their job over it, well they deserved to.

In your previous post you claimed that you didn't like people calling them racists, because you want to know who the racists are.....so, based on your own premise, that they don't change just because someone calls them racist, I don't understand what your problem is.


----------



## Mac1958

Mertex said:


> I don't understand what your problem is.




None.  As I said, I never expect straight answers here.

Thanks for justifying that for me. Again.

.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But actively trying to hurt people physically and/or materially for nothing more than expressing an opinion that we don't like or for using a word that isn't allowed in the current politically correct dictionary or for presenting a theory or philosophy that we don't share is something quite different.  It is morally and ethically wrong.  It is evil.  And it does threaten the American culture as we know it.  Freedom loving people should not tolerate that from anybody regardless of their race, ethnicity, sociopolitical standing, political leanings, gender, or sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me that some do everything that they can to not see that is your point and will throw up any irrelevancy to distract from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Some so want to see people punished who are different or think differently than they do, they refuse to even acknowledge, much less discuss the difference between telling somebody off and punching somebody out.
> 
> But again it comes down to who is fair game to be physically and/or materially punished, hurt, disciplined, destroyed?  Who gets to decide that THIS group should be allowed the blessings of free speech and expression of whatever they think or feel or believe, and THAT group should not be allowed the blessings of free speech and expression of whatever they think or feel or believe?
> 
> Will those on the left allow somebody like me to make up a list of who it is okay to critiize, describe with a bad word, slur, ridicule, or otherwise characterize unkindly?
> 
> Will those on the right allow somebody like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or any of our leftist friends here make up such a list they are expected to adhere to?
> 
> Is it possible for everybody still capable of critical thought to consider that if a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or spokespersons for GLAAD or Moveon.Org or the Dixie Chicks or Rosie O'Donnell or Michael Moore or MSNBC or anybody of like mind should be allowed the blessings of being who they are and saying what they think?  And if we allow those people to be who they are and express what they think, then also a Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity or Phil Robertson should be allowed the blessings of being who they are and saying what they think.
> 
> To physically and/or materially attack somebody for no other reason than you don't like them or they say something you don't consider politically correct is wrong, hateful, and evil.   You can believe that and still have full license to rebut anything they say and condemn what they say to your heart's content.   You can tell them off.  That's okay.  But it should not be okay to punch them out.
Click to expand...




			
				Foxfyre said:
			
		

> Yes.  Some so want to see people punished who are different or think differently than they do...



Yes, Some so want to see people punished...


			
				Foxfyre said:
			
		

> I think was GLAAD did was evil. It SHOULD be *criminal*.











Can you say BIG government?


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking out against practices, statements, opinions etc. we think are wrong, hurtful, immoral, destructive is one thing.  Activism against people who are intentionally and with purpose actively hurting people is one thing.  Activism against harmful practices that are inadvertently hurting people, but the group or entity will not cease doing such practices, is one thing.  Making a personal choice not to associate with or patronize people we find offensive is one thing.
> 
> But actively trying to hurt people physically and/or materially for nothing more than expressing an opinion that we don't like or for using a word that isn't allowed in the current politically correct dictionary or for presenting a theory or philosophy that we don't share is something quite different.  It is morally and ethically wrong.  It is evil.  And it does threaten the American culture as we know it.  Freedom loving people should not tolerate that from anybody regardless of their race, ethnicity, sociopolitical standing, political leanings, gender, or sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are not getting the point. Expression of an intolerant idea moves to or reinforces that idea in more than 1 person. That is a despicable act IMO.  For said despicable act I will meet fire with fire. Its really that simple. You can wail about how immoral or unethical it is but that is not the issue. The issue is that the person running their mouth should have exercised restraint in the first place. Place the blame where it belongs. Thats with the intolerant person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But again, and this is maybe the third or fourth or more time I have asked you to answer the question, who gets to decide what is an intolerant idea or opinion?
> 
> Is the guy who promotes traditional marriage intolerant?
> Is the guy who speaks against traditional marriage intolerant?
> Is the guy who promotes same sex marriage intolerant of those who value the traditional definition of marriage?
> Is the guy who wants civil unions but to leave the traditional definition of marriage intact intolerant?
> Is the guy who speaks out against the welfare state intolerant?
> Is the guy who objects to dissolving the welfare state intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks the Bible says certain things are sin intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks the Bible is a bunch of fairy tales and promotes hate intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks black people are mostly dumb as rocks intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks white people are mostly racist intolerant?
> Is the guy who promotes passing out free condoms to kids intolerant?
> Is the guy who promotes abstinance for kids intolerant?
> Is the guy who promotes legalization of recreational drugs intolerant?
> Is the guy who see legalization of recreational drugs as more dangerous than good intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks Republicans are terrible intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks Democxrats are terrible intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks women should be allowed to do anything men do intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks women should have to meet the same standards as the men do in order to do the same things men do intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks nobody should oppose free contraceptives to those who want them intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks people should buy their own contraceptives intolerant?
> Is the guy who wants the traditional creche on the courthouse lawn at Christmas intolerant?
> Is the guy who wants that creche removed from the courthouse lawn intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks historical religious symbols have a place on city, county, and state seals intolerant?
> Is the guy who wants all religious imagery, symbolism, and expression removed from the public sector intolerant?
> 
> The list could go on and on and on and on.
> 
> Would you trust me to make up those things that society will consider tolerant and intolerant?  Who will be allowed to be who and what they are?
> Or do you consider yourself competent to make up a list of what society will consider tolerant and intolerant?  Who and what they are?
Click to expand...


I get the feeling you are not being sincere.  There is no way i am going to answer all those questions and you know it. You appear to just want to be right which is fine by me but just let me know.

Is the guy who promotes traditional marriage intolerant? Yes if he is denouncing other marriages.

Is the guy who speaks against traditional marriage intolerant? Yes. He is denouncing something that does not affect him and hurts those who want to be traditionally married.


----------



## Mertex

Mac1958 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/B]
> 
> That, of course, doesn't answer my question at all (you went directly and transparently into deflect mode, I'm used to that), so I'll try again.
> 
> Let's say (using your nasty example) that you say that you hate blacks.  You even have a big ol' butt tattoo that says that you hate blacks.
> 
> I scream "racist!" and try to get you fired.  I immediately "feel" good about myself, because I've "done something", and that's all I care about.
> 
> As for you, has this experience decreased your hatred of blacks in any way?  Have I helped to change your mind, heal wounds, build bridges?
> 
> Since I don't get straight answers here (yours was just another vivid example), I'll help:  *No, you still hate blacks, probably even more, sadly*.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not true.  If that was true there is no need to place people in prison or put them to death. We would just apply your prefered method of correction. Some people are going to hate others regardless no matter how nice you are to them. You cannot convince someone not to be racist. They have to do that on their own. If they are too dense and or stubborn to see how crippling racism is right in this moment then you are not going to change their hearts. Thats something they have to understand themselves by looking at all the evidence to the contrary all around them and accepting that they are flat out wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The continued presence of racism cannot be denied and cannot be avoided.
Click to expand...

That's true, but racism used to extend to the point where people were not allowed to sit in the same area as others, go to the same public schools, drink from the same fountains, or sit where they chose on a bus, etc.  That could and has been avoided, due to the Civil Rights Act. 



> Here's the difference between you and I -- I have more faith in people than you do.


Since you don't know me personally, you have no idea how much faith I have or don't have in people, and whether or not it is more than yours.  Your comment is inane.



> I think that people can grow and improve.  I have no need to punish people with whom I disagree, unless they break the law.


I do too, unfortunately, they do so at their own pace and when it comes to public facilities, we don't have time to wait until everybody changes.  Everybody is entitled to the same rights under our Constitution, and to deny some their rights based on race is not only against the Constitution, it is also unChristian.

People that discriminate based on race are breaking the law, and they should be punished accordingly.



> I think we all have potential.  One of the issues on which I regularly disagree with the Left.



That's rich, since it is the right that believes and supports Capital Punishment....


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are not getting the point. Expression of an intolerant idea moves to or reinforces that idea in more than 1 person. That is a despicable act IMO.  For said despicable act I will meet fire with fire. Its really that simple. You can wail about how immoral or unethical it is but that is not the issue. The issue is that the person running their mouth should have exercised restraint in the first place. Place the blame where it belongs. Thats with the intolerant person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But again, and this is maybe the third or fourth or more time I have asked you to answer the question, who gets to decide what is an intolerant idea or opinion?
> 
> Is the guy who promotes traditional marriage intolerant?
> Is the guy who speaks against traditional marriage intolerant?
> Is the guy who promotes same sex marriage intolerant of those who value the traditional definition of marriage?
> Is the guy who wants civil unions but to leave the traditional definition of marriage intact intolerant?
> Is the guy who speaks out against the welfare state intolerant?
> Is the guy who objects to dissolving the welfare state intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks the Bible says certain things are sin intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks the Bible is a bunch of fairy tales and promotes hate intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks black people are mostly dumb as rocks intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks white people are mostly racist intolerant?
> Is the guy who promotes passing out free condoms to kids intolerant?
> Is the guy who promotes abstinance for kids intolerant?
> Is the guy who promotes legalization of recreational drugs intolerant?
> Is the guy who see legalization of recreational drugs as more dangerous than good intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks Republicans are terrible intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks Democxrats are terrible intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks women should be allowed to do anything men do intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks women should have to meet the same standards as the men do in order to do the same things men do intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks nobody should oppose free contraceptives to those who want them intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks people should buy their own contraceptives intolerant?
> Is the guy who wants the traditional creche on the courthouse lawn at Christmas intolerant?
> Is the guy who wants that creche removed from the courthouse lawn intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks historical religious symbols have a place on city, county, and state seals intolerant?
> Is the guy who wants all religious imagery, symbolism, and expression removed from the public sector intolerant?
> 
> The list could go on and on and on and on.
> 
> Would you trust me to make up those things that society will consider tolerant and intolerant?  Who will be allowed to be who and what they are?
> Or do you consider yourself competent to make up a list of what society will consider tolerant and intolerant?  Who and what they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get the feeling you are not being sincere.  There is no way i am going to answer all those questions and you know it. You appear to just want to be right which is fine by me but just let me know.
> 
> Is the guy who promotes traditional marriage intolerant? Yes if he is denouncing other marriages.
> 
> Is the guy who speaks against traditional marriage intolerant? Yes. He is denouncing something that does not affect him and hurts those who want to be traditionally married.
Click to expand...


In my opinion, anybody who is unwilling to see the logic in those questions is not being sincere in this discussion.  I accept that you think those who speak against traditional marriage are intolerant.  But how does somebody hurt anybody purely with that opinion?  How is that any different than the guy who speaks against same sex marriage?  How does he hurt anybody with nothing other than expressing an opinon?

If you would disallow anybody to express an opinion that MIGHT offend or be disagreed with by somebody else, nobody would be allowed any opinions at all about much of anything.

But if you are serious in this discussion, you will be willing to answer the last two questions in my post.  Who should be the authority in which opinions are okay to express and which opinions are not?  Who decides which opinions are okay to physically and materially punish people who express them?  You?  Me?  Who?


----------



## Mertex

Foxfyre said:


> *But actively trying to hurt people physically and/or materially for nothing more than expressing an opinion that we don't like or for using a word that isn't allowed in the current politically correct dictionary or for presenting a theory or philosophy that we don't share is something quite different.  *It is morally and ethically wrong.  It is evil.  And it does threaten the American culture as we know it.  Freedom loving people should not tolerate that from anybody regardless of their race, ethnicity, sociopolitical standing, political leanings, gender, or sexual orientation.



And, you have to agree that people from both parties do it....and, it probably won't come to an end just because some think it is childish and petty.  There are freedom loving people on both sides of the aisles, but there's too many things they don't agree on....and certainly one of them is what is considered tolerant/intolerant.  What appears intolerant to one group does not to another and vise versa.


----------



## Plasmaball

Mac1958 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what your problem is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None.  As I said, I never expect straight answers here.
> 
> Thanks for justifying that for me. Again.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


you keep saying this, but everyone knows you have been.


----------



## Mertex

Mac1958 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what your problem is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None.  As I said, I never expect straight answers here.
Click to expand...

If you don't have a problem, then why did you claim that you didn't like someone being called racist?  Obviously you do, but you don't realize it.



> Thanks for justifying that for me. Again.


I read that as a concession.....if you can't debate, don't.


----------



## Mertex

Plasmaball said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what your problem is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None.  As I said, I never expect straight answers here.
> 
> Thanks for justifying that for me. Again.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you keep saying this, but everyone knows you have been.
Click to expand...



I think he got tripped up in his own controversy.......he doesn't want people calling others racists because he wants to know who the racists are (which implies that he thinks calling them racists is going to quiet them) - then he goes on to claim that racists won't change just because they are called racists, which contradicts his first statement.

I don't think he knows what he wants to say.....


----------



## Foxfyre

Mertex said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not true.  If that was true there is no need to place people in prison or put them to death. We would just apply your prefered method of correction. Some people are going to hate others regardless no matter how nice you are to them. You cannot convince someone not to be racist. They have to do that on their own. If they are too dense and or stubborn to see how crippling racism is right in this moment then you are not going to change their hearts. Thats something they have to understand themselves by looking at all the evidence to the contrary all around them and accepting that they are flat out wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The continued presence of racism cannot be denied and cannot be avoided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's true, but racism used to extend to the point where people were not allowed to sit in the same area as others, go to the same public schools, drink from the same fountains, or sit where they chose on a bus, etc.  That could and has been avoided, due to the Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Since you don't know me personally, you have no idea how much faith I have or don't have in people, and whether or not it is more than yours.  Your comment is inane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that people can grow and improve.  I have no need to punish people with whom I disagree, unless they break the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do too, unfortunately, they do so at their own pace and when it comes to public facilities, we don't have time to wait until everybody changes.  Everybody is entitled to the same rights under our Constitution, and to deny some their rights based on race is not only against the Constitution, it is also unChristian.
> 
> People that discriminate based on race are breaking the law, and they should be punished accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we all have potential.  One of the issues on which I regularly disagree with the Left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's rich, since it is the right that believes and supports Capital Punishment....
Click to expand...


While you are entitled to your opinion on all these things, this thread is not about racism or capital punishment or any other social issue or what is or is not legal.  This thread is not about those who unethically, immorally, or illegally discriminate against other people purely based on who or what they are--I don't know of a soul who thinks that is okay.

This thread is about your unalienable right to hold the opinions you do about these things or anything withut fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after you and try to physically and/or materially hurt you because of the opinions you hold.  You should be able to hold the opinions you hold and I should be able to hold the exact opposite opinions from your beliefs without fear that somebody will try to physically or materially attack us.

It would be nice if we would grow up as a society and be able to disagree without making each other evil.  But that may be asking too much.  I will settle for a society that considers it evil to physically or materially hurt people for no other reason than they express an opinon we don't share and/or are who they are.


----------



## Plasmaball

Mertex said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> None.  As I said, I never expect straight answers here.
> 
> Thanks for justifying that for me. Again.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you keep saying this, but everyone knows you have been.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think he got tripped up in his own controversy.......he doesn't want people calling others racists because he wants to know who the racists are (which implies that he thinks calling them racists is going to quiet them) - then he goes on to claim that racists won't change just because they are called racists, which contradicts his first statement.
> 
> I don't think he knows what he wants to say.....
Click to expand...


he and the OP want you to play by their rules, and if you dont, nobody is listening to what they are saying. Even though numerous people have taken on what they've said and had nice back and forth's with them. Yet they still feel nobody gets what they are saying.

The problem is people are blowing holes in their arguments as wide as the Atlantic ocean and they can handle it. thus this is the problem with the Clean debate zone, it legitimizes opinions that should have been put in their places long ago. It tolerates absurd opinions without consequences. Which i guess is perfect for the OP when i think about it.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But again, and this is maybe the third or fourth or more time I have asked you to answer the question, who gets to decide what is an intolerant idea or opinion?
> 
> Is the guy who promotes traditional marriage intolerant?
> Is the guy who speaks against traditional marriage intolerant?
> Is the guy who promotes same sex marriage intolerant of those who value the traditional definition of marriage?
> Is the guy who wants civil unions but to leave the traditional definition of marriage intact intolerant?
> Is the guy who speaks out against the welfare state intolerant?
> Is the guy who objects to dissolving the welfare state intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks the Bible says certain things are sin intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks the Bible is a bunch of fairy tales and promotes hate intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks black people are mostly dumb as rocks intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks white people are mostly racist intolerant?
> Is the guy who promotes passing out free condoms to kids intolerant?
> Is the guy who promotes abstinance for kids intolerant?
> Is the guy who promotes legalization of recreational drugs intolerant?
> Is the guy who see legalization of recreational drugs as more dangerous than good intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks Republicans are terrible intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks Democxrats are terrible intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks women should be allowed to do anything men do intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks women should have to meet the same standards as the men do in order to do the same things men do intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks nobody should oppose free contraceptives to those who want them intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks people should buy their own contraceptives intolerant?
> Is the guy who wants the traditional creche on the courthouse lawn at Christmas intolerant?
> Is the guy who wants that creche removed from the courthouse lawn intolerant?
> Is the guy who thinks historical religious symbols have a place on city, county, and state seals intolerant?
> Is the guy who wants all religious imagery, symbolism, and expression removed from the public sector intolerant?
> 
> The list could go on and on and on and on.
> 
> Would you trust me to make up those things that society will consider tolerant and intolerant?  Who will be allowed to be who and what they are?
> Or do you consider yourself competent to make up a list of what society will consider tolerant and intolerant?  Who and what they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get the feeling you are not being sincere.  There is no way i am going to answer all those questions and you know it. You appear to just want to be right which is fine by me but just let me know.
> 
> Is the guy who promotes traditional marriage intolerant? Yes if he is denouncing other marriages.
> 
> Is the guy who speaks against traditional marriage intolerant? Yes. He is denouncing something that does not affect him and hurts those who want to be traditionally married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my opinion, anybody who is unwilling to see the logic in those questions is not being sincere in this discussion.  I accept that you think those who speak against traditional marriage are intolerant.  But how does somebody hurt anybody purely with that opinion?  How is that any different than the guy who speaks against same sex marriage?  How does he hurt anybody with nothing other than expressing an opinon?
> 
> If you would disallow anybody to express an opinion that MIGHT offend or be disagreed with by somebody else, nobody would be allowed any opinions at all about much of anything.
> 
> But if you are serious in this discussion, you will be willing to answer the last two questions in my post.  Who should be the authority in which opinions are okay to express and which opinions are not?  Who decides which opinions are okay to physically and materially punish people who express them?  You?  Me?  Who?
Click to expand...


I'm not unwilling to see the logic.  I think your logic is wrong but I'm tolerant and discussing it with you. 

I had to quote this.


> *If you would disallow anybody to express an opinion that MIGHT offend or be disagreed with by somebody else, nobody would be allowed any opinions at all about much of anything.*



I do not care to know what your opinion is if its intolerant. I dont care if you don't get to express it publicly. Go to your room and scream it into your pillow. Learn self control. You are not a child.

As for you last questions I already told you I am fine with our current system of public ostracism or boycotting.  I could be the only person that hates what someone says in public. I can form a one man boycott and do everything within my power to hurt you financially. Thats how it works. I see nothing wrong with it.


----------



## Plasmaball

Foxfyre said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The continued presence of racism cannot be denied and cannot be avoided.
> 
> 
> 
> That's true, but racism used to extend to the point where people were not allowed to sit in the same area as others, go to the same public schools, drink from the same fountains, or sit where they chose on a bus, etc.  That could and has been avoided, due to the Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Since you don't know me personally, you have no idea how much faith I have or don't have in people, and whether or not it is more than yours.  Your comment is inane.
> 
> 
> I do too, unfortunately, they do so at their own pace and when it comes to public facilities, we don't have time to wait until everybody changes.  Everybody is entitled to the same rights under our Constitution, and to deny some their rights based on race is not only against the Constitution, it is also unChristian.
> 
> People that discriminate based on race are breaking the law, and they should be punished accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we all have potential.  One of the issues on which I regularly disagree with the Left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's rich, since it is the right that believes and supports Capital Punishment....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While you are entitled to your opinion on all these things, this thread is not about racism or capital punishment or any other social issue or what is or is not legal.  This thread is not about those who unethically, immorally, or illegally discriminate against other people purely based on who or what they are--I don't know of a soul who thinks that is okay.
> 
> This thread is about your unalienable right to hold the opinions you do about these things or anything withut fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after you and try to physically and/or materially hurt you because of the opinions you hold.  You should be able to hold the opinions you hold and I should be able to hold the exact opposite opinions from your beliefs without fear that somebody will try to physically or materially attack us.
> 
> It would be nice if we would grow up as a society and be able to disagree without making each other evil.  But that may be asking too much.  I will settle for a society that considers it evil to physically or materially hurt people for no other reason than they express an opinon we don't share and/or are who they are.
Click to expand...


stop telling people what they can talk about, seriously, Mac and Mert are having a decent back and forth about the subject at hand. We get what you are trying to say and yes what they are talking about is an extension of your OP. 

*xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*


----------



## Mertex

Foxfyre said:


> While you are entitled to your opinion on all these things, this thread is not about racism or capital punishment or any other social issue or what is or is not legal.  This thread is not about those who unethically, immorally, or illegally discriminate against other people purely based on who or what they are--I don't know of a soul who thinks that is okay.


I was responding to Mac's comment that  "The continued presence of racism cannot be denied and cannot be avoided" - which implies that we should accept racism.  I certainly don't agree that just because some thing is, we need to accept it, and I know you don't either. And, as for your last comment, "I don't know of a soul who thinks that is okay" - maybe you are not aware of the many negative and pejorative comments that are routinely made about people of other races



> This thread is about your unalienable right to hold the opinions you do about these things or anything withut fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after you and try to physically and/or materially hurt you because of the opinions you hold.  You should be able to hold the opinions you hold and I should be able to hold the exact opposite opinions from your beliefs without fear that somebody will try to physically or materially attack us.



You can't always control crazy people, and to expect that crazy people will not act out their craziness is inane.  People who are sensitive to an issue and feel offended about something being said by another person will sometimes try and avenge themselves and that is to be expected in a free democracy.    I'm not so sure that a world where everyone is allowed to say whatever they want is really Utopia.....as can be seen by visiting the "Flame Zone" - where a simple comment can turn the conversation into an uncivil, name-calling, poop slinging competition - and apparently some of that goes on in our society.



> It would be nice if we would grow up as a society and *be able to disagree without making each other evil.*


That will only be experienced in Heaven.  As long as there are people who don't believe in God and His teachings, we will have controversy.



> But that may be asking too much.


 Christian don't give up, no matter how hopeless it may look.



> I will settle fora society that considers it evil *to physically *or materially hurt people for no other reason than they express an opinon we don't share and/or are who they are.


But, I think we do, otherwise we wouldn't have laws. As for materially, those who are offended or sensitive to what is said have a right to act out their discontent, that's democracy, sometimes it works and and sometimes it backfires.


----------



## Mertex

Plasmaball said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> you keep saying this, but everyone knows you have been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think he got tripped up in his own controversy.......he doesn't want people calling others racists because he wants to know who the racists are (which implies that he thinks calling them racists is going to quiet them) - then he goes on to claim that racists won't change just because they are called racists, which contradicts his first statement.
> 
> I don't think he knows what he wants to say.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he and the OP want you to play by their rules, and if you dont, nobody is listening to what they are saying. Even though numerous people have taken on what they've said and had nice back and forth's with them. Yet they still feel nobody gets what they are saying.
> 
> The problem is people are blowing holes in their arguments as wide as the Atlantic ocean and they can handle it. thus this is the problem with the Clean debate zone, it legitimizes opinions that should have been put in their places long ago. It tolerates absurd opinions without consequences. Which i guess is perfect for the OP when i think about it.
Click to expand...


I get what they are trying to say....why I pointed out that people from any political party do it.  And, there is no way that anyone is going to stop it because everyone thinks that their position is the "good" one and the other person's is the "evil" one.

People can say whatever they want and if they are physically hurt for it, there are recourses that can be taken (why we have laws).  Unfortunately, material hurt depends on what side the majority of the people fall on, and it doesn't always work to the advantage of the ones trying to inflict the hurt.....regardless of which party it is.


----------



## R.D.

Derideo_Te said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for conceding that your allegation about rights is utterly baseless. Have a nice day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing.   You're hard core need to ignore a simple fact is awe inspiring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to play by your own set of rules.
> 
> Failure to substantiate your allegation when called upon to do so is a de facto concession of your position.
Click to expand...

But I did twice.  You just disagree.  Which is fine by me, you seem to have trouble tolerating a difference of opinion


----------



## Foxfyre

Mertex said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he got tripped up in his own controversy.......he doesn't want people calling others racists because he wants to know who the racists are (which implies that he thinks calling them racists is going to quiet them) - then he goes on to claim that racists won't change just because they are called racists, which contradicts his first statement.
> 
> I don't think he knows what he wants to say.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he and the OP want you to play by their rules, and if you dont, nobody is listening to what they are saying. Even though numerous people have taken on what they've said and had nice back and forth's with them. Yet they still feel nobody gets what they are saying.
> 
> The problem is people are blowing holes in their arguments as wide as the Atlantic ocean and they can handle it. thus this is the problem with the Clean debate zone, it legitimizes opinions that should have been put in their places long ago. It tolerates absurd opinions without consequences. Which i guess is perfect for the OP when i think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get what they are trying to say....why I pointed out that people from any political party do it.  And, there is no way that anyone is going to stop it because everyone thinks that their position is the "good" one and the other person's is the "evil" one.
> 
> People can say whatever they want and if they are physically hurt for it, there are recourses that can be taken (why we have laws).  Unfortunately, material hurt depends on what side the majority of the people fall on, and it doesn't always work to the advantage of the ones trying to inflict the hurt.....regardless of which party it is.
Click to expand...


Yes.  Asclepias, a few minutes ago, said that he has no problem with physically and materially hurting people for no other reason than they express an opinion that he doesn't agree with.  While I think his opinion about that is potentially far more dangerous than the most offensive but non threatening remark anybody might make, I will respect his opinion about that.  While I will give him room that he didn't quite intend it that way, his opinion can be taken as advocating hurting other people who express opinions he doesn't like.  Phil Robertson's 'objectionable' opinion, on the other hand explicitly extended love to everybody.

You, on the other hand, are not saying that it is okay to hurt people for their beliefs or you don't seem to be saying that.  Perhaps there is a recourse for those who are materially or physically attacked by an angry mob, group, or organization for no other reason than they expressed an 'unpopular' point of view, but the cost to do that would likely be prohibitive for many and the negative additional publicity it would generate would make it impractical in most cases.  There have been some successful suits filed and won by those who were maliciously attacked but those are rare.

Which is why I have not advocated for it to be made illegal to physically and/or materially attack people for their beliefs, but I wish it could be made illegal.  Again I have not been able to come up with wording for such a law that could not be used to restrict all criticism of everything and everybody which I would see as violation of our First Amendment Rights.

But I think if enough good people, both left and right, choose liberty over oppression, we can make the phenomenon of hurting people for their beliefs a rare thing instead of commonplace as it is now.


----------



## Mac1958

Foxfyre said:


> But I think if enough good people, both left and right, choose liberty over oppression, we can make the phenomenon of hurting people for their beliefs a rare thing instead of commonplace as it is now.




Yep.  Tolerance ain't easy, it requires humility and patience, two things in very, very short supply in our culture.

.


----------



## Montrovant

Mac1958 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I think if enough good people, both left and right, choose liberty over oppression, we can make the phenomenon of hurting people for their beliefs a rare thing instead of commonplace as it is now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Tolerance ain't easy, it requires humility and patience, two things in very, very short supply in our culture.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The problem is that not everyone sees the examples given as oppression.  So they are not choosing oppression over liberty from their point of view.


----------



## Mac1958

Montrovant said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I think if enough good people, both left and right, choose liberty over oppression, we can make the phenomenon of hurting people for their beliefs a rare thing instead of commonplace as it is now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Tolerance ain't easy, it requires humility and patience, two things in very, very short supply in our culture.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is that not everyone sees the examples given as oppression.  So they are not choosing oppression over liberty from their point of view.
Click to expand...


Y'know, I wonder about that.  I've spoken with people who communicated a clear desire for authoritarianism -- literally, not just inferring it.  There are people who think that a society needs a heavy, centralized hand controlling it, and are therefore perfectly willing to give up what some people would call "liberties" in exchange.  And they're just as passionate about that as you are in your beliefs.

They wouldn't refer to it as "oppression", of course, but they are comfy with it.

.


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I think if enough good people, both left and right, choose liberty over oppression, we can make the phenomenon of hurting people for their beliefs a rare thing instead of commonplace as it is now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Tolerance ain't easy, it requires humility and patience, two things in very, very short supply in our culture.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is that not everyone sees the examples given as oppression.  So they are not choosing oppression over liberty from their point of view.
Click to expand...


Which is the whole purpose of conciousness raising isn't it?  Teaching something in hopes that the concept will catch on?  As I see no way to accomplish tolerance for the beliefs of others through legal means, and I see blugeoning people to punish them for their beliefs as morally and ethically destructive and evil, my hope is to change the culture.  One attitude at a time.   I want it to be as culturally unacceptable in America to try to physically or materially hurt people for their beliefs as it is culturally unacceptable to serve cat meat for dinner.


----------



## oldfart

Foxfyre said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> he and the OP want you to play by their rules, and if you dont, nobody is listening to what they are saying. Even though numerous people have taken on what they've said and had nice back and forth's with them. Yet they still feel nobody gets what they are saying.
> 
> The problem is people are blowing holes in their arguments as wide as the Atlantic ocean and they can handle it. thus this is the problem with the Clean debate zone, it legitimizes opinions that should have been put in their places long ago. It tolerates absurd opinions without consequences. Which i guess is perfect for the OP when i think about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get what they are trying to say....why I pointed out that people from any political party do it.  And, there is no way that anyone is going to stop it because everyone thinks that their position is the "good" one and the other person's is the "evil" one.
> 
> People can say whatever they want and if they are physically hurt for it, there are recourses that can be taken (why we have laws).  Unfortunately, material hurt depends on what side the majority of the people fall on, and it doesn't always work to the advantage of the ones trying to inflict the hurt.....regardless of which party it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Asclepias, a few minutes ago, said that he has no problem with physically and materially hurting people for no other reason than they express an opinion that he doesn't agree with.  While I think his opinion about that is potentially far more dangerous than the most offensive but non threatening remark anybody might make, I will respect his opinion about that.  While I will give him room that he didn't quite intend it that way, his opinion can be taken as advocating hurting other people who express opinions he doesn't like.  Phil Robertson's 'objectionable' opinion, on the other hand explicitly extended love to everybody.
> 
> You, on the other hand, are not saying that it is okay to hurt people for their beliefs or you don't seem to be saying that.  Perhaps there is a recourse for those who are materially or physically attacked by an angry mob, group, or organization for no other reason than they expressed an 'unpopular' point of view, but the cost to do that would likely be prohibitive for many and the negative additional publicity it would generate would make it impractical in most cases.  There have been some successful suits filed and won by those who were maliciously attacked but those are rare.
> 
> Which is why I have not advocated for it to be made illegal to physically and/or materially attack people for their beliefs, but I wish it could be made illegal.  Again I have not been able to come up with wording for such a law that could not be used to restrict all criticism of everything and everybody which I would see as violation of our First Amendment Rights.
> 
> But I think if enough good people, both left and right, choose liberty over oppression, we can make the phenomenon of hurting people for their beliefs a rare thing instead of commonplace as it is now.
Click to expand...


I would respectfully suggest that the poster child for this issue is Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center he founded including Klanwatch and Teaching Tolerance.  He has in the last twenty years become the foremost  spokesman against hate groups and their violence in the United States, and he is constantly and viciously attacked by those he has targeted.  There currently six individuals in prison for attempts on his life.  He has financially ruined the largest Klan organization in America and shut down several neo-Nazi skinhead organizations.  Check out what Stormfront has to say about him.  

My point is this:  the SPLC has achieved much to use the law to counter hatred when it results in physical violence, and yet every conservative leader in America quakes in his boots if he stands with SPLC.  Their "base" will completely ruin them if they did so.  

So perhaps I am out of date.  If you know of a leader on the right who endorses SPLC efforts against violence, please let me know.  I have been hoping to find some.  

If you find none, it should give you pause as it does me that the intellectual tradition that claims to champion individual rights has become a stalking horse for intolerance and violence.


----------



## Mac1958

oldfart said:


> So perhaps I am out of date.  If you know of a leader on the right who endorses SPLC efforts against violence, please let me know.  I have been hoping to find some.



The problem in today's binary, hyperpartisan environment is that if someone endorses one element of something, they're portrayed as endorsing the whole thing.  I agree with the SPLC on some things, and I'd love to see them successful in reducing violence, but I also disagree with them on others.  They and I have the same goals, just very different approaches.  Dees is definitely a sharp guy.

Politicians?  They're so consumed with their image that they will always avoid heat.  We could use them to help heal racial wounds but fundraising is a higher priority.

.


----------



## Asclepias

Mac1958 said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> So perhaps I am out of date.  If you know of a leader on the right who endorses SPLC efforts against violence, please let me know.  I have been hoping to find some.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem in today's binary, hyperpartisan environment is that if someone endorses one element of something, they're portrayed as endorsing the whole thing.  I agree with the SPLC on some things, and I'd love to see them successful in reducing violence, but I also disagree with them on others.  They and I have the same goals, just very different approaches.  Dees is definitely a sharp guy.
> 
> Politicians?  They're so consumed with their image that they will always avoid heat.  *We could use them to help heal racial wounds but fundraising is a higher priority*.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Did you ever consider they like the racial tension?  Makes for a polarized voting base and more predictable results.


----------



## Mac1958

Asclepias said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> So perhaps I am out of date.  If you know of a leader on the right who endorses SPLC efforts against violence, please let me know.  I have been hoping to find some.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem in today's binary, hyperpartisan environment is that if someone endorses one element of something, they're portrayed as endorsing the whole thing.  I agree with the SPLC on some things, and I'd love to see them successful in reducing violence, but I also disagree with them on others.  They and I have the same goals, just very different approaches.  Dees is definitely a sharp guy.
> 
> Politicians?  They're so consumed with their image that they will always avoid heat.  *We could use them to help heal racial wounds but fundraising is a higher priority*.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever consider they like the racial tension?  Makes for a polarized voting base and more predictable results.
Click to expand...



Yes!  Good and important (and troubling) point.

.


----------



## Foxfyre

oldfart said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get what they are trying to say....why I pointed out that people from any political party do it.  And, there is no way that anyone is going to stop it because everyone thinks that their position is the "good" one and the other person's is the "evil" one.
> 
> People can say whatever they want and if they are physically hurt for it, there are recourses that can be taken (why we have laws).  Unfortunately, material hurt depends on what side the majority of the people fall on, and it doesn't always work to the advantage of the ones trying to inflict the hurt.....regardless of which party it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Asclepias, a few minutes ago, said that he has no problem with physically and materially hurting people for no other reason than they express an opinion that he doesn't agree with.  While I think his opinion about that is potentially far more dangerous than the most offensive but non threatening remark anybody might make, I will respect his opinion about that.  While I will give him room that he didn't quite intend it that way, his opinion can be taken as advocating hurting other people who express opinions he doesn't like.  Phil Robertson's 'objectionable' opinion, on the other hand explicitly extended love to everybody.
> 
> You, on the other hand, are not saying that it is okay to hurt people for their beliefs or you don't seem to be saying that.  Perhaps there is a recourse for those who are materially or physically attacked by an angry mob, group, or organization for no other reason than they expressed an 'unpopular' point of view, but the cost to do that would likely be prohibitive for many and the negative additional publicity it would generate would make it impractical in most cases.  There have been some successful suits filed and won by those who were maliciously attacked but those are rare.
> 
> Which is why I have not advocated for it to be made illegal to physically and/or materially attack people for their beliefs, but I wish it could be made illegal.  Again I have not been able to come up with wording for such a law that could not be used to restrict all criticism of everything and everybody which I would see as violation of our First Amendment Rights.
> 
> But I think if enough good people, both left and right, choose liberty over oppression, we can make the phenomenon of hurting people for their beliefs a rare thing instead of commonplace as it is now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would respectfully suggest that the poster child for this issue is Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center he founded including Klanwatch and Teaching Tolerance.  He has in the last twenty years become the foremost  spokesman against hate groups and their violence in the United States, and he is constantly and viciously attacked by those he has targeted.  There currently six individuals in prison for attempts on his life.  He has financially ruined the largest Klan organization in America and shut down several neo-Nazi skinhead organizations.  Check out what Stormfront has to say about him.
> 
> My point is this:  the SPLC has achieved much to use the law to counter hatred when it results in physical violence, and yet every conservative leader in America quakes in his boots if he stands with SPLC.  Their "base" will completely ruin them if they did so.
> 
> So perhaps I am out of date.  If you know of a leader on the right who endorses SPLC efforts against violence, please let me know.  I have been hoping to find some.
> 
> If you find none, it should give you pause as it does me that the intellectual tradition that claims to champion individual rights has become a stalking horse for intolerance and violence.
Click to expand...


I know very little about the SPLC actually.  I know they exist and I have taken note of some issues they have taken a position on, but I have not had reason to do any in depth research on them.   If they are going after organizations, whether left or right, who are DOING bad things to other people, then good for them.  However, I just now did a bit of reading on them and it appears they are very partisan and selective in who they put on their 'hate group' list.   Lots of white supremacist groups, for sure, but also lots of other organizations that are guilty of nothing but promoting traditional family values, patriot groups such as the Tea Party, etc.  And nary a leftwing group makes their list.

You won't find a single conservative leader of any stature who supports the skinheads or the Klan.  But do you honestly think a conservative leader of any stature will stand with an organization who also attacks the Tea Party, pro-life groups, 2nd Amendment supporters, and other conservative causes?   And who finds no issues of any kind with leftwing groups?

But is the SPLC okay when it goes after some group that is DOING harm to others, i.e. pro life groups who are picketing abortion clinics, harrassing women arriving at or leaving such clinics. or threatening Planned Parenthood?   I don't really have a problem with that.   But if SPLC goes after somebody for somebody purely because that person expresses a pro-life position and/or disapproves of Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics, then it should list itself among those hate groups.

Do what we feel morally compelled to do to legally stop people from hurting people - okay.  Hurting people because we don't share their beliefs?  Not okay.


----------



## Plasmaball

Mac1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Tolerance ain't easy, it requires humility and patience, two things in very, very short supply in our culture.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that not everyone sees the examples given as oppression.  So they are not choosing oppression over liberty from their point of view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Y'know, I wonder about that.  I've spoken with people who communicated a clear desire for authoritarianism -- literally, not just inferring it.  There are people who think that a society needs a heavy, centralized hand controlling it, and are therefore perfectly willing to give up what some people would call "liberties" in exchange.  And they're just as passionate about that as you are in your beliefs.
> 
> They wouldn't refer to it as "oppression", of course, but they are comfy with it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

So then you are against the OP right?


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Tolerance ain't easy, it requires humility and patience, two things in very, very short supply in our culture.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that not everyone sees the examples given as oppression.  So they are not choosing oppression over liberty from their point of view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is the whole purpose of conciousness raising isn't it?  Teaching something in hopes that the concept will catch on?  As I see no way to accomplish tolerance for the beliefs of others through legal means, and I see blugeoning people to punish them for their beliefs as morally and ethically destructive and evil, my hope is to change the culture.  One attitude at a time.   I want it to be as culturally unacceptable in America to try to physically or materially hurt people for their beliefs as it is culturally unacceptable to serve cat meat for dinner.
Click to expand...


Actually, I find the somewhat arbitrary choices about what is or is not culturally acceptable to eat fairly maddening.  

But in seriousness, I've got no issues with trying to change the culture to your way of thinking.  The problems I have had are when you mix in the legal or talk about people's rights or oppression.  I think you both exaggerate the danger from the current incarnation of political correctness and don't really address how it's different from political correctness at any other time in our history.  I just don't think this intolerance of intolerance issue is that big of an issue at the moment.


----------



## Mac1958

Plasmaball said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that not everyone sees the examples given as oppression.  So they are not choosing oppression over liberty from their point of view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Y'know, I wonder about that.  I've spoken with people who communicated a clear desire for authoritarianism -- literally, not just inferring it.  There are people who think that a society needs a heavy, centralized hand controlling it, and are therefore perfectly willing to give up what some people would call "liberties" in exchange.  And they're just as passionate about that as you are in your beliefs.
> 
> They wouldn't refer to it as "oppression", of course, but they are comfy with it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then you are against the OP right?
Click to expand...



Several points were made in the OP.  To which are you referring?

.


----------



## Nosmo King

Mojo2 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.
> 
> The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.
> 
> Here is a link to it.
> 
> Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.
> 
> Really.
> 
> It's THAT good!
Click to expand...

What this mouthpiece for a think tank is doing is using specious logic.  It's that apparant.

He claims to know the Liberal mind, but he dances around the truth to espouse his company's message of intolerance.

Do you want to know what this Liberal thinks?  I think that injustice, repression, oppression, greed and larceny are the results of Conservative ideology and Conservatives are blind to them.  Conservatives are willing to be left in the dark by those results in order to rationalize the gains that come to individuals ruthless enough to champion results that benefit themselves while screwing the other.  And it's the intolerance of the other that allows them the latitude of ignorance and blindness to the results of their ideology.


----------



## Nosmo King

The difference in outlook between Liberals and Conservatives seem to me to be that Liberals see injustice and want to right it while Conservatives refuse to believe that their ideology could result in injustice.

While Conservatives are cheering about a nebulous value called "American Exceptionalism", which gives cover to crimes of the past like slavery and the repression and massacre of Native Americans, liberals are looking at the damage left in the wake of Conservatism and wondering why a real American could accept such carnage.

Liberals want to make the promise of America come true, Conservatives want to take the promise of Manifest Destiny and ignore the flotsome and jet some left after it is applied.  

So there it is.  Would you have results and ignore consequences or do your best to do right while achieving?

Remember that line from the movie Love Story?  "love means never having to say you're sorry"?

American Exceptionalism means never having to say you're sorry.  Liberals believe that if you do the right thing the first time, you should have no need to say you're sorry.


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that not everyone sees the examples given as oppression.  So they are not choosing oppression over liberty from their point of view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is the whole purpose of conciousness raising isn't it?  Teaching something in hopes that the concept will catch on?  As I see no way to accomplish tolerance for the beliefs of others through legal means, and I see blugeoning people to punish them for their beliefs as morally and ethically destructive and evil, my hope is to change the culture.  One attitude at a time.   I want it to be as culturally unacceptable in America to try to physically or materially hurt people for their beliefs as it is culturally unacceptable to serve cat meat for dinner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I find the somewhat arbitrary choices about what is or is not culturally acceptable to eat fairly maddening.
> 
> But in seriousness, I've got no issues with trying to change the culture to your way of thinking.  The problems I have had are when you mix in the legal or talk about people's rights or oppression.  I think you both exaggerate the danger from the current incarnation of political correctness and don't really address how it's different from political correctness at any other time in our history.  I just don't think this intolerance of intolerance issue is that big of an issue at the moment.
Click to expand...


When I say that I would like to make physical or material attacks on the beliefs of people illegal but see no way to do that, how does that in any way muddy the waters?  It is nothing more than an observation and suggests no action.

How is it NOT oppression when a bigger, stronger, well funded bully can impose physical and/or material damage on an American citizen purely because that citizen expresses an opinion that the bully doesn't like?  How does that not make the bully an oppressive force?  How does that in any way muddy the waters in a discussion of intolerance?

I have been clear that this is not a constitutional issue of rights, but rather a moral and ethical principle of what SHOULD BE.  So long as a person is requiring no participation or contribution from anybody else, and is not violating any agreement he/she made with anybody else, that person should be able to be whoever or whatever he/she is and express whatever belief he holds without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will try to hurt him/her phyically and/or materially.


----------



## Foxfyre

Nosmo King said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.
> 
> The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.
> 
> Here is a link to it.
> 
> Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.
> 
> Really.
> 
> It's THAT good!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What this mouthpiece for a think tank is doing is using specious logic.  It's that apparant.
> 
> He claims to know the Liberal mind, but he dances around the truth to espouse his company's message of intolerance.
> 
> Do you want to know what this Liberal thinks?  I think that injustice, repression, oppression, greed and larceny are the results of Conservative ideology and Conservatives are blind to them.  Conservatives are willing to be left in the dark by those results in order to rationalize the gains that come to individuals ruthless enough to champion results that benefit themselves while screwing the other.  And it's the intolerance of the other that allows them the latitude of ignorance and blindness to the results of their ideology.
Click to expand...


You are or should be entitled to your opinion about his conservatism or conservatism in general as he is entitled to his opinion.  What makes his argument so compelling is that so far nobody has been able to refute it with anything other than it is partisan and  he sucks because he is explaining what creates the intolerance of liberals.  But so far nobody has been able to take any statement in his lecture and show how it is incorrect.  It may all be incorrect, but so far nobody has tried to rebut it.

Is he suggesting that liberals be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed or harmed in any way?  No he is not.  He is expressing his reasoned opinion about liberals.

Are you suggesting that he or other conservatives be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed, or harmed in anyway?   No you were not.  I think you're wrong because if I include myself in your characterization I know you are dead wrong about me.  But do you have the right to your opinion about me or other conservatives without fear that you will be punished by some mob, group, or organization?  Yes, in my opinion you have that moral and ethical right.  And nobody should presume the moral and ethical right to take that away from you.


----------



## Nosmo King

Foxfyre said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.
> 
> The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.
> 
> Here is a link to it.
> 
> Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.
> 
> Really.
> 
> It's THAT good!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIboXTpF6t4
> 
> 
> 
> What this mouthpiece for a think tank is doing is using specious logic.  It's that apparant.
> 
> He claims to know the Liberal mind, but he dances around the truth to espouse his company's message of intolerance.
> 
> Do you want to know what this Liberal thinks?  I think that injustice, repression, oppression, greed and larceny are the results of Conservative ideology and Conservatives are blind to them.  Conservatives are willing to be left in the dark by those results in order to rationalize the gains that come to individuals ruthless enough to champion results that benefit themselves while screwing the other.  And it's the intolerance of the other that allows them the latitude of ignorance and blindness to the results of their ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are or should be entitled to your opinion about his conservatism or conservatism in general as he is entitled to his opinion.  What makes his argument so compelling is that so far nobody has been able to refute it with anything other than it is partisan and  he sucks because he is explaining what creates the intolerance of liberals.  But so far nobody has been able to take any statement in his lecture and show how it is incorrect.  It may all be incorrect, but so far nobody has tried to rebut it.
> 
> Is he suggesting that liberals be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed or harmed in any way?  No he is not.  He is expressing his reasoned opinion about liberals.
> 
> Are you suggesting that he or other conservatives be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed, or harmed in anyway?   No you were not.  I think you're wrong because if I include myself in your characterization I know you are dead wrong about me.  But do you have the right to your opinion about me or other conservatives without fear that you will be punished by some mob, group, or organization?  Yes, in my opinion you have that moral and ethical right.  And nobody should presume the moral and ethical right to take that away from you.
Click to expand...


His point don't deserve a refutal because he is making outlandish statements.  He shouts "Liberals hate America!" and everyone is supposed to believe that as a truth.  It's as if I were to say, "The sky is green" and take it for granted that my audience, because they agree with me on most other things, will believe that, indeed, he sky is green.

I won't refute his outlandish ness because I don't believe his assumptions.  Refuting those assumptions gives them credibility.  I'm not here to give my imperamator to lies and false assumptions.

If he were honest, he'd say simply that Conservatives are result oriented while Liberals are consequence oriented.


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is the whole purpose of conciousness raising isn't it?  Teaching something in hopes that the concept will catch on?  As I see no way to accomplish tolerance for the beliefs of others through legal means, and I see blugeoning people to punish them for their beliefs as morally and ethically destructive and evil, my hope is to change the culture.  One attitude at a time.   I want it to be as culturally unacceptable in America to try to physically or materially hurt people for their beliefs as it is culturally unacceptable to serve cat meat for dinner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I find the somewhat arbitrary choices about what is or is not culturally acceptable to eat fairly maddening.
> 
> But in seriousness, I've got no issues with trying to change the culture to your way of thinking.  The problems I have had are when you mix in the legal or talk about people's rights or oppression.  I think you both exaggerate the danger from the current incarnation of political correctness and don't really address how it's different from political correctness at any other time in our history.  I just don't think this intolerance of intolerance issue is that big of an issue at the moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I say that I would like to make physical or material attacks on the beliefs of people illegal but see no way to do that, how does that in any way muddy the waters?  It is nothing more than an observation and suggests no action.
> 
> How is it NOT oppression when a bigger, stronger, well funded bully can impose physical and/or material damage on an American citizen purely because that citizen expresses an opinion that the bully doesn't like?  How does that not make the bully an oppressive force?  How does that in any way muddy the waters in a discussion of intolerance?
> 
> I have been clear that this is not a constitutional issue of rights, but rather a moral and ethical principle of what SHOULD BE.  So long as a person is requiring no participation or contribution from anybody else, and is not violating any agreement he/she made with anybody else, that person should be able to be whoever or whatever he/she is and express whatever belief he holds without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will try to hurt him/her phyically and/or materially.
Click to expand...


1) Because when you say you'd like to see it be illegal, whether you can see a way to do it or not, it seems to me to indicate a desire to legislate a suppression of speech.  I know you've said you can't think of a way to make a law like that which would not curtail someone's freedom of speech; have you considered the possibility that it is because such a law does nothing except curtail free speech?  That, outside of already illegal actions, attempts to get someone fired through advertisement or boycott or public discussion or public screams of rage are all expressions of speech?

2) My problem is that you do not differentiate any kind of degree.  I don't really like using the word oppression for minor issues like what we are mostly discussing here.  It invites comparisons to far more terrible forms of oppression like slavery, child labor, sex trafficking, etc.  I suppose it is a semantics issue, but I wouldn't say that Phil Robertson, to use the most prominent example, was oppressed.  He was inconvenienced, maybe hurt financially, but not oppressed.

3) Yes, you have said this is not a legal issue or one of constitutional rights....but then you continue to talk about people having unalienable rights taken away.  That phrase is one that is generally used in regards to legal and constitutional matters rather than purely moral ones.

So again, I take no issue with the idea you'd like to change American cultural norms.  I just think some of the ways you have presented your points go beyond that into the realm of the legal or constitutional, and I think you make a bit of a mountain out of a mole hill with the entire issue.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.
> 
> The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.
> 
> Here is a link to it.
> 
> Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.
> 
> Really.
> 
> It's THAT good!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIboXTpF6t4
> 
> 
> 
> What this mouthpiece for a think tank is doing is using specious logic.  It's that apparant.
> 
> He claims to know the Liberal mind, but he dances around the truth to espouse his company's message of intolerance.
> 
> Do you want to know what this Liberal thinks?  I think that injustice, repression, oppression, greed and larceny are the results of Conservative ideology and Conservatives are blind to them.  Conservatives are willing to be left in the dark by those results in order to rationalize the gains that come to individuals ruthless enough to champion results that benefit themselves while screwing the other.  And it's the intolerance of the other that allows them the latitude of ignorance and blindness to the results of their ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are or should be entitled to your opinion about his conservatism or conservatism in general as he is entitled to his opinion.  What makes his argument so compelling is that so far nobody has been able to refute it with anything other than it is partisan and  he sucks because he is explaining what creates the intolerance of liberals.  *But so far nobody has been able to take any statement in his lecture and show how it is incorrect.  It may all be incorrect, but so far nobody has tried to rebut it.*
> 
> Is he suggesting that liberals be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed or harmed in any way?  No he is not.  He is expressing his reasoned opinion about liberals.
> 
> Are you suggesting that he or other conservatives be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed, or harmed in anyway?   No you were not.  I think you're wrong because if I include myself in your characterization I know you are dead wrong about me.  But do you have the right to your opinion about me or other conservatives without fear that you will be punished by some mob, group, or organization?  Yes, in my opinion you have that moral and ethical right.  And nobody should presume the moral and ethical right to take that away from you.
Click to expand...


The bolded: I am tired right now from a long work week that went into the weekend, but I will DEFINITELY get back with you on this tomorrow. Definitely.


----------



## Plasmaball

Mac1958 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y'know, I wonder about that.  I've spoken with people who communicated a clear desire for authoritarianism -- literally, not just inferring it.  There are people who think that a society needs a heavy, centralized hand controlling it, and are therefore perfectly willing to give up what some people would call "liberties" in exchange.  And they're just as passionate about that as you are in your beliefs.
> 
> They wouldn't refer to it as "oppression", of course, but they are comfy with it.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> So then you are against the OP right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Several points were made in the OP.  To which are you referring?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Where she said what glaad did should be illegal..


----------



## Nosmo King

Conservatives are result oriented while Liberals are consequence oriented.

Let's look at two issues: the environment and civil rights.

Conservatives, being true to their unfettered love of Capitalism, would tend to make their money now and ignore the consequences after their efforts pump pollution into the air, water and soil.  "Look at how many jobs were created! Look at our enhanced standard of living!"  But the pollution is regarded as a necessary problem, or the result of "junk science".

Liberals believe things could have been done better because the consequences are so dire.  It's not that the Liberals hate progress (although that's the argument made by Conservatives).  It's that Liberals believe we are better than that and our resources could be used to both enhance our standard of living and protect ourselves from ourselves.

In civil rights, Conservatives seem to believe that expanding rights to all Americans results in diluting the rights of others.  "They want 'special rights'!" Argue Conservatives.  While Liberals believe that rights are rights and should not be excluded to anyone and extending those rights means everyone can enjoy them, not just the popular classes.

Results without accepting consequences is not only selfish, but it runs counter to the better angels of human nature.  If the only way you can achieve is by stepping on someone else, or the world at large, what have you achieved at all?


----------



## R.D.




----------



## Foxfyre

Nosmo King said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> What this mouthpiece for a think tank is doing is using specious logic.  It's that apparant.
> 
> He claims to know the Liberal mind, but he dances around the truth to espouse his company's message of intolerance.
> 
> Do you want to know what this Liberal thinks?  I think that injustice, repression, oppression, greed and larceny are the results of Conservative ideology and Conservatives are blind to them.  Conservatives are willing to be left in the dark by those results in order to rationalize the gains that come to individuals ruthless enough to champion results that benefit themselves while screwing the other.  And it's the intolerance of the other that allows them the latitude of ignorance and blindness to the results of their ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are or should be entitled to your opinion about his conservatism or conservatism in general as he is entitled to his opinion.  What makes his argument so compelling is that so far nobody has been able to refute it with anything other than it is partisan and  he sucks because he is explaining what creates the intolerance of liberals.  But so far nobody has been able to take any statement in his lecture and show how it is incorrect.  It may all be incorrect, but so far nobody has tried to rebut it.
> 
> Is he suggesting that liberals be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed or harmed in any way?  No he is not.  He is expressing his reasoned opinion about liberals.
> 
> Are you suggesting that he or other conservatives be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed, or harmed in anyway?   No you were not.  I think you're wrong because if I include myself in your characterization I know you are dead wrong about me.  But do you have the right to your opinion about me or other conservatives without fear that you will be punished by some mob, group, or organization?  Yes, in my opinion you have that moral and ethical right.  And nobody should presume the moral and ethical right to take that away from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His point don't deserve a refutal because he is making outlandish statements.  He shouts "Liberals hate America!" and everyone is supposed to believe that as a truth.  It's as if I were to say, "The sky is green" and take it for granted that my audience, because they agree with me on most other things, will believe that, indeed, he sky is green.
> 
> I won't refute his outlandish ness because I don't believe his assumptions.  Refuting those assumptions gives them credibility.  I'm not here to give my imperamator to lies and false assumptions.
> 
> If he were honest, he'd say simply that Conservatives are result oriented while Liberals are consequence oriented.
Click to expand...


No he would not simply say that because that is an erroneous statement no conservative would endorse.  He was explicit that liberals are not consequence oriented or they would be more sensitive to the consequences of what they do.  They are not.  He says they justify their point of view because the Conservative point of view has not produced Utopia.  Therefore Conservatives must be wrong and Liberals must therefore be right even though nothing they have come up with has created Utopia either. 

And whether the speaker is right, you are right, or I am right, it is all opinion.  Opiinions that harm nobody.  Opinions that require no contribution or participation by anybody.  And none of us should have to worry about some angry mob, group, or organization coming after us to physically and/or materially harm us if they can purely because they don't agree with or don't like the opinions that we express.


----------



## Nosmo King

He claims that Liberals hate America and would support Saddam Hussein.  Because Liberlas opposed the war in Iraq?  Is this the conclusion I'm supposed to refute?


Do you really believe that Liberals held that position?  Do you really believe that opposing the war automatically means support for Hussein?  Or that failure to support the war means a hatred of America?

Is nuance absent for the Conservative mind, or are such outlandish assumptions just too much red meat for Conservatives to ignore?

Could the Liberal position be more complex than that proffered by e Heritage Foundation?  Could Liberals see the war as unnecessary, unwarranted and foolish?  Could Liberals be looking at the consequences and Conservatives looking at results?  The results of that war included 4000 American lives, untold maimed and wounded Americans, unfathomable Iraqi civilian loses, the ouster and death of Saddam Hussein and an uncalculatable cost of American treasure and international prestige.

Should we weigh the consequences, or make outlandish claims about Liberals?

The speaker's position showed absolutely no tolerance for the truth, only a ham handed rush to judgment and specious logic all to gain some cheap political points.  Refute the video?  It does not deserve to be refuted.  It's a canard designed to appeal to shallow minds devoid of the power of reason.


----------



## Plasmaball

Foxfyre said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are or should be entitled to your opinion about his conservatism or conservatism in general as he is entitled to his opinion.  What makes his argument so compelling is that so far nobody has been able to refute it with anything other than it is partisan and  he sucks because he is explaining what creates the intolerance of liberals.  But so far nobody has been able to take any statement in his lecture and show how it is incorrect.  It may all be incorrect, but so far nobody has tried to rebut it.
> 
> Is he suggesting that liberals be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed or harmed in any way?  No he is not.  He is expressing his reasoned opinion about liberals.
> 
> Are you suggesting that he or other conservatives be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed, or harmed in anyway?   No you were not.  I think you're wrong because if I include myself in your characterization I know you are dead wrong about me.  But do you have the right to your opinion about me or other conservatives without fear that you will be punished by some mob, group, or organization?  Yes, in my opinion you have that moral and ethical right.  And nobody should presume the moral and ethical right to take that away from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His point don't deserve a refutal because he is making outlandish statements.  He shouts "Liberals hate America!" and everyone is supposed to believe that as a truth.  It's as if I were to say, "The sky is green" and take it for granted that my audience, because they agree with me on most other things, will believe that, indeed, he sky is green.
> 
> I won't refute his outlandish ness because I don't believe his assumptions.  Refuting those assumptions gives them credibility.  I'm not here to give my imperamator to lies and false assumptions.
> 
> If he were honest, he'd say simply that Conservatives are result oriented while Liberals are consequence oriented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he would not simply say that because that is an erroneous statement no conservative would endorse.  *He was explicit that liberals are not consequence oriented or they would be more sensitive to the consequences of what they do.  They are not.*  He says they justify their point of view because the Conservative point of view has not produced Utopia.  Therefore Conservatives must be wrong and Liberals must therefore be right even though nothing they have come up with has created Utopia either.
> 
> And whether the speaker is right, you are right, or I am right, it is all opinion.  Opiinions that harm nobody.  Opinions that require no contribution or participation by anybody.  And none of us should have to worry about some angry mob, group, or organization coming after us to physically and/or materially harm us if they can purely because they don't agree with or don't like the opinions that we express.
Click to expand...


you are kidding me right? holy shit you have to be kidding me! does nobody else see what she is doing here?


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I find the somewhat arbitrary choices about what is or is not culturally acceptable to eat fairly maddening.
> 
> But in seriousness, I've got no issues with trying to change the culture to your way of thinking.  The problems I have had are when you mix in the legal or talk about people's rights or oppression.  I think you both exaggerate the danger from the current incarnation of political correctness and don't really address how it's different from political correctness at any other time in our history.  I just don't think this intolerance of intolerance issue is that big of an issue at the moment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I say that I would like to make physical or material attacks on the beliefs of people illegal but see no way to do that, how does that in any way muddy the waters?  It is nothing more than an observation and suggests no action.
> 
> How is it NOT oppression when a bigger, stronger, well funded bully can impose physical and/or material damage on an American citizen purely because that citizen expresses an opinion that the bully doesn't like?  How does that not make the bully an oppressive force?  How does that in any way muddy the waters in a discussion of intolerance?
> 
> I have been clear that this is not a constitutional issue of rights, but rather a moral and ethical principle of what SHOULD BE.  So long as a person is requiring no participation or contribution from anybody else, and is not violating any agreement he/she made with anybody else, that person should be able to be whoever or whatever he/she is and express whatever belief he holds without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will try to hurt him/her phyically and/or materially.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) Because when you say you'd like to see it be illegal, whether you can see a way to do it or not, it seems to me to indicate a desire to legislate a suppression of speech.  I know you've said you can't think of a way to make a law like that which would not curtail someone's freedom of speech; have you considered the possibility that it is because such a law does nothing except curtail free speech?  That, outside of already illegal actions, attempts to get someone fired through advertisement or boycott or public discussion or public screams of rage are all expressions of speech?
> 
> 2) My problem is that you do not differentiate any kind of degree.  I don't really like using the word oppression for minor issues like what we are mostly discussing here.  It invites comparisons to far more terrible forms of oppression like slavery, child labor, sex trafficking, etc.  I suppose it is a semantics issue, but I wouldn't say that Phil Robertson, to use the most prominent example, was oppressed.  He was inconvenienced, maybe hurt financially, but not oppressed.
> 
> 3) Yes, you have said this is not a legal issue or one of constitutional rights....but then you continue to talk about people having unalienable rights taken away.  That phrase is one that is generally used in regards to legal and constitutional matters rather than purely moral ones.
> 
> So again, I take no issue with the idea you'd like to change American cultural norms.  I just think some of the ways you have presented your points go beyond that into the realm of the legal or constitutional, and I think you make a bit of a mountain out of a mole hill with the entire issue.
Click to expand...


1.  You are distorting what I said.  I said I would like it to be illegal but I cannot word a law that would not have unintended negative consequences and therefore do not see that is feasible to have a law prohibiting actions like GLAADs or others who try to suppress opinion by phyical or material bullying tactics.  Therefore I see it as a matter of doing what I can to change the culture and make such tactics socially unacceptable.

2.  I have been consistent that going after people and trying to hurt them physically and/or materially for no offense other than they expressed an opinion that bullies don't like is a form of oppression.  When you say 'a form of oppression', and clearly define what oppression is involved, a question of degree is unneccessary.  Nobody should have to fear an angry mob, group, or organization coming after them to physically and/or materially hurt them purely for expressing an opinion.

3.  Taking away a person's unalienable right to be who and what he or she so long as s/he requires contribution or participation from no other is valid at all times because such rights predated the Constitution  so far as those who wrote, signed, and ratified the Constitution were concerned.

And I can't help what you think.  I'm sure those who have been attacked by groups who intended to hurt them physically and/or materially didn't think it a molehill.   But I'll fight to the death your right to think and express it.


----------



## Foxfyre

Nosmo King said:


> Conservatives are result oriented while Liberals are consequence oriented.
> 
> Let's look at two issues: the environment and civil rights.
> 
> Conservatives, being true to their unfettered love of Capitalism, would tend to make their money now and ignore the consequences after their efforts pump pollution into the air, water and soil.  "Look at how many jobs were created! Look at our enhanced standard of living!"  But the pollution is regarded as a necessary problem, or the result of "junk science".
> 
> Liberals believe things could have been done better because the consequences are so dire.  It's not that the Liberals hate progress (although that's the argument made by Conservatives).  It's that Liberals believe we are better than that and our resources could be used to both enhance our standard of living and protect ourselves from ourselves.
> 
> In civil rights, Conservatives seem to believe that expanding rights to all Americans results in diluting the rights of others.  "They want 'special rights'!" Argue Conservatives.  While Liberals believe that rights are rights and should not be excluded to anyone and extending those rights means everyone can enjoy them, not just the popular classes.
> 
> Results without accepting consequences is not only selfish, but it runs counter to the better angels of human nature.  If they only way you can achieve is by stepping on someone else, or the world at large, what have you achieved at all?



Nosmo, you know you are one of my favorite people ever, but this thread is not about whether liberals or conservatives are consequence or result oriented.  I would love to debate that with you in an appropriate thread.  Why don't you start one, get me a @mention and I'll be happy to participate.   The video you object to might be appropriate there too.  It is appropriate here because it describes WHY liberals feel the need to suppress opinions they don't like.  The only objection is that he would have been more balanced if he had pointed to conservative groups that also do that, but his lecture was about the liberal mind and motivations so oh well. . . .

This thread is a about an American citizen being able to express an opinion without some angry mob, group, or organization going after him and attempting to hurt him physically and/or materially because they don't like his opinion.  And I would like to stay focused on that.


----------



## Foxfyre

Plasmaball said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then you are against the OP right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Several points were made in the OP.  To which are you referring?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where she said what glaad did should be illegal..
Click to expand...


Please quote the OP and show where I said any such thing.  And if you cannot do that, I will expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something I did not say.


----------



## Mertex

Foxfyre said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> he and the OP want you to play by their rules, and if you dont, nobody is listening to what they are saying. Even though numerous people have taken on what they've said and had nice back and forth's with them. Yet they still feel nobody gets what they are saying.
> 
> The problem is people are blowing holes in their arguments as wide as the Atlantic ocean and they can handle it. thus this is the problem with the Clean debate zone, it legitimizes opinions that should have been put in their places long ago. It tolerates absurd opinions without consequences. Which i guess is perfect for the OP when i think about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get what they are trying to say....why I pointed out that people from any political party do it.  And, there is no way that anyone is going to stop it because everyone thinks that their position is the "good" one and the other person's is the "evil" one.
> 
> People can say whatever they want and if they are physically hurt for it, there are recourses that can be taken (why we have laws).  Unfortunately, material hurt depends on what side the majority of the people fall on, and it doesn't always work to the advantage of the ones trying to inflict the hurt.....regardless of which party it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Asclepias, a few minutes ago, said that he has no problem with physically and materially hurting people for no other reason than they express an opinion that he doesn't agree with.  While I think his opinion about that is potentially far more dangerous than the most offensive but non threatening remark anybody might make, I will respect his opinion about that.  While I will give him room that he didn't quite intend it that way, his opinion can be taken as advocating hurting other people who express opinions he doesn't like.  Phil Robertson's 'objectionable' opinion, on the other hand explicitly extended love to everybody.
Click to expand...


What?  You think that what Phil Robertson said about gays was extending love to them?  Comparing them to people who participate in beastiality is not an extension of love.  He is entitled to say whatever he wants, but that doesn't mean that people have to agree with him.  Those that criticized him had every perfect right to do so.  Nobody forced A&E to fire him, even if they made comments that they should, A&E chose to do so, then seeing that they were going to lose money decided to bring him back...that is their right, too.  Those that disagree don't have to watch the show nor buy any of the merchandise they put out, neither do they have to patronize the stores that sell them....that's how people express their disagreement in a civilized way.



> You, on the other hand, are not saying that it is okay to hurt people for their beliefs or you don't seem to be saying that.


I'm a Christian first, and nope, I wouldn't physically hurt anyone for anything they said no matter how stupid I thought they sounded, however, I would not support nor patronize a business that expressed hatred toward others, either, and if other people did the same and it hurts their business, well, that's par for the course.



> Perhaps there is a recourse for those who are materially or physically attacked by an angry mob, group, or organization for no other reason than they expressed an 'unpopular' point of view, but the cost to do that would likely be prohibitive for many and the negative additional publicity it would generate would make it impractical in most cases.



Anyone that is physically hurt in a situation where all they did was say something that was unpopular, have the state to side with them, and probably will not cost them much if they decide to sue.  For those that are materially hurt, if those that are on their side don't support them, then perhaps they need to keep their opinions to themselves.  People that run businesses have to be careful not to voice their opinions publicly if they don't want to face the repercussions that come with doing that. 



> There have been some successful suits filed and won by those who were maliciously attacked but those are rare.


If they were physically attacked, and their claim was that they said something that was unpopular, and it went to court and they lost, then obviously there must be more to the story.  Our judicial system is not always as astute as we think they should be, and many innocent people don't get justice, but for the most part, I trust our justice system to get it right most of the time.



> Which is why I have not advocated for it to be made illegal to physically and/or materially attack people for their beliefs, but I wish it could be made illegal.  Again I have not been able to come up with wording for such a law that could not be used to restrict all criticism of everything and everybody which I would see as violation of our First Amendment Rights.


We do have the Civil rights, but people sometimes are ableto get around them.  I think physical attacks are covered, but as far as material attacks.....boycotting is not illegal and people have the right to voice their opinions when they believe some action is not right, and those that agree with them have the right to follow suit and participate in boycotting.  It is effective, but like I said before, sometimes it backfires and the opposite occurs.


> But I think if enough good people, both left and right, choose liberty over oppression, we can make the phenomenon of hurting people for their beliefs a rare thing instead of commonplace as it is now.


Hurting people "materially" for their beliefs is wrong, boycotting them for their hateful expressions is another thing, and those that voice these hurtful/hateful things are getting more vocal, and those that oppose them are striking back...I don't see an end to it any time soon.


----------



## Plasmaball

Foxfyre said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several points were made in the OP.  To which are you referring?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Where she said what glaad did should be illegal..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please quote the OP and show where I said any such thing.  And if you cannot do that, I will expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something I did not say.
Click to expand...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-13.html#post8401365




> Originally Posted by Foxfyre
> I think was GLAAD did was evil. It SHOULD be criminal.



criminal would mean illegal...I owe you nothing.


----------



## Foxfyre

Plasmaball said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where she said what glaad did should be illegal..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please quote the OP and show where I said any such thing.  And if you cannot do that, I will expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something I did not say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-13.html#post8401365
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by Foxfyre
> I think was GLAAD did was evil. It SHOULD be criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> criminal would mean illegal...I owe you nothing.
Click to expand...


That statement was not in the OP.  And even if it was, saying what somebody does should be illegal is not the same thing as saying that somebody should be illegal.

So I still expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something I did not say in the OP.

I will expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something about GLAAD that I did not say.

And I fully realize I probably won't get what I expect.

And could we please now focus on the topic?


----------



## Mertex

Nosmo King said:


> What this mouthpiece for a think tank is doing is using specious logic.  It's that apparant.
> 
> He claims to know the Liberal mind, but he dances around the truth to espouse his company's message of intolerance.
> 
> Do you want to know what this Liberal thinks?  I think that injustice, repression, oppression, greed and larceny are the results of Conservative ideology and Conservatives are blind to them.  Conservatives are willing to be left in the dark by those results in order to rationalize the gains that come to individuals ruthless enough to champion results that benefit themselves while screwing the other.  And it's the intolerance of the other that allows them the latitude of ignorance and blindness to the results of their ideology.



One of the first things he mentions is that Libs hate America and feel that America deserved 9/11.  He fails to mention that Pat Robertson (who the last time I checked was a conservative) went on the air and declared that 9/11 happened due to the lack of faith in America.....the separation of church and state.  So, in essence, a conservative is on record as saying that "America got what it deserved" but somehow, this mind reader is claiming that it's libs that feel that way.....so, yes, it is totally specious.


Yesterday, on the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist bombings, televangelist Pat Robertson spent some time on his 700 Club TV show explaining to viewers why the attacks took place. And the reason did not have to do with Al Qaeda or the failures of US intelligence or Islamic jihadism per se. Nope. It was something far more sinister: separation of church and state. Yes, according to Robertson, lack of faith was the problem." Pat Robertson blames 9/11 attacks on separation of church and state - Los Angeles atheism | Examiner.com


----------



## Plasmaball

Foxfyre said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please quote the OP and show where I said any such thing.  And if you cannot do that, I will expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something I did not say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-13.html#post8401365
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by Foxfyre
> I think was GLAAD did was evil. It SHOULD be criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> criminal would mean illegal...I owe you nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That statement was not in the OP.  And even if it was, saying what somebody does should be illegal is not the same thing as saying that somebody should be illegal.
> 
> So I still expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something I did not say in the OP.
> 
> I will expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something about GLAAD that I did not say.
> 
> And I fully realize I probably won't get what I expect.
> 
> And could we please now focus on the topic?
Click to expand...


i knew you would spin it. You said criminal thus in order to be a criminal you would have to do something illegal. You hide behind your "OP" literally defense all you like. I dont care about your OP, you said it in this thread, your hand is in the cookie jar and you've been caught. Either you can own up to it, OR the consequences will be the consequences. 

Oh wait where you just not stating that the left doesnt like consequences? 



> He was explicit that liberals are not consequence oriented or they would be more sensitive to the consequences of what they do. They are not.



oh you did, perhaps a little more practice what you preach may be in order? 


> Originally Posted by Foxfyre
> I think was GLAAD did was evil. It SHOULD be criminal.



are these your words or not Fox? 

You dont get it do you? Saying something should be criminal is part of the overall topic you created. You can't pick and choose what people talk about. Thats not how debates work, there is a natural flow to things, and debates venture off into other areas off the main topic. 

Anyways You want to make an action that is "freedom" and make it a criminal offense. You literally want to ( what you claim) an intolerant action, and fix it by being intolerable to the point of jail. You literally don't see it? you are doing everything you are arguing against yet worse.


----------



## Mertex

Foxfyre said:


> You are or should be entitled to your opinion about his conservatism or conservatism in general as he is entitled to his opinion.  What makes his argument so compelling is that so far nobody has been able to refute it with anything other than it is partisan and  he sucks because he is explaining what creates the intolerance of liberals.  But so far nobody has been able to take any statement in his lecture and show how it is incorrect.  It may all be incorrect, but so far nobody has tried to rebut it.


What do you mean nobody has refuted his comments.  He claims to know how the Liberal mind thinks, and if he is not a Liberal, how can he possibly claim to know how they think?    He claims that Libs hate America and claimed they thought America deserved 9/11 - yet a conservative, Pat Robertson, got on TV and said the very same thing he is claiming the left is saying.  



> Is he suggesting that liberals be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed or harmed in any way?  No he is not.  He is expressing his reasoned opinion about liberals.


He is lying when he says that Liberals think America deserved 9/11.  Would you not find his comments offensive if he said all conservatives believed America deserved 9/11, because Pat Robertson, who is a conservative said so?  

His whole talk is partisan, intended to be partisan and intended to demonize Liberals, how could that possibly be reasoned, unless you agree with all he said.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several points were made in the OP.  To which are you referring?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Where she said what glaad did should be illegal..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please quote the OP and show where I said any such thing.  And if you cannot do that, I will expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something I did not say.
Click to expand...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/8337654-post373.html



			
				Foxfyre said:
			
		

> I think was GLAAD did was evil. It SHOULD be criminal.


----------



## Nosmo King

As to the question of tolerance, please explain why Liberals are seen as intolerant.  I ask because history shows the opposite.

Which political ideology provided the resistance to social change?  When child labor was the burning issue, was it the monied Conservative class rallying to rid child labor from society?  Were the defenders of discrimination like,Lester Maddox, George Wallace, Strom,Thurmond and Sheriff Bull Connor all tree hugging Birkenstock wearing Liberals?  Are Feminists greeted warmly at CPAC conventions?  How seriously are environmentalists taken at Tea Party rallies?  Where's the plank in the GOP platform advocating marriage equality?

Tolerance, thy name is not Conservatism.  Why then are Conservatives lecturing and concerned with the issue of tolerance when they have yet to show any themselves?


----------



## Foxfyre

Nosmo King said:


> As to the question of tolerance, please explain why Liberals are seen as intolerant.  I ask because history shows the opposite.
> 
> Which political ideology provided the resistance to social change?  When child labor was the burning issue, was it the monied Conservative class rallying to rid child labor from society?  Were the defenders of discrimination like,Lester Maddox, George Wallace, Strom,Thurmond and Sheriff Bull Connor all tree hugging Birkenstock wearing Liberals?  Are Feminists greeted warmly at CPAC conventions?  How seriously are environmentalists taken at Tea Party rallies?  Where's the plank in the GOP platform advocating marriage equality?
> 
> Tolerance, thy name is not Conservatism.  Why then are Conservatives lecturing and concerned with the issue of tolerance when they have yet to show any themselves?



Again this thread is not about liberals and conservatives and the OP did not frame the question or concept in partisan terms in any way.  GLAAD was despicable, in my opinion, when it went after Phil Robertson because they don't like what he believes the Bible says.  The American Family Association was despicable, in my opinion, when they tried to get Ellen Degeneres fired from J.C. Penney's advertising because Ellen Is Gay.

So I don't CARE whether it is liberals or conservatives who are being intolerant of people's opinions.  It doesn't matter.  I'm sure that there is a video by some intellectual explaining how conservatives try to suppress differences of opinion too and if somebody finds one, they can post that as an example to illustrate the OP.  I am a fully equal opportunity critic when it comes to this issue.

And the issue is not about social action, social change, or which group promoted what.

Once again the focus of the OP is the concept that no person should be physically or materially attacked with intent to hurt that person for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion that somebody didn't like.


----------



## Foxfyre

Mertex said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are or should be entitled to your opinion about his conservatism or conservatism in general as he is entitled to his opinion.  What makes his argument so compelling is that so far nobody has been able to refute it with anything other than it is partisan and  he sucks because he is explaining what creates the intolerance of liberals.  But so far nobody has been able to take any statement in his lecture and show how it is incorrect.  It may all be incorrect, but so far nobody has tried to rebut it.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean nobody has refuted his comments.  He claims to know how the Liberal mind thinks, and if he is not a Liberal, how can he possibly claim to know how they think?    He claims that Libs hate America and claimed they thought America deserved 9/11 - yet a conservative, Pat Robertson, got on TV and said the very same thing he is claiming the left is saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is he suggesting that liberals be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed or harmed in any way?  No he is not.  He is expressing his reasoned opinion about liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is lying when he says that Liberals think America deserved 9/11.  Would you not find his comments offensive if he said all conservatives believed America deserved 9/11, because Pat Robertson, who is a conservative said so?
> 
> His whole talk is partisan, intended to be partisan and intended to demonize Liberals, how could that possibly be reasoned, unless you agree with all he said.
Click to expand...


Disagreeing with him is not the same thing as refuting him.  Holding the opinion that he is lying in the analogies he used is not refuting him.  He made no pretense that his focus in his lecture was to describe how liberals think and why liberals do what they do.  Agree with him or disagree with him.  I don't care.  I am sorry the video got posted in this thread because so many are now unable to focus on anything else.  Mojo did start a thread re the video in Politics I think and would welcome commentary about it there.

The only reason that video was pertinent to this thread topic was that he did explain why liberals try to suppress opinions that don't fit the liberal agenda.  But again, I wish it hadn't been posted in this thread because of the inability of some to now focus on what the thread topic is.

This thread is intended to focus on suppressing unpopular opinions by angry mobs, groups, or organizations--liberal or conservative--who attempt to physically or materially hurt people who express opinions the mobs, groups, or organizations don't like.  In my opinion that is evil, and should not be acceptable to freedom loving people no matter what label they wear in their political ideologies.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are or should be entitled to your opinion about his conservatism or conservatism in general as he is entitled to his opinion.  What makes his argument so compelling is that so far nobody has been able to refute it with anything other than it is partisan and  he sucks because he is explaining what creates the intolerance of liberals.  But so far nobody has been able to take any statement in his lecture and show how it is incorrect.  It may all be incorrect, but so far nobody has tried to rebut it.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean nobody has refuted his comments.  He claims to know how the Liberal mind thinks, and if he is not a Liberal, how can he possibly claim to know how they think?    He claims that Libs hate America and claimed they thought America deserved 9/11 - yet a conservative, Pat Robertson, got on TV and said the very same thing he is claiming the left is saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is he suggesting that liberals be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed or harmed in any way?  No he is not.  He is expressing his reasoned opinion about liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is lying when he says that Liberals think America deserved 9/11.  Would you not find his comments offensive if he said all conservatives believed America deserved 9/11, because Pat Robertson, who is a conservative said so?
> 
> His whole talk is partisan, intended to be partisan and intended to demonize Liberals, how could that possibly be reasoned, unless you agree with all he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with him is not the same thing as refuting him.  Holding the opinion that he is lying in the analogies he used is not refuting him.  He made no pretense that his focus in his lecture was to describe how liberals think and why liberals do what they do.  Agree with him or disagree with him.  I don't care.  I am sorry the video got posted in this thread because so many are now unable to focus on anything else.  Mojo did start a thread re the video in Politics I think and would welcome commentary about it there.
> 
> The only reason that video was pertinent to this thread topic was that he did explain why liberals try to suppress opinions that don't fit the liberal agenda.  But again, I wish it hadn't been posted in this thread because of the inability of some to now focus on what the thread topic is.
> 
> This thread is intended to focus on suppressing unpopular opinions by angry mobs, groups, or organizations--liberal or conservative--who attempt to physically or materially hurt people who express opinions the mobs, groups, or organizations don't like.  In my opinion that is evil, and should not be acceptable to freedom loving people no matter what label they wear in their political ideologies.
Click to expand...


As long as they are not violating someones first amendment rights why is it evil?  They are only voicing their opinions that the person should be financially ruined.


----------



## Nosmo King

Foxfyre said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to the question of tolerance, please explain why Liberals are seen as intolerant.  I ask because history shows the opposite.
> 
> Which political ideology provided the resistance to social change?  When child labor was the burning issue, was it the monied Conservative class rallying to rid child labor from society?  Were the defenders of discrimination like,Lester Maddox, George Wallace, Strom,Thurmond and Sheriff Bull Connor all tree hugging Birkenstock wearing Liberals?  Are Feminists greeted warmly at CPAC conventions?  How seriously are environmentalists taken at Tea Party rallies?  Where's the plank in the GOP platform advocating marriage equality?
> 
> Tolerance, thy name is not Conservatism.  Why then are Conservatives lecturing and concerned with the issue of tolerance when they have yet to show any themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again this thread is not about liberals and conservatives and the OP did not frame the question or concept in partisan terms in any way.  GLAAD was despicable, in my opinion, when it went after Phil Robertson because they don't like what he believes the Bible says.  The American Family Association was despicable, in my opinion, when they tried to get Ellen Degeneres fired from J.C. Penney's advertising because Ellen Is Gay.
> 
> So I don't CARE whether it is liberals or conservatives who are being intolerant of people's opinions.  It doesn't matter.  I'm sure that there is a video by some intellectual explaining how conservatives try to suppress differences of opinion too and if somebody finds one, they can post that as an example to illustrate the OP.  I am a fully equal opportunity critic when it comes to this issue.
> 
> And the issue is not about social action, social change, or which group promoted what.
> 
> Once again the focus of the OP is the concept that no person should be physically or materially attacked with intent to hurt that person for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion that somebody didn't like.
Click to expand...

I'm lucky because I've never watched 'reality' television shows.  It was not until this Robertson fellow displayed irrational intolerance that I ever saw or knew of him.  His intolerance cannot be rationalized due to some warped mis interpretation of scripture.  In fact, I find it disgusting that someone would hide behind the skirts of scripture to justify his intolerance.

He defamed an entire group of our fellow citizens and deserved to be called out for it.  The world should not be such a tough place for the other.  Humans should use tolerance when dealing with others.

Now tolerance is not the same as acceptance.  You can tolerate a homosexual and his or her lifestyle without acceptance.  All most oppressed people would happily receive tolerance, live and let live.  Acceptance must come to an individual in his own time and manner.

So many of the intolerant are not what society considers the most worldly and sophisticated.  Isolation within one' sown social class makes knowledge and experience hard to come by.  The tolerant, by contrast, have had experiences outside their own group that reveals one great truth of life.  Namely everyone has their own characteristics and no one should make the ham handed snap judgements that show intolerance.  He without sin shall cast the first stone.  Imagine scripture showing the way to tolerance and not cover for ignorance, fear and suspicion.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Mertex said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are or should be entitled to your opinion about his conservatism or conservatism in general as he is entitled to his opinion.  What makes his argument so compelling is that so far nobody has been able to refute it with anything other than it is partisan and  he sucks because he is explaining what creates the intolerance of liberals.  But so far nobody has been able to take any statement in his lecture and show how it is incorrect.  It may all be incorrect, but so far nobody has tried to rebut it.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean nobody has refuted his comments.  He claims to know how the Liberal mind thinks, and if he is not a Liberal, how can he possibly claim to know how they think?   * He claims that Libs hate America and claimed they thought America deserved 9/11 *- yet a conservative, Pat Robertson, got on TV and said the very same thing he is claiming the left is saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is he suggesting that liberals be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed or harmed in any way?  No he is not.  He is expressing his reasoned opinion about liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is lying when he says that Liberals think America deserved 9/11.  Would you not find his comments offensive if he said all conservatives believed America deserved 9/11, because Pat Robertson, who is a conservative said so?
> 
> His whole talk is partisan, intended to be partisan and intended to demonize Liberals, how could that possibly be reasoned, unless you agree with all he said.
Click to expand...


Which clearly illustrates that this individual is completely ignorant of what liberals believe. 

Particularly when one considers the fact that there are no greater advocates of America than liberals, and where the greatest act of patriotism is to question the acts of ones government when warranted.


----------



## Meathead

Nosmo King said:


> I'm lucky because I've never watched 'reality' television shows.  It was not until this Robertson fellow displayed irrational intolerance that I ever saw or knew of him.  His intolerance cannot be rationalized due to some warped mis interpretation of scripture.  In fact, I find it disgusting that someone would hide behind the skirts of scripture to justify his intolerance.
> 
> He defamed an entire group of our fellow citizens and deserved to be called out for it.  The world should not be such a tough place for the other.  Humans should use tolerance when dealing with others.
> 
> Now tolerance is not the same as acceptance.  You can tolerate a homosexual and his or her lifestyle without acceptance.  All most oppressed people would happily receive tolerance, live and let live.  Acceptance must come to an individual in his own time and manner.
> 
> So many of the intolerant are not what society considers the most worldly and sophisticated.  Isolation within one' sown social class makes knowledge and experience hard to come by.  The tolerant, by contrast, have had experiences outside their own group that reveals one great truth of life.  Namely everyone has their own characteristics and no one should make the ham handed snap judgements that show intolerance.  He without sin shall cast the first stone.  Imagine scripture showing the way to tolerance and not cover for ignorance, fear and suspicion.


Tolerance is not the same as acceptance, but I fail to see how Robertson was intolerant while his critics were not. "Ignorance, fear and suspicion" cannot be the default fault (sorry) assigned by those who feel offended. Please, no platitudes about great truths and so on.


----------



## BDBoop

Mojo2 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.
> 
> The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.
> 
> Here is a link to it.
> 
> Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.
> 
> Really.
> 
> It's THAT good!
Click to expand...


Yup. This video? On the first page. It was That Good, you thanked him for posting it.

Brilliant it was, yeah? I've seen that in both threads, now. Cons can attack libs to make their 'point,' but if libs do the same they are OT, and you either refuse to answer, call them out for being OT, or generally both.

Which is why I stopped contributing to the last thread, and barely contributed to this one and oh, P.S.: Plasmaball is correct about what you said in the OP.


----------



## Mac1958

Foxfyre said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please quote the OP and show where I said any such thing.  And if you cannot do that, I will expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something I did not say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-13.html#post8401365
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by Foxfyre
> I think was GLAAD did was evil. It SHOULD be criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> criminal would mean illegal...I owe you nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That statement was not in the OP.  And even if it was, saying what somebody does should be illegal is not the same thing as saying that somebody should be illegal.
> 
> So I still expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something I did not say in the OP.
> 
> I will expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something about GLAAD that I did not say.
> 
> And I fully realize I probably won't get what I expect.
> 
> And could we please now focus on the topic?
Click to expand...



   [MENTION=24916]Plasmaball[/MENTION], if you want my opinion on something, I'll be happy to provide it.

Perhaps you could ask it in a way that is straightforward and honest, without misrepresenting what I or someone else said.  How in the world was I supposed to know you were referring to GLAAD when it wasn't even mentioned in the OP?  If you're going to dishonestly use Foxfyre to make a point -- that appears to be what you're trying to do -- I'm not interested in playing along.

The intellectual dishonesty here just doesn't stop.

.


----------



## Foxfyre

BDBoop said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.
> 
> The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.
> 
> Here is a link to it.
> 
> Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.
> 
> Really.
> 
> It's THAT good!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. This video? On the first page. It was That Good, you thanked him for posting it.
> 
> Brilliant it was, yeah? I've seen that in both threads, now. Cons can attack libs to make their 'point,' but if libs do the same they are OT, and you either refuse to answer, call them out for being OT, or generally both.
> 
> Which is why I stopped contributing to the last thread, and barely contributed to this one and oh, P.S.: Plasmaball is correct about what you said in the OP.
Click to expand...


And the reading dyfsfunction goes on.

You know folks, I don't CARE that you can't seem to read and comprehend what is written.  I can't help it that you refuse to see any comments or disclaimers or qualifiers that accompany what others write.  I can't help it if you are incapable of seeing and understanding what the topic of a thread is, and I can't help it if you feel the need to band together to try to derail threads or whatever your intent might be.   But GLAAD was not mentioned in the OP and I have never said anywhere or anyplace that GLAAD should be illegal.  That's a fact.

If you are so intolerant that you simply cannot allow others their point of view when it is expressed civilly and in a reasoned fashion, then please find a thread that reflects what you want to see and what you want to talk about. 

In a way that is what this thread is about.  The kind of tolerance that allows others their beliefs, opinions, and convictions without feeling a need to attack, demonize, accuse, misrepresent or hurt them because those opinions are expressed.  Maybe a good place to start would be to address the OP honestly in what it says and comment on THAT instead of attacking the people who express opinions you don't agree with.


----------



## BDBoop

That was absolutely nauseating.

I'm going to go lie down now.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.
> 
> The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.
> 
> Here is a link to it.
> 
> Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.
> 
> Really.
> 
> It's THAT good!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIboXTpF6t4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. This video? On the first page. It was That Good, you thanked him for posting it.
> 
> Brilliant it was, yeah? I've seen that in both threads, now. Cons can attack libs to make their 'point,' but if libs do the same they are OT, and you either refuse to answer, call them out for being OT, or generally both.
> 
> Which is why I stopped contributing to the last thread, and barely contributed to this one and oh, P.S.: Plasmaball is correct about what you said in the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the reading dyfsfunction goes on.
> 
> You know folks, I don't CARE that you can't seem to read and comprehend what is written.  I can't help it that you refuse to see any comments or disclaimers or qualifiers that accompany what others write.  I can't help it if you are incapable of seeing and understanding what the topic of a thread is, and I can't help it if you feel the need to band together to try to derail threads or whatever your intent might be.   But GLAAD was not mentioned in the OP and I have never said anywhere or anyplace that GLAAD should be illegal.  That's a fact.
> 
> If you are so intolerant that you simply cannot allow others their point of view when it is expressed civilly and in a reasoned fashion, then please find a thread that reflects what you want to see and what you want to talk about.
> 
> In a way that is what this thread is about.  The kind of tolerance that allows others their beliefs, opinions, and convictions without feeling a need to attack, demonize, accuse, misrepresent or hurt them because those opinions are expressed.  Maybe a good place to start would be to address the OP honestly in what it says and comment on THAT instead of attacking the people who express opinions you don't agree with.
Click to expand...


You are right, you never said anywhere or anyplace that GLAAD should be illegal. You said "I think was GLAAD did was evil. It SHOULD be *criminal*"


----------



## GreenBean

Mertex said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> What this mouthpiece for a think tank is doing is using specious logic.  It's that apparant.
> 
> He claims to know the Liberal mind, but he dances around the truth to espouse his company's message of intolerance.
> 
> Do you want to know what this Liberal thinks?  I think that injustice, repression, oppression, greed and larceny are the results of Conservative ideology and Conservatives are blind to them.  Conservatives are willing to be left in the dark by those results in order to rationalize the gains that come to individuals ruthless enough to champion results that benefit themselves while screwing the other.  And it's the intolerance of the other that allows them the latitude of ignorance and blindness to the results of their ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the first things he mentions is that Libs hate America and feel that America deserved 9/11.  He fails to mention that Pat Robertson (who the last time I checked was a conservative) went on the air and declared that 9/11 happened due to the lack of faith in America.....the separation of church and state.  So, in essence, a conservative is on record as saying that "America got what it deserved" but somehow, this mind reader is claiming that it's libs that feel that way.....so, yes, it is totally specious.
> 
> 
> Yesterday, on the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist bombings, televangelist Pat Robertson spent some time on his 700 Club TV show explaining to viewers why the attacks took place. And the reason did not have to do with Al Qaeda or the failures of US intelligence or Islamic jihadism per se. Nope. It was something far more sinister: separation of church and state. Yes, according to Robertson, lack of faith was the problem." Pat Robertson blames 9/11 attacks on separation of church and state - Los Angeles atheism | Examiner.com
Click to expand...


Pat Robertson is a Religious Lunatic and *does not represent the Conservative movement* in this country !   The same as Al Sharpton is a racist lunatic and does not represent African Americans.


----------



## BDBoop

Statistikhengst said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> What this mouthpiece for a think tank is doing is using specious logic.  It's that apparant.
> 
> He claims to know the Liberal mind, but he dances around the truth to espouse his company's message of intolerance.
> 
> Do you want to know what this Liberal thinks?  I think that injustice, repression, oppression, greed and larceny are the results of Conservative ideology and Conservatives are blind to them.  Conservatives are willing to be left in the dark by those results in order to rationalize the gains that come to individuals ruthless enough to champion results that benefit themselves while screwing the other.  And it's the intolerance of the other that allows them the latitude of ignorance and blindness to the results of their ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are or should be entitled to your opinion about his conservatism or conservatism in general as he is entitled to his opinion.  What makes his argument so compelling is that so far nobody has been able to refute it with anything other than it is partisan and  he sucks because he is explaining what creates the intolerance of liberals.  *But so far nobody has been able to take any statement in his lecture and show how it is incorrect.  It may all be incorrect, but so far nobody has tried to rebut it.*
> 
> Is he suggesting that liberals be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed or harmed in any way?  No he is not.  He is expressing his reasoned opinion about liberals.
> 
> Are you suggesting that he or other conservatives be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed, or harmed in anyway?   No you were not.  I think you're wrong because if I include myself in your characterization I know you are dead wrong about me.  But do you have the right to your opinion about me or other conservatives without fear that you will be punished by some mob, group, or organization?  Yes, in my opinion you have that moral and ethical right.  And nobody should presume the moral and ethical right to take that away from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bolded: I am tired right now from a long work week that went into the weekend, but I will DEFINITELY get back with you on this tomorrow. Definitely.
Click to expand...


Ready?


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. This video? On the first page. It was That Good, you thanked him for posting it.
> 
> Brilliant it was, yeah? I've seen that in both threads, now. Cons can attack libs to make their 'point,' but if libs do the same they are OT, and you either refuse to answer, call them out for being OT, or generally both.
> 
> Which is why I stopped contributing to the last thread, and barely contributed to this one and oh, P.S.: Plasmaball is correct about what you said in the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the reading dyfsfunction goes on.
> 
> You know folks, I don't CARE that you can't seem to read and comprehend what is written.  I can't help it that you refuse to see any comments or disclaimers or qualifiers that accompany what others write.  I can't help it if you are incapable of seeing and understanding what the topic of a thread is, and I can't help it if you feel the need to band together to try to derail threads or whatever your intent might be.   But GLAAD was not mentioned in the OP and I have never said anywhere or anyplace that GLAAD should be illegal.  That's a fact.
> 
> If you are so intolerant that you simply cannot allow others their point of view when it is expressed civilly and in a reasoned fashion, then please find a thread that reflects what you want to see and what you want to talk about.
> 
> In a way that is what this thread is about.  The kind of tolerance that allows others their beliefs, opinions, and convictions without feeling a need to attack, demonize, accuse, misrepresent or hurt them because those opinions are expressed.  Maybe a good place to start would be to address the OP honestly in what it says and comment on THAT instead of attacking the people who express opinions you don't agree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are right, you never said anywhere or anyplace that GLAAD should be illegal. You said "I think was GLAAD did was evil. It SHOULD be *criminal*"
Click to expand...


Yes I did say what GLAAD did should be criminal.   But that was not in the OP though Plasmaball and BDBoop both continue to insist it was.  And that is not the same thing as saying that GLAAD should be illegal.

I also qualified that conviction several times now in the previous thread and in this one that I see no way to make that kind of reprehensible behavior criminal without unintended consequences so we need to change the culture of personal political destruction that currently exists.

I don't ask that you guys agree with me.  But I will object when somebody tries to change the topic and when somebody accuses me of saying something that I did not say.


----------



## Derideo_Te

R.D. said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing.   You're hard core need to ignore a simple fact is awe inspiring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to play by your own set of rules.
> 
> Failure to substantiate your allegation when called upon to do so is a de facto concession of your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *But I did twice.*  You just disagree.  Which is fine by me, you seem to have trouble tolerating a difference of opinion
Click to expand...


Nope, not even once.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Just checking, we are in the CDZ, right??


Because I am seeing a lot of this:


----------



## Statistikhengst

BDBoop said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are or should be entitled to your opinion about his conservatism or conservatism in general as he is entitled to his opinion.  What makes his argument so compelling is that so far nobody has been able to refute it with anything other than it is partisan and  he sucks because he is explaining what creates the intolerance of liberals.  *But so far nobody has been able to take any statement in his lecture and show how it is incorrect.  It may all be incorrect, but so far nobody has tried to rebut it.*
> 
> Is he suggesting that liberals be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed or harmed in any way?  No he is not.  He is expressing his reasoned opinion about liberals.
> 
> Are you suggesting that he or other conservatives be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed, or harmed in anyway?   No you were not.  I think you're wrong because if I include myself in your characterization I know you are dead wrong about me.  But do you have the right to your opinion about me or other conservatives without fear that you will be punished by some mob, group, or organization?  Yes, in my opinion you have that moral and ethical right.  And nobody should presume the moral and ethical right to take that away from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bolded: I am tired right now from a long work week that went into the weekend, but I will DEFINITELY get back with you on this tomorrow. Definitely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ready?
Click to expand...




Well, I watched it, and now I wished I hadn't wasted my time. That's 48 minutes of my life that I will never get back. Sigh.

False statements and assumptions about Liberals without even one single real statistic. He was just speaking to the people in his bubble, which has hardly anything to do with tolerance.

Of course, I cherish his right to do this.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Foxfyre said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.
> 
> The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.
> 
> Here is a link to it.
> 
> Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.
> 
> Really.
> 
> It's THAT good!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIboXTpF6t4
> 
> 
> 
> What this mouthpiece for a think tank is doing is using specious logic.  It's that apparant.
> 
> He claims to know the Liberal mind, but he dances around the truth to espouse his company's message of intolerance.
> 
> Do you want to know what this Liberal thinks?  I think that injustice, repression, oppression, greed and larceny are the results of Conservative ideology and Conservatives are blind to them.  Conservatives are willing to be left in the dark by those results in order to rationalize the gains that come to individuals ruthless enough to champion results that benefit themselves while screwing the other.  And it's the intolerance of the other that allows them the latitude of ignorance and blindness to the results of their ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are or should be entitled to your opinion about his conservatism or conservatism in general as he is entitled to his opinion.  *What makes his argument so compelling is that so far nobody has been able to refute it *with anything other than it is partisan and  he sucks because he is explaining what creates the intolerance of liberals.  But so far nobody has been able to take any statement in his lecture and show how it is incorrect.  It may all be incorrect, but so far nobody has tried to rebut it.
> 
> Is he suggesting that liberals be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed or harmed in any way?  No he is not. * He is expressing his reasoned opinion about liberals.*
> 
> Are you suggesting that he or other conservatives be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed, or harmed in anyway?   No you were not.  I think you're wrong because if I include myself in your characterization I know you are dead wrong about me.  But do you have the right to your opinion about me or other conservatives without fear that you will be punished by some mob, group, or organization?  Yes, in my opinion you have that moral and ethical right.  And nobody should presume the moral and ethical right to take that away from you.
Click to expand...


Something that ludicrous only deserves ridicule. He is unworthy of a point by point rebuttal. What is scary is that so many take everything he says at face value without question. Where are the critical thinking skills in his audience? That he was preaching to the converted and gullible simply means that PT Barnum was right.


----------



## Statistikhengst

GreenBean said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> What this mouthpiece for a think tank is doing is using specious logic.  It's that apparant.
> 
> He claims to know the Liberal mind, but he dances around the truth to espouse his company's message of intolerance.
> 
> Do you want to know what this Liberal thinks?  I think that injustice, repression, oppression, greed and larceny are the results of Conservative ideology and Conservatives are blind to them.  Conservatives are willing to be left in the dark by those results in order to rationalize the gains that come to individuals ruthless enough to champion results that benefit themselves while screwing the other.  And it's the intolerance of the other that allows them the latitude of ignorance and blindness to the results of their ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the first things he mentions is that Libs hate America and feel that America deserved 9/11.  He fails to mention that Pat Robertson (who the last time I checked was a conservative) went on the air and declared that 9/11 happened due to the lack of faith in America.....the separation of church and state.  So, in essence, a conservative is on record as saying that "America got what it deserved" but somehow, this mind reader is claiming that it's libs that feel that way.....so, yes, it is totally specious.
> 
> 
> Yesterday, on the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist bombings, televangelist Pat Robertson spent some time on his 700 Club TV show explaining to viewers why the attacks took place. And the reason did not have to do with Al Qaeda or the failures of US intelligence or Islamic jihadism per se. Nope. It was something far more sinister: separation of church and state. Yes, according to Robertson, lack of faith was the problem." Pat Robertson blames 9/11 attacks on separation of church and state - Los Angeles atheism | Examiner.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pat Robertson is a Religious Lunatic and *does not represent the Conservative movement* in this country !   The same as Al Sharpton is a racist lunatic and does not represent African Americans.
Click to expand...



Pat Robertson is a Southern Baptist Minister, a registered Republican and a former Republican Presidential candidate from 1988. He is the son of a Senator and founder of the Trinity Broadcasting Network, which has the largest TV following of any Christian programming out there.

He is considered a MAJOR voice for Conservative Christianity in the USA. Republican candidates seek his endorsements come election time.

So, it may be your opinon that he is a religious lunatic, as you put it, but he IS a Conservative, by his own description and his own deeds.


----------



## BDBoop

Statistikhengst said:


> Just checking, we are in the CDZ, right??
> 
> 
> Because I am seeing a lot of this:



Sam and Dean! I LOVE Sam and Dean!!


----------



## Statistikhengst

Mojo2 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.
> 
> The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.
> 
> Here is a link to it.
> 
> Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.
> 
> Really.
> 
> It's THAT good!
Click to expand...


As I said, I listened to the entire thing this morning before I went off to my workout. I listened while cleaning. It was most entertaining.


Evan Sayet claims to be a former Liberal Jew from NY. I assume he is still Jewish.

1:20 





> "I would hear my friends say how evil and horrible and racist and imperialistic and oppresive America is"



That is an opinion, not based in fact. He also did no list the names of any of those "friends". Not one of my friends, either Conservative or Liberal, has ever said this kind of stuff.

1:26 





> "And then came 911, and I grabbed them (Liberals) by the collar and said, let's help her (America) and they said, no, she deserves it"



Again, he is telling a story, not issuing fact. No evidence to back up his claim.

@Foxfyre - he does this for all 48 minutes. And you call this reasonable?

The man is speaking for the Heritage Foundation, an extreme Right-Wing think tank. He is preaching to the choir.

What he says practically the entire time is actually nothing but intolerance, intolerance, intolerance.

Use of "stories" and ad hominem attacks on a general group of people does not make reasoned analysis.

Had he said something like:

"polling from 8 different organizations shows consistently that 42% of self-identified Liberals think that the USA is imperialistic"

Then I would at least be able to say that he is making a point based on fact.

But there is no such polling information, nor is the chit-chat from a group of whom he claims to be "friends" evidence.

Or would you also consider it just totally tolerant of me were I to write that after 911, when I spoke to my Conservative friends, they all said "good, time to nuke the islamic world, cuz we want oil, oil, oil" - how do you think your Conservative friends would react to it?

So, now, I have given you far more time than either you or Mr. Sayet deserve here.

If this is what you truly think passes for honest discourse, then I feel sorry for you.

It is not.

If people want to excercise criticism of Liberals (and they SHOULD, criticism is necessary for growth), then it should be based in fact and reasoning, and not in ad hominem partisan posturing.

BTW, Evan Sayet is a stand-up comedian who decided he could make more money by writing books that appeal to Conservatives. For what he is saying, he is making $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ !!!


And now, time to turn the screws on YOU. Show me just one single quote from Evan Sayet where he made a statement and backed it up with documented facts. Just one. Good luck to you.  Let me know if you strike gold.


----------



## Statistikhengst

BDBoop said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just checking, we are in the CDZ, right??
> 
> 
> Because I am seeing a lot of this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sam and Dean! I LOVE Sam and Dean!!
Click to expand...


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.
> 
> The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.
> 
> Here is a link to it.
> 
> Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.
> 
> Really.
> 
> It's THAT good!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIboXTpF6t4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. This video? On the first page. It was That Good, you thanked him for posting it.
> 
> Brilliant it was, yeah? I've seen that in both threads, now. Cons can attack libs to make their 'point,' but if libs do the same they are OT, and you either refuse to answer, call them out for being OT, or generally both.
> 
> Which is why I stopped contributing to the last thread, and barely contributed to this one and oh, P.S.: Plasmaball is correct about what you said in the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the reading dyfsfunction goes on.
> 
> You know folks, I don't CARE that you can't seem to read and comprehend what is written.  I can't help it that you refuse to see any comments or disclaimers or qualifiers that accompany what others write.  I can't help it if you are incapable of seeing and understanding what the topic of a thread is, and I can't help it if you feel the need to band together to try to derail threads or whatever your intent might be.   But GLAAD was not mentioned in the OP and *I have never said anywhere or anyplace that GLAAD should be illegal.*  That's a fact.
> 
> If you are so intolerant that you simply cannot allow others their point of view when it is expressed civilly and in a reasoned fashion, then please find a thread that reflects what you want to see and what you want to talk about.
> 
> In a way that is what this thread is about.  The kind of tolerance that allows others their beliefs, opinions, and convictions without feeling a need to attack, demonize, accuse, misrepresent or hurt them because those opinions are expressed.  Maybe a good place to start would be to address the OP honestly in what it says and comment on THAT instead of attacking the people who express opinions you don't agree with.
Click to expand...


Who accused you of claiming that the organization GLAAD should be illegal?

Here's what Plasmaball said (which I think sparked this argument) :


Plasmaball said:


> Where she said what glaad did should be illegal..



He clearly said what GLAAD did, not the organization itself.

Not sure if that was a typo on your part.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Mac1958 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-13.html#post8401365
> 
> 
> 
> 
> criminal would mean illegal...I owe you nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That statement was not in the OP.  And even if it was, saying what somebody does should be illegal is not the same thing as saying that somebody should be illegal.
> 
> So I still expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something I did not say in the OP.
> 
> I will expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something about GLAAD that I did not say.
> 
> And I fully realize I probably won't get what I expect.
> 
> And could we please now focus on the topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=24916]Plasmaball[/MENTION], if you want my opinion on something, I'll be happy to provide it.
> 
> Perhaps you could ask it in a way that is straightforward and honest, without misrepresenting what I or someone else said.  How in the world was I supposed to know you were referring to GLAAD when it wasn't even mentioned in the OP?  If you're going to dishonestly use Foxfyre to make a point -- that appears to be what you're trying to do -- I'm not interested in playing along.
> 
> The intellectual dishonesty here just doesn't stop.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Excuse me for butting in here [MENTION=24916]Plasmaball[/MENTION] and [MENTION=34298]Mac1958[/MENTION] but both of you make some really good points so I don't really understand the bickering.

Each of you accuses the other of doing things that I am simply not observing myself. Granted I probably don't know the history between you too but I suspect that is more the reason for the sniping than what either of you are actually posting. 

On the merits your arguments are reasoned and logical. Together I suspect that you would be formidable when it came to presenting a case that you both supported.

So I am not asking you to kiss and make up but it is somewhat distracting to have this going on while we are having what is probably one of the best debates I have encountered thus far in the USMB.

Thanks for letting me butt in and I will now butt myself back out and you can resume your regularly scheduled program. 

Peace
DT


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the reading dyfsfunction goes on.
> 
> You know folks, I don't CARE that you can't seem to read and comprehend what is written.  I can't help it that you refuse to see any comments or disclaimers or qualifiers that accompany what others write.  I can't help it if you are incapable of seeing and understanding what the topic of a thread is, and I can't help it if you feel the need to band together to try to derail threads or whatever your intent might be.   But GLAAD was not mentioned in the OP and I have never said anywhere or anyplace that GLAAD should be illegal.  That's a fact.
> 
> If you are so intolerant that you simply cannot allow others their point of view when it is expressed civilly and in a reasoned fashion, then please find a thread that reflects what you want to see and what you want to talk about.
> 
> In a way that is what this thread is about.  The kind of tolerance that allows others their beliefs, opinions, and convictions without feeling a need to attack, demonize, accuse, misrepresent or hurt them because those opinions are expressed.  Maybe a good place to start would be to address the OP honestly in what it says and comment on THAT instead of attacking the people who express opinions you don't agree with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right, you never said anywhere or anyplace that GLAAD should be illegal. You said "I think was GLAAD did was evil. It SHOULD be *criminal*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes I did say what GLAAD did should be criminal.*   But that was not in the OP though Plasmaball and BDBoop both continue to insist it was.  *And that is not the same thing as saying that GLAAD should be illegal.*
Click to expand...


Why should GLAAD be illegal?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Mojo2 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.
> 
> The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.
> 
> Here is a link to it.
> 
> Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.
> 
> Really.
> 
> It's THAT good!
Click to expand...


2:12



> "I've gotta assume that just about everybody in this room thinks that the Democrats are wrong on just about every issue. Well, here to propose to you, it's just just about every issue, it's quite literally every issue. It's not just wrong, it's as wrong as wrong can be. It is 180 degrees from right and it is diametrically opposed to that which is good, right and successful."



That is not a statement of fact. It is an opinion, a very intolerant one, for he does not even give a long list of issues.


And this is supposed to be reasonable discourse? This is supposed to be tolerance?


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I say that I would like to make physical or material attacks on the beliefs of people illegal but see no way to do that, how does that in any way muddy the waters?  It is nothing more than an observation and suggests no action.
> 
> How is it NOT oppression when a bigger, stronger, well funded bully can impose physical and/or material damage on an American citizen purely because that citizen expresses an opinion that the bully doesn't like?  How does that not make the bully an oppressive force?  How does that in any way muddy the waters in a discussion of intolerance?
> 
> I have been clear that this is not a constitutional issue of rights, but rather a moral and ethical principle of what SHOULD BE.  So long as a person is requiring no participation or contribution from anybody else, and is not violating any agreement he/she made with anybody else, that person should be able to be whoever or whatever he/she is and express whatever belief he holds without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will try to hurt him/her phyically and/or materially.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Because when you say you'd like to see it be illegal, whether you can see a way to do it or not, it seems to me to indicate a desire to legislate a suppression of speech.  I know you've said you can't think of a way to make a law like that which would not curtail someone's freedom of speech; have you considered the possibility that it is because such a law does nothing except curtail free speech?  That, outside of already illegal actions, attempts to get someone fired through advertisement or boycott or public discussion or public screams of rage are all expressions of speech?
> 
> 2) My problem is that you do not differentiate any kind of degree.  I don't really like using the word oppression for minor issues like what we are mostly discussing here.  It invites comparisons to far more terrible forms of oppression like slavery, child labor, sex trafficking, etc.  I suppose it is a semantics issue, but I wouldn't say that Phil Robertson, to use the most prominent example, was oppressed.  He was inconvenienced, maybe hurt financially, but not oppressed.
> 
> 3) Yes, you have said this is not a legal issue or one of constitutional rights....but then you continue to talk about people having unalienable rights taken away.  That phrase is one that is generally used in regards to legal and constitutional matters rather than purely moral ones.
> 
> So again, I take no issue with the idea you'd like to change American cultural norms.  I just think some of the ways you have presented your points go beyond that into the realm of the legal or constitutional, and I think you make a bit of a mountain out of a mole hill with the entire issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  You are distorting what I said.  I said I would like it to be illegal but I cannot word a law that would not have unintended negative consequences and therefore do not see that is feasible to have a law prohibiting actions like GLAADs or others who try to suppress opinion by phyical or material bullying tactics.  Therefore I see it as a matter of doing what I can to change the culture and make such tactics socially unacceptable.
> 
> 2.  I have been consistent that going after people and trying to hurt them physically and/or materially for no offense other than they expressed an opinion that bullies don't like is a form of oppression.  When you say 'a form of oppression', and clearly define what oppression is involved, a question of degree is unneccessary.  Nobody should have to fear an angry mob, group, or organization coming after them to physically and/or materially hurt them purely for expressing an opinion.
> 
> 3.  Taking away a person's unalienable right to be who and what he or she so long as s/he requires contribution or participation from no other is valid at all times because such rights predated the Constitution  so far as those who wrote, signed, and ratified the Constitution were concerned.
> 
> And I can't help what you think.  I'm sure those who have been attacked by groups who intended to hurt them physically and/or materially didn't think it a molehill.   But I'll fight to the death your right to think and express it.
Click to expand...


1) I'm not sure how I distorted.  You said you think it should be illegal, but you cannot think of a way to word such a law without unintended consequences.  I'm saying that perhaps the reason you cannot think of such a wording is because the unintended consequences are an inherent part of such a law.  That, in fact, such a law would by it's nature be a suppression of free speech.

2) Like I said, it maybe just semantics, but when you use the term oppression, it draws comparisons to much worse situations IMO.

3) You're basically saying that any discussion of constitutional rights is not really about constitutional rights because the framers described those rights as universal.    The phrase 'unalienable rights' is one that I think is generally associated with the constitution.  Whether those rights predate the constitution isn't my point.  My point is that when you use that phrase you are implying a constitutional issue.  I don't think I've ever seen or heard that phrase used when it wasn't in reference to the law or constitution.

I'm not trying to make any claims about your intent, rather I'm trying to explain how your presentation can skew the meaning of your posts, at least IMO.

Oh, and if you told the people who have been attacked that the attacks upon them are indicative of the imminent destruction of our country or something like that, it's quite possible they would see it as making a mountain out of a molehill.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Meathead said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes I did say what GLAAD did should be criminal.*   But that was not in the OP though Plasmaball and BDBoop both continue to insist it was.  *And that is not the same thing as saying that GLAAD should be illegal.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should GLAAD be illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Asc, you give JoeB a run as the stupidest poster on this site.
Click to expand...



This is the CDZ.

Reported.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Mojo2 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.
> 
> The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.
> 
> Here is a link to it.
> 
> Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.
> 
> Really.
> 
> It's THAT good!
Click to expand...



2:51:



> "and the modern Liberal will invariable side with evil over good, with wrong over right, and the behaviours that lead to failure over those that lead to success"



Statement of opinion, not statement of fact. An opinion that links an ideology with evilness. And this is supposed to be an example of tolerance? Really?

No facts brought to back up the statement of opinion. Of course, for an opinion, you don't need to bring up facts, but then one should be honest enough to just say it is an opinion, a very biased one, and not based in honest debate, dialogue or TOLERANCE.
 [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], I don't think you could have picked a worst example of a video to claim that this is Right-Wing tolerance of the Left. Personally, I would have been embarressed down to my toes had I written such a thing.

Care to find another video, one that actually shows tolerance?

Where I come from, that is called "putting your money where you mouth is".

I would very much welcome you doing that.


----------



## Asclepias

Meathead said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes I did say what GLAAD did should be criminal.*   But that was not in the OP though Plasmaball and BDBoop both continue to insist it was.  *And that is not the same thing as saying that GLAAD should be illegal.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should GLAAD be illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Asc, you give JoeB a run as the stupidest poster on this site.
Click to expand...


This is CDZ and I should report you. I made a mistake. You caught me. Hurray for you.


----------



## Plasmaball

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the reading dyfsfunction goes on.
> 
> You know folks, I don't CARE that you can't seem to read and comprehend what is written.  I can't help it that you refuse to see any comments or disclaimers or qualifiers that accompany what others write.  I can't help it if you are incapable of seeing and understanding what the topic of a thread is, and I can't help it if you feel the need to band together to try to derail threads or whatever your intent might be.   But GLAAD was not mentioned in the OP and I have never said anywhere or anyplace that GLAAD should be illegal.  That's a fact.
> 
> If you are so intolerant that you simply cannot allow others their point of view when it is expressed civilly and in a reasoned fashion, then please find a thread that reflects what you want to see and what you want to talk about.
> 
> In a way that is what this thread is about.  The kind of tolerance that allows others their beliefs, opinions, and convictions without feeling a need to attack, demonize, accuse, misrepresent or hurt them because those opinions are expressed.  Maybe a good place to start would be to address the OP honestly in what it says and comment on THAT instead of attacking the people who express opinions you don't agree with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right, you never said anywhere or anyplace that GLAAD should be illegal. You said "I think was GLAAD did was evil. It SHOULD be *criminal*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I did say what GLAAD did should be criminal.   But that was not in the OP though Plasmaball and BDBoop both continue to insist it was.  And that is not the same thing as saying that GLAAD should be illegal.
> 
> I also qualified that conviction several times now in the previous thread and in this one that I see no way to make that kind of reprehensible behavior criminal without unintended consequences so we need to change the culture of personal political destruction that currently exists.
> 
> I don't ask that you guys agree with me.  But I will object when somebody tries to change the topic and when somebody accuses me of saying something that I did not say.
Click to expand...


i never said that you said glad should be illegal, just what they did is criminal. Which would be illegal. You are literally arguing against something i never said. Which i'll just assume you did on purpose for reasons i suspect. 

I love it when you guys just create an argument out of thin air.

furthermore this isnt changing the damn subject either. This is going deeper into the overall topic that you created. You stated it should be illegal as to what Glaad did. Well thats a very strong statement to make, and should be challenged immediately. Why? because what you stated is extremely dangerous, and very much so against the principle of America and freedom of speech. Sadly you do not see you are doing what you are complaining about. By making it illegal you would be punishing people Physically and monetary wise. Something you are very much against when it comes to people like Phil. 

it literally makes you point about Phil and Ellen moot. You have no argument in my opinion anymore, because you are exactly what you are complaining about.


----------



## Plasmaball

Mac1958 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-13.html#post8401365
> 
> 
> 
> 
> criminal would mean illegal...I owe you nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That statement was not in the OP.  And even if it was, saying what somebody does should be illegal is not the same thing as saying that somebody should be illegal.
> 
> So I still expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something I did not say in the OP.
> 
> I will expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something about GLAAD that I did not say.
> 
> And I fully realize I probably won't get what I expect.
> 
> And could we please now focus on the topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=24916]Plasmaball[/MENTION], if you want my opinion on something, I'll be happy to provide it.
> 
> Perhaps you could ask it in a way that is straightforward and honest, without misrepresenting what I or someone else said.  How in the world was I supposed to know you were referring to GLAAD when it wasn't even mentioned in the OP?  If you're going to dishonestly use Foxfyre to make a point -- that appears to be what you're trying to do -- I'm not interested in playing along.
> 
> *The intellectual dishonesty here just doesn't stop*.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


i dont care about you and your opinion anymore. You have already lost all respect i had for you, so your opinion is now irrelevant. This is the last post i will be responding to you in this thread. 

You are wrong, you've been wrong this whole time, you've been given numerous answers to your questions, and you still decided to play games.
The CDZ isnt the place for you.  

Bolded part-irony.


----------



## Mac1958

Plasmaball said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> That statement was not in the OP.  And even if it was, saying what somebody does should be illegal is not the same thing as saying that somebody should be illegal.
> 
> So I still expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something I did not say in the OP.
> 
> I will expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something about GLAAD that I did not say.
> 
> And I fully realize I probably won't get what I expect.
> 
> And could we please now focus on the topic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=24916]Plasmaball[/MENTION], if you want my opinion on something, I'll be happy to provide it.
> 
> Perhaps you could ask it in a way that is straightforward and honest, without misrepresenting what I or someone else said.  How in the world was I supposed to know you were referring to GLAAD when it wasn't even mentioned in the OP?  If you're going to dishonestly use Foxfyre to make a point -- that appears to be what you're trying to do -- I'm not interested in playing along.
> 
> *The intellectual dishonesty here just doesn't stop*.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i dont care about you and your opinion anymore. You have already lost all respect i had for you, so your opinion is now irrelevant. This is the last post i will be responding to you in this thread.
> 
> You are wrong, you've been wrong this whole time, you've been given numerous answers to your questions, and you still decided to play games.
> The CDZ isnt the place for you.
> 
> Bolded part-irony.
Click to expand...



Well, when caught in a lie, I guess one does what one can.

.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

BDBoop said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.
> 
> The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.
> 
> Here is a link to it.
> 
> Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.
> 
> Really.
> 
> It's THAT good!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. This video? On the first page. It was That Good, you thanked him for posting it.
> 
> Brilliant it was, yeah? I've seen that in both threads, now. Cons can attack libs to make their 'point,' but if libs do the same they are OT, and you either refuse to answer, call them out for being OT, or generally both.
> 
> Which is why I stopped contributing to the last thread, and barely contributed to this one and oh, P.S.: Plasmaball is correct about what you said in the OP.
Click to expand...


Telling how the true intent of the OP has become clear in the last few pages of this thread, as that intent was not to explore tolerance, but to yet again regurgitate the same tired lies that liberals are enemies of free speech and free expression, intolerant of others, and seek to only shut down the opposition. 

Needless to say, nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## Plasmaball

Mac1958 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=24916]Plasmaball[/MENTION], if you want my opinion on something, I'll be happy to provide it.
> 
> Perhaps you could ask it in a way that is straightforward and honest, without misrepresenting what I or someone else said.  How in the world was I supposed to know you were referring to GLAAD when it wasn't even mentioned in the OP?  If you're going to dishonestly use Foxfyre to make a point -- that appears to be what you're trying to do -- I'm not interested in playing along.
> 
> *The intellectual dishonesty here just doesn't stop*.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i dont care about you and your opinion anymore. You have already lost all respect i had for you, so your opinion is now irrelevant. This is the last post i will be responding to you in this thread.
> 
> You are wrong, you've been wrong this whole time, you've been given numerous answers to your questions, and you still decided to play games.
> The CDZ isnt the place for you.
> 
> Bolded part-irony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when caught in a lie, I guess one does what one can.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


there was no lie. You are making things up...


----------



## Statistikhengst

Yo, this is the CDZ..... chill some.


----------



## Foxfyre

Statistikhengst said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.
> 
> The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.
> 
> Here is a link to it.
> 
> Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.
> 
> Really.
> 
> It's THAT good!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 2:51:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "and the modern Liberal will invariable side with evil over good, with wrong over right, and the behaviours that lead to failure over those that lead to success"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statement of opinion, not statement of fact. An opinion that links an ideology with evilness. And this is supposed to be an example of tolerance? Really?
> 
> No facts brought to back up the statement of opinion. Of course, for an opinion, you don't need to bring up facts, but then one should be honest enough to just say it is an opinion, a very biased one, and not based in honest debate, dialogue or TOLERANCE.
> [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], I don't think you could have picked a worst example of a video to claim that this is Right-Wing tolerance of the Left. Personally, I would have been embarressed down to my toes had I written such a thing.
> 
> Care to find another video, one that actually shows tolerance?
> 
> Where I come from, that is called "putting your money where you mouth is".
> 
> I would very much welcome you doing that.
Click to expand...


The video is of a lecture of a person giving what he believes is an informed opinion/observation/conclusion and his topic is the M.O. of liberals in our modern society.  Right or wrong he provides a reasoned rationale for each point he presents and that is all that is required in order for it to be a scholarly lecture.   I have not mentioned the video in any context other than that.   I thanked the member who posted it because the video DOES, among other things, provide a rationale for why liberals are so often compelled or motivated to suppress opinion and also to condemn and/or physically and materially attack those who express an opinion the liberals do not agree with.   I was also clear that I did not agree with every point the speaker made and encouraged anybody to present a comparable presentation re conservatives related to suppression of speech and/or opinion.

Now then.  Who has been more focused on the topic of suppression of speech and opinion in this thread and who has been more focused on condemning the video or accusing me or somebody else who has expressed an opinion they don't agree with?  Conservatives?  or Liberals?

I am sorry that I 'nauseate' some because I insist on us staying on topic and I object to being accused of things I didn't say or having what I did say mischaracterized.  But if you think I won't object to being accused of something I didn't say or having what I do say misquoted or mischaracterized, prepare to be nauseated a lot if you do that.  I don't ask that anybody agree with me.  But I do require that I be quoted accurately.

But the topic remains an important one at least to me.  We all are entitled to our beliefs, convictions, ideas, principles, perceptions, and opinions.  You are.  I am.  Everybody else posting here is.  The guy in that video is.

But we are not entitled to force others to think and believes as we do or else.  We are not entitled to be dishonest about what other individuals believe or express as their opinions.  And we absolutely should not be entitled to form angry mobs, groups, or organizations who would try to hurt somebody for no other reason than that somebody expressed an opinion we don't like.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Foxfyre said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.
> 
> The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.
> 
> Here is a link to it.
> 
> Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.
> 
> Really.
> 
> It's THAT good!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIboXTpF6t4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2:51:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "and the modern Liberal will invariable side with evil over good, with wrong over right, and the behaviours that lead to failure over those that lead to success"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statement of opinion, not statement of fact. An opinion that links an ideology with evilness. And this is supposed to be an example of tolerance? Really?
> 
> No facts brought to back up the statement of opinion. Of course, for an opinion, you don't need to bring up facts, but then one should be honest enough to just say it is an opinion, a very biased one, and not based in honest debate, dialogue or TOLERANCE.
> [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], I don't think you could have picked a worst example of a video to claim that this is Right-Wing tolerance of the Left. Personally, I would have been embarressed down to my toes had I written such a thing.
> 
> Care to find another video, one that actually shows tolerance?
> 
> Where I come from, that is called "putting your money where you mouth is".
> 
> I would very much welcome you doing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video is of a lecture of a person giving what he believes is an informed opinion/observation/conclusion and his topic is the M.O. of liberals in our modern society.  Right or wrong he provides a reasoned rationale for each point he presents and that is all that is required in order for it to be a scholarly lecture.   I have not mentioned the video in any context other than that.   I thanked the member who posted it because the video DOES, among other things, provide a rationale for why liberals are so often compelled or motivated to suppress opinion and also to condemn and/or physically and materially attack those who express an opinion the liberals do not agree with.   I was also clear that I did not agree with every point the speaker made and encouraged anybody to present a comparable presentation re conservatives related to suppression of speech and/or opinion.
> 
> Now then.  Who has been more focused on the topic of suppression of speech and opinion in this thread and who has been more focused on condemning the video or accusing me or somebody else who has expressed an opinion they don't agree with?  Conservatives?  or Liberals?
> 
> I am sorry that I 'nauseate' some because I insist on us staying on topic and I object to being accused of things I didn't say or having what I did say mischaracterized.  But if you think I won't object to being accused of something I didn't say or having what I do say misquoted or mischaracterized, prepare to be nauseated a lot if you do that.  I don't ask that anybody agree with me.  But I do require that I be quoted accurately.
> 
> But the topic remains an important one at least to me.  We all are entitled to our beliefs, convictions, ideas, principles, perceptions, and opinions.  You are.  I am.  Everybody else posting here is.  The guy in that video is.
> 
> But we are not entitled to force others to think and believes as we do or else.  We are not entitled to be dishonest about what other individuals believe or express as their opinions.  *And we absolutely should not be entitled to form angry mobs, groups, or organizations *who would try to hurt somebody for no other reason than that somebody expressed an opinion we don't like.
Click to expand...


What you are proposing is a repeal of the 1st Amendment.



> *Congress shall make no law *respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or *abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; *or the right of the people peaceably to assemble*, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]


----------



## Mac1958

.

People *choose* to intimidate and threaten and shout people down when that person says something that "offends" them.  They certainly have the right to behave that way -- I repeat, they certainly have the right to behave that way -- but they don't *have *to, they're not *obligated *to.  They could instead look at it as an opportunity, and try to engage the "offending" person in honest, civil, public communication.  

Obviously intimidation and threats are easier.  They also feed the ego.

.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.
> 
> The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.
> 
> Here is a link to it.
> 
> Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.
> 
> Really.
> 
> It's THAT good!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIboXTpF6t4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2:51:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "and the modern Liberal will invariable side with evil over good, with wrong over right, and the behaviours that lead to failure over those that lead to success"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statement of opinion, not statement of fact. An opinion that links an ideology with evilness. And this is supposed to be an example of tolerance? Really?
> 
> No facts brought to back up the statement of opinion. Of course, for an opinion, you don't need to bring up facts, but then one should be honest enough to just say it is an opinion, a very biased one, and not based in honest debate, dialogue or TOLERANCE.
> [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], I don't think you could have picked a worst example of a video to claim that this is Right-Wing tolerance of the Left. Personally, I would have been embarressed down to my toes had I written such a thing.
> 
> Care to find another video, one that actually shows tolerance?
> 
> Where I come from, that is called "putting your money where you mouth is".
> 
> I would very much welcome you doing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video is of a lecture of a person giving *what he believes is an informed opinion/observation/conclusion and his topic is the M.O. of liberals in our modern society.  Right or wrong he provides a reasoned rationale* for each point he presents and that is all that is required in order for it to be a scholarly lecture.   I have not mentioned the video in any context other than that.   I thanked the member who posted it because the video DOES, among other things, provide a rationale for why liberals are so often compelled or motivated to suppress opinion and also to condemn and/or physically and materially attack those who express an opinion the liberals do not agree with.   I was also clear that I did not agree with every point the speaker made and encouraged anybody to present a comparable presentation re conservatives related to suppression of speech and/or opinion.
> 
> Now then.  Who has been more focused on the topic of suppression of speech and opinion in this thread and who has been more focused on condemning the video or accusing me or somebody else who has expressed an opinion they don't agree with?  Conservatives?  or Liberals?
> 
> I am sorry that I 'nauseate' some because I insist on us staying on topic and I object to being accused of things I didn't say or having what I did say mischaracterized.  But if you think I won't object to being accused of something I didn't say or having what I do say misquoted or mischaracterized, prepare to be nauseated a lot if you do that.  I don't ask that anybody agree with me.  But I do require that I be quoted accurately.
> 
> But the topic remains an important one at least to me.  We all are entitled to our beliefs, convictions, ideas, principles, perceptions, and opinions.  You are.  I am.  Everybody else posting here is.  The guy in that video is.
> 
> But we are not entitled to force others to think and believes as we do or else.  We are not entitled to be dishonest about what other individuals believe or express as their opinions.  And we absolutely should not be entitled to form angry mobs, groups, or organizations who would try to hurt somebody for no other reason than that somebody expressed an opinion we don't like.
Click to expand...



No, he did not.

He issued one opinion after another without even one single scrap of evidence or data. Not even once. Therefore, there is no way in the world he could have provided any rationale at all, much less "reasoned".

I absolutely fight for his right to say anything he wants, but don't try to make us believe that this is somehow reasonable or tolerant.

Within just a few short moments he was already equating Liberalism with EVIL.

And that is supposed to be tolerance?

I also note that you have not supplied even one single quote of the video proving that he provided some facts or evidence. You challenged Liberals to show evidence against him. I did just that. Not one statement, not even one statement of his, is backed up by empirical data. Not even one. Pretty sad.

What you are doing is trying to set up a strawman argument: you are asking Liberals to provide evidence against this man's facts, when in reality, he has provided none!!

Think about it.


----------



## Foxfyre

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2:51:
> 
> 
> 
> Statement of opinion, not statement of fact. An opinion that links an ideology with evilness. And this is supposed to be an example of tolerance? Really?
> 
> No facts brought to back up the statement of opinion. Of course, for an opinion, you don't need to bring up facts, but then one should be honest enough to just say it is an opinion, a very biased one, and not based in honest debate, dialogue or TOLERANCE.
> [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], I don't think you could have picked a worst example of a video to claim that this is Right-Wing tolerance of the Left. Personally, I would have been embarressed down to my toes had I written such a thing.
> 
> Care to find another video, one that actually shows tolerance?
> 
> Where I come from, that is called "putting your money where you mouth is".
> 
> I would very much welcome you doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The video is of a lecture of a person giving what he believes is an informed opinion/observation/conclusion and his topic is the M.O. of liberals in our modern society.  Right or wrong he provides a reasoned rationale for each point he presents and that is all that is required in order for it to be a scholarly lecture.   I have not mentioned the video in any context other than that.   I thanked the member who posted it because the video DOES, among other things, provide a rationale for why liberals are so often compelled or motivated to suppress opinion and also to condemn and/or physically and materially attack those who express an opinion the liberals do not agree with.   I was also clear that I did not agree with every point the speaker made and encouraged anybody to present a comparable presentation re conservatives related to suppression of speech and/or opinion.
> 
> Now then.  Who has been more focused on the topic of suppression of speech and opinion in this thread and who has been more focused on condemning the video or accusing me or somebody else who has expressed an opinion they don't agree with?  Conservatives?  or Liberals?
> 
> I am sorry that I 'nauseate' some because I insist on us staying on topic and I object to being accused of things I didn't say or having what I did say mischaracterized.  But if you think I won't object to being accused of something I didn't say or having what I do say misquoted or mischaracterized, prepare to be nauseated a lot if you do that.  I don't ask that anybody agree with me.  But I do require that I be quoted accurately.
> 
> But the topic remains an important one at least to me.  We all are entitled to our beliefs, convictions, ideas, principles, perceptions, and opinions.  You are.  I am.  Everybody else posting here is.  The guy in that video is.
> 
> But we are not entitled to force others to think and believes as we do or else.  We are not entitled to be dishonest about what other individuals believe or express as their opinions.  *And we absolutely should not be entitled to form angry mobs, groups, or organizations *who would try to hurt somebody for no other reason than that somebody expressed an opinion we don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are proposing is a repeal of the 1st Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Congress shall make no law *respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or *abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; *or the right of the people peaceably to assemble*, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Not at all.  I have already been very specific that this is not a free speech or constitutional or legal issue.  This is a moral and ethical issue--what we should expect from a free, tolerant, and civilized society.

Once more:  Being angry/telling somebody off and punching them out for nothing more than expressing an opinion are separate things.  Punching somebody out is socially unacceptable in a civilized society.

Being angry/telling somebody off and going after them to physically and/or materially hurt them for nothing more than expressing an opinion are separate things.  And that should be just as socially unacceptable in a civilized society.

I am not looking to change the law.  I am looking to change US.  To reverse the current trend of trying to destroy people we don't agree with.  To restore tolerance for differences of opinions; different beliefs.  To make it a very socially unacceptable thing to try to suppress the ideas, concepts, perceptions, and beliefs of others and make people afraid to express what they think and believe for fear of physical and/or material retaliation.

The truly tolerant don't have to appreciate or agree with me or you or anybody else, including the guy in that video.  None have to stand still and not act when people are being physically and/or materially harmed.  But the truly tolerant will appreciate the right of people to what they believe without fear that some angry mob etc. coming after them to hurt them.  The truly tolerant will condemn that mob etc. and make that kind of action socially unacceptable.


----------



## Plasmaball

Foxfyre said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.
> 
> The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.
> 
> Here is a link to it.
> 
> Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.
> 
> Really.
> 
> It's THAT good!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIboXTpF6t4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2:51:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "and the modern Liberal will invariable side with evil over good, with wrong over right, and the behaviours that lead to failure over those that lead to success"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statement of opinion, not statement of fact. An opinion that links an ideology with evilness. And this is supposed to be an example of tolerance? Really?
> 
> No facts brought to back up the statement of opinion. Of course, for an opinion, you don't need to bring up facts, but then one should be honest enough to just say it is an opinion, a very biased one, and not based in honest debate, dialogue or TOLERANCE.
> [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], I don't think you could have picked a worst example of a video to claim that this is Right-Wing tolerance of the Left. Personally, I would have been embarressed down to my toes had I written such a thing.
> 
> Care to find another video, one that actually shows tolerance?
> 
> Where I come from, that is called "putting your money where you mouth is".
> 
> I would very much welcome you doing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video is of a lecture of a person giving what he believes is an informed opinion/observation/conclusion and his topic is the M.O. of liberals in our modern society.  Right or wrong he provides a reasoned rationale for each point he presents and that is all that is required in order for it to be a scholarly lecture.   I have not mentioned the video in any context other than that.   I thanked the member who posted it because the video DOES, among other things, provide a rationale for why liberals are so often compelled or motivated to suppress opinion and also to condemn and/or physically and materially attack those who express an opinion the liberals do not agree with.   I was also clear that I did not agree with every point the speaker made and encouraged anybody to present a comparable presentation re conservatives related to suppression of speech and/or opinion.
> 
> Now then.  Who has been more focused on the topic of suppression of speech and opinion in this thread and who has been more focused on condemning the video or accusing me or somebody else who has expressed an opinion they don't agree with?  Conservatives?  or Liberals?
> 
> I am sorry that I 'nauseate' some because I insist on us staying on topic and I object to being accused of things I didn't say or having what I did say mischaracterized.  But if you think I won't object to being accused of something I didn't say or having what I do say misquoted or mischaracterized, prepare to be nauseated a lot if you do that.  I don't ask that anybody agree with me.  But I do require that I be quoted accurately.
> 
> But the topic remains an important one at least to me.  We all are entitled to our beliefs, convictions, ideas, principles, perceptions, and opinions.  You are.  I am.  Everybody else posting here is.  The guy in that video is.
> 
> But we are not entitled to force others to think and believes as we do or else.  We are not entitled to be dishonest about what other individuals believe or express as their opinions.  And we absolutely should not be entitled to form angry mobs, groups, or organizations who would try to hurt somebody for no other reason than that somebody expressed an opinion we don't like.
Click to expand...


----------



## Statistikhengst

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> People *choose* to intimidate and threaten and shout people down when that person says something that "offends" them.  They certainly have the right to behave that way -- I repeat, they certainly have the right to behave that way -- but they don't *have *to, they're not *obligated *to.  They could instead look at it as an opportunity, and try to engage the "offending" person in honest, civil, public communication.
> 
> Obviously intimidation and threats are easier.  They also feed the ego.
> 
> .




*I* haven't shouted him or anyone one else here down. I have pointed out more than once that that man in the video - that FoxFyre praises as being a great example of tolerance - is anything but tolerant. FoxFyre then concludes that that man provided a reasonable rationale for what he said, but he did not at all. That is impossible, as he provided not one single fact. Not once. Rationale requires facts, and that automatically means data, hard and fast data.  So, he can speak all he wants for I care, but no one is going to convince me that his words are tolerant. They are not.

Were I to call you "evil", would you consider that tolerant? I bet not.

He patently labeled Liberals as being in league with "evil". That is every bit as intolerant.

Hint: when a speech is laced with emotionalism and is lacking in facts, you can be pretty darned sure that it is biased and probably not very tolerant.


----------



## Mac1958

Statistikhengst said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> People *choose* to intimidate and threaten and shout people down when that person says something that "offends" them.  They certainly have the right to behave that way -- I repeat, they certainly have the right to behave that way -- but they don't *have *to, they're not *obligated *to.  They could instead look at it as an opportunity, and try to engage the "offending" person in honest, civil, public communication.
> 
> Obviously intimidation and threats are easier.  They also feed the ego.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I* haven't shouted him or anyone one else here down. I have pointed out more than once that that man in the video - that FoxFyre praises as being a great example of tolerance - is anything but tolerant. FoxFyre then concludes that that man provided a reasonable rationale for what he said, but he did not at all. That is impossible, as he provided not one single fact. Not once. Rationale requires facts, and that automatically means data, hard and fast data.  So, he can speak all he wants for I care, but no one is going to convince me that his words are tolerant. They are not.
> 
> Were I to call you "evil", would you consider that tolerant? I bet not.
> 
> He patently labeled Liberals as being in league with "evil". That is every bit as intolerant.
> 
> Hint: when a speech is laced with emotionalism and is lacking in facts, you can be pretty darned sure that it is biased and probably not very tolerant.
Click to expand...



You'll never, ever see me claim that either end of the political spectrum is tolerant.

.


----------



## Statistikhengst

BTW, Foxfyre, you also wrote this:

"...because the video DOES, among other things, provide a rationale for why liberals are so often compelled or motivated to suppress opinion and also to condemn and/or physically and materially attack those who express an opinion the liberals do not agree with."

Ok, exactly WHERE in the video did he say that, and exactly what facts did he bring to back up his argument?  Exactly WHERE was this rationale? Did you watch the entire video? I did.

You only need to give me a minute and second marker, I will do the rest.

Proceed, FoxFyre, proceed...


----------



## Statistikhengst

Mac1958 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> People *choose* to intimidate and threaten and shout people down when that person says something that "offends" them.  They certainly have the right to behave that way -- I repeat, they certainly have the right to behave that way -- but they don't *have *to, they're not *obligated *to.  They could instead look at it as an opportunity, and try to engage the "offending" person in honest, civil, public communication.
> 
> Obviously intimidation and threats are easier.  They also feed the ego.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I* haven't shouted him or anyone one else here down. I have pointed out more than once that that man in the video - that FoxFyre praises as being a great example of tolerance - is anything but tolerant. FoxFyre then concludes that that man provided a reasonable rationale for what he said, but he did not at all. That is impossible, as he provided not one single fact. Not once. Rationale requires facts, and that automatically means data, hard and fast data.  So, he can speak all he wants for I care, but no one is going to convince me that his words are tolerant. They are not.
> 
> Were I to call you "evil", would you consider that tolerant? I bet not.
> 
> He patently labeled Liberals as being in league with "evil". That is every bit as intolerant.
> 
> Hint: when a speech is laced with emotionalism and is lacking in facts, you can be pretty darned sure that it is biased and probably not very tolerant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You'll never, ever see me claim that either end of the political spectrum is tolerant.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Good to know.

And you will never find me claiming that tolerance is good enough. Tolerance, as a word, has too many negative connotations.  We should not be tolerating people, we should be accepting them.

And there is no reason to tolerate or not tolerate ideas. Either we accept or reject an idea, or we don't have enough information enough to make a decision.


----------



## Plasmaball

Foxfyre said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video is of a lecture of a person giving what he believes is an informed opinion/observation/conclusion and his topic is the M.O. of liberals in our modern society.  Right or wrong he provides a reasoned rationale for each point he presents and that is all that is required in order for it to be a scholarly lecture.   I have not mentioned the video in any context other than that.   I thanked the member who posted it because the video DOES, among other things, provide a rationale for why liberals are so often compelled or motivated to suppress opinion and also to condemn and/or physically and materially attack those who express an opinion the liberals do not agree with.   I was also clear that I did not agree with every point the speaker made and encouraged anybody to present a comparable presentation re conservatives related to suppression of speech and/or opinion.
> 
> Now then.  Who has been more focused on the topic of suppression of speech and opinion in this thread and who has been more focused on condemning the video or accusing me or somebody else who has expressed an opinion they don't agree with?  Conservatives?  or Liberals?
> 
> I am sorry that I 'nauseate' some because I insist on us staying on topic and I object to being accused of things I didn't say or having what I did say mischaracterized.  But if you think I won't object to being accused of something I didn't say or having what I do say misquoted or mischaracterized, prepare to be nauseated a lot if you do that.  I don't ask that anybody agree with me.  But I do require that I be quoted accurately.
> 
> But the topic remains an important one at least to me.  We all are entitled to our beliefs, convictions, ideas, principles, perceptions, and opinions.  You are.  I am.  Everybody else posting here is.  The guy in that video is.
> 
> But we are not entitled to force others to think and believes as we do or else.  We are not entitled to be dishonest about what other individuals believe or express as their opinions.  *And we absolutely should not be entitled to form angry mobs, groups, or organizations *who would try to hurt somebody for no other reason than that somebody expressed an opinion we don't like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are proposing is a repeal of the 1st Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Congress shall make no law *respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or *abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; *or the right of the people peaceably to assemble*, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I have already been very specific that this is not a free speech or constitutional or legal issue.  This is a moral and ethical issue--what we should expect from a free, tolerant, and civilized society.
> 
> Once more:  Being angry/telling somebody off and punching them out for nothing more than expressing an opinion are separate things.  Punching somebody out is socially unacceptable in a civilized society.
> 
> Being angry/telling somebody off and going after them to physically and/or materially hurt them for nothing more than expressing an opinion are separate things.  And that should be just as socially unacceptable in a civilized society.
> 
> I am not looking to change the law.  I am looking to change US.  To reverse the current trend of trying to destroy people we don't agree with.  To restore tolerance for differences of opinions; different beliefs.  To make it a very socially unacceptable thing to try to suppress the ideas, concepts, perceptions, and beliefs of others and make people afraid to express what they think and believe for fear of physical and/or material retaliation.
> 
> The truly tolerant don't have to appreciate or agree with me or you or anybody else, including the guy in that video.  None have to stand still and not act when people are being physically and/or materially harmed.  But the truly tolerant will appreciate the right of people to what they believe without fear that some angry mob etc. coming after them to hurt them.  The truly tolerant will condemn that mob etc. and make that kind of action socially unacceptable.
Click to expand...


----------



## Nosmo King

Meathead said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm lucky because I've never watched 'reality' television shows.  It was not until this Robertson fellow displayed irrational intolerance that I ever saw or knew of him.  His intolerance cannot be rationalized due to some warped mis interpretation of scripture.  In fact, I find it disgusting that someone would hide behind the skirts of scripture to justify his intolerance.
> 
> He defamed an entire group of our fellow citizens and deserved to be called out for it.  The world should not be such a tough place for the other.  Humans should use tolerance when dealing with others.
> 
> Now tolerance is not the same as acceptance.  You can tolerate a homosexual and his or her lifestyle without acceptance.  All most oppressed people would happily receive tolerance, live and let live.  Acceptance must come to an individual in his own time and manner.
> 
> So many of the intolerant are not what society considers the most worldly and sophisticated.  Isolation within one' sown social class makes knowledge and experience hard to come by.  The tolerant, by contrast, have had experiences outside their own group that reveals one great truth of life.  Namely everyone has their own characteristics and no one should make the ham handed snap judgements that show intolerance.  He without sin shall cast the first stone.  Imagine scripture showing the way to tolerance and not cover for ignorance, fear and suspicion.
> 
> 
> 
> Tolerance is not the same as acceptance, but I fail to see how Robertson was intolerant while his critics were not. "Ignorance, fear and suspicion" cannot be the default fault (sorry) assigned by those who feel offended. Please, no platitudes about great truths and so on.
Click to expand...

What did Robertson say that shows tolerance?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Foxfyre said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video is of a lecture of a person giving what he believes is an informed opinion/observation/conclusion and his topic is the M.O. of liberals in our modern society.  Right or wrong he provides a reasoned rationale for each point he presents and that is all that is required in order for it to be a scholarly lecture.   I have not mentioned the video in any context other than that.   I thanked the member who posted it because the video DOES, among other things, provide a rationale for why liberals are so often compelled or motivated to suppress opinion and also to condemn and/or physically and materially attack those who express an opinion the liberals do not agree with.   I was also clear that I did not agree with every point the speaker made and encouraged anybody to present a comparable presentation re conservatives related to suppression of speech and/or opinion.
> 
> Now then.  Who has been more focused on the topic of suppression of speech and opinion in this thread and who has been more focused on condemning the video or accusing me or somebody else who has expressed an opinion they don't agree with?  Conservatives?  or Liberals?
> 
> I am sorry that I 'nauseate' some because I insist on us staying on topic and I object to being accused of things I didn't say or having what I did say mischaracterized.  But if you think I won't object to being accused of something I didn't say or having what I do say misquoted or mischaracterized, prepare to be nauseated a lot if you do that.  I don't ask that anybody agree with me.  But I do require that I be quoted accurately.
> 
> But the topic remains an important one at least to me.  We all are entitled to our beliefs, convictions, ideas, principles, perceptions, and opinions.  You are.  I am.  Everybody else posting here is.  The guy in that video is.
> 
> But we are not entitled to force others to think and believes as we do or else.  We are not entitled to be dishonest about what other individuals believe or express as their opinions.  *And we absolutely should not be entitled to form angry mobs, groups, or organizations *who would try to hurt somebody for no other reason than that somebody expressed an opinion we don't like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are proposing is a repeal of the 1st Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Congress shall make no law *respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or *abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; *or the right of the people peaceably to assemble*, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I have already been very specific that this is not a free speech or constitutional or legal issue.  This is a moral and ethical issue--what we should expect from a free, tolerant, and civilized society.
> 
> Once more:  Being angry/telling somebody off and punching them out for nothing more than expressing an opinion are separate things.  Punching somebody out is socially unacceptable in a civilized society.
> 
> *Being angry/telling somebody off and going after them to physically and/or materially hurt them for nothing more than expressing an opinion are separate things.  And that should be just as socially unacceptable in a civilized society.
> 
> I am not looking to change the law.  I am looking to change US. * To reverse the current trend of trying to destroy people we don't agree with.  To restore tolerance for differences of opinions; different beliefs.  To make it a very socially unacceptable thing to try to suppress the ideas, concepts, perceptions, and beliefs of others and make people afraid to express what they think and believe for fear of physical and/or material retaliation.
> 
> The truly tolerant don't have to appreciate or agree with me or you or anybody else, including the guy in that video.  None have to stand still and not act when people are being physically and/or materially harmed.  But the truly tolerant will appreciate the right of people to what they believe without fear that some angry mob etc. coming after them to hurt them.  *The truly tolerant will condemn that mob etc. and make that kind of action socially unacceptable*.
Click to expand...


If you recall at the outset I pointed out that I was tolerant of PR's ill considered opinion and GLAAD's reaction. The only difference in where we stand is that you want me to become intolerant of GLAAD's reaction.

If I do that I am infringing on GLAAD's rights. It doesn't matter if it is done legally or morally it is equally wrong for me to do so.

If GLAAD hadn't reacted then the odds are it would have been someone else and that someone could just as easily have been myself. When I see someone espousing bigotry and intolerance I will stand up to them because I have an obligation to defend the rights of others when they are infringed. Yes, PR, does have a right to his opinion but he doesn't have a right to not be held accountable for his opinion.

Rights come with *RESPONSIBILITIES*. My responsibility towards your right to express your opinion on this matter is to defend your right to have your say. Your responsibility is to defend my right to have my say. Neither of us has to agree with what the other says. But both of us have a *RESPONSIBILITY *to defend the right of each to have their say no matter how much we disagree with what is said.

So in order to "*change us*" into the society that you want you would have to infringe upon my rights. I won't let you do that for the simple reason that if you were to succeed you would infringe upon your own rights. Now you might be happy to surrender that aspect of your rights but you don't get to impose your will on the rest of us just as we can't impose our will on you. Our *INDIVIDUAL* rights are sacred and we each have that *RESPONSIBILITY* towards each other to uphold them. 

To do any less is to fail to do our duty to each other.


----------



## Plasmaball

bigotry should never be tolerated and the OP would like to see such things tolerated under the umbrella of Freedom of opinion. Thats not how life works. Opinions are not all created equal. Some must be put in their place as not cool. This was the case back in the old thread, back on the first page of this simple thread, and this thread never should have gone beyond 10 posts max.

on another note i noticed something was ignored again because they where proven wrong again...shocking


----------



## Statistikhengst

Statistikhengst said:


> BTW, Foxfyre, you also wrote this:
> 
> "...because the video DOES, among other things, provide a rationale for why liberals are so often compelled or motivated to suppress opinion and also to condemn and/or physically and materially attack those who express an opinion the liberals do not agree with."
> 
> Ok, exactly WHERE in the video did he say that, and exactly what facts did he bring to back up his argument?  Exactly WHERE was this rationale? Did you watch the entire video? I did.
> 
> You only need to give me a minute and second marker, I will do the rest.
> 
> Proceed, FoxFyre, proceed...




  [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], you can feel free to give me the minute and second markers any time, now.


----------



## Foxfyre

Nosmo King said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm lucky because I've never watched 'reality' television shows.  It was not until this Robertson fellow displayed irrational intolerance that I ever saw or knew of him.  His intolerance cannot be rationalized due to some warped mis interpretation of scripture.  In fact, I find it disgusting that someone would hide behind the skirts of scripture to justify his intolerance.
> 
> He defamed an entire group of our fellow citizens and deserved to be called out for it.  The world should not be such a tough place for the other.  Humans should use tolerance when dealing with others.
> 
> Now tolerance is not the same as acceptance.  You can tolerate a homosexual and his or her lifestyle without acceptance.  All most oppressed people would happily receive tolerance, live and let live.  Acceptance must come to an individual in his own time and manner.
> 
> So many of the intolerant are not what society considers the most worldly and sophisticated.  Isolation within one' sown social class makes knowledge and experience hard to come by.  The tolerant, by contrast, have had experiences outside their own group that reveals one great truth of life.  Namely everyone has their own characteristics and no one should make the ham handed snap judgements that show intolerance.  He without sin shall cast the first stone.  Imagine scripture showing the way to tolerance and not cover for ignorance, fear and suspicion.
> 
> 
> 
> Tolerance is not the same as acceptance, but I fail to see how Robertson was intolerant while his critics were not. "Ignorance, fear and suspicion" cannot be the default fault (sorry) assigned by those who feel offended. Please, no platitudes about great truths and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Robertson say that shows tolerance?
Click to expand...


He wished well those who are angriest with him.  He expressed his love for them and everybody else.  He allows them to be who and what they are without harrassment or interference from him.  He does not demand that they believe as he does.  And he makes no effort to harm or punish anybody.  You don't get much more tolerant than that.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tolerance is not the same as acceptance, but I fail to see how Robertson was intolerant while his critics were not. "Ignorance, fear and suspicion" cannot be the default fault (sorry) assigned by those who feel offended. Please, no platitudes about great truths and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> What did Robertson say that shows tolerance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wished well those who are angriest with him.  He expressed his love for them and everybody else.  He allows them to be who and what they are without harrassment or interference from him.  He does not demand that they believe as he does.  *And he makes no effort to harm or punish anybody. * You don't get much more tolerant than that.
Click to expand...




Oh, really?

Hmmmm...

'Vomit,' and 5 Other Things Pat Robertson Has Said About Gays | TIME.com



> A Vomit button for photos of gays  thats what televangelist Pat Robertson now wants to see on Facebook. His statement, made today on his popular television program The 700 Club, is just the latest in his decades-long anti-gay tirade, and should come as no shock from the man who thinks wife beating should be legal  and who thinks a man can divorce his wife if she gets too sick . Todays program also included his interpretation of an ancient Old Testament passage that the land will vomit out gays because homosexuality is an abomination to God.



Oh, yes, I see what you mean. That is just totally tolerant. Great example of Christian love. I am impressed. 

Would you like to see some more examples?


----------



## Foxfyre

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are proposing is a repeal of the 1st Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I have already been very specific that this is not a free speech or constitutional or legal issue.  This is a moral and ethical issue--what we should expect from a free, tolerant, and civilized society.
> 
> Once more:  Being angry/telling somebody off and punching them out for nothing more than expressing an opinion are separate things.  Punching somebody out is socially unacceptable in a civilized society.
> 
> *Being angry/telling somebody off and going after them to physically and/or materially hurt them for nothing more than expressing an opinion are separate things.  And that should be just as socially unacceptable in a civilized society.
> 
> I am not looking to change the law.  I am looking to change US. * To reverse the current trend of trying to destroy people we don't agree with.  To restore tolerance for differences of opinions; different beliefs.  To make it a very socially unacceptable thing to try to suppress the ideas, concepts, perceptions, and beliefs of others and make people afraid to express what they think and believe for fear of physical and/or material retaliation.
> 
> The truly tolerant don't have to appreciate or agree with me or you or anybody else, including the guy in that video.  None have to stand still and not act when people are being physically and/or materially harmed.  But the truly tolerant will appreciate the right of people to what they believe without fear that some angry mob etc. coming after them to hurt them.  *The truly tolerant will condemn that mob etc. and make that kind of action socially unacceptable*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you recall at the outset I pointed out that I was tolerant of PR's ill considered opinion and GLAAD's reaction. The only difference in where we stand is that you want me to become intolerant of GLAAD's reaction.
> 
> If I do that I am infringing on GLAAD's rights. It doesn't matter if it is done legally or morally it is equally wrong for me to do so.
> 
> If GLAAD hadn't reacted then the odds are it would have been someone else and that someone could just as easily have been myself. When I see someone espousing bigotry and intolerance I will stand up to them because I have an obligation to defend the rights of others when they are infringed. Yes, PR, does have a right to his opinion but he doesn't have a right to not be held accountable for his opinion.
> 
> Rights come with *RESPONSIBILITIES*. My responsibility towards your right to express your opinion on this matter is to defend your right to have your say. Your responsibility is to defend my right to have my say. Neither of us has to agree with what the other says. But both of us have a *RESPONSIBILITY *to defend the right of each to have their say no matter how much we disagree with what is said.
> 
> So in order to "*change us*" into the society that you want you would have to infringe upon my rights. I won't let you do that for the simple reason that if you were to succeed you would infringe upon your own rights. Now you might be happy to surrender that aspect of your rights but you don't get to impose your will on the rest of us just as we can't impose our will on you. Our *INDIVIDUAL* rights are sacred and we each have that *RESPONSIBILITY* towards each other to uphold them.
> 
> To do any less is to fail to do our duty to each other.
Click to expand...


Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction which, in my opinion, was an evil act.  I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like.  I want everybody to make such hatefulness socially unacceptable.  I fully realize I will probably not get what I want, but I am so convinced of the rightness of my position on this, I'm willing to try as well as put myself in the position of being accused of all sorts of hateful and stupid stuff by some on this thread.  Accuse away.  Ridicule, excoriate, blame, denigrate, demonize to your/their heart's content.  That won't hurt me in the least.  Just don't presume to think it is okay to suppress my opinion--to come after me to physically and/or materially hurt/damage/ruin me because you don't like my opinions.

Where is the requirement for GLAAD to be tolerant of Phil Robertson's beliefs?  Would he be ethical and within his rights to organize a mob and go after members of GLAAD for the purpose of hurting them physically and/or materially because they don't like his religious beliefs?  Or would that be considered hateful and intolerable?  Most of us would say so.  In fact, I'm pretty sure HE would say so.

So how is it any less hateful for GLAAD to go after Phil Robertson (or anybody else) for no other reason than he believes the Bible says something they don't agree with?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tolerance is not the same as acceptance, but I fail to see how Robertson was intolerant while his critics were not. "Ignorance, fear and suspicion" cannot be the default fault (sorry) assigned by those who feel offended. Please, no platitudes about great truths and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> What did Robertson say that shows tolerance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wished well those who are angriest with him.  He expressed his love for them and everybody else.  He allows them to be who and what they are without harrassment or interference from him.  He does not demand that they believe as he does.  And he makes no effort to harm or punish anybody.  You don't get much more tolerant than that.
Click to expand...



Here is the video of that "vomit" exchange:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgRcDx22oE4]Gay Couples Make Pat Robertson Vomit | The Rubin Report - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mac1958

.

Hey, I think it's clear that we all agree that, on this issue, there are two types of people at the macro level:

There are some people who are open to all opinions and want those opinions to be heard even if we disagree with them, who are not afraid of the public airing of opposing views, who would never think to intimidate or punish people for legal speech, and humbly look at freedom of expression as an opportunity to communicate in an open forum and fix problems.

And for other people, well, not so much.  If you say something they don't like, they're coming after you.

See, we can all agree on something!



.


----------



## Statistikhengst

And Foxfyre, here is some more Christian love from Pat Robertson (1:09)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNhRjIqoBio]Pat Robertson calling a guy a "homo" - YouTube[/ame]


Yes, very tolerant, indeed.


Care to try again? This one may not be quite working out as you thought....


----------



## Foxfyre

Statistikhengst said:


> And Foxfyre, here is some more Christian love from Pat Robertson (1:09)
> 
> Pat Robertson calling a guy a "homo" - YouTube
> 
> 
> Yes, very tolerant, indeed.
> 
> 
> Care to try again? This one may not be quite working out as you thought....



This thread is not about Christian love.  This thread is about a person being allowed his/her beliefs and opinions without fear that an angry mob, group, or organization will come after him/her to hurt him/her physically and/or materially.

Would you like to try again?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I have already been very specific that this is not a free speech or constitutional or legal issue.  This is a moral and ethical issue--what we should expect from a free, tolerant, and civilized society.
> 
> Once more:  Being angry/telling somebody off and punching them out for nothing more than expressing an opinion are separate things.  Punching somebody out is socially unacceptable in a civilized society.
> 
> *Being angry/telling somebody off and going after them to physically and/or materially hurt them for nothing more than expressing an opinion are separate things.  And that should be just as socially unacceptable in a civilized society.
> 
> I am not looking to change the law.  I am looking to change US. * To reverse the current trend of trying to destroy people we don't agree with.  To restore tolerance for differences of opinions; different beliefs.  To make it a very socially unacceptable thing to try to suppress the ideas, concepts, perceptions, and beliefs of others and make people afraid to express what they think and believe for fear of physical and/or material retaliation.
> 
> The truly tolerant don't have to appreciate or agree with me or you or anybody else, including the guy in that video.  None have to stand still and not act when people are being physically and/or materially harmed.  But the truly tolerant will appreciate the right of people to what they believe without fear that some angry mob etc. coming after them to hurt them.  *The truly tolerant will condemn that mob etc. and make that kind of action socially unacceptable*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you recall at the outset I pointed out that I was tolerant of PR's ill considered opinion and GLAAD's reaction. The only difference in where we stand is that you want me to become intolerant of GLAAD's reaction.
> 
> If I do that I am infringing on GLAAD's rights. It doesn't matter if it is done legally or morally it is equally wrong for me to do so.
> 
> If GLAAD hadn't reacted then the odds are it would have been someone else and that someone could just as easily have been myself. When I see someone espousing bigotry and intolerance I will stand up to them because I have an obligation to defend the rights of others when they are infringed. Yes, PR, does have a right to his opinion but he doesn't have a right to not be held accountable for his opinion.
> 
> Rights come with *RESPONSIBILITIES*. My responsibility towards your right to express your opinion on this matter is to defend your right to have your say. Your responsibility is to defend my right to have my say. Neither of us has to agree with what the other says. But both of us have a *RESPONSIBILITY *to defend the right of each to have their say no matter how much we disagree with what is said.
> 
> So in order to "*change us*" into the society that you want you would have to infringe upon my rights. I won't let you do that for the simple reason that if you were to succeed you would infringe upon your own rights. Now you might be happy to surrender that aspect of your rights but you don't get to impose your will on the rest of us just as we can't impose our will on you. Our *INDIVIDUAL* rights are sacred and we each have that *RESPONSIBILITY* towards each other to uphold them.
> 
> To do any less is to fail to do our duty to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction which, in my opinion, was an evil act.*  I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like.
> 
> Where is the requirement for GLAAD to be tolerant of Phil Robertson's beliefs?  Would he be ethical and within his rights to organize a mob and go after members of GLAAD for the purpose of hurting them physically and/or materially?  Or would that be considered hateful and intolerable?  Most of us would say so.  In fact, I'm pretty sure HE would say so.
> 
> So how is it any less hateful for GLAAD to go after Phil Robertson (or anybody else) for no other reason than he believes the Bible says something they don't agree with?
Click to expand...










OMG, after all this criticism of the Left from you of their "intolerance", you WANT us to be intolerant of a group, just because YOU think the group is evil?

Really?


I graciously accept your concession for all of this.

Thank you.


----------



## Foxfyre

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Hey, I think it's clear that we all agree that, on this issue, there are two types of people at the macro level:
> 
> There are some people who are open to all opinions and want those opinions to be heard even if we disagree with them, who are not afraid of the public airing of opposing views, who would never think to intimidate or punish people for legal speech, and humbly look at freedom of expression as an opportunity to communicate in an open forum and fix problems.
> 
> And for other people, well, not so much.  If you say something they don't like, they're coming after you.
> 
> See, we can all agree on something!
> 
> 
> 
> .



Well, some of us agree on that.  LOL.


----------



## Montrovant

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are proposing is a repeal of the 1st Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I have already been very specific that this is not a free speech or constitutional or legal issue.  This is a moral and ethical issue--what we should expect from a free, tolerant, and civilized society.
> 
> Once more:  Being angry/telling somebody off and punching them out for nothing more than expressing an opinion are separate things.  Punching somebody out is socially unacceptable in a civilized society.
> 
> *Being angry/telling somebody off and going after them to physically and/or materially hurt them for nothing more than expressing an opinion are separate things.  And that should be just as socially unacceptable in a civilized society.
> 
> I am not looking to change the law.  I am looking to change US. * To reverse the current trend of trying to destroy people we don't agree with.  To restore tolerance for differences of opinions; different beliefs.  To make it a very socially unacceptable thing to try to suppress the ideas, concepts, perceptions, and beliefs of others and make people afraid to express what they think and believe for fear of physical and/or material retaliation.
> 
> The truly tolerant don't have to appreciate or agree with me or you or anybody else, including the guy in that video.  None have to stand still and not act when people are being physically and/or materially harmed.  But the truly tolerant will appreciate the right of people to what they believe without fear that some angry mob etc. coming after them to hurt them.  *The truly tolerant will condemn that mob etc. and make that kind of action socially unacceptable*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you recall at the outset I pointed out that I was tolerant of PR's ill considered opinion and GLAAD's reaction. The only difference in where we stand is that you want me to become intolerant of GLAAD's reaction.
> 
> If I do that I am infringing on GLAAD's rights. It doesn't matter if it is done legally or morally it is equally wrong for me to do so.
> 
> If GLAAD hadn't reacted then the odds are it would have been someone else and that someone could just as easily have been myself. When I see someone espousing bigotry and intolerance I will stand up to them because I have an obligation to defend the rights of others when they are infringed. Yes, PR, does have a right to his opinion but he doesn't have a right to not be held accountable for his opinion.
> 
> Rights come with *RESPONSIBILITIES*. My responsibility towards your right to express your opinion on this matter is to defend your right to have your say. Your responsibility is to defend my right to have my say. Neither of us has to agree with what the other says. But both of us have a *RESPONSIBILITY *to defend the right of each to have their say no matter how much we disagree with what is said.
> 
> So in order to "*change us*" into the society that you want you would have to infringe upon my rights. I won't let you do that for the simple reason that if you were to succeed you would infringe upon your own rights. Now you might be happy to surrender that aspect of your rights but you don't get to impose your will on the rest of us just as we can't impose our will on you. Our *INDIVIDUAL* rights are sacred and we each have that *RESPONSIBILITY* towards each other to uphold them.
> 
> To do any less is to fail to do our duty to each other.
Click to expand...


I think you are wrong here DT.  Social mores change all the time.  That there are any socially unacceptable words, phrases, ideas, etc. would mean that someone's rights are being infringed upon, per your reasoning here.  But that is silly.  Society does not have to accept any opinions or ideas.  There are plenty that society should not.  What it does have to do, at least in our society, is ALLOW those things, however unpalatable.  So you can denigrate or condemn anyone's expressed ideas, individually or as a group.  As long as you don't prevent anyone from expressing their own thoughts (and I do not believe that the Phil Robertson situation applies, as he is still free to express his opinions when he chooses) there is no infringing upon anyone's rights.

What Foxfyre has said she wants to do, in changing societal norms regarding how people feel about situations such as we have been discussing, is actually the same as those very situations in a lot of ways, just on a larger scale.  Society in general has every right to express an opinion.  It is only when it gets into the legal that issues of rights infringement are valid.

So in this particular case, Foxfyre is merely trying to change the opinion of society but not the rules or laws of the country.  Just as society has moved to a place where racism is generally considered wrong, but it is still allowed for anyone to be a racist, there is nothing wrong with society thinking going after someone for expressing an opinion is wrong, so long as people are still allowed to do so.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Oh, sorry folks, wrong Robertson.

Just so many bigoted Robertsons out there....


----------



## Plasmaball

Foxfyre said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tolerance is not the same as acceptance, but I fail to see how Robertson was intolerant while his critics were not. "Ignorance, fear and suspicion" cannot be the default fault (sorry) assigned by those who feel offended. Please, no platitudes about great truths and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> What did Robertson say that shows tolerance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wished well those who are angriest with him.  He expressed his love for them and everybody else.  He allows them to be who and what they are without harrassment or interference from him.  He does not demand that they believe as he does.  And he makes no effort to harm or punish anybody.  You don't get much more tolerant than that.
Click to expand...


wow....you literally live in a different reality.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Foxfyre, here is some more Christian love from Pat Robertson (1:09)
> 
> Pat Robertson calling a guy a "homo" - YouTube
> 
> 
> Yes, very tolerant, indeed.
> 
> 
> Care to try again? This one may not be quite working out as you thought....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is not about Christian love.  This thread is about a person being allowed his/her beliefs and opinions without fear that an angry mob, group, or organization will come after him/her to hurt him/her physically and/or materially.
> 
> Would you like to try again?
Click to expand...



Depends on whether you are going to continue to dodge or not.

BTW, got a minute marker for me for that video that you are so praising?

Tell me, did you even watch the video, even 10 minutes of it?


----------



## Foxfyre

Statistikhengst said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you recall at the outset I pointed out that I was tolerant of PR's ill considered opinion and GLAAD's reaction. The only difference in where we stand is that you want me to become intolerant of GLAAD's reaction.
> 
> If I do that I am infringing on GLAAD's rights. It doesn't matter if it is done legally or morally it is equally wrong for me to do so.
> 
> If GLAAD hadn't reacted then the odds are it would have been someone else and that someone could just as easily have been myself. When I see someone espousing bigotry and intolerance I will stand up to them because I have an obligation to defend the rights of others when they are infringed. Yes, PR, does have a right to his opinion but he doesn't have a right to not be held accountable for his opinion.
> 
> Rights come with *RESPONSIBILITIES*. My responsibility towards your right to express your opinion on this matter is to defend your right to have your say. Your responsibility is to defend my right to have my say. Neither of us has to agree with what the other says. But both of us have a *RESPONSIBILITY *to defend the right of each to have their say no matter how much we disagree with what is said.
> 
> So in order to "*change us*" into the society that you want you would have to infringe upon my rights. I won't let you do that for the simple reason that if you were to succeed you would infringe upon your own rights. Now you might be happy to surrender that aspect of your rights but you don't get to impose your will on the rest of us just as we can't impose our will on you. Our *INDIVIDUAL* rights are sacred and we each have that *RESPONSIBILITY* towards each other to uphold them.
> 
> To do any less is to fail to do our duty to each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction which, in my opinion, was an evil act.*  I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like.
> 
> Where is the requirement for GLAAD to be tolerant of Phil Robertson's beliefs?  Would he be ethical and within his rights to organize a mob and go after members of GLAAD for the purpose of hurting them physically and/or materially?  Or would that be considered hateful and intolerable?  Most of us would say so.  In fact, I'm pretty sure HE would say so.
> 
> So how is it any less hateful for GLAAD to go after Phil Robertson (or anybody else) for no other reason than he believes the Bible says something they don't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, after all this criticism of the Left from you of their "intolerance", you WANT us to be intolerant of a group, just because YOU think the group is evil?
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> I graciously accept your concession for all of this.
> 
> Thank you.
Click to expand...


I swear it is in the water that you guys drink that make you absolutely incapable of reading a statement as it is written.  I at no time have suggested, hinted, inferred, or implied that anybody should be intolerant of GLAAD any more than I suggested, hinted, inferred, implied that GLAAD should be illegal.

I did say we should be intolerant of that kind of ACTION from GLAAD or anybody else.   That is an entirely different thing than being intolerant of GLAAD. 

Can you at least be intellectually honest about that?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Hey, I think it's clear that we all agree that, on this issue, there are two types of people at the macro level:
> 
> There are some people who are open to all opinions and want those opinions to be heard even if we disagree with them, who are not afraid of the public airing of opposing views, who would never think to intimidate or punish people for legal speech, and humbly look at freedom of expression as an opportunity to communicate in an open forum and fix problems.
> 
> And for other people, well, not so much.  If you say something they don't like, they're coming after you.
> 
> See, we can all agree on something!
> 
> 
> 
> .





I think you summed that up pretty nicely.

But of course, Foxfyre thinks that if someone does not agree with her every word, then they're coming after her!!! 


And I once again bring forth the idea that tolerance is not good enough. We should be talking about acceptance, not tolerance.

Instead, Foxfyre is talking about evil, but then turns around and tells me that this thread has nothing to do with Christian love.

Ok...


----------



## Foxfyre

Statistikhengst said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Foxfyre, here is some more Christian love from Pat Robertson (1:09)
> 
> Pat Robertson calling a guy a "homo" - YouTube
> 
> 
> Yes, very tolerant, indeed.
> 
> 
> Care to try again? This one may not be quite working out as you thought....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is not about Christian love.  This thread is about a person being allowed his/her beliefs and opinions without fear that an angry mob, group, or organization will come after him/her to hurt him/her physically and/or materially.
> 
> Would you like to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on whether you are going to continue to dodge or not.
> 
> BTW, got a minute marker for me for that video that you are so praising?
> 
> Tell me, did you even watch the video, even 10 minutes of it?
Click to expand...


I will continue to object every time one of you misquotes me or mischaracterizes what I have said.  I watched every minute of that video to be sure of what the content was and to determine that there are elements in it that are pertinent to this thread, whether or not I or anybody else agrees with those elements.  I will continue to insist that members posting in this thread focus on the thread topic and will continue to resist every time you or anybody else tries to divert the attention from the thread topic.

And if that is your definition of 'dodge' then yeah, you can pretty well count on it.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction which, in my opinion, was an evil act.*  I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like.
> 
> Where is the requirement for GLAAD to be tolerant of Phil Robertson's beliefs?  Would he be ethical and within his rights to organize a mob and go after members of GLAAD for the purpose of hurting them physically and/or materially?  Or would that be considered hateful and intolerable?  Most of us would say so.  In fact, I'm pretty sure HE would say so.
> 
> So how is it any less hateful for GLAAD to go after Phil Robertson (or anybody else) for no other reason than he believes the Bible says something they don't agree with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, after all this criticism of the Left from you of their "intolerance", you WANT us to be intolerant of a group, just because YOU think the group is evil?
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> I graciously accept your concession for all of this.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I swear it is in the water that you guys drink that make you absolutely incapable of reading a statement as it is written.  I at no time have suggested, hinted, inferred, or implied that anybody should be intolerant of GLAAD any more than I suggested, hinted, inferred, implied that GLAAD should be illegal.
> 
> I did say we should be intolerant of that kind of ACTION from GLAAD or anybody else.   That is an entirely different thing than being intolerant of GLAAD.
> 
> Can you at least be intellectually honest about that?
Click to expand...



You cannot be tolerant or intolerant of inanimate ojects, like ideas. You are tolerant or intolerant of ANIMATE objects, such as PEOPLE.  An idea is not a person, as you already made clear. Time for you to eat some of your own crow, now.

You can reject an idea or accept an idea. 

You do understand the difference, right?

What you are trying to say is that we should all *reject* GLAAD's actions, because YOU think that GLAAD did was evil.

What you are trying to do is to curb the 1st Amendment. I cannot support such fascist policies.


----------



## Plasmaball

Foxfyre said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction which, in my opinion, was an evil act.*  I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like.
> 
> Where is the requirement for GLAAD to be tolerant of Phil Robertson's beliefs?  Would he be ethical and within his rights to organize a mob and go after members of GLAAD for the purpose of hurting them physically and/or materially?  Or would that be considered hateful and intolerable?  Most of us would say so.  In fact, I'm pretty sure HE would say so.
> 
> So how is it any less hateful for GLAAD to go after Phil Robertson (or anybody else) for no other reason than he believes the Bible says something they don't agree with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, after all this criticism of the Left from you of their "intolerance", you WANT us to be intolerant of a group, just because YOU think the group is evil?
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> I graciously accept your concession for all of this.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I swear it is in the water that you guys drink that make you absolutely incapable of reading a statement as it is written.  I at no time have suggested, hinted, inferred, or implied that anybody should be intolerant of GLAAD any more than I suggested, hinted, inferred, *implied that GLAAD should be illegal.*
> 
> I did say we should be intolerant of that kind of ACTION from GLAAD or anybody else.   That is an entirely different thing than being intolerant of GLAAD.
> 
> Can you at least be intellectually honest about that?
Click to expand...


nobody claimed you did this. Stop arguing something that didnt happen. You said their actions should be CRIMINAL. The very fact that you would support the actions to be criminal is being intolerant of groups like Glaad. 

Just ow many times do you need this explained to you till you understand this very simple logic. 

Why are you asking people to be honest abut something when you really have done none of that in this very thread?


----------



## Foxfyre

Statistikhengst said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, after all this criticism of the Left from you of their "intolerance", you WANT us to be intolerant of a group, just because YOU think the group is evil?
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> I graciously accept your concession for all of this.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I swear it is in the water that you guys drink that make you absolutely incapable of reading a statement as it is written.  I at no time have suggested, hinted, inferred, or implied that anybody should be intolerant of GLAAD any more than I suggested, hinted, inferred, implied that GLAAD should be illegal.
> 
> I did say we should be intolerant of that kind of ACTION from GLAAD or anybody else.   That is an entirely different thing than being intolerant of GLAAD.
> 
> Can you at least be intellectually honest about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot be tolerant or intolerant of inanimate ojects, like ideas. You are tolerant or intolerant of ANIMATE objects, such as PEOPLE.  An idea is not a person, as you already made clear. Time for you to eat some of your own crow, now.
> 
> You can reject an idea or accept an idea.
> 
> You do understand the difference, right?
> 
> What you are trying to say is that we should all *reject* GLAAD's actions, because YOU think that GLAAD did was evil.
> 
> What you are trying to do is to curb the 1st Amendment. I cannot support such fascist policies.
Click to expand...


This is not a First Amendment issue.
This is not a constitutional issue at all.
This is not a legal issue.
This IS a moral and ethical issue.

We should all oppose GLAAD's actions because they are immoral and unethical.  We should all reject GLAAD's actions because they deny a person's unalienable right to be who and what he is.  We should all oppose GLAAD's actions because suppression of human beliefs and thoughts is detrimental to a free society and puts the biggest, baddest, most funded bullies in charge of what people are required to be and believe to avoid being physically and/or materially punished.  And if you support that, you better hope that it is YOUR bully who is the biggest, baddest, and best funded.


----------



## Nosmo King

Foxfyre said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I have already been very specific that this is not a free speech or constitutional or legal issue.  This is a moral and ethical issue--what we should expect from a free, tolerant, and civilized society.
> 
> Once more:  Being angry/telling somebody off and punching them out for nothing more than expressing an opinion are separate things.  Punching somebody out is socially unacceptable in a civilized society.
> 
> *Being angry/telling somebody off and going after them to physically and/or materially hurt them for nothing more than expressing an opinion are separate things.  And that should be just as socially unacceptable in a civilized society.
> 
> I am not looking to change the law.  I am looking to change US. * To reverse the current trend of trying to destroy people we don't agree with.  To restore tolerance for differences of opinions; different beliefs.  To make it a very socially unacceptable thing to try to suppress the ideas, concepts, perceptions, and beliefs of others and make people afraid to express what they think and believe for fear of physical and/or material retaliation.
> 
> The truly tolerant don't have to appreciate or agree with me or you or anybody else, including the guy in that video.  None have to stand still and not act when people are being physically and/or materially harmed.  But the truly tolerant will appreciate the right of people to what they believe without fear that some angry mob etc. coming after them to hurt them.  *The truly tolerant will condemn that mob etc. and make that kind of action socially unacceptable*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you recall at the outset I pointed out that I was tolerant of PR's ill considered opinion and GLAAD's reaction. The only difference in where we stand is that you want me to become intolerant of GLAAD's reaction.
> 
> If I do that I am infringing on GLAAD's rights. It doesn't matter if it is done legally or morally it is equally wrong for me to do so.
> 
> If GLAAD hadn't reacted then the odds are it would have been someone else and that someone could just as easily have been myself. When I see someone espousing bigotry and intolerance I will stand up to them because I have an obligation to defend the rights of others when they are infringed. Yes, PR, does have a right to his opinion but he doesn't have a right to not be held accountable for his opinion.
> 
> Rights come with *RESPONSIBILITIES*. My responsibility towards your right to express your opinion on this matter is to defend your right to have your say. Your responsibility is to defend my right to have my say. Neither of us has to agree with what the other says. But both of us have a *RESPONSIBILITY *to defend the right of each to have their say no matter how much we disagree with what is said.
> 
> So in order to "*change us*" into the society that you want you would have to infringe upon my rights. I won't let you do that for the simple reason that if you were to succeed you would infringe upon your own rights. Now you might be happy to surrender that aspect of your rights but you don't get to impose your will on the rest of us just as we can't impose our will on you. Our *INDIVIDUAL* rights are sacred and we each have that *RESPONSIBILITY* towards each other to uphold them.
> 
> To do any less is to fail to do our duty to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction which, in my opinion, was an evil act.  I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like.  I want everybody to make such hatefulness socially unacceptable.  I fully realize I will probably not get what I want, but I am so convinced of the rightness of my position on this, I'm willing to try as well as put myself in the position of being accused of all sorts of hateful and stupid stuff by some on this thread.  Accuse away.  Ridicule, excoriate, blame, denigrate, demonize to your/their heart's content.  That won't hurt me in the least.  Just don't presume to think it is okay to suppress my opinion--to come after me to physically and/or materially hurt/damage/ruin me because you don't like my opinions.
> 
> Where is the requirement for GLAAD to be tolerant of Phil Robertson's beliefs?  Would he be ethical and within his rights to organize a mob and go after members of GLAAD for the purpose of hurting them physically and/or materially because they don't like his religious beliefs?  Or would that be considered hateful and intolerable?  Most of us would say so.  In fact, I'm pretty sure HE would say so.
> 
> So how is it any less hateful for GLAAD to go after Phil Robertson (or anybody else) for no other reason than he believes the Bible says something they don't agree with?
Click to expand...

Would you advocate tolerance for David Duke when he expresses his opinion on Blacks?  If he is intolerant, as Robertson was, should American society simply accept his opinion and tolerate it?  Where do opinions stop being simply opinions and begin an advocacy of intolerance?

How much intolerance should we tolerate?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Foxfyre said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I have already been very specific that this is not a free speech or constitutional or legal issue.  This is a moral and ethical issue--what we should expect from a free, tolerant, and civilized society.
> 
> Once more:  Being angry/telling somebody off and punching them out for nothing more than expressing an opinion are separate things.  Punching somebody out is socially unacceptable in a civilized society.
> 
> *Being angry/telling somebody off and going after them to physically and/or materially hurt them for nothing more than expressing an opinion are separate things.  And that should be just as socially unacceptable in a civilized society.
> 
> I am not looking to change the law.  I am looking to change US. * To reverse the current trend of trying to destroy people we don't agree with.  To restore tolerance for differences of opinions; different beliefs.  To make it a very socially unacceptable thing to try to suppress the ideas, concepts, perceptions, and beliefs of others and make people afraid to express what they think and believe for fear of physical and/or material retaliation.
> 
> The truly tolerant don't have to appreciate or agree with me or you or anybody else, including the guy in that video.  None have to stand still and not act when people are being physically and/or materially harmed.  But the truly tolerant will appreciate the right of people to what they believe without fear that some angry mob etc. coming after them to hurt them.  *The truly tolerant will condemn that mob etc. and make that kind of action socially unacceptable*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you recall at the outset I pointed out that I was tolerant of PR's ill considered opinion and GLAAD's reaction. The only difference in where we stand is that you want me to become intolerant of GLAAD's reaction.
> 
> If I do that I am infringing on GLAAD's rights. It doesn't matter if it is done legally or morally it is equally wrong for me to do so.
> 
> If GLAAD hadn't reacted then the odds are it would have been someone else and that someone could just as easily have been myself. When I see someone espousing bigotry and intolerance I will stand up to them because I have an obligation to defend the rights of others when they are infringed. Yes, PR, does have a right to his opinion but he doesn't have a right to not be held accountable for his opinion.
> 
> Rights come with *RESPONSIBILITIES*. My responsibility towards your right to express your opinion on this matter is to defend your right to have your say. Your responsibility is to defend my right to have my say. Neither of us has to agree with what the other says. But both of us have a *RESPONSIBILITY *to defend the right of each to have their say no matter how much we disagree with what is said.
> 
> So in order to "*change us*" into the society that you want you would have to infringe upon my rights. I won't let you do that for the simple reason that if you were to succeed you would infringe upon your own rights. Now you might be happy to surrender that aspect of your rights but you don't get to impose your will on the rest of us just as we can't impose our will on you. Our *INDIVIDUAL* rights are sacred and we each have that *RESPONSIBILITY* towards each other to uphold them.
> 
> To do any less is to fail to do our duty to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction which, in my opinion, was an evil act.  *I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like.  I want everybody to make such hatefulness socially unacceptable.  I fully realize I will probably not get what I want, but I am so convinced of the rightness of my position on this, I'm willing to try as well as put myself in the position of being accused of all sorts of hateful and stupid stuff by some on this thread.  Accuse away.  Ridicule, excoriate, blame, denigrate, demonize to your/their heart's content.  That won't hurt me in the least.  Just don't presume to think it is okay to suppress my opinion--to come after me to physically and/or materially hurt/damage/ruin me because you don't like my opinions.
> 
> Where is the requirement for GLAAD to be tolerant of Phil Robertson's beliefs?  Would he be ethical and within his rights to organize a mob and go after members of GLAAD for the purpose of hurting them physically and/or materially because they don't like his religious beliefs?  Or would that be considered hateful and intolerable?  Most of us would say so.  In fact, I'm pretty sure HE would say so.
> 
> So how is it any less hateful for GLAAD to go after Phil Robertson (or anybody else) for no other reason than he believes the Bible says something they don't agree with?
Click to expand...


GLAAD's response was a *REACTION* to PR's intolerant *ACTION*.

Expecting me to be intolerant of a reaction to intolerance is nonsensical. It is also a betrayal of GLAAD's rights to express their opinion. In essence you are asking me to betray their rights and by doing so, my own rights.

If that is what you expect from me then I need a sound logical basis for giving up my own rights. Please provide me with the reason why I would be willing to surrender my rights to react to intolerance and bigotry?


----------



## Foxfyre

Nosmo King said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you recall at the outset I pointed out that I was tolerant of PR's ill considered opinion and GLAAD's reaction. The only difference in where we stand is that you want me to become intolerant of GLAAD's reaction.
> 
> If I do that I am infringing on GLAAD's rights. It doesn't matter if it is done legally or morally it is equally wrong for me to do so.
> 
> If GLAAD hadn't reacted then the odds are it would have been someone else and that someone could just as easily have been myself. When I see someone espousing bigotry and intolerance I will stand up to them because I have an obligation to defend the rights of others when they are infringed. Yes, PR, does have a right to his opinion but he doesn't have a right to not be held accountable for his opinion.
> 
> Rights come with *RESPONSIBILITIES*. My responsibility towards your right to express your opinion on this matter is to defend your right to have your say. Your responsibility is to defend my right to have my say. Neither of us has to agree with what the other says. But both of us have a *RESPONSIBILITY *to defend the right of each to have their say no matter how much we disagree with what is said.
> 
> So in order to "*change us*" into the society that you want you would have to infringe upon my rights. I won't let you do that for the simple reason that if you were to succeed you would infringe upon your own rights. Now you might be happy to surrender that aspect of your rights but you don't get to impose your will on the rest of us just as we can't impose our will on you. Our *INDIVIDUAL* rights are sacred and we each have that *RESPONSIBILITY* towards each other to uphold them.
> 
> To do any less is to fail to do our duty to each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction which, in my opinion, was an evil act.  I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like.  I want everybody to make such hatefulness socially unacceptable.  I fully realize I will probably not get what I want, but I am so convinced of the rightness of my position on this, I'm willing to try as well as put myself in the position of being accused of all sorts of hateful and stupid stuff by some on this thread.  Accuse away.  Ridicule, excoriate, blame, denigrate, demonize to your/their heart's content.  That won't hurt me in the least.  Just don't presume to think it is okay to suppress my opinion--to come after me to physically and/or materially hurt/damage/ruin me because you don't like my opinions.
> 
> Where is the requirement for GLAAD to be tolerant of Phil Robertson's beliefs?  Would he be ethical and within his rights to organize a mob and go after members of GLAAD for the purpose of hurting them physically and/or materially because they don't like his religious beliefs?  Or would that be considered hateful and intolerable?  Most of us would say so.  In fact, I'm pretty sure HE would say so.
> 
> So how is it any less hateful for GLAAD to go after Phil Robertson (or anybody else) for no other reason than he believes the Bible says something they don't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you advocate tolerance for David Duke when he expresses his opinion on Blacks?  If he is intolerant, as Robertson was, should American society simply accept his opinion and tolerate it?  Where do opinions stop being simply opinions and begin an advocacy of intolerance?
> 
> How much intolerance should we tolerate?
Click to expand...


Tolerance for his right to believe whatever he believes about blacks?  Absolutely however reprehensible to me that is, and his views are mostly reprehensible to me.  But if I want to be allowed my opinion about blacks--which is the polar opposite of what David Duke has preached--then I have to allow him his opinion.  What I don't have to allow is if he acts out his opinions and is hurting/harming people.  But just holding an opinion?  Yes.  He should be allowed to hold even an intolerant, disgusting, bigoted, prejudiced opinion without fear that some angry mob will come after him.

For who among us is wise enough to dictate to any of us what any of us must think, believe, be without fear of some angry mob, group, or organization will come after us to hurt us?  Do you trust me to make up such a list of what is acceptable to think, believe, speak?  I sure as hell don't trust any of you, even those I love the most, to make up such a list for me.


----------



## Mac1958

Nosmo King said:


> ould you advocate tolerance for David Duke when he expresses his opinion on Blacks?




Yes, in terms of letting him speak, absolutely.

Duke a racist cockroach, and I'm more than happy to shine the light on him, nice and bright.  I want everyone to see the cockroaches so that open communication will demonstrate what cockroaches these people truly are.

When I use the term "racist", I mean it literally.  I don't use it as a political weapon to intimidate and shut people down.

.


----------



## Plasmaball

Foxfyre said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I swear it is in the water that you guys drink that make you absolutely incapable of reading a statement as it is written.  I at no time have suggested, hinted, inferred, or implied that anybody should be intolerant of GLAAD any more than I suggested, hinted, inferred, implied that GLAAD should be illegal.
> 
> I did say we should be intolerant of that kind of ACTION from GLAAD or anybody else.   That is an entirely different thing than being intolerant of GLAAD.
> 
> Can you at least be intellectually honest about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot be tolerant or intolerant of inanimate ojects, like ideas. You are tolerant or intolerant of ANIMATE objects, such as PEOPLE.  An idea is not a person, as you already made clear. Time for you to eat some of your own crow, now.
> 
> You can reject an idea or accept an idea.
> 
> You do understand the difference, right?
> 
> What you are trying to say is that we should all *reject* GLAAD's actions, because YOU think that GLAAD did was evil.
> 
> What you are trying to do is to curb the 1st Amendment. I cannot support such fascist policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not a First Amendment issue.
> This is not a constitutional issue at all.
> This is not a legal issue.
> This IS a moral and ethical issue.
> 
> We should all oppose GLAAD's actions because they are immoral and unethical.  We should all reject GLAAD's actions because they deny a person's unalienable right to be who and what he is.  We should all oppose GLAAD's actions because suppression of human beliefs and thoughts is detrimental to a free society and puts the biggest, baddest, most funded bullies in charge of what people are required to be and believe to avoid being physically and/or materially punished.  And if you support that, you better hope that it is YOUR bully who is the biggest, baddest, and best funded.
Click to expand...


You can't claim that this thread isnt about constitutional rights and then claim that glaad is denying an unalienable right. 
You dont get to do this, so stop it, seriously stop trying to control everything and have your cake. 


Yes we know you need to stay within moral and ethical because it gives you  the most wiggle room to move the goals posts, claim people are not on topic, and blah blah blah...


----------



## Plasmaball

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you recall at the outset I pointed out that I was tolerant of PR's ill considered opinion and GLAAD's reaction. The only difference in where we stand is that you want me to become intolerant of GLAAD's reaction.
> 
> If I do that I am infringing on GLAAD's rights. It doesn't matter if it is done legally or morally it is equally wrong for me to do so.
> 
> If GLAAD hadn't reacted then the odds are it would have been someone else and that someone could just as easily have been myself. When I see someone espousing bigotry and intolerance I will stand up to them because I have an obligation to defend the rights of others when they are infringed. Yes, PR, does have a right to his opinion but he doesn't have a right to not be held accountable for his opinion.
> 
> Rights come with *RESPONSIBILITIES*. My responsibility towards your right to express your opinion on this matter is to defend your right to have your say. Your responsibility is to defend my right to have my say. Neither of us has to agree with what the other says. But both of us have a *RESPONSIBILITY *to defend the right of each to have their say no matter how much we disagree with what is said.
> 
> So in order to "*change us*" into the society that you want you would have to infringe upon my rights. I won't let you do that for the simple reason that if you were to succeed you would infringe upon your own rights. Now you might be happy to surrender that aspect of your rights but you don't get to impose your will on the rest of us just as we can't impose our will on you. Our *INDIVIDUAL* rights are sacred and we each have that *RESPONSIBILITY* towards each other to uphold them.
> 
> To do any less is to fail to do our duty to each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction which, in my opinion, was an evil act.  *I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like.  I want everybody to make such hatefulness socially unacceptable.  I fully realize I will probably not get what I want, but I am so convinced of the rightness of my position on this, I'm willing to try as well as put myself in the position of being accused of all sorts of hateful and stupid stuff by some on this thread.  Accuse away.  Ridicule, excoriate, blame, denigrate, demonize to your/their heart's content.  That won't hurt me in the least.  Just don't presume to think it is okay to suppress my opinion--to come after me to physically and/or materially hurt/damage/ruin me because you don't like my opinions.
> 
> Where is the requirement for GLAAD to be tolerant of Phil Robertson's beliefs?  Would he be ethical and within his rights to organize a mob and go after members of GLAAD for the purpose of hurting them physically and/or materially because they don't like his religious beliefs?  Or would that be considered hateful and intolerable?  Most of us would say so.  In fact, I'm pretty sure HE would say so.
> 
> So how is it any less hateful for GLAAD to go after Phil Robertson (or anybody else) for no other reason than he believes the Bible says something they don't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GLAAD's response was a *REACTION* to PR's intolerant *ACTION*.
> 
> Expecting me to be intolerant of a reaction to intolerance is nonsensical. It is also a betrayal of GLAAD's rights to express their opinion. In essence you are asking me to betray their rights and by doing so, my own rights.
> 
> If that is what you expect from me then I need a sound logical basis for giving up my own rights. Please provide me with the reason why I would be willing to surrender my rights to react to intolerance and bigotry?
Click to expand...


at somepoint you have to wonder if it would not be better to just start your own thread on this so the rest of us can all agree on whats going on and stop arguing against whatever this is that she and the other person is doing. 

It will be a very short thread.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Foxfyre said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction which, in my opinion, was an evil act.  I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like.  I want everybody to make such hatefulness socially unacceptable.  I fully realize I will probably not get what I want, but I am so convinced of the rightness of my position on this, I'm willing to try as well as put myself in the position of being accused of all sorts of hateful and stupid stuff by some on this thread.  Accuse away.  Ridicule, excoriate, blame, denigrate, demonize to your/their heart's content.  That won't hurt me in the least.  Just don't presume to think it is okay to suppress my opinion--to come after me to physically and/or materially hurt/damage/ruin me because you don't like my opinions.
> 
> Where is the requirement for GLAAD to be tolerant of Phil Robertson's beliefs?  Would he be ethical and within his rights to organize a mob and go after members of GLAAD for the purpose of hurting them physically and/or materially because they don't like his religious beliefs?  Or would that be considered hateful and intolerable?  Most of us would say so.  In fact, I'm pretty sure HE would say so.
> 
> So how is it any less hateful for GLAAD to go after Phil Robertson (or anybody else) for no other reason than he believes the Bible says something they don't agree with?
> 
> 
> 
> Would you advocate tolerance for David Duke when he expresses his opinion on Blacks?  If he is intolerant, as Robertson was, should American society simply accept his opinion and tolerate it?  Where do opinions stop being simply opinions and begin an advocacy of intolerance?
> 
> How much intolerance should we tolerate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tolerance for his right to believe whatever he believes about blacks?  Absolutely however reprehensible to me that is, and his views are mostly reprehensible to me.  But if I want to be allowed my opinion about blacks--which is the polar opposite of what David Duke has preached--then I have to allow him his opinion.  What I don't have to allow is if he acts out his opinions and is hurting/harming people.  But just holding an opinion?  Yes.  He should be allowed to hold even an intolerant, disgusting, bigoted, prejudiced opinion without fear that some angry mob will come after him.
> 
> *For who among us is wise enough to dictate to any of us what any of us must think, believe, be without fear of some angry mob, group, or organization will come after us to hurt us?  Do you trust me to make up such a list of what is acceptable to think, believe, speak?  I sure as hell don't trust any of you, even those I love the most, to make up such a list for me*.
Click to expand...


But aren't you making up a list for me as to what I must deem to be *unacceptable* and putting what GLAAD said right at the top?


----------



## Foxfyre

Plasmaball said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction which, in my opinion, was an evil act.  *I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like.  I want everybody to make such hatefulness socially unacceptable.  I fully realize I will probably not get what I want, but I am so convinced of the rightness of my position on this, I'm willing to try as well as put myself in the position of being accused of all sorts of hateful and stupid stuff by some on this thread.  Accuse away.  Ridicule, excoriate, blame, denigrate, demonize to your/their heart's content.  That won't hurt me in the least.  Just don't presume to think it is okay to suppress my opinion--to come after me to physically and/or materially hurt/damage/ruin me because you don't like my opinions.
> 
> Where is the requirement for GLAAD to be tolerant of Phil Robertson's beliefs?  Would he be ethical and within his rights to organize a mob and go after members of GLAAD for the purpose of hurting them physically and/or materially because they don't like his religious beliefs?  Or would that be considered hateful and intolerable?  Most of us would say so.  In fact, I'm pretty sure HE would say so.
> 
> So how is it any less hateful for GLAAD to go after Phil Robertson (or anybody else) for no other reason than he believes the Bible says something they don't agree with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLAAD's response was a *REACTION* to PR's intolerant *ACTION*.
> 
> Expecting me to be intolerant of a reaction to intolerance is nonsensical. It is also a betrayal of GLAAD's rights to express their opinion. In essence you are asking me to betray their rights and by doing so, my own rights.
> 
> If that is what you expect from me then I need a sound logical basis for giving up my own rights. Please provide me with the reason why I would be willing to surrender my rights to react to intolerance and bigotry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> at somepoint you have to wonder if it would not be better to just start your own thread on this so the rest of us can all agree on whats going on and stop arguing against whatever this is that she and the other person is doing.
> 
> It will be a very short thread.
Click to expand...


I would be most happy if you would do that.  Perhaps there wouldn't be so much reading dysfunction on your own thread and all of you who refuse to focus on the thread topic and insist on characterizing it as something it isn't would be much happier.  See?  Derideo Te agrees with you.

(And I still think it must be something in the water some folks drink that makes them incapable of focusing on a concept and discussing it honestly.)


----------



## Foxfyre

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you advocate tolerance for David Duke when he expresses his opinion on Blacks?  If he is intolerant, as Robertson was, should American society simply accept his opinion and tolerate it?  Where do opinions stop being simply opinions and begin an advocacy of intolerance?
> 
> How much intolerance should we tolerate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tolerance for his right to believe whatever he believes about blacks?  Absolutely however reprehensible to me that is, and his views are mostly reprehensible to me.  But if I want to be allowed my opinion about blacks--which is the polar opposite of what David Duke has preached--then I have to allow him his opinion.  What I don't have to allow is if he acts out his opinions and is hurting/harming people.  But just holding an opinion?  Yes.  He should be allowed to hold even an intolerant, disgusting, bigoted, prejudiced opinion without fear that some angry mob will come after him.
> 
> *For who among us is wise enough to dictate to any of us what any of us must think, believe, be without fear of some angry mob, group, or organization will come after us to hurt us?  Do you trust me to make up such a list of what is acceptable to think, believe, speak?  I sure as hell don't trust any of you, even those I love the most, to make up such a list for me*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But aren't you making up a list for me as to what I must deem to be *unacceptable* and putting what GLAAD said right at the top?
Click to expand...


What list?  Are you truly incapable of quoting what I presented in the OP as the thread topic and discussing what is SAID there honestly and objectively?  Are you truly incapable of characterizing my position honestly and as I have presented it?  I expected more from you, frankly, as I have always considered you one of the intelligent liberals capable of reasoning and analyzing something objectively.  And you have made posts that did address the OP and agreed that it is wrong to physically and/or materially punish people for no other reason than they expressed an opinion that somebody didn't like.

And now you're backing off that?   Why?

If you think I am wrong in the OP, give me a rationale for HOW I am wrong.  WHY I am wrong.  That's what grown up discussion is.  Don't try to put words in my mouth I haven't said and wouldn't say.


----------



## Statistikhengst

*So, just to recap*, so that the entire world can see this:

Foxfyre starts a thread on intolerance.

A poster contributes this video:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html#post8386087

The video is of Evan Sayet, a stand-up comedian and self identified "former Liberal Jew from New York", who rages on the Democratic party and Liberalism with one ad hominem attack after another, without even one shred of fact or information. All opinon, no discourse. NO tolerance.

Here once again is that 48 minute video:


Foxfyre responds to that posting with this:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html#post8386380



Foxfyre said:


> Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one.  *Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought*.




Many people challenged that video. Foxfyre castigated them for doing this and challenged people (meaning: Liberals) to actually quote parts of the video and bring evidence against her argument that Sayet did his homework.

To date, I am the only person to have done exactly that, in THREE different postings, here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-19.html#post8405372

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8405489

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8405545

As a result, all Foxfyre has done is to insult people's reading ability or say that there must be something in the water.....

So, I turned the screws on Foxfyre and challenged her to show me a minute and second marker on the video that she has so praised to back up her claim that Sayet did his homework. And until now, no response.

I also asked Foxfyre if she even watched the video at all. Still, no response.

But she did give me this response:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8406102



Foxfyre said:


> The video is of a lecture of a person giving *what he believes is an informed opinion/observation/conclusion and his topic is the M.O. of liberals in our modern society.  Right or wrong he provides a reasoned rationale for each point he presents and that is all that is required in order for it to be a scholarly lecture.*   I have not mentioned the video in any context other than that.   I thanked the member who posted it because the video DOES, among other things, provide a rationale for why liberals are so often compelled or motivated to suppress opinion and also to condemn and/or physically and materially attack those who express an opinion the liberals do not agree with.   I was also clear that I did not agree with every point the speaker made and encouraged anybody to present a comparable presentation re conservatives related to suppression of speech and/or opinion.
> 
> Now then.  Who has been more focused on the topic of suppression of speech and opinion in this thread and who has been more focused on condemning the video or accusing me or somebody else who has expressed an opinion they don't agree with?  Conservatives?  or Liberals?



the bolded: I pointed out to here that absolutely none of that is true. Since when is screaming talking points, without facts, without an argument, without logic, "scholarly". Bullshit.

Then Foxfyre admits to a member that she wants us to be intolerant of GLAAD's actions (which is actually just a way of saying that she wants us to be intolerant of GLAAD):

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8406525



Foxfyre said:


> *Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction *which, in my opinion, was an evil act.  I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like.  I want everybody to make such hatefulness socially unacceptable.



I then reminded people that we are tolerant/intolerant of people, not inanimate objects. We accept or reject inanimate objects, like ideas.  And just to note, Foxfyre, you deliberately tried to link GLAAD with people punching someone. You put the two sentences next to each other quite deliberately.  Tell me, do you have evidence that GLAAD has punched someone in the face? I would like to see that evidence.

Or perhaps on my next thread, should I put these two sentences together?

"Now, we should be more tolerant of Republicans, they also have their difficulties. So to child rapists and mass murderers."

Gee, I wonder if people would like to see that kind of stuff..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FACIT: while I agree with Foxfyre more than she realizes that intolerance is an issue worth looking at, she deliberately started this OP just to defame Liberals, just as she did it on the open forum, and when she got all upset because too many people challenged her, she just called them all "trolls" and asked the thread to be closed. Ok, fine, her call. 

Now, here in the CDZ, any argument brought against any point she makes is responded to with intolerance on her part.

*I want to thank Foxfyre from the bottom of my heart for proving that intolerance usually resides with those who scream against it the most.*

Oh, and BTW, Foxfyre, gotta minute and second marker for me, now that I have asked you for the 5th and final time? Did you even watch 10 minutes of that video that you praised to high heaven, or not?

So, I am now done with this thread.  You all can have fun with the rest of it.


----------



## Foxfyre

Statistikhengst said:


> So, just to recap, just so the entire world can see this:
> 
> Foxfyre starts a thread on intolerance.
> 
> A poster contributes this video:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html#post8386087
> 
> The video is of Evan Sayet, a stand-up comedian and self identified "former Liberal Jew from New York", who rages on the Democratic party and Liberalism with one ad hominem attack after another, without even one shred of fact or information. All opinon, no discourse. NO tolerance.
> 
> Foxfyre responds to that posting with this:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html#post8386380
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one.  *Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people challenged that video. Foxfyre castigated them for doing this and challenged people (meaning: Liberals) to actually quote parts of the video and bring evidence against her argument that Sayet did his homework.
> 
> To date, I am the only person to have done exactly that, in THREE different postings, here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-19.html#post8405372
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8405489
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8405545
> 
> As a result, all Foxfyre has done is to insult people's reading ability or say that there must be something in the water.....
> 
> So, I turned the screws on Foxfyre and challenged here to show me a minute and second marker on the video that she has so praised to back up her claim that Sayet did his homework. And until now, no response.
> 
> I also asked Foxfyre if she even watched the video at all. Still, no response.
> 
> But she did give me this response:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8406102
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video is of a lecture of a person giving *what he believes is an informed opinion/observation/conclusion and his topic is the M.O. of liberals in our modern society.  Right or wrong he provides a reasoned rationale for each point he presents and that is all that is required in order for it to be a scholarly lecture.*   I have not mentioned the video in any context other than that.   I thanked the member who posted it because the video DOES, among other things, provide a rationale for why liberals are so often compelled or motivated to suppress opinion and also to condemn and/or physically and materially attack those who express an opinion the liberals do not agree with.   I was also clear that I did not agree with every point the speaker made and encouraged anybody to present a comparable presentation re conservatives related to suppression of speech and/or opinion.
> 
> Now then.  Who has been more focused on the topic of suppression of speech and opinion in this thread and who has been more focused on condemning the video or accusing me or somebody else who has expressed an opinion they don't agree with?  Conservatives?  or Liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the bolded: I pointed out to here that absolutely none of that is true. Since when is screaming talking points, without facts, without an argument, without logic, "scholarly". Bullshit.
> 
> Then Foxfyre admits to a member that she wants us to be intolerant of GLAAD's actions (which is actually just a way of saying that she wants us to be intolerant of GLAAD):
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8406525
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction *which, in my opinion, was an evil act.  I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like.  I want everybody to make such hatefulness socially unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I then reminded people that we are tolerant/intolerant of people, not inanimate objects. We accept or reject inanimate objects, like ideas.  And just to remind, Foxfyre, you deliberate tried to link GLAAD with people punching someone. You put the two sentences next to each other quite deliberately.  Tell me, do you have evidence that GLAAD has punched someone in the face.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> FACIT: while I agree with Foxfyre more than she realizes that intolerance is an issue worth looking at, she deliberately started this OP just to defame Liberals, just as she did it on the open forum, and when she got all upset because too many people challenged her, she just called them all "trolls" and asked the thread to be closed. Ok, fine, her call.
> 
> Now, here in the CDZ, any argument brought against any point she makes is responded to with intolerance on her part.
> 
> I want to thank Foxfyre from the bottom of my heart for proving that intolerance usually resides with those who scream against it the most.
> 
> Oh, and BTW, Foxfyre, gotta minute and second marker for me, now that I have asked you for the 5th and final time? Did you even watch 10 minutes of that video that you praised to high heaven, or not?
> 
> So, I am now done with this thread.  You all can have fun with the rest of it.
Click to expand...


I made a very strong point in the last thread and this one that this was not a liberal or conservative issue and used illustrations from both camps.  I have repeated those examples from both camps more than once.  I have reprimanded those who have tried to make it a liberal or conservative issue.  So once again you have misquoted me and mischaracterized what I have posted.  And yeah, I'll call you on it every single time.

As I will usually be consistent on focusing on the thread topic and resist all those who try to divert from that topic.  If you see my not dealing with off topic subjects and insistance that we focus on the thread topic as intolerance, well that's your right to do.

I also neither called for the other thread to be closed or even reviewed.  So again you have stated a falsehood about what I have done.

An apology or at least an acknowledgment of that would be seen as a grown up honorable thing to do. Alas, I no longer hope for such apology or acknowledgment from anybody on the left.

But why don't you guys start your own thread where you won't be bound to this thread topic and can bring in all the stuff you would rather talk about?


----------



## Plasmaball

Foxfyre said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> GLAAD's response was a *REACTION* to PR's intolerant *ACTION*.
> 
> Expecting me to be intolerant of a reaction to intolerance is nonsensical. It is also a betrayal of GLAAD's rights to express their opinion. In essence you are asking me to betray their rights and by doing so, my own rights.
> 
> If that is what you expect from me then I need a sound logical basis for giving up my own rights. Please provide me with the reason why I would be willing to surrender my rights to react to intolerance and bigotry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at somepoint you have to wonder if it would not be better to just start your own thread on this so the rest of us can all agree on whats going on and stop arguing against whatever this is that she and the other person is doing.
> 
> It will be a very short thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be most happy if you would do that.  Perhaps there woulden't be so much reading dysfunction on your own thread and all of you who refuse to focus on the thread topic and insist on characterizing it as something it isn't would be much happier.  See?  Derideo Te agrees with you.
> 
> (And I still think it must be something in the water some folks drink that makes them incapable of focusing on a concept and discussing it honestly.)
Click to expand...


seriously Fox?I think its you who is having trouble reading. You keep repeating this over and over again and everyone has been on topic this whole time. Its more like this is some sort of tactic you are using in order to keep your thread moving and you dont have to admit to anything. 

You are the one who wants to make things criminal. You are the one who wants to strip people of their rights. You are the one who is being intolerant of other people and their actions.Remember when you said Liberals don't like consequence? 

The simple fact that you do not understand that everything ties into one another really says everything. You either ignore things that show you to be wrong, or you claim nobody is staying on topic a if a victim. 

I've seen nothing but partisan intellectual dishonesty, and again this is the issue with the CDZ. It allows those type of posts(opinions) a legit footing when they should be put in a corner and told NO.


----------



## Plasmaball

foxfyre said:


> derideo_te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> tolerance for his right to believe whatever he believes about blacks?  Absolutely however reprehensible to me that is, and his views are mostly reprehensible to me.  But if i want to be allowed my opinion about blacks--which is the polar opposite of what david duke has preached--then i have to allow him his opinion.  What i don't have to allow is if he acts out his opinions and is hurting/harming people.  But just holding an opinion?  Yes.  He should be allowed to hold even an intolerant, disgusting, bigoted, prejudiced opinion without fear that some angry mob will come after him.
> 
> *for who among us is wise enough to dictate to any of us what any of us must think, believe, be without fear of some angry mob, group, or organization will come after us to hurt us?  Do you trust me to make up such a list of what is acceptable to think, believe, speak?  I sure as hell don't trust any of you, even those i love the most, to make up such a list for me*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but aren't you making up a list for me as to what i must deem to be *unacceptable* and putting what glaad said right at the top?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what list?  Are you truly incapable of quoting what i presented in the op as the thread topic and discussing what is said there honestly and objectively?  Are you truly incapable of characterizing my position honestly and as i have presented it?  I expected more from you, frankly, as i have always considered you one of the intelligent liberals capable of reasoning and analyzing something objectively.  And you have made posts that did address the op and agreed that it is wrong to physically and/or materially punish people for no other reason than they expressed an opinion that somebody didn't like.
> 
> And now you're backing off that?   Why?
> 
> *if you think i am wrong in the op, give me a rationale for how i am wrong.  Why i am wrong.  That's what grown up discussion is.  Don't try to put words in my mouth i haven't said and wouldn't say*.
Click to expand...


we have!


----------



## Derideo_Te

Foxfyre said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tolerance for his right to believe whatever he believes about blacks?  Absolutely however reprehensible to me that is, and his views are mostly reprehensible to me.  But if I want to be allowed my opinion about blacks--which is the polar opposite of what David Duke has preached--then I have to allow him his opinion.  What I don't have to allow is if he acts out his opinions and is hurting/harming people.  But just holding an opinion?  Yes.  He should be allowed to hold even an intolerant, disgusting, bigoted, prejudiced opinion without fear that some angry mob will come after him.
> 
> *For who among us is wise enough to dictate to any of us what any of us must think, believe, be without fear of some angry mob, group, or organization will come after us to hurt us?  Do you trust me to make up such a list of what is acceptable to think, believe, speak?  I sure as hell don't trust any of you, even those I love the most, to make up such a list for me*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But aren't you making up a list for me as to what I must deem to be *unacceptable* and putting what GLAAD said right at the top?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What list?*  Are you truly incapable of quoting what I presented in the OP as the thread topic and discussing what is SAID there honestly and objectively?  Are you truly incapable of characterizing my position honestly and as I have presented it?  I expected more from you, frankly, as I have always considered you one of the intelligent liberals capable of reasoning and analyzing something objectively.  And you have made posts that did address the OP and agreed that it is wrong to physically and/or materially punish people for no other reason than they expressed an opinion that somebody didn't like.
> 
> And now you're backing off that?   Why?
> 
> If you think I am wrong in the OP, give me a rationale for HOW I am wrong.  WHY I am wrong.  That's what grown up discussion is.  Don't try to put words in my mouth I haven't said and wouldn't say.
Click to expand...


The list is the same one that you referred to in the bolded text in blue. You brought up the concept of a list so I opted to use it in reverse as a means to try and show you what you asking of us instead. 

And your reaction seems disproportionate to what I said. I asked you to give me a sound reason why I must deny GLAAD their inalienable right (your OP words) to REACT as they deem fit to the intolerance that was directed at them by PR?



> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.



In essence you want me to deny GLAAD *their* rights while claiming that failure to do so would be an erosion of *our* rights.

That makes no logical sense at all because they are the same rights.

No, it doesn't matter if they are constitutional rights or social morality and ethics. The principle remains identical.

It would be immoral and unethical of me to condemn GLAAD for doing something that I would do myself while claiming my right to do it and denying their equal right.


----------



## Foxfyre

Plasmaball said:


> foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> derideo_te said:
> 
> 
> 
> but aren't you making up a list for me as to what i must deem to be *unacceptable* and putting what glaad said right at the top?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what list?  Are you truly incapable of quoting what i presented in the op as the thread topic and discussing what is said there honestly and objectively?  Are you truly incapable of characterizing my position honestly and as i have presented it?  I expected more from you, frankly, as i have always considered you one of the intelligent liberals capable of reasoning and analyzing something objectively.  And you have made posts that did address the op and agreed that it is wrong to physically and/or materially punish people for no other reason than they expressed an opinion that somebody didn't like.
> 
> And now you're backing off that?   Why?
> 
> *if you think i am wrong in the op, give me a rationale for how i am wrong.  Why i am wrong.  That's what grown up discussion is.  Don't try to put words in my mouth i haven't said and wouldn't say*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we have!
Click to expand...


No, you haven't.  You've made a lot of statements about legalities and First Amendment and used a lot of non sequitur and diversionary tactics and personal aspersions re me or other unrelated persons.  You've accused me of wanting to do a lot of stuff that you can't show in my posts that I want to do.

But not one of you has provided a _rationale_ for why a person should be denied the ability to express his/her opinion without fear.  The closest anybody has come to such a rationale is the theory that somebody might act on the opinion somebody expresses.  But nobody on the left would respond when it was pointed out that anybody might act on ANY opinion whether or not it was an opinion that you guys would consider okay.  And if we could not express ANY opinion for fear somebody might act it out negatively, nobody could express any opinion on anything ever.

I provided a list of possible opposing opinions for consideration of what would be okay to express and what would not.  Nobody commented on them except Asclepias who said he shouldn't be expected to answer those.  Nor would he or anybody else agree on who should be given authority to designate which of those examples would be okay to express and what could be ethically physically and/or materially punished.

So nobody has rebutted the OP as written and intended.  Lots of accusations, mischaracterizations, downright falsehoods about what the OP says, assumptions, and derogatory comments about it, but not a single straight up intellectually honest rationale rebuttal.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, just to recap, just so the entire world can see this:
> 
> Foxfyre starts a thread on intolerance.
> 
> A poster contributes this video:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html#post8386087
> 
> The video is of Evan Sayet, a stand-up comedian and self identified "former Liberal Jew from New York", who rages on the Democratic party and Liberalism with one ad hominem attack after another, without even one shred of fact or information. All opinon, no discourse. NO tolerance.
> 
> Foxfyre responds to that posting with this:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html#post8386380
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one.  *Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people challenged that video. Foxfyre castigated them for doing this and challenged people (meaning: Liberals) to actually quote parts of the video and bring evidence against her argument that Sayet did his homework.
> 
> To date, I am the only person to have done exactly that, in THREE different postings, here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-19.html#post8405372
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8405489
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8405545
> 
> As a result, all Foxfyre has done is to insult people's reading ability or say that there must be something in the water.....
> 
> So, I turned the screws on Foxfyre and challenged here to show me a minute and second marker on the video that she has so praised to back up her claim that Sayet did his homework. And until now, no response.
> 
> I also asked Foxfyre if she even watched the video at all. Still, no response.
> 
> But she did give me this response:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8406102
> 
> 
> 
> the bolded: I pointed out to here that absolutely none of that is true. Since when is screaming talking points, without facts, without an argument, without logic, "scholarly". Bullshit.
> 
> Then Foxfyre admits to a member that she wants us to be intolerant of GLAAD's actions (which is actually just a way of saying that she wants us to be intolerant of GLAAD):
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8406525
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction *which, in my opinion, was an evil act.  I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like.  I want everybody to make such hatefulness socially unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I then reminded people that we are tolerant/intolerant of people, not inanimate objects. We accept or reject inanimate objects, like ideas.  And just to remind, Foxfyre, you deliberate tried to link GLAAD with people punching someone. You put the two sentences next to each other quite deliberately.  Tell me, do you have evidence that GLAAD has punched someone in the face.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> FACIT: while I agree with Foxfyre more than she realizes that intolerance is an issue worth looking at, she deliberately started this OP just to defame Liberals, just as she did it on the open forum, and when she got all upset because too many people challenged her, she just called them all "trolls" and asked the thread to be closed. Ok, fine, her call.
> 
> Now, here in the CDZ, any argument brought against any point she makes is responded to with intolerance on her part.
> 
> I want to thank Foxfyre from the bottom of my heart for proving that intolerance usually resides with those who scream against it the most.
> 
> Oh, and BTW, Foxfyre, gotta minute and second marker for me, now that I have asked you for the 5th and final time? Did you even watch 10 minutes of that video that you praised to high heaven, or not?
> 
> So, I am now done with this thread.  You all can have fun with the rest of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I made a very strong point in the last thread and this one that this was not a liberal or conservative issue and used illustrations from both camps.  I have repeated those examples from both camps more than once.  I have reprimanded those who have tried to make it a liberal or conservative issue.  So once again you have misquoted me and mischaracterized what I have posted.  And yeah, I'll call you on it every single time.
> 
> As I will usually be consistent on focusing on the thread topic and resist all those who try to divert from that topic.  If you see my not dealing with off topic subjects and insistance that we focus on the thread topic as intolerance, well that's your right to do.
> 
> *I also neither called for the other thread to be closed or even reviewed.*  So again you have stated a falsehood about what I have done.
> 
> *An apology or at least an acknowledgment of that would be seen as a grown up honorable thing to do. Alas, I no longer hope for such apology or acknowledgment from anybody on the left.*
> 
> But why don't you guys start your own thread where you won't be bound to this thread topic and can bring in all the stuff you would rather talk about?
Click to expand...



first bolded: guaranteed, I am going to ask the mods about this.

second bolded: if it ends up I was in error, I will apologize immediate. But then again, you absolutely ruined any spirit of cooperation with the last bolded sentence or yours. Hey, we are in the CDZ, remember?

Why even have people contribute to a thread if all you are really interested in hearing confirmation of what you want to hear?

Oh, and gotta minute and second marker for me? Did you even watch the video?

This is now the SIXTH time I have asked you. Fascinating. You talk about people needing to be grown up. Perhaps you can also be grown up enough to answer two very simple, easy to answer questions.

And in closing, you only reprimanded Liberals, not Conservatives. I was there. I saw it with my own eyes.


----------



## Mertex

Statistikhengst said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.
> 
> The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.
> 
> Here is a link to it.
> 
> Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.
> 
> Really.
> 
> It's THAT good!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2:12
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I've gotta assume that just about everybody in this room thinks that the Democrats are wrong on just about every issue. Well, here to propose to you, it's just just about every issue, it's quite literally every issue. It's not just wrong, it's as wrong as wrong can be. It is 180 degrees from right and it is diametrically opposed to that which is good, right and successful."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not a statement of fact. It is an opinion, a very intolerant one, for he does not even give a long list of issues.
> 
> 
> And this is supposed to be reasonable discourse? This is supposed to be tolerance?
Click to expand...


It seems to me that this whole issue on the part of the "right"  boils down to "When someone in my party that I agree with wholeheartedly says something, whether backed by facts or not, it is totally acceptable and nobody should get their panties in a wad over it, but when someone from the opposing party says something that I don't agree with, they totally should be held accountable, even found guilty of a crime."


----------



## Mertex

Plasmaball said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> That statement was not in the OP.  And even if it was, saying what somebody does should be illegal is not the same thing as saying that somebody should be illegal.
> 
> So I still expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something I did not say in the OP.
> 
> I will expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something about GLAAD that I did not say.
> 
> And I fully realize I probably won't get what I expect.
> 
> And could we please now focus on the topic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=24916]Plasmaball[/MENTION], if you want my opinion on something, I'll be happy to provide it.
> 
> Perhaps you could ask it in a way that is straightforward and honest, without misrepresenting what I or someone else said.  How in the world was I supposed to know you were referring to GLAAD when it wasn't even mentioned in the OP?  If you're going to dishonestly use Foxfyre to make a point -- that appears to be what you're trying to do -- I'm not interested in playing along.
> 
> *The intellectual dishonesty here just doesn't stop*.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i dont care about you and your opinion anymore. You have already lost all respect i had for you, so your opinion is now irrelevant. This is the last post i will be responding to you in this thread.
> 
> You are wrong, you've been wrong this whole time, you've been given numerous answers to your questions, and you still decided to play games.
> The CDZ isnt the place for you.
> 
> Bolded part-irony.
Click to expand...



He's just like the dude on the video....accusing the left of doing something that the right is on record for doing....i.e. his own posts.


----------



## Foxfyre

Statistikhengst said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, just to recap, just so the entire world can see this:
> 
> Foxfyre starts a thread on intolerance.
> 
> A poster contributes this video:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html#post8386087
> 
> The video is of Evan Sayet, a stand-up comedian and self identified "former Liberal Jew from New York", who rages on the Democratic party and Liberalism with one ad hominem attack after another, without even one shred of fact or information. All opinon, no discourse. NO tolerance.
> 
> Foxfyre responds to that posting with this:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html#post8386380
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people challenged that video. Foxfyre castigated them for doing this and challenged people (meaning: Liberals) to actually quote parts of the video and bring evidence against her argument that Sayet did his homework.
> 
> To date, I am the only person to have done exactly that, in THREE different postings, here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-19.html#post8405372
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8405489
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8405545
> 
> As a result, all Foxfyre has done is to insult people's reading ability or say that there must be something in the water.....
> 
> So, I turned the screws on Foxfyre and challenged here to show me a minute and second marker on the video that she has so praised to back up her claim that Sayet did his homework. And until now, no response.
> 
> I also asked Foxfyre if she even watched the video at all. Still, no response.
> 
> But she did give me this response:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8406102
> 
> 
> 
> the bolded: I pointed out to here that absolutely none of that is true. Since when is screaming talking points, without facts, without an argument, without logic, "scholarly". Bullshit.
> 
> Then Foxfyre admits to a member that she wants us to be intolerant of GLAAD's actions (which is actually just a way of saying that she wants us to be intolerant of GLAAD):
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8406525
> 
> 
> 
> I then reminded people that we are tolerant/intolerant of people, not inanimate objects. We accept or reject inanimate objects, like ideas.  And just to remind, Foxfyre, you deliberate tried to link GLAAD with people punching someone. You put the two sentences next to each other quite deliberately.  Tell me, do you have evidence that GLAAD has punched someone in the face.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> FACIT: while I agree with Foxfyre more than she realizes that intolerance is an issue worth looking at, she deliberately started this OP just to defame Liberals, just as she did it on the open forum, and when she got all upset because too many people challenged her, she just called them all "trolls" and asked the thread to be closed. Ok, fine, her call.
> 
> Now, here in the CDZ, any argument brought against any point she makes is responded to with intolerance on her part.
> 
> I want to thank Foxfyre from the bottom of my heart for proving that intolerance usually resides with those who scream against it the most.
> 
> Oh, and BTW, Foxfyre, gotta minute and second marker for me, now that I have asked you for the 5th and final time? Did you even watch 10 minutes of that video that you praised to high heaven, or not?
> 
> So, I am now done with this thread.  You all can have fun with the rest of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made a very strong point in the last thread and this one that this was not a liberal or conservative issue and used illustrations from both camps.  I have repeated those examples from both camps more than once.  I have reprimanded those who have tried to make it a liberal or conservative issue.  So once again you have misquoted me and mischaracterized what I have posted.  And yeah, I'll call you on it every single time.
> 
> As I will usually be consistent on focusing on the thread topic and resist all those who try to divert from that topic.  If you see my not dealing with off topic subjects and insistance that we focus on the thread topic as intolerance, well that's your right to do.
> 
> *I also neither called for the other thread to be closed or even reviewed.*  So again you have stated a falsehood about what I have done.
> 
> *An apology or at least an acknowledgment of that would be seen as a grown up honorable thing to do. Alas, I no longer hope for such apology or acknowledgment from anybody on the left.*
> 
> But why don't you guys start your own thread where you won't be bound to this thread topic and can bring in all the stuff you would rather talk about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> first bolded: guaranteed, I am going to ask the mods about this.
> 
> second bolded: if it ends up I was in error, I will apologize immediate. But then again, you absolutely ruined any spirit of cooperation with the last bolded sentence or yours. Hey, we are in the CDZ, remember?
> 
> Why even have people contribute to a thread if all you are really interested in hearing confirmation of what you want to hear?
> 
> Oh, and gotta minute and second marker for me? Did you even watch the video?
> 
> This is now the SIXTH time I have asked you. Fascinating. You talk about people needing to be grown up. Perhaps you can also be grown up enough to answer two very simple, easy to answer questions.
> 
> And in closing, you only reprimanded Liberals, not Conservatives. I was there. I saw it with my own eyes.
Click to expand...


Ask the mods anything you wish.  I did not ask the mods to review or close the thread.

You obviously are not reading the thread or you would have seen several times now that I clearly said I did watch the video and all of the video.  And you were not paying attention if you think I reprimanded only liberals for introducing content that was off topic.  One of my frustrations with you is that you aren't reading what is written and keep asking the same questions that have been asked and answered.

I would be crazy wow happy if any of you would quote the OP accurately and as written, and provide a good argument for why you disagree with it.  When any of you do, you will find I am maybe the most tolerant of opinions I don't agree with as anybody on this board.  But if you expect me to be tolerant of inadvertent or deliberate attempts to change the subject or derail the thread, yep I can be pretty damn intolerant.


----------



## Plasmaball

Foxfyre said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> what list?  Are you truly incapable of quoting what i presented in the op as the thread topic and discussing what is said there honestly and objectively?  Are you truly incapable of characterizing my position honestly and as i have presented it?  I expected more from you, frankly, as i have always considered you one of the intelligent liberals capable of reasoning and analyzing something objectively.  And you have made posts that did address the op and agreed that it is wrong to physically and/or materially punish people for no other reason than they expressed an opinion that somebody didn't like.
> 
> And now you're backing off that?   Why?
> 
> *if you think i am wrong in the op, give me a rationale for how i am wrong.  Why i am wrong.  That's what grown up discussion is.  Don't try to put words in my mouth i haven't said and wouldn't say*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we have!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you haven't.  You've made a lot of statements about legalities and First Amendment and used a lot of non sequitur and diversionary tactics and personal aspersions re me or other unrelated persons.  You've accused me of wanting to do a lot of stuff that you can't show in my posts that I want to do.
> 
> But not one of you has provided a _rationale_ for why a person should be denied the ability to express his/her opinion without fear.  The closest anybody has come to such a rationale is the theory that somebody might act on the opinion somebody expresses.  But nobody on the left would respond when it was pointed out that anybody might act on ANY opinion whether or not it was an opinion that you guys would consider okay.  And if we could not express ANY opinion for fear somebody might act it out negatively, nobody could express any opinion on anything ever.
> 
> I provided a list of possible opposing opinions for consideration of what would be okay to express and what would not.  Nobody commented on them except Asclepias who said he shouldn't be expected to answer those.  Nor would he or anybody else agree on who should be given authority to designate which of those examples would be okay to express and what could be ethically physically and/or materially punished.
> 
> So nobody has rebutted the OP as written and intended.  Lots of accusations, mischaracterizations, downright falsehoods about what the OP says, assumptions, and derogatory comments about it, but not a single straight up intellectually honest rationale rebuttal.
Click to expand...


You literally said you would make the actions of Glaad criminal aka illegal. YOU said this. I didnt make this up. You are being dishonest. Im done with you. Enjoy talking to yourself. I made my own thread.


----------



## Montrovant

Statistikhengst said:


> *So, just to recap*, so that the entire world can see this:
> 
> Foxfyre starts a thread on intolerance.
> 
> A poster contributes this video:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html#post8386087
> 
> The video is of Evan Sayet, a stand-up comedian and self identified "former Liberal Jew from New York", who rages on the Democratic party and Liberalism with one ad hominem attack after another, without even one shred of fact or information. All opinon, no discourse. NO tolerance.
> 
> Here once again is that 48 minute video:
> 
> Understanding How Modern Liberals Think- Evan Sayet - YouTube
> 
> Foxfyre responds to that posting with this:
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html#post8386380
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one.  *Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people challenged that video. Foxfyre castigated them for doing this and challenged people (meaning: Liberals) to actually quote parts of the video and bring evidence against her argument that Sayet did his homework.
> 
> To date, I am the only person to have done exactly that, in THREE different postings, here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-19.html#post8405372
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8405489
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8405545
> 
> As a result, all Foxfyre has done is to insult people's reading ability or say that there must be something in the water.....
> 
> So, I turned the screws on Foxfyre and challenged her to show me a minute and second marker on the video that she has so praised to back up her claim that Sayet did his homework. And until now, no response.
> 
> I also asked Foxfyre if she even watched the video at all. Still, no response.
> 
> But she did give me this response:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8406102
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video is of a lecture of a person giving *what he believes is an informed opinion/observation/conclusion and his topic is the M.O. of liberals in our modern society.  Right or wrong he provides a reasoned rationale for each point he presents and that is all that is required in order for it to be a scholarly lecture.*   I have not mentioned the video in any context other than that.   I thanked the member who posted it because the video DOES, among other things, provide a rationale for why liberals are so often compelled or motivated to suppress opinion and also to condemn and/or physically and materially attack those who express an opinion the liberals do not agree with.   I was also clear that I did not agree with every point the speaker made and encouraged anybody to present a comparable presentation re conservatives related to suppression of speech and/or opinion.
> 
> Now then.  Who has been more focused on the topic of suppression of speech and opinion in this thread and who has been more focused on condemning the video or accusing me or somebody else who has expressed an opinion they don't agree with?  Conservatives?  or Liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the bolded: I pointed out to here that absolutely none of that is true. Since when is screaming talking points, without facts, without an argument, without logic, "scholarly". Bullshit.
> 
> Then Foxfyre admits to a member that she wants us to be intolerant of GLAAD's actions (which is actually just a way of saying that she wants us to be intolerant of GLAAD):
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8406525
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction *which, in my opinion, was an evil act.  I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like.  I want everybody to make such hatefulness socially unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I then reminded people that we are tolerant/intolerant of people, not inanimate objects. We accept or reject inanimate objects, like ideas.  And just to note, Foxfyre, you deliberately tried to link GLAAD with people punching someone. You put the two sentences next to each other quite deliberately.  Tell me, do you have evidence that GLAAD has punched someone in the face? I would like to see that evidence.
> 
> Or perhaps on my next thread, should I put these two sentences together?
> 
> "Now, we should be more tolerant of Republicans, they also have their difficulties. So to child rapists and mass murderers."
> 
> Gee, I wonder if people would like to see that kind of stuff..
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> FACIT: while I agree with Foxfyre more than she realizes that intolerance is an issue worth looking at, she deliberately started this OP just to defame Liberals, just as she did it on the open forum, and when she got all upset because too many people challenged her, she just called them all "trolls" and asked the thread to be closed. Ok, fine, her call.
> 
> Now, here in the CDZ, any argument brought against any point she makes is responded to with intolerance on her part.
> 
> *I want to thank Foxfyre from the bottom of my heart for proving that intolerance usually resides with those who scream against it the most.*
> 
> Oh, and BTW, Foxfyre, gotta minute and second marker for me, now that I have asked you for the 5th and final time? Did you even watch 10 minutes of that video that you praised to high heaven, or not?
> 
> So, I am now done with this thread.  You all can have fun with the rest of it.
Click to expand...


 [MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

You say you 'reminded' people that we are tolerant of people and not inanimate objects.  You go on to call ideas inanimate objects.  Ideas are NOT objects, and tolerance is NOT confined to people by any definition I'm aware of.  In fact, in looking up the definition of tolerance, multiple sources use tolerance of ideas in at least one of the definitions.  Objects, on the other hand, are specifically material things.

Whatever the validity of your other points, you are quite wrong with this.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made a very strong point in the last thread and this one that this was not a liberal or conservative issue and used illustrations from both camps.  I have repeated those examples from both camps more than once.  I have reprimanded those who have tried to make it a liberal or conservative issue.  So once again you have misquoted me and mischaracterized what I have posted.  And yeah, I'll call you on it every single time.
> 
> As I will usually be consistent on focusing on the thread topic and resist all those who try to divert from that topic.  If you see my not dealing with off topic subjects and insistance that we focus on the thread topic as intolerance, well that's your right to do.
> 
> *I also neither called for the other thread to be closed or even reviewed.*  So again you have stated a falsehood about what I have done.
> 
> *An apology or at least an acknowledgment of that would be seen as a grown up honorable thing to do. Alas, I no longer hope for such apology or acknowledgment from anybody on the left.*
> 
> But why don't you guys start your own thread where you won't be bound to this thread topic and can bring in all the stuff you would rather talk about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> first bolded: guaranteed, I am going to ask the mods about this.
> 
> second bolded: if it ends up I was in error, I will apologize immediate. But then again, you absolutely ruined any spirit of cooperation with the last bolded sentence or yours. Hey, we are in the CDZ, remember?
> 
> Why even have people contribute to a thread if all you are really interested in hearing confirmation of what you want to hear?
> 
> Oh, and gotta minute and second marker for me? Did you even watch the video?
> 
> This is now the SIXTH time I have asked you. Fascinating. You talk about people needing to be grown up. Perhaps you can also be grown up enough to answer two very simple, easy to answer questions.
> 
> And in closing, you only reprimanded Liberals, not Conservatives. I was there. I saw it with my own eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask the mods anything you wish.  I did not ask the mods to review or close the thread.
> 
> You obviously are not reading the thread or you would have seen several times now that I clearly said I did watch the video and all of the video.  And you were not paying attention if you think I reprimanded only liberals for introducing content that was off topic.  *One of my frustrations with you is that you aren't reading what is written and keep asking the same questions that have been asked and answered.*
> 
> I would be crazy wow happy if any of you would quote the OP accurately and as written, and provide a good argument for why you disagree with it.  When any of you do, you will find I am maybe the most tolerant of opinions I don't agree with as anybody on this board.  But if you expect me to be tolerant of inadvertent or deliberate attempts to change the subject or derail the thread, yep I can be pretty damn intolerant.
Click to expand...




I gotta say, you appear to be excellent at attacking people, even in the CDZ, but when it comes to responding with facts, you do seem to be a little slow on the uptake. Is that a tactic of yours, or what?

RE: facts -

Since you watched all of the video, gotta minute and second marker for me to back up your argument vis-a-vis the video?  This is now the SEVENTH time I have asked you. Come on, don't be so intellectually lazy. You challenged libs to quote from the video, and I did that, three times. Your turn. Or are you saying that you are not in a position to present some evidence?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Montrovant said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So, just to recap*, so that the entire world can see this:
> 
> Foxfyre starts a thread on intolerance.
> 
> A poster contributes this video:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html#post8386087
> 
> The video is of Evan Sayet, a stand-up comedian and self identified "former Liberal Jew from New York", who rages on the Democratic party and Liberalism with one ad hominem attack after another, without even one shred of fact or information. All opinon, no discourse. NO tolerance.
> 
> Here once again is that 48 minute video:
> 
> Understanding How Modern Liberals Think- Evan Sayet - YouTube
> 
> Foxfyre responds to that posting with this:
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html#post8386380
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one.  *Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people challenged that video. Foxfyre castigated them for doing this and challenged people (meaning: Liberals) to actually quote parts of the video and bring evidence against her argument that Sayet did his homework.
> 
> To date, I am the only person to have done exactly that, in THREE different postings, here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-19.html#post8405372
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8405489
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8405545
> 
> As a result, all Foxfyre has done is to insult people's reading ability or say that there must be something in the water.....
> 
> So, I turned the screws on Foxfyre and challenged her to show me a minute and second marker on the video that she has so praised to back up her claim that Sayet did his homework. And until now, no response.
> 
> I also asked Foxfyre if she even watched the video at all. Still, no response.
> 
> But she did give me this response:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8406102
> 
> 
> 
> the bolded: I pointed out to here that absolutely none of that is true. Since when is screaming talking points, without facts, without an argument, without logic, "scholarly". Bullshit.
> 
> Then Foxfyre admits to a member that she wants us to be intolerant of GLAAD's actions (which is actually just a way of saying that she wants us to be intolerant of GLAAD):
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8406525
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction *which, in my opinion, was an evil act.  I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like.  I want everybody to make such hatefulness socially unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I then reminded people that we are tolerant/intolerant of people, not inanimate objects. We accept or reject inanimate objects, like ideas.  And just to note, Foxfyre, you deliberately tried to link GLAAD with people punching someone. You put the two sentences next to each other quite deliberately.  Tell me, do you have evidence that GLAAD has punched someone in the face? I would like to see that evidence.
> 
> Or perhaps on my next thread, should I put these two sentences together?
> 
> "Now, we should be more tolerant of Republicans, they also have their difficulties. So to child rapists and mass murderers."
> 
> Gee, I wonder if people would like to see that kind of stuff..
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> FACIT: while I agree with Foxfyre more than she realizes that intolerance is an issue worth looking at, she deliberately started this OP just to defame Liberals, just as she did it on the open forum, and when she got all upset because too many people challenged her, she just called them all "trolls" and asked the thread to be closed. Ok, fine, her call.
> 
> Now, here in the CDZ, any argument brought against any point she makes is responded to with intolerance on her part.
> 
> *I want to thank Foxfyre from the bottom of my heart for proving that intolerance usually resides with those who scream against it the most.*
> 
> Oh, and BTW, Foxfyre, gotta minute and second marker for me, now that I have asked you for the 5th and final time? Did you even watch 10 minutes of that video that you praised to high heaven, or not?
> 
> So, I am now done with this thread.  You all can have fun with the rest of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]
> 
> You say you 'reminded' people that we are tolerant of people and not inanimate objects.  You go on to call ideas inanimate objects.  Ideas are NOT objects, and tolerance is NOT confined to people by any definition I'm aware of.  In fact, in looking up the definition of tolerance, multiple sources use tolerance of ideas in at least one of the definitions.  Objects, on the other hand, are specifically material things.
> 
> Whatever the validity of your other points, you are quite wrong with this.
Click to expand...



Wordplay, only wordplay. But if you wanna play, ok:

ideas are inanimate. There is no law that says an object must have a physical form. Go check it out.


----------



## Foxfyre

Statistikhengst said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> first bolded: guaranteed, I am going to ask the mods about this.
> 
> second bolded: if it ends up I was in error, I will apologize immediate. But then again, you absolutely ruined any spirit of cooperation with the last bolded sentence or yours. Hey, we are in the CDZ, remember?
> 
> Why even have people contribute to a thread if all you are really interested in hearing confirmation of what you want to hear?
> 
> Oh, and gotta minute and second marker for me? Did you even watch the video?
> 
> This is now the SIXTH time I have asked you. Fascinating. You talk about people needing to be grown up. Perhaps you can also be grown up enough to answer two very simple, easy to answer questions.
> 
> And in closing, you only reprimanded Liberals, not Conservatives. I was there. I saw it with my own eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the mods anything you wish.  I did not ask the mods to review or close the thread.
> 
> You obviously are not reading the thread or you would have seen several times now that I clearly said I did watch the video and all of the video.  And you were not paying attention if you think I reprimanded only liberals for introducing content that was off topic.  *One of my frustrations with you is that you aren't reading what is written and keep asking the same questions that have been asked and answered.*
> 
> I would be crazy wow happy if any of you would quote the OP accurately and as written, and provide a good argument for why you disagree with it.  When any of you do, you will find I am maybe the most tolerant of opinions I don't agree with as anybody on this board.  But if you expect me to be tolerant of inadvertent or deliberate attempts to change the subject or derail the thread, yep I can be pretty damn intolerant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gotta say, you appear to be excellent at attacking people, even in the CDZ, but when it comes to responding with facts, you do seem to be a little slow on the uptake. Is that a tactic of yours, or what?
> 
> RE: facts -
> 
> Since you watched all of the video, gotta minute and second marker for me to back up your argument vis-a-vis the video?  This is now the SEVENTH time I have asked you. Come on, don't be so intellectually lazy. You challenged libs to quote from the video, and I did that, three times. Your turn. Or are you saying that you are not in a position to present some evidence?
Click to expand...


Why is it that you can say almost any negative thing about me and it is not a personal attack but if I object not to you, but to what you have said, that IS a personal attack?  Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can.  Nobody has done that I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it.  All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.

Other than what is relative to this thread topic, I am not interested in discussing the video here.

And I have no clue what you are asking about the minute and second marker. I didn't pick out any phrases from the video to comment on and I sure as hell didn't time any of it.  I did find myself agreeing with some of his comments, thinking some stuff merited additional research, and I didn't agree with him on some points though I would have to listen to it again to jog my memory about exactly what.  I really choose not to do that because I don't think it is something important to do.


----------



## Foxfyre

Plasmaball said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you haven't.  You've made a lot of statements about legalities and First Amendment and used a lot of non sequitur and diversionary tactics and personal aspersions re me or other unrelated persons.  You've accused me of wanting to do a lot of stuff that you can't show in my posts that I want to do.
> 
> But not one of you has provided a _rationale_ for why a person should be denied the ability to express his/her opinion without fear.  The closest anybody has come to such a rationale is the theory that somebody might act on the opinion somebody expresses.  But nobody on the left would respond when it was pointed out that anybody might act on ANY opinion whether or not it was an opinion that you guys would consider okay.  And if we could not express ANY opinion for fear somebody might act it out negatively, nobody could express any opinion on anything ever.
> 
> I provided a list of possible opposing opinions for consideration of what would be okay to express and what would not.  Nobody commented on them except Asclepias who said he shouldn't be expected to answer those.  Nor would he or anybody else agree on who should be given authority to designate which of those examples would be okay to express and what could be ethically physically and/or materially punished.
> 
> So nobody has rebutted the OP as written and intended.  Lots of accusations, mischaracterizations, downright falsehoods about what the OP says, assumptions, and derogatory comments about it, but not a single straight up intellectually honest rationale rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You literally said you would make the actions of Glaad criminal aka illegal. YOU said this. I didnt make this up. You are being dishonest. Im done with you. Enjoy talking to yourself. I made my own thread.
Click to expand...


You are being dishonest when you do not provide the exact statement IN CONTEXT complete with the qualifiers that accompany it.  But you are done?  Really?  Honest?  For sure?  (There is a God.)  Good luck with your thread.


----------



## Plasmaball

Foxfyre said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you haven't.  You've made a lot of statements about legalities and First Amendment and used a lot of non sequitur and diversionary tactics and personal aspersions re me or other unrelated persons.  You've accused me of wanting to do a lot of stuff that you can't show in my posts that I want to do.
> 
> But not one of you has provided a _rationale_ for why a person should be denied the ability to express his/her opinion without fear.  The closest anybody has come to such a rationale is the theory that somebody might act on the opinion somebody expresses.  But nobody on the left would respond when it was pointed out that anybody might act on ANY opinion whether or not it was an opinion that you guys would consider okay.  And if we could not express ANY opinion for fear somebody might act it out negatively, nobody could express any opinion on anything ever.
> 
> I provided a list of possible opposing opinions for consideration of what would be okay to express and what would not.  Nobody commented on them except Asclepias who said he shouldn't be expected to answer those.  Nor would he or anybody else agree on who should be given authority to designate which of those examples would be okay to express and what could be ethically physically and/or materially punished.
> 
> So nobody has rebutted the OP as written and intended.  Lots of accusations, mischaracterizations, downright falsehoods about what the OP says, assumptions, and derogatory comments about it, but not a single straight up intellectually honest rationale rebuttal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You literally said you would make the actions of Glaad criminal aka illegal. YOU said this. I didnt make this up. You are being dishonest. Im done with you. Enjoy talking to yourself. I made my own thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are being dishonest when you do not provide the exact statement IN CONTEXT complete with the qualifiers that accompany it.  But you are done?  Really?  Honest?  For sure?  (There is a God.)  Good luck with your thread.
Click to expand...


its been given...BFGN posted it with a link to your post. You said it, you are dishonest. Or to use your tactic. Go look for yourself. Im not going to support someone who is lazy.


----------



## BDBoop

Foxfyre said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is not about Christian love.  This thread is about a person being allowed his/her beliefs and opinions without fear that an angry mob, group, or organization will come after him/her to hurt him/her physically and/or materially.
> 
> Would you like to try again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on whether you are going to continue to dodge or not.
> 
> BTW, got a minute marker for me for that video that you are so praising?
> 
> Tell me, did you even watch the video, even 10 minutes of it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will continue to object every time one of you misquotes me or mischaracterizes what I have said.  I watched every minute of that video to be sure of what the content was and to determine that there are elements in it that are pertinent to this thread, whether or not I or anybody else agrees with those elements.  I will continue to insist that members posting in this thread focus on the thread topic and will continue to resist every time you or anybody else tries to divert the attention from the thread topic.
> 
> And if that is your definition of 'dodge' then yeah, you can pretty well count on it.
Click to expand...


Minute and second marker, thanks much.


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> Ask the mods anything you wish.  I did not ask the mods to review or close the thread.
> 
> You obviously are not reading the thread or you would have seen several times now that I clearly said I did watch the video and all of the video.  And you were not paying attention if you think I reprimanded only liberals for introducing content that was off topic.  One of my frustrations with you is that you aren't reading what is written and keep asking the same questions that have been asked and answered.
> 
> I would be crazy wow happy if any of you would quote the OP accurately and as written, and provide a good argument for why you disagree with it.  When any of you do, you will find I am maybe the most tolerant of opinions I don't agree with as anybody on this board.  But if you expect me to be tolerant of inadvertent or deliberate attempts to change the subject or derail the thread, yep I can be pretty damn intolerant.





Foxfyre said:


> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?



I think this topic is based almost entirely on opinion rather than fact, so any rebuttal is merely another opinion.  As such, whether that rebuttal is a good argument or not is subjective.

Anyway : I think that this country is probably more tolerant than it has been for almost it's entire history.  More people are free to be who and what they are than at nearly any other time.  Minorities, women, people of varying religious and political beliefs...all have been suppressed through our history either by government or by societal norms.  Today they are more free to express themselves than at just about any other time.

Perhaps there is less tolerance now than in the decade or two before.  That's harder to argue.  But in general?  No, tolerance is not at any kind of low ebb in the United States.

I also think that the glut of communication methods, combined with a constantly increasing population, makes this seem more of an issue than it is.  I think people likely did the same things that have been discussed to go after others for their opinions in the past, but often people would not find out about it because there weren't nearly as many ways for that information to be spread.

I think that saying this intolerance (a premise I already disagree with) may lead to a loss of all of our rights and liberties is hyperbole.  I have not seen anyone who's rights or liberties have been curtailed in any incidents used as examples.  If societal norms or ethics change, that is not a lost liberty.  The right to do something does not equate to anyone's acceptance of it, or the right to do it in any format.  If I had seen an example of any rights actually being lost I might change my mind.

The urge to silence or hurt someone who says things that offend us is not a new one.  People have attempted to do so throughout human history I'd imagine.  In fact, it seems to me that the avenues considered acceptable to do just that have become more and more limited as time has gone on; we do not have duels, we do not allow fighting the way it used to be, etc.  I think that those changes were good ones and indicate how society has become more tolerant of expression of opinion.

I think that political correctness can go overboard, certainly.  There have been numerous examples, like suspending children for making a gun with their fingers or drawing a picture of a gun, or racial epithets being acceptable when certain people use them but not others, etc.  There are plenty of concepts of political correctness I disagree with.  

I am fine with the idea of changing societal norms so that trying to get someone fired because of their opinions is somewhat of a taboo.  I wouldn't take that kind of action unless there were fairly extreme circumstances involved.  However, at least when it's done in the form of a boycott, I think it is a perfectly reasonable action and just another expression of opinion.  It is when it turns into frivolous lawsuits or threats of blackmail that I think it becomes dangerous.

I am curious what reason, other than another person's opinion, there might be for someone to give a neg rep?  I don't use them, but this site is all about the exchange of opinions.  Why else would someone give a neg?


----------



## BDBoop

Foxfyre said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the mods anything you wish.  I did not ask the mods to review or close the thread.
> 
> You obviously are not reading the thread or you would have seen several times now that I clearly said I did watch the video and all of the video.  And you were not paying attention if you think I reprimanded only liberals for introducing content that was off topic.  *One of my frustrations with you is that you aren't reading what is written and keep asking the same questions that have been asked and answered.*
> 
> I would be crazy wow happy if any of you would quote the OP accurately and as written, and provide a good argument for why you disagree with it.  When any of you do, you will find I am maybe the most tolerant of opinions I don't agree with as anybody on this board.  But if you expect me to be tolerant of inadvertent or deliberate attempts to change the subject or derail the thread, yep I can be pretty damn intolerant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gotta say, you appear to be excellent at attacking people, even in the CDZ, but when it comes to responding with facts, you do seem to be a little slow on the uptake. Is that a tactic of yours, or what?
> 
> RE: facts -
> 
> Since you watched all of the video, gotta minute and second marker for me to back up your argument vis-a-vis the video?  This is now the SEVENTH time I have asked you. Come on, don't be so intellectually lazy. You challenged libs to quote from the video, and I did that, three times. Your turn. Or are you saying that you are not in a position to present some evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that you can say almost any negative thing about me and it is not a personal attack but if I object not to you, but to what you have said, that IS a personal attack?  Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can.  Nobody has done that I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it.  All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.
> 
> Other than what is relative to this thread topic, I am not interested in discussing the video here.
> 
> And I have no clue what you are asking about the minute and second marker. I didn't pick out any phrases from the video to comment on and I sure as hell didn't time any of it.  I did find myself agreeing with some of his comments, thinking some stuff merited additional research, and I didn't agree with him on some points though I would have to listen to it again to jog my memory about exactly what.  I really choose not to do that because I don't think it is something important to do.
Click to expand...


The minute and second marker is on the bottom of the video. Look at left end, it says zero. The right end says the full time of the video, and the horizontal bar between will show the time as it plays along.

That's all Stat is asking - that you give his request as much respect as he gave yours.


----------



## Mertex

Foxfyre said:


> Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can.  *Nobody has done that* I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it.  All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.



That is not a true statement.  I have done that, twice, I believe.  He claimed that Liberals hated America and thought that it deserved 9/11.  He didn't provide any facts/links to some liberal saying that, and yet I posted a link and an excerpt of what Pat Robertson said - he was the one that in essence blamed 9/11 on Americans.....in other words Americans deserved 9/11, and Pat Robertson is a Republican/conservative.  If you don't believe that is refuting, then you are changing the definition of it, because what the dude on the video blamed Liberals of saying/doing is on record that a Republican/conservative actually said it.

How can you offer any proof that "he can't read a Liberal's mind"?  It is common sense to know that you can't put all liberals in a box and say they think the same way...no more than you can say that about conservatives.  Do you really believe there is a statistic or reference out there to back him up on that?

And, the fact is that you didn't even respond to my posts where I did that.....maybe you  are the one that didn't have a comeback?


----------



## Montrovant

Statistikhengst said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]
> 
> You say you 'reminded' people that we are tolerant of people and not inanimate objects.  You go on to call ideas inanimate objects.  Ideas are NOT objects, and tolerance is NOT confined to people by any definition I'm aware of.  In fact, in looking up the definition of tolerance, multiple sources use tolerance of ideas in at least one of the definitions.  Objects, on the other hand, are specifically material things.
> 
> Whatever the validity of your other points, you are quite wrong with this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wordplay, only wordplay. But if you wanna play, ok:
> 
> ideas are inanimate. There is no law that says an object must have a physical form. Go check it out.
Click to expand...


You claimed that Foxfyre was incorrectly using tolerance and intolerance, but having looked at multiple sources for definitions of those words, I did not see that they are defined as only being about people.

You used a very common phrase in 'inanimate object'.  That phrase is not, that I can ever recall, used to describe a non-material thing.  Yes, perhaps you can say that an idea is an inanimate object if you use the right definitions of those two words.  That is certainly not, I would argue, the meaning of the phrase, however.


----------



## tinydancer

Mertex said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can.  *Nobody has done that* I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it.  All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a true statement.  I have done that, twice, I believe.  He claimed that Liberals hated America and thought that it deserved 9/11.  He didn't provide any facts/links to some liberal saying that, and yet I posted a link and an excerpt of what Pat Robertson said - he was the one that in essence blamed 9/11 on Americans.....in other words Americans deserved 9/11, and Pat Robertson is a Republican/conservative.  If you don't believe that is refuting, then you are changing the definition of it, because what the dude on the video blamed Liberals of saying/doing is on record that a Republican/conservative actually said it.
> 
> How can you offer any proof that "he can't read a Liberal's mind"?  It is common sense to know that you can't put all liberals in a box and say they think the same way...no more than you can say that about conservatives.  Do you really believe there is a statistic or reference out there to back him up on that?
> 
> And, the fact is that you didn't even respond to my posts where I did that.....maybe you  are the one that didn't have a comeback?
Click to expand...


I'll take you on any given day.

You obviously missed one of my fave guys statements. You know that old Ward Churchill?I can give you so many more. 

But here is Ward's and by the way I helped get this fake Indian fired. So if you want to dance let me know the time and place. 

I rejoice daily that this *XXXXXX* has no voice as a member of a first nation.

*Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ward Churchill, former ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, wrote an essay in September 2001 titled Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens about the September 11, 2001 attacks, in which he argued that American foreign policies provoked the attacks. He described what he called the "technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire" in the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns," i.e. as those who banally conduct their duties in the service of evil.*

Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Plasmaball

Foxfyre said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the mods anything you wish.  I did not ask the mods to review or close the thread.
> 
> You obviously are not reading the thread or you would have seen several times now that I clearly said I did watch the video and all of the video.  And you were not paying attention if you think I reprimanded only liberals for introducing content that was off topic.  *One of my frustrations with you is that you aren't reading what is written and keep asking the same questions that have been asked and answered.*
> 
> I would be crazy wow happy if any of you would quote the OP accurately and as written, and provide a good argument for why you disagree with it.  When any of you do, you will find I am maybe the most tolerant of opinions I don't agree with as anybody on this board.  But if you expect me to be tolerant of inadvertent or deliberate attempts to change the subject or derail the thread, yep I can be pretty damn intolerant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gotta say, you appear to be excellent at attacking people, even in the CDZ, but when it comes to responding with facts, you do seem to be a little slow on the uptake. Is that a tactic of yours, or what?
> 
> RE: facts -
> 
> Since you watched all of the video, gotta minute and second marker for me to back up your argument vis-a-vis the video?  This is now the SEVENTH time I have asked you. Come on, don't be so intellectually lazy. You challenged libs to quote from the video, and I did that, three times. Your turn. Or are you saying that you are not in a position to present some evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that you can say almost any negative thing about me and it is not a personal attack but if I object not to you, but to what you have said, that IS a personal attack?  Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can.  Nobody has done that I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it.  All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.
> 
> Other than what is relative to this thread topic, I am not interested in discussing the video here.
> 
> And I have no clue what you are asking about the minute and second marker. I didn't pick out any phrases from the video to comment on and I sure as hell didn't time any of it.  I did find myself agreeing with some of his comments, thinking some stuff merited additional research, and I didn't agree with him on some points though I would have to listen to it again to jog my memory about exactly what.  I really choose not to do that because I don't think it is something important to do.
Click to expand...


Really you had no trouble in talking about it right up until Stat asked you to back your shit up. now all of a sudden it doesnt have anything to do with the OP and thus you wont do it? 

This has to be a giant joke on everyone right?


----------



## tinydancer

Dude was a complete fake.


----------



## Foxfyre

Mertex said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can.  *Nobody has done that* I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it.  All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a true statement.  I have done that, twice, I believe.  He claimed that Liberals hated America and thought that it deserved 9/11.  He didn't provide any facts/links to some liberal saying that, and yet I posted a link and an excerpt of what Pat Robertson said - he was the one that in essence blamed 9/11 on Americans.....in other words Americans deserved 9/11, and Pat Robertson is a Republican/conservative.  If you don't believe that is refuting, then you are changing the definition of it, because what the dude on the video blamed Liberals of saying/doing is on record that a Republican/conservative actually said it.
> 
> How can you offer any proof that "he can't read a Liberal's mind"?  It is common sense to know that you can't put all liberals in a box and say they think the same way...no more than you can say that about conservatives.  Do you really believe there is a statistic or reference out there to back him up on that?
> 
> And, the fact is that you didn't even respond to my posts where I did that.....maybe you  are the one that didn't have a comeback?
Click to expand...


His comments on 9/11 have nothig to do with the thread topic and even if they did, he did provide a rationale for why he used that analogy. Agree or disagree with him, I have no problem with that.  I actually have no opinion about the accuracy of that statement pro or con.  I did understand the analogy as he used it.  But I did not want to derail this thread into yet another shopworn thread on 9/11 nor did the Robertson video that you characterized as not 'Christian love' have anything to do with the thread topic.

Nor does it matter whether somebody is able to read a liberal's mind.  The guy was invited to give a lecture on a particular topic and he gave that lecture.  Agree or disagree with him at will, but I have said and I say again that I now wish MOJO had not posted the Heritage Foundation video in this thread.  It did have some pertinent material appropriate for this discussion, but all it accomplished was to divert the attention of a lot of members who wanted then to talk about the video and not the thread topic.

I'm trying to keep the focus on the thread topic which has nothing to do with the video or Pat Robertson or any of a dozen other topics some have tried to introduce into the thread.

Now I didn't watch the Robertson video but if it includes an EXAMPLE of organizing or encouraging people to physically or materially hurt somebody because of who he/she is or an opinion he/she expressed, then it is pertinent.  Did he do that in that video?


----------



## Foxfyre

tinydancer said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can.  *Nobody has done that* I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it.  All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a true statement.  I have done that, twice, I believe.  He claimed that Liberals hated America and thought that it deserved 9/11.  He didn't provide any facts/links to some liberal saying that, and yet I posted a link and an excerpt of what Pat Robertson said - he was the one that in essence blamed 9/11 on Americans.....in other words Americans deserved 9/11, and Pat Robertson is a Republican/conservative.  If you don't believe that is refuting, then you are changing the definition of it, because what the dude on the video blamed Liberals of saying/doing is on record that a Republican/conservative actually said it.
> 
> How can you offer any proof that "he can't read a Liberal's mind"?  It is common sense to know that you can't put all liberals in a box and say they think the same way...no more than you can say that about conservatives.  Do you really believe there is a statistic or reference out there to back him up on that?
> 
> And, the fact is that you didn't even respond to my posts where I did that.....maybe you  are the one that didn't have a comeback?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take you on any given day.
> 
> You obviously missed one of my fave guys statements. You know that old Ward Churchill?I can give you so many more.
> 
> But here is Ward's and by the way I helped get this fake Indian fired. So if you want to dance let me know the time and place.
> 
> I rejoice daily that this *XXXXXX *has no voice as a member of a first nation.
> 
> *Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Jump to: navigation, search
> 
> Ward Churchill, former ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, wrote an essay in September 2001 titled Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens about the September 11, 2001 attacks, in which he argued that American foreign policies provoked the attacks. He described what he called the "technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire" in the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns," i.e. as those who banally conduct their duties in the service of evil.*
> 
> Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


This one is a good example to use in analysis of the OP.

Churchill's remarks were widely condemned by some and widely commended by others.    The entity that did most of the conciousness raising was Bill O'Reilly on the O'Reilly Factor who gave a matter-of-fact report on the controversy and then provided an e-mail address if any of his viewers wanted to express their opinions to the university.  He did not, as I recall, encourage them to complain.  He just provided an e-mail address for comments.

So far as I know there was no angry mob, group, or organization demanding Churchill's head on a platter, but that e-mail address provided by O'Reilly could put it in a gray area.  O'Reilly had to know that most e-mails his viewers would send would be critical of Churchill.  So does that violate my personal ethical requirement that people be allowed their opinion without fear of the angry mob etc. . . ?   Maybe.  Maybe not.  I'm thinking about it.

Churchill said he got some death threats, and if that is true, then that is reprehensible and indefensible no matter what he said.  The university did respond to a barrage of negative e-mails and fired Churchill.  He filed a wrongful firing lawsuit against the University that he won but he was awarded only one dollar in damages and the university was not required to rehire him.  The Colorado Supreme Court also refused to require the university to rehire him.

I can't fault the university for an ethical or business decision any more than I faulted A&E for a business decision re Phil Robertson.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the mods anything you wish.  I did not ask the mods to review or close the thread.
> 
> You obviously are not reading the thread or you would have seen several times now that I clearly said I did watch the video and all of the video.  And you were not paying attention if you think I reprimanded only liberals for introducing content that was off topic.  *One of my frustrations with you is that you aren't reading what is written and keep asking the same questions that have been asked and answered.*
> 
> I would be crazy wow happy if any of you would quote the OP accurately and as written, and provide a good argument for why you disagree with it.  When any of you do, you will find I am maybe the most tolerant of opinions I don't agree with as anybody on this board.  But if you expect me to be tolerant of inadvertent or deliberate attempts to change the subject or derail the thread, yep I can be pretty damn intolerant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gotta say, you appear to be excellent at attacking people, even in the CDZ, but when it comes to responding with facts, you do seem to be a little slow on the uptake. Is that a tactic of yours, or what?
> 
> RE: facts -
> 
> Since you watched all of the video, gotta minute and second marker for me to back up your argument vis-a-vis the video?  This is now the SEVENTH time I have asked you. Come on, don't be so intellectually lazy. You challenged libs to quote from the video, and I did that, three times. Your turn. Or are you saying that you are not in a position to present some evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that you can say almost any negative thing about me and it is not a personal attack but if I object not to you, but to what you have said, that IS a personal attack?  Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can.  Nobody has done that I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it.  All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.
> 
> Other than what is relative to this thread topic,* I am not interested in discussing the video here.*
> 
> And I have no clue what you are asking about the minute and second marker. I didn't pick out any phrases from the video to comment on and I sure as hell didn't time any of it.  I did find myself agreeing with some of his comments, thinking some stuff merited additional research, and I didn't agree with him on some points though I would have to listen to it again to jog my memory about exactly what.  I really choose not to do that because I don't think it is something important to do.
Click to expand...



Oh, that's easy: you watch the video and notice the minute and second marker at the bottom left hand corner of the youtube video. So, you don't have to time it yourself, the work has already been done for you by youtube!!!

You wanted people to discuss the video, which you praised to high heaven, you wanted libs to provide quotes and evidence, but now YOU don't want to discuss the video?

Hmmmm...ok...

Well, you certainly don't have to do anything. Just like I don't have to believe you when you say you watched it. Free country.

But it sure sounds like you are trumpeting this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fgDxAASI_c]"Retreat" - YouTube[/ame]

But that's ok with me as well... it's a nice tune, and we all trumpet it now and again.




Oh, and BTW, I have never written anything negative about you as a person, ever. I have mentioned parts of your behaviour, things that are documented here right on this thread.  I never told you that it must be the water you are drinking, nor did I question your comprehension abilities, as you have done with me and with others. Just to note.


----------



## BDBoop

Statistikhengst said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gotta say, you appear to be excellent at attacking people, even in the CDZ, but when it comes to responding with facts, you do seem to be a little slow on the uptake. Is that a tactic of yours, or what?
> 
> RE: facts -
> 
> Since you watched all of the video, gotta minute and second marker for me to back up your argument vis-a-vis the video?  This is now the SEVENTH time I have asked you. Come on, don't be so intellectually lazy. You challenged libs to quote from the video, and I did that, three times. Your turn. Or are you saying that you are not in a position to present some evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that you can say almost any negative thing about me and it is not a personal attack but if I object not to you, but to what you have said, that IS a personal attack?  Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can.  Nobody has done that I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it.  All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.
> 
> Other than what is relative to this thread topic,* I am not interested in discussing the video here.*
> 
> And I have no clue what you are asking about the minute and second marker. I didn't pick out any phrases from the video to comment on and I sure as hell didn't time any of it.  I did find myself agreeing with some of his comments, thinking some stuff merited additional research, and I didn't agree with him on some points though I would have to listen to it again to jog my memory about exactly what.  I really choose not to do that because I don't think it is something important to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's easy: you watch the video and notice the minute and second marker at the bottom left hand corner of the youtube video. So, you don't have to time it yourself, the work has already been done for you by youtube!!!
> 
> You wanted people to discuss the video, which you praised to high heaven, you wanted libs to provide quotes and evidence, but now YOU don't want to discuss the video?
> 
> Hmmmm...ok...
> 
> Well, you certainly don't have to do anything. Just like I don't have to believe you when you say you watched it. Free country.
> 
> But it sure sounds like you are trumpeting this:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fgDxAASI_c]"Retreat" - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> But that's ok with me as well... it's a nice tune, and we all trumpet it now and again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and BTW, I have never written anything negative about you as a person, ever. I have mentioned parts of your behaviour, things that are documented here right on this thread.  I never told you that it must be the water you are drinking, nor did I question your comprehension abilities, as you have done with me and with others. Just to note.
Click to expand...


Duly noted.

The trumpet is a nice touch.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you haven't.  You've made a lot of statements about legalities and First Amendment and used a lot of non sequitur and diversionary tactics and personal aspersions re me or other unrelated persons.  You've accused me of wanting to do a lot of stuff that you can't show in my posts that I want to do.
> 
> But not one of you has provided a _rationale_ for why a person should be denied the ability to express his/her opinion without fear.  The closest anybody has come to such a rationale is the theory that somebody might act on the opinion somebody expresses.  But nobody on the left would respond when it was pointed out that anybody might act on ANY opinion whether or not it was an opinion that you guys would consider okay.  And if we could not express ANY opinion for fear somebody might act it out negatively, nobody could express any opinion on anything ever.
> 
> I provided a list of possible opposing opinions for consideration of what would be okay to express and what would not.  Nobody commented on them except Asclepias who said he shouldn't be expected to answer those.  Nor would he or anybody else agree on who should be given authority to designate which of those examples would be okay to express and what could be ethically physically and/or materially punished.
> 
> So nobody has rebutted the OP as written and intended.  Lots of accusations, mischaracterizations, downright falsehoods about what the OP says, assumptions, and derogatory comments about it, but not a single straight up intellectually honest rationale rebuttal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You literally said you would make the actions of Glaad criminal aka illegal. YOU said this. I didnt make this up. You are being dishonest. Im done with you. Enjoy talking to yourself. I made my own thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are being dishonest when you do not provide the exact statement IN CONTEXT complete with the qualifiers that accompany it.  But you are done?  Really?  Honest?  For sure?  (There is a God.)  Good luck with your thread.
Click to expand...



Well, looky, looky, here is the exact quote:



> Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction which, in my opinion, was an evil act.


----------



## Statistikhengst

tinydancer said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can.  *Nobody has done that* I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it.  All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a true statement.  I have done that, twice, I believe.  He claimed that Liberals hated America and thought that it deserved 9/11.  He didn't provide any facts/links to some liberal saying that, and yet I posted a link and an excerpt of what Pat Robertson said - he was the one that in essence blamed 9/11 on Americans.....in other words Americans deserved 9/11, and Pat Robertson is a Republican/conservative.  If you don't believe that is refuting, then you are changing the definition of it, because what the dude on the video blamed Liberals of saying/doing is on record that a Republican/conservative actually said it.
> 
> How can you offer any proof that "he can't read a Liberal's mind"?  It is common sense to know that you can't put all liberals in a box and say they think the same way...no more than you can say that about conservatives.  Do you really believe there is a statistic or reference out there to back him up on that?
> 
> And, the fact is that you didn't even respond to my posts where I did that.....maybe you  are the one that didn't have a comeback?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take you on any given day.
> 
> You obviously missed one of my fave guys statements. You know that old Ward Churchill?I can give you so many more.
> 
> But here is Ward's and by the way I helped get this fake Indian fired. So if you want to dance let me know the time and place.
> 
> I rejoice daily that this *XXXXX* has no voice as a member of a first nation.
> 
> *Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Jump to: navigation, search
> 
> Ward Churchill, former ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, wrote an essay in September 2001 titled Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens about the September 11, 2001 attacks, in which he argued that American foreign policies provoked the attacks. He described what he called the "technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire" in the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns," i.e. as those who banally conduct their duties in the service of evil.*
> 
> Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Ward Churchill is not a Liberal - he is an anarchist, probably closer to the Ron Pauls in life than the George Soros' in life:

Ward Churchill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

His use of anti-semitism is also very reminiscent of Ron Paul, btw.

You language is also not appropriate for the CDZ, but of course, FoxFyre did not mention this to you, because you are a Conservative. Had a Liberal written what you wrote, FF would be all over that person like a bee on honey!!!


----------



## R.D.

Foxfyre said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made a very strong point in the last thread and this one that this was not a liberal or conservative issue and used illustrations from both camps.  I have repeated those examples from both camps more than once.  I have reprimanded those who have tried to make it a liberal or conservative issue.  So once again you have misquoted me and mischaracterized what I have posted.  And yeah, I'll call you on it every single time.
> 
> As I will usually be consistent on focusing on the thread topic and resist all those who try to divert from that topic.  If you see my not dealing with off topic subjects and insistance that we focus on the thread topic as intolerance, well that's your right to do.
> 
> *I also neither called for the other thread to be closed or even reviewed.*  So again you have stated a falsehood about what I have done.
> 
> *An apology or at least an acknowledgment of that would be seen as a grown up honorable thing to do. Alas, I no longer hope for such apology or acknowledgment from anybody on the left.*
> 
> But why don't you guys start your own thread where you won't be bound to this thread topic and can bring in all the stuff you would rather talk about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> first bolded: guaranteed, I am going to ask the mods about this.
> 
> second bolded: if it ends up I was in error, I will apologize immediate. But then again, you absolutely ruined any spirit of cooperation with the last bolded sentence or yours. Hey, we are in the CDZ, remember?
> 
> Why even have people contribute to a thread if all you are really interested in hearing confirmation of what you want to hear?
> 
> Oh, and gotta minute and second marker for me? Did you even watch the video?
> 
> This is now the SIXTH time I have asked you. Fascinating. You talk about people needing to be grown up. Perhaps you can also be grown up enough to answer two very simple, easy to answer questions.
> 
> And in closing, you only reprimanded Liberals, not Conservatives. I was there. I saw it with my own eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask the mods anything you wish.  I did not ask the mods to review or close the thread.
> 
> You obviously are not reading the thread or you would have seen several times now that I clearly said I did watch the video and all of the video.  And you were not paying attention if you think I reprimanded only liberals for introducing content that was off topic.  One of my frustrations with you is that you aren't reading what is written and keep asking the same questions that have been asked and answered.
> 
> I would be crazy wow happy if any of you would quote the OP accurately and as written, and provide a good argument for why you disagree with it.  When any of you do, you will find I am maybe the most tolerant of opinions I don't agree with as anybody on this board.  But if you expect me to be tolerant of inadvertent or deliberate attempts to change the subject or derail the thread, yep I can be pretty damn intolerant.
Click to expand...

 You definately  are.  They are now just toying with you I suspect.   Proving you right while trying to get you to trip up.   Silly, isn't it?


----------



## Statistikhengst

plasmaball said:


> foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> i gotta say, you appear to be excellent at attacking people, even in the cdz, but when it comes to responding with facts, you do seem to be a little slow on the uptake. Is that a tactic of yours, or what?
> 
> Re: Facts -
> 
> since you watched all of the video, gotta minute and second marker for me to back up your argument vis-a-vis the video?  This is now the seventh time i have asked you. Come on, don't be so intellectually lazy. You challenged libs to quote from the video, and i did that, three times. Your turn. Or are you saying that you are not in a position to present some evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is it that you can say almost any negative thing about me and it is not a personal attack but if i object not to you, but to what you have said, that is a personal attack?  Yes i have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can.  Nobody has done that i don't believe--if somebody did i missed it.  All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.
> 
> Other than what is relative to this thread topic, i am not interested in discussing the video here.
> 
> And i have no clue what you are asking about the minute and second marker. I didn't pick out any phrases from the video to comment on and i sure as hell didn't time any of it.  I did find myself agreeing with some of his comments, thinking some stuff merited additional research, and i didn't agree with him on some points though i would have to listen to it again to jog my memory about exactly what.  I really choose not to do that because i don't think it is something important to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really you had no trouble in talking about it right up until stat asked you to back your shit up. Now all of a sudden it doesnt have anything to do with the op and thus you wont do it?
> 
> This has to be a giant joke on everyone right?
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

Statistikhengst said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gotta say, you appear to be excellent at attacking people, even in the CDZ, but when it comes to responding with facts, you do seem to be a little slow on the uptake. Is that a tactic of yours, or what?
> 
> RE: facts -
> 
> Since you watched all of the video, gotta minute and second marker for me to back up your argument vis-a-vis the video?  This is now the SEVENTH time I have asked you. Come on, don't be so intellectually lazy. You challenged libs to quote from the video, and I did that, three times. Your turn. Or are you saying that you are not in a position to present some evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that you can say almost any negative thing about me and it is not a personal attack but if I object not to you, but to what you have said, that IS a personal attack?  Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can.  Nobody has done that I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it.  All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.
> 
> Other than what is relative to this thread topic,* I am not interested in discussing the video here.*
> 
> And I have no clue what you are asking about the minute and second marker. I didn't pick out any phrases from the video to comment on and I sure as hell didn't time any of it.  I did find myself agreeing with some of his comments, thinking some stuff merited additional research, and I didn't agree with him on some points though I would have to listen to it again to jog my memory about exactly what.  I really choose not to do that because I don't think it is something important to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's easy: you watch the video and notice the minute and second marker at the bottom left hand corner of the youtube video. So, you don't have to time it yourself, the work has already been done for you by youtube!!!
> 
> You wanted people to discuss the video, which you praised to high heaven, you wanted libs to provide quotes and evidence, but now YOU don't want to discuss the video?
> 
> Hmmmm...ok...
> 
> Well, you certainly don't have to do anything. Just like I don't have to believe you when you say you watched it. Free country.
> 
> But it sure sounds like you are trumpeting this:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fgDxAASI_c]"Retreat" - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> But that's ok with me as well... it's a nice tune, and we all trumpet it now and again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and BTW, I have never written anything negative about you as a person, ever. I have mentioned parts of your behaviour, things that are documented here right on this thread.  I never told you that it must be the water you are drinking, nor did I question your comprehension abilities, as you have done with me and with others. Just to note.
Click to expand...


When you infer that I'm a liar, that's pretty negative.  And if you associate yourself with my frustration with the diversionary tactics, derails, and other efforts to divert from the OP as being personally insulting to you, then I should have the same right to believe all the uncomplimentary comments you guys make about conservatives are personal insults too, yes?  As well as the glad hands you and others are regularly giving those who are personally insulting me or others.   And when you deliberately mischaracterize what I have said, I will take that very personally every single time.

And if I 'praised that video to high heaven' as you characterize it, I sure would like to see the post where I did that.  I did think it provided some excellent commentary on the reasons behind the current environment of the politics of personal destruction as that pertains to the OP and said so, and yes, that would be fair game for discussion whether or not I or anybody else agree with that commentary.

The fact that I didn't note the time on the video, well I'm very sorry I didn't do that.  It did not occur to me that it would be important to anybody.  What difference does it make?  It wouldn't prove that I listened to it. But while we're on that particular line of inquisition, I will now ask you to PROVE that you've read and understood everything I've written  in this thread in its full context and as intended.  Fair?

Oh and how are you coming along with the mods to get evidence I asked that the other thread be closed?  You haven't attacked me personally you say? That comes very damn close.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Mertex said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can.  *Nobody has done that* I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it.  All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a true statement.  I have done that, twice, I believe.  He claimed that Liberals hated America and thought that it deserved 9/11.  He didn't provide any facts/links to some liberal saying that, and yet I posted a link and an excerpt of what Pat Robertson said - he was the one that in essence blamed 9/11 on Americans.....in other words Americans deserved 9/11, and Pat Robertson is a Republican/conservative.  If you don't believe that is refuting, then you are changing the definition of it, because what the dude on the video blamed Liberals of saying/doing is on record that a Republican/conservative actually said it.
> 
> How can you offer any proof that "he can't read a Liberal's mind"?  It is common sense to know that you can't put all liberals in a box and say they think the same way...no more than you can say that about conservatives.  Do you really believe there is a statistic or reference out there to back him up on that?
> 
> And, the fact is that you didn't even respond to my posts where I did that.....maybe you  are the one that didn't have a comeback?
Click to expand...



Yes, that is exactly what I quoted as well, and even gave minute and second marker on the video.

Apparently, anything he said is not relevant to this thread, but the video is still just really, really cool and we should all learn to be tolerant from it!!!!


----------



## Mertex

tinydancer said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can.  *Nobody has done that* I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it.  All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a true statement.  I have done that, twice, I believe.  He claimed that Liberals hated America and thought that it deserved 9/11.  He didn't provide any facts/links to some liberal saying that, and yet I posted a link and an excerpt of what Pat Robertson said - he was the one that in essence blamed 9/11 on Americans.....in other words Americans deserved 9/11, and Pat Robertson is a Republican/conservative.  If you don't believe that is refuting, then you are changing the definition of it, because what the dude on the video blamed Liberals of saying/doing is on record that a Republican/conservative actually said it.
> 
> How can you offer any proof that "he can't read a Liberal's mind"?  It is common sense to know that you can't put all liberals in a box and say they think the same way...no more than you can say that about conservatives.  Do you really believe there is a statistic or reference out there to back him up on that?
> 
> And, the fact is that you didn't even respond to my posts where I did that.....maybe you  are the one that didn't have a comeback?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take you on any given day.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are qualified but it's funny that you even think so. Your post does not even make it clear what you are trying to prove with your comments and link, but maybe you are not aware of that.




> You obviously missed one of my fave guys statements. You know that old Ward Churchill?I can give you so many more.


First of all, does the statement by Ward prove that the dude on the video can read Liberal minds?  Does it prove that "all" liberals hate America and claim that it deserved 9/11? That was his opinion, and like you are entitled to it, but that doesn't mean that because you have an opinion you can read other people's minds.


> But here is Ward's and by the way I helped get this fake Indian fired. So if you want to dance let me know the time and place.


First of all, it doesn't appear that you are even able to dance, you are not even keeping up with the music.  Foxfyre has already tried to censor some of us for saying what she thought didn't pertain to the topic at hand, and I truly don't see where your statement/link does either.  All it proves is that people were intolerant of what he said, and got him fired, something that the OP is trying to dissuade.



> I rejoice daily that this *mother fucker* has no voice as a member of a first nation.


I'm certain that this has no reference to the OP, but am happy that you can rejoice.  I hope Foxfyre is able to take notice that a "conservative" has actually voiced an opinion of having rejoiced over someone having been fired over something they said, which is exactly what her OP is trying to go against.  She has quoted a Liberal as having said they were glad that someone got physically/materially hurt - and here you are providing her with a conservative saying the same thing.  Thank You.

So, maybe you are saying that Pat Robertson should also be fired for making accusations against Americans?  Please clarify....your post doesn't make clear what you are trying to accomplish.


----------



## Statistikhengst

R.D. said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> first bolded: guaranteed, I am going to ask the mods about this.
> 
> second bolded: if it ends up I was in error, I will apologize immediate. But then again, you absolutely ruined any spirit of cooperation with the last bolded sentence or yours. Hey, we are in the CDZ, remember?
> 
> Why even have people contribute to a thread if all you are really interested in hearing confirmation of what you want to hear?
> 
> Oh, and gotta minute and second marker for me? Did you even watch the video?
> 
> This is now the SIXTH time I have asked you. Fascinating. You talk about people needing to be grown up. Perhaps you can also be grown up enough to answer two very simple, easy to answer questions.
> 
> And in closing, you only reprimanded Liberals, not Conservatives. I was there. I saw it with my own eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the mods anything you wish.  I did not ask the mods to review or close the thread.
> 
> You obviously are not reading the thread or you would have seen several times now that I clearly said I did watch the video and all of the video.  And you were not paying attention if you think I reprimanded only liberals for introducing content that was off topic.  One of my frustrations with you is that you aren't reading what is written and keep asking the same questions that have been asked and answered.
> 
> I would be crazy wow happy if any of you would quote the OP accurately and as written, and provide a good argument for why you disagree with it.  When any of you do, you will find I am maybe the most tolerant of opinions I don't agree with as anybody on this board.  But if you expect me to be tolerant of inadvertent or deliberate attempts to change the subject or derail the thread, yep I can be pretty damn intolerant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You definately  are.  They are now just toying with you I suspect.   Proving you right while trying to get you to trip up.   Silly, isn't it?
Click to expand...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-kKDaFXR9I]Julie Andrews-crazy world - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mertex

Foxfyre said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can.  *Nobody has done that* I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it.  All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a true statement.  I have done that, twice, I believe.  He claimed that Liberals hated America and thought that it deserved 9/11.  He didn't provide any facts/links to some liberal saying that, and yet I posted a link and an excerpt of what Pat Robertson said - he was the one that in essence blamed 9/11 on Americans.....in other words Americans deserved 9/11, and Pat Robertson is a Republican/conservative.  If you don't believe that is refuting, then you are changing the definition of it, because what the dude on the video blamed Liberals of saying/doing is on record that a Republican/conservative actually said it.
> 
> How can you offer any proof that "he can't read a Liberal's mind"?  It is common sense to know that you can't put all liberals in a box and say they think the same way...no more than you can say that about conservatives.  Do you really believe there is a statistic or reference out there to back him up on that?
> 
> And, the fact is that you didn't even respond to my posts where I did that.....maybe you  are the one that didn't have a comeback?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His comments on 9/11 have nothig to do with the thread topic and even if they did, he did provide a rationale for why he used that analogy. Agree or disagree with him, I have no problem with that.  I actually have no opinion about the accuracy of that statement pro or con.  I did understand the analogy as he used it.  But I did not want to derail this thread into yet another shopworn thread on 9/11 nor did the Robertson video that you characterized as not 'Christian love' have anything to do with the thread topic.
Click to expand...

But you derailed the thread yourself when you lavished compliments on his speech - which appears to me that you agreed with much of what he said, irrelevant of the fact that he provided no links to prove his assertions.  Surely, you don't expect those he derided and you agreed with, to just remain quiet and not try to offer rebuttal against his specious statements.



> Nor does it matter whether somebody is able to read a liberal's mind.  The guy was invited to give a lecture on a particular topic and he gave that lecture.  Agree or disagree with him at will, but I have said and I say again that I now wish MOJO had not posted the Heritage Foundation video in this thread.  It did have some pertinent material appropriate for this discussion, but all it accomplished was to divert the attention of a lot of members who wanted then to talk about the video and not the thread topic.


In spite of the diversion, I do believe that most of us have offered our opinion as to why your suggestion (OP) would not work, cannot work, because it does exactly what you are trying to do away with.....censor.



> I'm trying to keep the focus on the thread topic which has nothing to do with the video or Pat Robertson or any of a dozen other topics some have tried to introduce into the thread.


I'm quite happy to drop it, but if others (tinydancer) are going to comment on my posts that talk about it, surely you either have to tell her to stop, or at least let me respond.



> Now I didn't watch the Robertson video but if it includes an EXAMPLE of organizing or encouraging people to physically or materially hurt somebody because of who he/she is or an opinion he/she expressed, then it is pertinent.  Did he do that in that video?



Well, neither did the dude on the video do that, yet you praised the poster who posted it and then complimented the dude for his speech.  That certainly wasn't in keeping with your rigid determination to stay on topic.
I'm not sure that Pat Robertson could identify the people whose faith was lacking....maybe he was addressing atheists?  I suppose some people were offended by his comment - the point I was trying to make is that if the dude on the video can claim that Liberals said they hated America and America deserved the attack, then it should be fine for someone to say that conservatives hate America and claimed it deserved to be attacked because a conservative said so.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Hmmmmm, still more more acceptance and understanding than for just tolerance.

Can anyone else support this position?


----------



## Foxfyre

Mertex said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a true statement.  I have done that, twice, I believe.  He claimed that Liberals hated America and thought that it deserved 9/11.  He didn't provide any facts/links to some liberal saying that, and yet I posted a link and an excerpt of what Pat Robertson said - he was the one that in essence blamed 9/11 on Americans.....in other words Americans deserved 9/11, and Pat Robertson is a Republican/conservative.  If you don't believe that is refuting, then you are changing the definition of it, because what the dude on the video blamed Liberals of saying/doing is on record that a Republican/conservative actually said it.
> 
> How can you offer any proof that "he can't read a Liberal's mind"?  It is common sense to know that you can't put all liberals in a box and say they think the same way...no more than you can say that about conservatives.  Do you really believe there is a statistic or reference out there to back him up on that?
> 
> And, the fact is that you didn't even respond to my posts where I did that.....maybe you  are the one that didn't have a comeback?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His comments on 9/11 have nothig to do with the thread topic and even if they did, he did provide a rationale for why he used that analogy. Agree or disagree with him, I have no problem with that.  I actually have no opinion about the accuracy of that statement pro or con.  I did understand the analogy as he used it.  But I did not want to derail this thread into yet another shopworn thread on 9/11 nor did the Robertson video that you characterized as not 'Christian love' have anything to do with the thread topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you derailed the thread yourself when you lavished compliments on his speech - which appears to me that you agreed with much of what he said, irrelevant of the fact that he provided no links to prove his assertions.  Surely, you don't expect those he derided and you agreed with, to just remain quiet and not try to offer rebuttal against his specious statements.
> 
> 
> In spite of the diversion, I do believe that most of us have offered our opinion as to why your suggestion (OP) would not work, cannot work, because it does exactly what you are trying to do away with.....censor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to keep the focus on the thread topic which has nothing to do with the video or Pat Robertson or any of a dozen other topics some have tried to introduce into the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm quite happy to drop it, but if others (tinydancer) are going to comment on my posts that talk about it, surely you either have to tell her to stop, or at least let me respond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I didn't watch the Robertson video but if it includes an EXAMPLE of organizing or encouraging people to physically or materially hurt somebody because of who he/she is or an opinion he/she expressed, then it is pertinent.  Did he do that in that video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, neither did the dude on the video do that, yet you praised the poster who posted it and then complimented the dude for his speech.  That certainly wasn't in keeping with your rigid determination to stay on topic.
> I'm not sure that Pat Robertson could identify the people whose faith was lacking....maybe he was addressing atheists?  I suppose some people were offended by his comment - the point I was trying to make is that if the dude on the video can claim that Liberals said they hated America and America deserved the attack, then it should be fine for someone to say that conservatives hate America and claimed it deserved to be attacked because a conservative said so.
Click to expand...


First I HATE debating with chopped up posts because it too often separates somebody's thoughts from other comments that modify or qualify an initial comment. That isn't a mandate of any kind, but is just my explanation for why I so rarely do it except when responding to clearly unrelated things.

I did NOT lavish praise on the video.  I commented on it, yes.  But praise it?  No.  And I have subsequently been pretty clear I wish it had not been posted purely because it has been used as a distraction for the thread instead of as an argument for some points of the OP as I think MOJO intended it.

The dude in the video, in part, was providing a rationale for why some angry mobs, groups, or organizations go after a Phil Robertson or somebody else who 'offends' them.  Which is what I commented on and why I thought MOJO was appropriate in posting it at the time.

And yes, I expect--okay hope for--people to ignore off topic content.  If they object to it sufficiently, report it as an off topic post, but otherwise help keep the thread on topic.  If they feel it is important to denounce off topic content, excise the offending post and take it to a new thread.  But I very much appreciate those who don't participate in the intentional or unintentional derails any more than absolutely necessary.  At the same time, it is inevitable that any of us, including me, can slip.

My comment that the guy was brilliant was in admiration for a very well thought out, well organized, and well constructed lecture that held the viewer's interest.  I have praised others likewise when I didn't agree with ANYTHING they said, but very much appreciated the competent argument they put together and the audience friendly nature of a presentation.  I was also clear that I didn't agree with everything in that video and that only some of the content was pertinent to this thread.

I have tried to be even handed and consistent in not allowing off topic content, but I am human with feet of clay like everybody else, and sometimes I won't get the job done in every single case.  Sometimes it is smart to just ignore the occasional off topic comment and hope everybody will let it slide.  Doesn't always work though.

The thread topic is about allowing a person his her belief or opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will hurt him physically and/or materially for no other reason than he expressed it.


----------



## blackhawk

I show people as much tolerance and respect as they show me. Do to others as you would have them do to you something more of us should remember.


----------



## Kosh

The far left has zero tolerance for anyone that is not far left.


----------



## Foxfyre

Kosh said:


> The far left has zero tolerance for anyone that is not far left.



That isn't fair either Kosh because there are some on the right who have zero tolerance for anything that isn't right, even far right.  I have liberal friends in real life and here on USMB who have the ability to be objective and honest and who will allow me my beliefs.  And that is all I ask, i.e. to be allowed to be who and what I am.  I don't require anybody to agree with me.

And that is what I am hoping for an American culture--a new tolerance that will allow people to be who and what they are so long as they aren't violating the rights of others.


----------



## Foxfyre

blackhawk said:


> I show people as much tolerance and respect as they show me. Do to others as you would have them do to you something more of us should remember.



That is the simplest concept I think I'm asking for with this topic. If we aren't violating the right of others, we each want the ability to be who and what we are without fear.  We can respect each other having that right without agreeing with the other person.


----------



## Kosh

Foxfyre said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> The far left has zero tolerance for anyone that is not far left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't fair either Kosh because there are some on the right who have zero tolerance for anything that isn't right, even far right.  I have liberal friends in real life and here on USMB who have the ability to be objective and honest and who will allow me my beliefs.  And that is all I ask, i.e. to be allowed to be who and what I am.  I don't require anybody to agree with me.
> 
> And that is what I am hoping for an American culture--a new tolerance that will allow people to be who and what they are so long as they aren't violating the rights of others.
Click to expand...


Actually it is fair. the far left are not liberals so to compare the two is an unfair assessment.

If liberals were smart they would distance themselves from the far left instead of embracing them.

Then would you allow a neo-Nazi to be themselves and spam the boards with their propaganda?

And what "rights" are being violated on a chat board?


----------



## Mac1958

Foxfyre said:


> The thread topic is about allowing a person his her belief or opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will hurt him physically and/or materially for no other reason than he expressed it.




Yeah, threads do tend to get pushed entirely off the rails, we tend to let our minds wander a bit.

I think your question has been answered pretty clearly.  There are obviously people in our society who have taken it upon themselves to do exactly what you're talking about.  They feel that, based on their own code, they will use every legal means necessary to control the very words we use.  Threats, intimidation and punishment are all perfectly legitimate means for them.

There are plenty of examples just on the various PC-related threads here.  And now there is even a thread on which they have gathered to convince themselves that, since (in their minds) tolerance simply isn't going to happen, they may as well proudly run with intolerance.  Then they all pat themselves on the back for reaching this foregone conclusion and continue on. 

This behavior - leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking - _uses our own cherished freedoms against us._

Seems to me that it takes a very cynical mix of narcissism and paranoia to think this way.  

.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> His comments on 9/11 have nothig to do with the thread topic and even if they did, he did provide a rationale for why he used that analogy. Agree or disagree with him, I have no problem with that.  I actually have no opinion about the accuracy of that statement pro or con.  I did understand the analogy as he used it.  But I did not want to derail this thread into yet another shopworn thread on 9/11 nor did the Robertson video that you characterized as not 'Christian love' have anything to do with the thread topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you derailed the thread yourself when you lavished compliments on his speech - which appears to me that you agreed with much of what he said, irrelevant of the fact that he provided no links to prove his assertions.  Surely, you don't expect those he derided and you agreed with, to just remain quiet and not try to offer rebuttal against his specious statements.
> 
> 
> In spite of the diversion, I do believe that most of us have offered our opinion as to why your suggestion (OP) would not work, cannot work, because it does exactly what you are trying to do away with.....censor.
> 
> 
> I'm quite happy to drop it, but if others (tinydancer) are going to comment on my posts that talk about it, surely you either have to tell her to stop, or at least let me respond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I didn't watch the Robertson video but if it includes an EXAMPLE of organizing or encouraging people to physically or materially hurt somebody because of who he/she is or an opinion he/she expressed, then it is pertinent.  Did he do that in that video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, neither did the dude on the video do that, yet you praised the poster who posted it and then complimented the dude for his speech.  That certainly wasn't in keeping with your rigid determination to stay on topic.
> I'm not sure that Pat Robertson could identify the people whose faith was lacking....maybe he was addressing atheists?  I suppose some people were offended by his comment - the point I was trying to make is that if the dude on the video can claim that Liberals said they hated America and America deserved the attack, then it should be fine for someone to say that conservatives hate America and claimed it deserved to be attacked because a conservative said so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First I HATE debating with chopped up posts because it too often separates somebody's thoughts from other comments that modify or qualify an initial comment. That isn't a mandate of any kind, but is just my explanation for why I so rarely do it except when responding to clearly unrelated things.
> 
> *I did NOT lavish praise on the video. * I commented on it, yes.  But praise it?  No.  And I have subsequently been pretty clear I wish it had not been posted purely because it has been used as a distraction for the thread instead of as an argument for some points of the OP as I think MOJO intended it.
> 
> The dude in the video, in part, was providing a rationale for why some angry mobs, groups, or organizations go after a Phil Robertson or somebody else who 'offends' them.  Which is what I commented on and why I thought MOJO was appropriate in posting it at the time.
> 
> And yes, I expect--okay hope for--people to ignore off topic content.  If they object to it sufficiently, report it as an off topic post, but otherwise help keep the thread on topic.  If they feel it is important to denounce off topic content, excise the offending post and take it to a new thread.  But I very much appreciate those who don't participate in the intentional or unintentional derails any more than absolutely necessary.  At the same time, it is inevitable that any of us, including me, can slip.
> 
> My comment that the guy was brilliant was in admiration for *a very well thought out, well organized, and well constructed lecture that held the viewer's interest. * I have praised others likewise when I didn't agree with ANYTHING they said, but very much appreciated the competent argument they put together and the audience friendly nature of a presentation.  I was also clear that I didn't agree with everything in that video and that only some of the content was pertinent to this thread.
> 
> *I have tried to be even handed and consistent in not allowing off topic content*, but I am human with feet of clay like everybody else, and sometimes I won't get the job done in every single case.  Sometimes it is smart to just ignore the occasional off topic comment and hope everybody will let it slide.  Doesn't always work though.
> 
> The thread topic is about allowing a person his her belief or opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will hurt him physically and/or materially for no other reason than he expressed it.
Click to expand...




Bolded 1: yes, you did.

Bolded 2: no, it is not, and I have already proven it.

Bolded 3: no, you have not, but you do not have to be. Nobody here required it of you in advance. That is why there are mods, they are there to do this kind of thing. But I do feel quite strongly that you, as a partisan, and in this case, imo, a hyper-partisan, should not try to put on the sheep's clothing, for that really fools no one.

So, minute marker?  Ready any time you are. No presentation can be even half-way reasonable without at least some facts and some logic, NEITHER of which are present in that video.

I am well aware of the content of your OP, but then you use this terrible video to support your claims and then when there is a very much to be expected blowback from people you already know will disagree, you stamp them as intolerant. Kind of kills the entire purpose of the thread, don't you think?

But it's ok, I cherish your right to do this. Just wish you would cherish my right as well. Maybe one day, that just might happen.

Either a person supports the 1st amendment, with all it's potential pockmarks and blemishes, or he does not.  That sounds like a pretty sanguine, sane statement, if you ask me.


----------



## Plasmaball

> My comment that the guy was brilliant was in admiration for a very well thought out, well organized, and well constructed lecture that held the viewer's interest. I have praised others likewise when* I didn't agree with ANYTHING they said*,



but you did agree with him.


----------



## Darkwind

Mac1958 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread topic is about allowing a person his her belief or opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will hurt him physically and/or materially for no other reason than he expressed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, threads do tend to get pushed entirely off the rails, we tend to let our minds wander a bit.
> 
> I think your question has been answered pretty clearly.  There are obviously people in our society who have taken it upon themselves to do exactly what you're talking about.  They feel that, based on their own code, they will use every legal means necessary to control the very words we use.  Threats, intimidation and punishment are all perfectly legitimate means for them.
> 
> There are plenty of examples just on the various PC-related threads here.  And now there is even a thread on which they have gathered to convince themselves that, since (in their minds) tolerance simply isn't going to happen, they may as well proudly run with intolerance.  Then they all pat themselves on the back for reaching this foregone conclusion and continue on.
> 
> This behavior - leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking - _uses our own cherished freedoms against us._
> 
> Seems to me that it takes a very cynical mix of narcissism and paranoia to think this way.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I find your signature line very apropos and intend to add it to My new year resolutions.

Happy New Year Mac


----------



## Foxfyre

Kosh said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> The far left has zero tolerance for anyone that is not far left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't fair either Kosh because there are some on the right who have zero tolerance for anything that isn't right, even far right.  I have liberal friends in real life and here on USMB who have the ability to be objective and honest and who will allow me my beliefs.  And that is all I ask, i.e. to be allowed to be who and what I am.  I don't require anybody to agree with me.
> 
> And that is what I am hoping for an American culture--a new tolerance that will allow people to be who and what they are so long as they aren't violating the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it is fair. the far left are not liberals so to compare the two is an unfair assessment.
> 
> If liberals were smart they would distance themselves from the far left instead of embracing them.
> 
> Then would you allow a neo-Nazi to be themselves and spam the boards with their propaganda?
> 
> And what "rights" are being violated on a chat board?
Click to expand...


Okay, I was thinking of liberals in general and not the 'far left' or 'hard left', but while I think your point of view might still be a bit extreme, our experience seems to affirm that it isn't unacceptably extreme.     Intolerance for the point of view of others seems to be epidemic in society and far too often manifests itself right here on USMB.  And it represents all sides of the sociopolitical spectrum.

But I think if there is enough societal expectations, we can make those 'far left' extremists or 'far right' extremists understand that they don't win any friends or influence people when they are hateful and intolerant of the opinions of others to the point that they think it is okay to hurt people physically and/or materially for no other reason than those people expressed an opinion somebody didn't like.

We're in a gray area on 'rights' on a message board, but I have a hard time respecting people who intentionally and maliciously refuse to respect the request for civility and who refuse to allow others to enjoy a discussion of an interesting topic.  But that is part of the intolerance this thread addresses I suppose.

And would I allow a neo-Nazi to spam the board withhis  propaganda?  Yep.   So long as he is not inciting to riot and is not encouraging others to act on his propaganda and/or is not attacking other members personally in forums where that is not allowed.  And I would also expect 99% of intelligent members here to fully express their contempt for his point of view and why it is destructive, hateful, and wrong.


----------



## Nosmo King

Was society showing tolerance to the Dixie Chicks ten years ago?  Is society showing intolerance to the Duck guy today?  

Has society extended the olive branch of tolerance to Rush Limbaugh after his many gaffes?  Does Ed Schultz bask in the glow of tolerance after his pronouncements?

Should outrageous claims about any person or group be tolerated, or merely excused as 'opinions'?  

I'm not speaking in terms of litigation as speech is a protected right.  But can the offended call for boycotts or public apologies?  

Can the offended go too far?  I guess it depends on the offense.  Should the parents of a fallen hero be offended by the Westboro Baptist Church file suit to restrain Fred Phelps and his minions?  Or does the Reverend Phelps have every right to voice his 'opinions'?  Does the duck fellow have a right to voice his opinions, or does he have the right to offend?


----------



## Foxfyre

Mac1958 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread topic is about allowing a person his her belief or opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will hurt him physically and/or materially for no other reason than he expressed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, threads do tend to get pushed entirely off the rails, we tend to let our minds wander a bit.
> 
> I think your question has been answered pretty clearly.  There are obviously people in our society who have taken it upon themselves to do exactly what you're talking about.  They feel that, based on their own code, they will use every legal means necessary to control the very words we use.  Threats, intimidation and punishment are all perfectly legitimate means for them.
> 
> There are plenty of examples just on the various PC-related threads here.  And now there is even a thread on which they have gathered to convince themselves that, since (in their minds) tolerance simply isn't going to happen, they may as well proudly run with intolerance.  Then they all pat themselves on the back for reaching this foregone conclusion and continue on.
> 
> This behavior - leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking - _uses our own cherished freedoms against us._
> 
> Seems to me that it takes a very cynical mix of narcissism and paranoia to think this way.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Best post of the day!!!  Best post of the thread!!!   Maybe best post of the year!!!  

Reminds me of some other significant comments on tolerance from some great minds:

In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher.--The Dali Lama

"I have seen great intolerance shown in support of tolerance."--Samuel Taylor Coleridge

"Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause."--Mahatma Gandhi

"Intolerance is the most socially acceptable form of egotism, for it permits us to assume superiority without personal boasting."--Sidney J. Harris

"Pass no rash condemnation on other peoples words or actions.--Thomas P. Kempis​
But there is the opposite side of that coin when we know that tolerance of everything is belief or conviction in nothing.  There are valid reasons for boycotts and doing what we can to stop people who are literally hurting or threatening other people and/or who are treading on the rights of others.  There is nothing wrong with those who speak their own opinions in rebuttal to the 'wrong' opinions of others.

In the much more narrow confines in this thread, I hope to raise consciousness in our sociopolitical cultural that will allow people to express their opinons, right or wrong, without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after them and try to physically and/or materially hurt them.


----------



## Foxfyre

Nosmo King said:


> Was society showing tolerance to the Dixie Chicks ten years ago?  Is society showing intolerance to the Duck guy today?
> 
> Has society extended the olive branch of tolerance to Rush Limbaugh after his many gaffes?  Does Ed Schultz bask in the glow of tolerance after his pronouncements?
> 
> Should outrageous claims about any person or group be tolerated, or merely excused as 'opinions'?
> 
> I'm not speaking in terms of litigation as speech is a protected right.  But can the offended call for boycotts or public apologies?
> 
> Can the offended go too far?  I guess it depends on the offense.  Should the parents of a fallen hero be offended by the Westboro Baptist Church file suit to restrain Fred Phelps and his minions?  Or does the Reverend Phelps have every right to voice his 'opinions'?  Does the duck fellow have a right to voice his opinions, or does he have the right to offend?



Was society tolerant of the Dixie Chicks?  Some were.  Some were not.  Some expressed their contempt of what the Dixie Chicks said and that they would buy no more Dixie Chicks albums or attend no more Dixie Chicks concerts.   This is acceptable in my world.  We all should have the right to speak out about what we believe is wrong.  Or right.

But any who tried to ORGANIZE a protest of the Dixie Chicks for the purpose of hurting them physically and/or materially--who tried to run them out of the music industry--those people were wrong and just as wrong as GLAAD was going after Phil Robertson for no other offense that he expressed a belief they don't share.  The Dixie Chicks did not encourage anybody to do anything.  One of their members expressed her contempt for the President of the United States and did that on foreign soil.  Was that worthy of criticism?  Maybe yes or maybe no, but we all should be allowed our opinions about that.  Does that justify organizing to materially or physically harm the Dixie Chicks.  No way.

The principle is whether it is somebody just expressing an opinion or somebody encouraging others to harm somebody.  The prnciple is whether it is somebody just expressing an opinion or somebody ACTING out hate against others as the Westboro Baptist Church does.

A lot of folks seem to be having trouble making a distinction between those two things.   The right to offend?  Who gets to decide who has the right to not be offended?  Who gets to make the list of what is or is not offensive to speak?  Who gets to make the list of what is and what is not politically correct?  Much better to encourage the right of people to speak their opinions without fear of physical or material retaliation and focus our activism against those who are actually physically or materially hurting people.


----------



## Mac1958

Foxfyre said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread topic is about allowing a person his her belief or opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will hurt him physically and/or materially for no other reason than he expressed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, threads do tend to get pushed entirely off the rails, we tend to let our minds wander a bit.
> 
> I think your question has been answered pretty clearly.  There are obviously people in our society who have taken it upon themselves to do exactly what you're talking about.  They feel that, based on their own code, they will use every legal means necessary to control the very words we use.  Threats, intimidation and punishment are all perfectly legitimate means for them.
> 
> There are plenty of examples just on the various PC-related threads here.  And now there is even a thread on which they have gathered to convince themselves that, since (in their minds) tolerance simply isn't going to happen, they may as well proudly run with intolerance.  Then they all pat themselves on the back for reaching this foregone conclusion and continue on.
> 
> This behavior - leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking - _uses our own cherished freedoms against us._
> 
> Seems to me that it takes a very cynical mix of narcissism and paranoia to think this way.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Best post of the day!!!  Best post of the thread!!!   Maybe best post of the year!!!
> 
> Reminds me of some other significant comments on tolerance from some great minds:
> 
> &#8220;In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher.&#8221;--The Dali Lama
> 
> "I have seen great intolerance shown in support of tolerance."--Samuel Taylor Coleridge
> 
> "Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause."--Mahatma Gandhi
> 
> "Intolerance is the most socially acceptable form of egotism, for it permits us to assume superiority without personal boasting."--Sidney J. Harris
> 
> "Pass no rash condemnation on other peoples words or actions.--Thomas P. Kempis​
> But there is the opposite side of that coin when we know that tolerance of everything is belief or conviction in nothing.  There are valid reasons for boycotts and doing what we can to stop people who are literally hurting or threatening other people and/or who are treading on the rights of others.  There is nothing wrong with those who speak their own opinions in rebuttal to the 'wrong' opinions of others.
> 
> In the much more narrow confines in this thread, I hope to raise consciousness in our sociopolitical cultural that will allow people to express their opinons, right or wrong, without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after them and try to physically and/or materially hurt them.
Click to expand...




I would add one thing:

In general, these are the same people who would passionately defend a Muslim group if that group wanted to open a new mosque in an area that would be very sensitive to some people, such as near to Ground Zero.

"We have freedom of religion in this country," they would scream.  "Leave them alone to practice their freedom of religion, you must stay out of their way."  They're very, very tolerant about that.

Yet they're not quite as tolerant when someone wants to question someone or something protected by their PC.

.


----------



## Foxfyre

Darkwind said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread topic is about allowing a person his her belief or opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will hurt him physically and/or materially for no other reason than he expressed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, threads do tend to get pushed entirely off the rails, we tend to let our minds wander a bit.
> 
> I think your question has been answered pretty clearly.  There are obviously people in our society who have taken it upon themselves to do exactly what you're talking about.  They feel that, based on their own code, they will use every legal means necessary to control the very words we use.  Threats, intimidation and punishment are all perfectly legitimate means for them.
> 
> There are plenty of examples just on the various PC-related threads here.  And now there is even a thread on which they have gathered to convince themselves that, since (in their minds) tolerance simply isn't going to happen, they may as well proudly run with intolerance.  Then they all pat themselves on the back for reaching this foregone conclusion and continue on.
> 
> This behavior - leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking - _uses our own cherished freedoms against us._
> 
> Seems to me that it takes a very cynical mix of narcissism and paranoia to think this way.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I find your signature line very apropos and intend to add it to My new year resolutions.
> 
> Happy New Year Mac
Click to expand...


I like Mac's sig line too.  And was thinking about that when I signed off late last night.

So in that spirit, I want to apologize to the serious debaters/discussion people here for getting sucked into defending myself earlier in the thread.  That was foolish of me and I knew better.  I'm going to do my best to now allow that to happen again.

I will not engage in conversation further with those who want to make the thread about me.  I will relish going one on one with those who disagree with me or exploring concepts with anybody who are able to focus on the thread topic.

I honestly do think this is important people.  And I fully realize I may be missing something  or have it wrong about something.  And I would rather get it right than think I am right about somethng. 

I fully believe that it is fair game to rebut any opinion that is put out there for the public to see.  But don't you think anybody should be able to express his/her opinions, beliefs, convictions, thoughts without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come down on him/her with the intent to hurt physically and/or materially?


----------



## Mertex

Foxfyre said:


> Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one. * Mojo that video was brilliant *and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, *he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.*





Foxfyre said:


> First I HATE debating with chopped up posts because it too often separates somebody's thoughts from other comments that modify or qualify an initial comment. That isn't a mandate of any kind, but is just my explanation for why I so rarely do it except when responding to clearly unrelated things.


First of all, they are not chopped up, they are divided into smaller separate statements so that each can be addressed directly without causing confusion as to which specific comment one is addressing.  Lumping everything into one long paragraph or paragraphs sometimes causes confusion as to which statement the responder is addressing.  Just a matter of choice.



> I did NOT lavish praise on the video.  I commented on it, yes. But praise it?  No.


 You are being disingenuous here.....you have already denied having said that you believe what Glaad did should be considered a crime, even after the exact post was produced, and then tried to claim you meant something else.

Saying the video is "brilliant" is lavishing praise on it, unless you meant it was shining bright like a light, which would make it even more disingenuous. 



> *And I have subsequently been pretty clear I wish it had not been posted *purely because it has been used as a distraction for the thread instead of as an argument for some points of the OP as I think MOJO intended it.


Only after you made positives claims about it and complimented him on doing his homework, which is remarkable, because most of what he said was not backed up with links to facts.  It appears the only reason you made that statement was to preclude some of us from refuting it, and sure enough, you castigated those of us who brought it up, and claimed that it was not relevant to your OP.



> The dude in the video, in part, was providing a rationale for why some angry mobs, groups, or organizations go after a Phil Robertson or somebody else who 'offends' them.  Which is what I commented on and why I thought MOJO was appropriate in posting it at the time.


Yet when I presented the video of Pat Robertson, proving that someone on the right was actually claiming that America deserved to be punished i.e. 9/11, you immediately told me that it had nothing to do with the OP.  Then Tinydancer provides another example of someone saying the same thing and you say nothing to her, but when I respond, you tell me that what we are discussing has nothing to do with the OP.  It seems pretty clear that you are being partisan, and you are now taking exception to being told so.



> And yes, I expect--okay hope for--people to ignore off topic content.  If they object to it sufficiently, report it as an off topic post, but otherwise help keep the thread on topic.  If they feel it is important to denounce off topic content, excise the offending post and take it to a new thread.



Are you making new rules?  I've never seen that being the rule in other threads.  People bring something up and their discourse will continue in that direction until someone else brings up a point of the OP and others follow on and the topic of the OP is restored.  I've never seen the OP make such a claim (to start another thread) except for clear troll comments that are not remotely related to the topic.  The video that has been discussed was not related to your topic at all....it was a video of someone dissing Liberals...didn't mention any group dissenting it.  Only those of us who found his comments offensive dissented it, but I don't think we're forming a campaign to bring the dude down.



> But I very much appreciate those who don't participate in the intentional or unintentional derails any more than absolutely necessary.  At the same time, it is inevitable that any of us, including me, can slip.


Well, it appears that the ones most admonished for taking the thread off topic (in your opinion) were those who were disagreeing with something that you agreed with.



> My comment that the guy was brilliant was in admiration for a very well thought out, well organized, and well constructed lecture that held the viewer's interest.  I have praised others likewise when I didn't agree with ANYTHING they said, but very much appreciated the competent argument they put together and the audience friendly nature of a presentation.  I was also clear that I didn't agree with everything in that video and that only some of the content was pertinent to this thread.


You may not have agreed with what he said, but your positive comments about it was very clear that you were being partisan, because like I said before, the video was not addressing any of the points in your OP.....all it was doing was blaming Liberals for the obvious hostility between parties,  when you know as well as I do, that it happens on both sides.



> I have tried to be even handed and consistent in not allowing off topic content, but I am human with feet of clay like everybody else, and sometimes I won't get the job done in every single case.  Sometimes it is smart to just ignore the occasional off topic comment and hope everybody will let it slide.  Doesn't always work though.
> 
> The thread topic is about allowing a person his her belief or opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will hurt him physically and/or materially for no other reason than he expressed it.


I know what the topic is, you've pointed it out to me several times....and I have already given you my opinion, which you might have missed, the other comments I've made were in reference to others going off topic, which remarkably you haven't pointed out to them.

I've nothing more to say.....I'm done with this thread.


----------



## Plasmaball

Mac1958 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, threads do tend to get pushed entirely off the rails, we tend to let our minds wander a bit.
> 
> I think your question has been answered pretty clearly.  There are obviously people in our society who have taken it upon themselves to do exactly what you're talking about.  They feel that, based on their own code, they will use every legal means necessary to control the very words we use.  Threats, intimidation and punishment are all perfectly legitimate means for them.
> 
> There are plenty of examples just on the various PC-related threads here.  And now there is even a thread on which they have gathered to convince themselves that, since (in their minds) tolerance simply isn't going to happen, they may as well proudly run with intolerance.  Then they all pat themselves on the back for reaching this foregone conclusion and continue on.
> 
> This behavior - leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking - _uses our own cherished freedoms against us._
> 
> Seems to me that it takes a very cynical mix of narcissism and paranoia to think this way.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best post of the day!!!  Best post of the thread!!!   Maybe best post of the year!!!
> 
> Reminds me of some other significant comments on tolerance from some great minds:
> 
> In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher.--The Dali Lama
> 
> "I have seen great intolerance shown in support of tolerance."--Samuel Taylor Coleridge
> 
> "Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause."--Mahatma Gandhi
> 
> "Intolerance is the most socially acceptable form of egotism, for it permits us to assume superiority without personal boasting."--Sidney J. Harris
> 
> "Pass no rash condemnation on other peoples words or actions.--Thomas P. Kempis​
> But there is the opposite side of that coin when we know that tolerance of everything is belief or conviction in nothing.  There are valid reasons for boycotts and doing what we can to stop people who are literally hurting or threatening other people and/or who are treading on the rights of others.  There is nothing wrong with those who speak their own opinions in rebuttal to the 'wrong' opinions of others.
> 
> In the much more narrow confines in this thread, I hope to raise consciousness in our sociopolitical cultural that will allow people to express their opinons, right or wrong, without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after them and try to physically and/or materially hurt them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would add one thing:
> 
> In general, these are the same people who would passionately defend a Muslim group if that group wanted to open a new mosque in an area that would be very sensitive to some people, such as near to Ground Zero.
> 
> "We have freedom of religion in this country," they would scream.  "Leave them alone to practice their freedom of religion, you must stay out of their way."  They're very, very tolerant about that.
> 
> Yet they're not quite as tolerant when someone wants to question someone or something protected by their PC.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

omg...lol....i needed that


----------



## Foxfyre

Mertex said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one. * Mojo that video was brilliant *and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, *he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> First I HATE debating with chopped up posts because it too often separates somebody's thoughts from other comments that modify or qualify an initial comment. That isn't a mandate of any kind, but is just my explanation for why I so rarely do it except when responding to clearly unrelated things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, they are not chopped up, they are divided into smaller separate statements so that each can be addressed directly without causing confusion as to which specific comment one is addressing.  Lumping everything into one long paragraph or paragraphs sometimes causes confusion as to which statement the responder is addressing.  Just a matter of choice.
> 
> You are being disingenuous here.....you have already denied having said that you believe what Glaad did should be considered a crime, even after the exact post was produced, and then tried to claim you meant something else.
> 
> Saying the video is "brilliant" is lavishing praise on it, unless you meant it was shining bright like a light, which would make it even more disingenuous.
> 
> 
> Only after you made positives claims about it and complimented him on doing his homework, which is remarkable, because most of what he said was not backed up with links to facts.  It appears the only reason you made that statement was to preclude some of us from refuting it, and sure enough, you castigated those of us who brought it up, and claimed that it was not relevant to your OP.
> 
> 
> Yet when I presented the video of Pat Robertson, proving that someone on the right was actually claiming that America deserved to be punished i.e. 9/11, you immediately told me that it had nothing to do with the OP.  Then Tinydancer provides another example of someone saying the same thing and you say nothing to her, but when I respond, you tell me that what we are discussing has nothing to do with the OP.  It seems pretty clear that you are being partisan, and you are now taking exception to being told so.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you making new rules?  I've never seen that being the rule in other threads.  People bring something up and their discourse will continue in that direction until someone else brings up a point of the OP and others follow on and the topic of the OP is restored.  I've never seen the OP make such a claim (to start another thread) except for clear troll comments that are not remotely related to the topic.  The video that has been discussed was not related to your topic at all....it was a video of someone dissing Liberals...didn't mention any group dissenting it.  Only those of us who found his comments offensive dissented it, but I don't think we're forming a campaign to bring the dude down.
> 
> Well, it appears that the ones most admonished for taking the thread off topic (in your opinion) were those who were disagreeing with something that you agreed with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My comment that the guy was brilliant was in admiration for a very well thought out, well organized, and well constructed lecture that held the viewer's interest.  I have praised others likewise when I didn't agree with ANYTHING they said, but very much appreciated the competent argument they put together and the audience friendly nature of a presentation.  I was also clear that I didn't agree with everything in that video and that only some of the content was pertinent to this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may not have agreed with what he said, but your positive comments about it was very clear that you were being partisan, because like I said before, the video was not addressing any of the points in your OP.....all it was doing was blaming Liberals for the obvious hostility between parties,  when you know as well as I do, that it happens on both sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have tried to be even handed and consistent in not allowing off topic content, but I am human with feet of clay like everybody else, and sometimes I won't get the job done in every single case.  Sometimes it is smart to just ignore the occasional off topic comment and hope everybody will let it slide.  Doesn't always work though.
> 
> The thread topic is about allowing a person his her belief or opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will hurt him physically and/or materially for no other reason than he expressed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know what the topic is, you've pointed it out to me several times....and I have already given you my opinion, which you might have missed, the other comments I've made were in reference to others going off topic, which remarkably you haven't pointed out to them.
> 
> I've nothing more to say.....I'm done with this thread.
Click to expand...


You are the fourth person now to say you're done with the thread.  But so far everybody who has said that keeps coming back.  

Sorry I am not meeting your standards Mertex--I simply don't have the time or energy to respond to every single post nor am I sufficiently omnipotent to be able to meet everybody's expectations.  I really am trying to do the best that I can here.

The thread topic is whether a person should be able to express even an unpopular opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after that person and attempt to physically and/or materially hurt him or her.   Do you believe a person should be able to do that?


----------



## Foxfyre

Mac1958 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, threads do tend to get pushed entirely off the rails, we tend to let our minds wander a bit.
> 
> I think your question has been answered pretty clearly.  There are obviously people in our society who have taken it upon themselves to do exactly what you're talking about.  They feel that, based on their own code, they will use every legal means necessary to control the very words we use.  Threats, intimidation and punishment are all perfectly legitimate means for them.
> 
> There are plenty of examples just on the various PC-related threads here.  And now there is even a thread on which they have gathered to convince themselves that, since (in their minds) tolerance simply isn't going to happen, they may as well proudly run with intolerance.  Then they all pat themselves on the back for reaching this foregone conclusion and continue on.
> 
> This behavior - leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking - _uses our own cherished freedoms against us._
> 
> Seems to me that it takes a very cynical mix of narcissism and paranoia to think this way.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best post of the day!!!  Best post of the thread!!!   Maybe best post of the year!!!
> 
> Reminds me of some other significant comments on tolerance from some great minds:
> 
> &#8220;In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher.&#8221;--The Dali Lama
> 
> "I have seen great intolerance shown in support of tolerance."--Samuel Taylor Coleridge
> 
> "Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause."--Mahatma Gandhi
> 
> "Intolerance is the most socially acceptable form of egotism, for it permits us to assume superiority without personal boasting."--Sidney J. Harris
> 
> "Pass no rash condemnation on other peoples words or actions.--Thomas P. Kempis​
> But there is the opposite side of that coin when we know that tolerance of everything is belief or conviction in nothing.  There are valid reasons for boycotts and doing what we can to stop people who are literally hurting or threatening other people and/or who are treading on the rights of others.  There is nothing wrong with those who speak their own opinions in rebuttal to the 'wrong' opinions of others.
> 
> In the much more narrow confines in this thread, I hope to raise consciousness in our sociopolitical cultural that will allow people to express their opinons, right or wrong, without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after them and try to physically and/or materially hurt them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would add one thing:
> 
> In general, these are the same people who would passionately defend a Muslim group if that group wanted to open a new mosque in an area that would be very sensitive to some people, such as near to Ground Zero.
> 
> "We have freedom of religion in this country," they would scream.  "Leave them alone to practice their freedom of religion, you must stay out of their way."  They're very, very tolerant about that.
> 
> Yet they're not quite as tolerant when someone wants to question someone or something protected by their PC.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


We're into another gray area re that mosque near ground zero.  I have struggled with my own conscience re what I think about that.  The argument is compelling that the people who would be attending that mosque, so far as we know, had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and should not be punished or accept the consequences of somebody else's actions who happened to be of the same religion.  And on the other side are those who are sensitive to the feelings of the people who lost loved ones due to bad acts prompted by that religion being subject to a permanent in their face reminder of that.  The pros and cons of that are well debated on other threads and should be left to other threads.

I am more interested in how we allow people to express their opinions about it.  Shouldn't those who favor the mosque be able to say so without fear of the angry mob, etc. trying to hurt them because they favor it?  Shouldn't those who oppose it be able to say so without fear of that angry mob?

It still really comes down to a tolerance that allows people who aren't hurting anybody else being allowed to be who and what they are, even if who and what they are is seen as intolerance by others.  And again, who gets to make up the list about what it is okay to say and what is not okay to say?


----------



## BillyZane

Foxfyre said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread topic is about allowing a person his her belief or opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will hurt him physically and/or materially for no other reason than he expressed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, threads do tend to get pushed entirely off the rails, we tend to let our minds wander a bit.
> 
> I think your question has been answered pretty clearly.  There are obviously people in our society who have taken it upon themselves to do exactly what you're talking about.  They feel that, based on their own code, they will use every legal means necessary to control the very words we use.  Threats, intimidation and punishment are all perfectly legitimate means for them.
> 
> There are plenty of examples just on the various PC-related threads here.  And now there is even a thread on which they have gathered to convince themselves that, since (in their minds) tolerance simply isn't going to happen, they may as well proudly run with intolerance.  Then they all pat themselves on the back for reaching this foregone conclusion and continue on.
> 
> This behavior - leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking - _uses our own cherished freedoms against us._
> 
> Seems to me that it takes a very cynical mix of narcissism and paranoia to think this way.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Best post of the day!!!  Best post of the thread!!!   Maybe best post of the year!!!
> 
> Reminds me of some other significant comments on tolerance from some great minds:
> 
> In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher.--The Dali Lama
> 
> "I have seen great intolerance shown in support of tolerance."--Samuel Taylor Coleridge
> 
> "Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause."--Mahatma Gandhi
> 
> "Intolerance is the most socially acceptable form of egotism, for it permits us to assume superiority without personal boasting."--Sidney J. Harris
> 
> "Pass no rash condemnation on other peoples words or actions.--Thomas P. Kempis​
> But there is the opposite side of that coin when we know that tolerance of everything is belief or conviction in nothing.  There are valid reasons for boycotts and doing what we can to stop people who are literally hurting or threatening other people and/or who are treading on the rights of others.  There is nothing wrong with those who speak their own opinions in rebuttal to the 'wrong' opinions of others.
> 
> In the much more narrow confines in this thread, I hope to raise consciousness in our sociopolitical cultural that will allow people to express their opinons, right or wrong, without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after them and try to physically and/or materially hurt them.
Click to expand...


Tolerance isn't a belief in nothing or lack of convictions. It is simply the realization that we don't have the right to silence others based on OUR convictions

So, actually tolerance is the ULTIMATE conviction. Above all else I hold the right of all Americans to have their own opinions dear. Whether I agree with those opinions or not is irrelevant to that fact.


----------



## Foxfyre

BillyZane said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, threads do tend to get pushed entirely off the rails, we tend to let our minds wander a bit.
> 
> I think your question has been answered pretty clearly.  There are obviously people in our society who have taken it upon themselves to do exactly what you're talking about.  They feel that, based on their own code, they will use every legal means necessary to control the very words we use.  Threats, intimidation and punishment are all perfectly legitimate means for them.
> 
> There are plenty of examples just on the various PC-related threads here.  And now there is even a thread on which they have gathered to convince themselves that, since (in their minds) tolerance simply isn't going to happen, they may as well proudly run with intolerance.  Then they all pat themselves on the back for reaching this foregone conclusion and continue on.
> 
> This behavior - leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking - _uses our own cherished freedoms against us._
> 
> Seems to me that it takes a very cynical mix of narcissism and paranoia to think this way.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best post of the day!!!  Best post of the thread!!!   Maybe best post of the year!!!
> 
> Reminds me of some other significant comments on tolerance from some great minds:
> 
> In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher.--The Dali Lama
> 
> "I have seen great intolerance shown in support of tolerance."--Samuel Taylor Coleridge
> 
> "Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause."--Mahatma Gandhi
> 
> "Intolerance is the most socially acceptable form of egotism, for it permits us to assume superiority without personal boasting."--Sidney J. Harris
> 
> "Pass no rash condemnation on other peoples words or actions.--Thomas P. Kempis​
> But there is the opposite side of that coin when we know that tolerance of everything is belief or conviction in nothing.  There are valid reasons for boycotts and doing what we can to stop people who are literally hurting or threatening other people and/or who are treading on the rights of others.  There is nothing wrong with those who speak their own opinions in rebuttal to the 'wrong' opinions of others.
> 
> In the much more narrow confines in this thread, I hope to raise consciousness in our sociopolitical cultural that will allow people to express their opinons, right or wrong, without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after them and try to physically and/or materially hurt them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tolerance isn't a belief in nothing or lack of convictions. It is simply the realization that we don't have the right to silence others based on OUR convictions
> 
> So, actually tolerance is the ULTIMATE conviction. Above all else I hold the right of all Americans to have their own opinions dear. Whether I agree with those opinions or not is irrelevant to that fact.
Click to expand...


Thanks Billy.  That's pretty close to where I am at this time, though I hope I have an open mind if somebody has a a good argument against that concept.

The original thread title for this topic in the Politics Forum was a concept of the intolerance of intolerance that is in itself a worse intolerance.

David Duke, for instance, was used in an example in an earlier post in this thread.  Nobody would describe David Duke as a guy who expresses a lot of tolerant views.  Most of us have a pretty negative opinon of Mr. Duke.  But as long as he isn't acting out his views, if we don't allow a David Duke his views, however wrong they appear to us, how can we demand the right to express our own views without fear of that angry mob etc.?


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was society showing tolerance to the Dixie Chicks ten years ago?  Is society showing intolerance to the Duck guy today?
> 
> Has society extended the olive branch of tolerance to Rush Limbaugh after his many gaffes?  Does Ed Schultz bask in the glow of tolerance after his pronouncements?
> 
> Should outrageous claims about any person or group be tolerated, or merely excused as 'opinions'?
> 
> I'm not speaking in terms of litigation as speech is a protected right.  But can the offended call for boycotts or public apologies?
> 
> Can the offended go too far?  I guess it depends on the offense.  Should the parents of a fallen hero be offended by the Westboro Baptist Church file suit to restrain Fred Phelps and his minions?  Or does the Reverend Phelps have every right to voice his 'opinions'?  Does the duck fellow have a right to voice his opinions, or does he have the right to offend?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was society tolerant of the Dixie Chicks?  Some were.  Some were not.  Some expressed their contempt of what the Dixie Chicks said and that they would buy no more Dixie Chicks albums or attend no more Dixie Chicks concerts.   This is acceptable in my world.  We all should have the right to speak out about what we believe is wrong.  Or right.
> 
> But any who tried to ORGANIZE a protest of the Dixie Chicks for the purpose of hurting them physically and/or materially--who tried to run them out of the music industry--those people were wrong and just as wrong as GLAAD was going after Phil Robertson for no other offense that he expressed a belief they don't share.  The Dixie Chicks did not encourage anybody to do anything.  One of their members expressed her contempt for the President of the United States and did that on foreign soil.  Was that worthy of criticism?  Maybe yes or maybe no, but we all should be allowed our opinions about that.  Does that justify organizing to materially or physically harm the Dixie Chicks.  No way.
> 
> The principle is whether it is somebody just expressing an opinion or somebody encouraging others to harm somebody.  The prnciple is whether it is somebody just expressing an opinion or somebody ACTING out hate against others as the Westboro Baptist Church does.
> 
> A lot of folks seem to be having trouble making a distinction between those two things.   The right to offend?  Who gets to decide who has the right to not be offended?  Who gets to make the list of what is or is not offensive to speak?  Who gets to make the list of what is and what is not politically correct?  Much better to encourage the right of people to speak their opinions without fear of physical or material retaliation and focus our activism against those who are actually physically or materially hurting people.
Click to expand...


Why is it only in organization that you find fault?  

As I've said before, it seems to me you are more concerned with the end results than intent when you continue to harp on organization being the problem.  It makes your argument appear to be that hurting someone 'physically and/or materially' is evil, but trying to is not.  Either that, or somehow you are opposed to people doing things as a group.


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was society showing tolerance to the Dixie Chicks ten years ago?  Is society showing intolerance to the Duck guy today?
> 
> Has society extended the olive branch of tolerance to Rush Limbaugh after his many gaffes?  Does Ed Schultz bask in the glow of tolerance after his pronouncements?
> 
> Should outrageous claims about any person or group be tolerated, or merely excused as 'opinions'?
> 
> I'm not speaking in terms of litigation as speech is a protected right.  But can the offended call for boycotts or public apologies?
> 
> Can the offended go too far?  I guess it depends on the offense.  Should the parents of a fallen hero be offended by the Westboro Baptist Church file suit to restrain Fred Phelps and his minions?  Or does the Reverend Phelps have every right to voice his 'opinions'?  Does the duck fellow have a right to voice his opinions, or does he have the right to offend?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was society tolerant of the Dixie Chicks?  Some were.  Some were not.  Some expressed their contempt of what the Dixie Chicks said and that they would buy no more Dixie Chicks albums or attend no more Dixie Chicks concerts.   This is acceptable in my world.  We all should have the right to speak out about what we believe is wrong.  Or right.
> 
> But any who tried to ORGANIZE a protest of the Dixie Chicks for the purpose of hurting them physically and/or materially--who tried to run them out of the music industry--those people were wrong and just as wrong as GLAAD was going after Phil Robertson for no other offense that he expressed a belief they don't share.  The Dixie Chicks did not encourage anybody to do anything.  One of their members expressed her contempt for the President of the United States and did that on foreign soil.  Was that worthy of criticism?  Maybe yes or maybe no, but we all should be allowed our opinions about that.  Does that justify organizing to materially or physically harm the Dixie Chicks.  No way.
> 
> The principle is whether it is somebody just expressing an opinion or somebody encouraging others to harm somebody.  The prnciple is whether it is somebody just expressing an opinion or somebody ACTING out hate against others as the Westboro Baptist Church does.
> 
> A lot of folks seem to be having trouble making a distinction between those two things.   The right to offend?  Who gets to decide who has the right to not be offended?  Who gets to make the list of what is or is not offensive to speak?  Who gets to make the list of what is and what is not politically correct?  Much better to encourage the right of people to speak their opinions without fear of physical or material retaliation and focus our activism against those who are actually physically or materially hurting people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it only in organization that you find fault?
> 
> As I've said before, it seems to me you are more concerned with the end results than intent when you continue to harp on organization being the problem.  It makes your argument appear to be that hurting someone 'physically and/or materially' is evil, but trying to is not.  Either that, or somehow you are opposed to people doing things as a group.
Click to expand...


Of course I am concerned with the end result.  You see protest after protest, organized attack after organized attack on this business, that group, that person.  And more often than not more than half the people enlisted in the protest won't have any clue what the entity or person did or said to merit such attack.  They are just attacking as a pack of dogs thrills to the attack regardless of the purpose of it.  I don't see how any freedom loving person can condone that.

GLAAD was especially reprehensible when they intentionally distorted and misrepresented Phil Robertson's remarks on GQ Magazine and stirred up their ranks with a flat out lie about what Robertson said.  But even if they had not, they were still demonstrating that they were Robertson' judge and jury and he would not be allowed to express his opinion without being punished while they hold themselves up as immune to any form of intolerance expressed in any way by anybody.

That is a vastly different thing than me being offended by something Rush Limbaugh said and choosing to turn to a different radio station or me being offended by something the Dixie Chicks said and choosing to not buy any more of their albums or go to any more of their concerts.  And there is nothing wrong with me expressing my opinion and intent in a Letter to the Editor or any other forum made available to me.

To vote with our pocketbook or vote or rebuttal to what somebody said is a valid form of protest.  But to intentionally and deliberate organize to hurt somebody physically and/or materially is something quite different.  And if it is for no other reason than we don't like somebody or don't like what they say or how they say it, it is evil.


----------



## hunarcy

Nosmo King said:


> Was society showing tolerance to the Dixie Chicks ten years ago?



Society WAS tolerant of the Dixie Chicks.  However, their customers stopped buying their albums.  

Their customers never "researched them" to prepare to be blackballed, which is why GLAAD's actions toward Robertson was different than what happened to the Dixie Chicks.


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was society tolerant of the Dixie Chicks?  Some were.  Some were not.  Some expressed their contempt of what the Dixie Chicks said and that they would buy no more Dixie Chicks albums or attend no more Dixie Chicks concerts.   This is acceptable in my world.  We all should have the right to speak out about what we believe is wrong.  Or right.
> 
> But any who tried to ORGANIZE a protest of the Dixie Chicks for the purpose of hurting them physically and/or materially--who tried to run them out of the music industry--those people were wrong and just as wrong as GLAAD was going after Phil Robertson for no other offense that he expressed a belief they don't share.  The Dixie Chicks did not encourage anybody to do anything.  One of their members expressed her contempt for the President of the United States and did that on foreign soil.  Was that worthy of criticism?  Maybe yes or maybe no, but we all should be allowed our opinions about that.  Does that justify organizing to materially or physically harm the Dixie Chicks.  No way.
> 
> The principle is whether it is somebody just expressing an opinion or somebody encouraging others to harm somebody.  The prnciple is whether it is somebody just expressing an opinion or somebody ACTING out hate against others as the Westboro Baptist Church does.
> 
> A lot of folks seem to be having trouble making a distinction between those two things.   The right to offend?  Who gets to decide who has the right to not be offended?  Who gets to make the list of what is or is not offensive to speak?  Who gets to make the list of what is and what is not politically correct?  Much better to encourage the right of people to speak their opinions without fear of physical or material retaliation and focus our activism against those who are actually physically or materially hurting people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it only in organization that you find fault?
> 
> As I've said before, it seems to me you are more concerned with the end results than intent when you continue to harp on organization being the problem.  It makes your argument appear to be that hurting someone 'physically and/or materially' is evil, but trying to is not.  Either that, or somehow you are opposed to people doing things as a group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I am concerned with the end result.  You see protest after protest, organized attack after organized attack on this business, that group, that person.  And more often than not more than half the people enlisted in the protest won't have any clue what the entity or person did or said to merit such attack.  They are just attacking as a pack of dogs thrills to the attack regardless of the purpose of it.  I don't see how any freedom loving person can condone that.
> 
> GLAAD was especially reprehensible when they intentionally distorted and misrepresented Phil Robertson's remarks on GQ Magazine and stirred up their ranks with a flat out lie about what Robertson said.  But even if they had not, they were still demonstrating that they were Robertson' judge and jury and he would not be allowed to express his opinion without being punished while they hold themselves up as immune to any form of intolerance expressed in any way by anybody.
> 
> That is a vastly different thing than me being offended by something Rush Limbaugh said and choosing to turn to a different radio station or me being offended by something the Dixie Chicks said and choosing to not buy any more of their albums or go to any more of their concerts.  And there is nothing wrong with me expressing my opinion and intent in a Letter to the Editor or any other forum made available to me.
> 
> To vote with our pocketbook or vote or rebuttal to what somebody said is a valid form of protest.  But to intentionally and deliberate organize to hurt somebody physically and/or materially is something quite different.  And if it is for no other reason than we don't like somebody or don't like what they say or how they say it, it is evil.
Click to expand...


Why do you change the actions when you are talking of a group or an individual?

It's fine if you change radio stations or decide not to buy more of their albums.  Is it fine if a group of people decide to do that?

Is it fine for you to do that as an individual if your intent is to hurt the person(s) who has the radio show or sells the albums?

What if you, as an individual, intentionally misrepresent or lie about what someone says?

What if you, as an individual, demand that someone lose their job because of who and what they are?

You make it sound as though both the intent and the actions taken by an individual and by a group are never the same.  A rich, prominent individual can do pretty much the same things GLAAD can do, correct?  A poorly organized or funded group cannot.  But they can all be attempting to physically and/or materially hurt someone for being who and what they are.  Why you only seem to consider it a problem when it's an organization confuses me.


----------



## hunarcy

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it only in organization that you find fault?
> 
> As I've said before, it seems to me you are more concerned with the end results than intent when you continue to harp on organization being the problem.  It makes your argument appear to be that hurting someone 'physically and/or materially' is evil, but trying to is not.  Either that, or somehow you are opposed to people doing things as a group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I am concerned with the end result.  You see protest after protest, organized attack after organized attack on this business, that group, that person.  And more often than not more than half the people enlisted in the protest won't have any clue what the entity or person did or said to merit such attack.  They are just attacking as a pack of dogs thrills to the attack regardless of the purpose of it.  I don't see how any freedom loving person can condone that.
> 
> GLAAD was especially reprehensible when they intentionally distorted and misrepresented Phil Robertson's remarks on GQ Magazine and stirred up their ranks with a flat out lie about what Robertson said.  But even if they had not, they were still demonstrating that they were Robertson' judge and jury and he would not be allowed to express his opinion without being punished while they hold themselves up as immune to any form of intolerance expressed in any way by anybody.
> 
> That is a vastly different thing than me being offended by something Rush Limbaugh said and choosing to turn to a different radio station or me being offended by something the Dixie Chicks said and choosing to not buy any more of their albums or go to any more of their concerts.  And there is nothing wrong with me expressing my opinion and intent in a Letter to the Editor or any other forum made available to me.
> 
> To vote with our pocketbook or vote or rebuttal to what somebody said is a valid form of protest.  But to intentionally and deliberate organize to hurt somebody physically and/or materially is something quite different.  And if it is for no other reason than we don't like somebody or don't like what they say or how they say it, it is evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you change the actions when you are talking of a group or an individual?
> 
> It's fine if you change radio stations or decide not to buy more of their albums.  Is it fine if a group of people decide to do that?
> 
> Is it fine for you to do that as an individual if your intent is to hurt the person(s) who has the radio show or sells the albums?
> 
> What if you, as an individual, intentionally misrepresent or lie about what someone says?
> 
> What if you, as an individual, demand that someone lose their job because of who and what they are?
> 
> You make it sound as though both the intent and the actions taken by an individual and by a group are never the same.  A rich, prominent individual can do pretty much the same things GLAAD can do, correct?  A poorly organized or funded group cannot.  But they can all be attempting to physically and/or materially hurt someone for being who and what they are.  Why you only seem to consider it a problem when it's an organization confuses me.
Click to expand...


Why in the world you folks get your panties in a wad over boycotts is beyond me.  FF has repeatedly said she's not opposed to boycotts per se and has even participated in a few.  In fact, she's said it often enough that your deliberate ignoring of the fact is obvious.  I think she's shown an awful lot of patience by repeatedly trying to explain that which you chose to overlook.


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it only in organization that you find fault?
> 
> As I've said before, it seems to me you are more concerned with the end results than intent when you continue to harp on organization being the problem.  It makes your argument appear to be that hurting someone 'physically and/or materially' is evil, but trying to is not.  Either that, or somehow you are opposed to people doing things as a group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I am concerned with the end result.  You see protest after protest, organized attack after organized attack on this business, that group, that person.  And more often than not more than half the people enlisted in the protest won't have any clue what the entity or person did or said to merit such attack.  They are just attacking as a pack of dogs thrills to the attack regardless of the purpose of it.  I don't see how any freedom loving person can condone that.
> 
> GLAAD was especially reprehensible when they intentionally distorted and misrepresented Phil Robertson's remarks on GQ Magazine and stirred up their ranks with a flat out lie about what Robertson said.  But even if they had not, they were still demonstrating that they were Robertson' judge and jury and he would not be allowed to express his opinion without being punished while they hold themselves up as immune to any form of intolerance expressed in any way by anybody.
> 
> That is a vastly different thing than me being offended by something Rush Limbaugh said and choosing to turn to a different radio station or me being offended by something the Dixie Chicks said and choosing to not buy any more of their albums or go to any more of their concerts.  And there is nothing wrong with me expressing my opinion and intent in a Letter to the Editor or any other forum made available to me.
> 
> To vote with our pocketbook or vote or rebuttal to what somebody said is a valid form of protest.  But to intentionally and deliberate organize to hurt somebody physically and/or materially is something quite different.  And if it is for no other reason than we don't like somebody or don't like what they say or how they say it, it is evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you change the actions when you are talking of a group or an individual?
> 
> It's fine if you change radio stations or decide not to buy more of their albums.  Is it fine if a group of people decide to do that?
> 
> Is it fine for you to do that as an individual if your intent is to hurt the person(s) who has the radio show or sells the albums?
> 
> What if you, as an individual, intentionally misrepresent or lie about what someone says?
> 
> What if you, as an individual, demand that someone lose their job because of who and what they are?
> 
> You make it sound as though both the intent and the actions taken by an individual and by a group are never the same.  A rich, prominent individual can do pretty much the same things GLAAD can do, correct?  A poorly organized or funded group cannot.  But they can all be attempting to physically and/or materially hurt someone for being who and what they are.  Why you only seem to consider it a problem when it's an organization confuses me.
Click to expand...


I as an individual would be as hateful and intolerant as GLAAD or the American Family Association or any other such group if I demand somebody be fired for no other reason than I don't like the person or don't like something he/she said.

My intent if I choose not to listen to Rush Limbaugh, which usually IS my choice, or not to buy the albums of the Dixie Chicks, which usually also IS my choice, is because I do not wish to listen to Rush or the Dixie Chicks on any given day.  WHY i choose not to do that is pretty irrelevent, but if it is because one or both offended me, the outcome is the same.  My intent is not to hurt them.  My intent is that I choose not to patronize them.  It is no different than me choosing not to go back to a restaurant that had lousy food and/or service or choosing not to patronize a business that offers shoddy products or service or in which I was treated rudely.

The same, in my opinion, can apply to my group.  We as a group may decide not to patronize that business or not invite so and so to speak at our event or whatever.  I would have no problem whatsoever with the members of GLAAD agreeing as a group not to watch Duck Dynasty or the members of the American Family Association encouraging their membership to shop somewhere other than Penneys that they think runs bad ads.

But again the difference is in going after somebody--threatening them personally or their employer or their advertisers or their suppliers or their customers with the specific intention of physically and/or materially hurting that somebody for no other reason than the somebody expressed an 'offensive' opinion or used an 'offensive' word.

EDIT:  One more time let's draw a distinction between those who would boycott somebody who is doing bad ACTS that hurt people and those who would try to punish somebody for nothing more than expressing a personal opinion.


----------



## Foxfyre

hunarcy said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I am concerned with the end result.  You see protest after protest, organized attack after organized attack on this business, that group, that person.  And more often than not more than half the people enlisted in the protest won't have any clue what the entity or person did or said to merit such attack.  They are just attacking as a pack of dogs thrills to the attack regardless of the purpose of it.  I don't see how any freedom loving person can condone that.
> 
> GLAAD was especially reprehensible when they intentionally distorted and misrepresented Phil Robertson's remarks on GQ Magazine and stirred up their ranks with a flat out lie about what Robertson said.  But even if they had not, they were still demonstrating that they were Robertson' judge and jury and he would not be allowed to express his opinion without being punished while they hold themselves up as immune to any form of intolerance expressed in any way by anybody.
> 
> That is a vastly different thing than me being offended by something Rush Limbaugh said and choosing to turn to a different radio station or me being offended by something the Dixie Chicks said and choosing to not buy any more of their albums or go to any more of their concerts.  And there is nothing wrong with me expressing my opinion and intent in a Letter to the Editor or any other forum made available to me.
> 
> To vote with our pocketbook or vote or rebuttal to what somebody said is a valid form of protest.  But to intentionally and deliberate organize to hurt somebody physically and/or materially is something quite different.  And if it is for no other reason than we don't like somebody or don't like what they say or how they say it, it is evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you change the actions when you are talking of a group or an individual?
> 
> It's fine if you change radio stations or decide not to buy more of their albums.  Is it fine if a group of people decide to do that?
> 
> Is it fine for you to do that as an individual if your intent is to hurt the person(s) who has the radio show or sells the albums?
> 
> What if you, as an individual, intentionally misrepresent or lie about what someone says?
> 
> What if you, as an individual, demand that someone lose their job because of who and what they are?
> 
> You make it sound as though both the intent and the actions taken by an individual and by a group are never the same.  A rich, prominent individual can do pretty much the same things GLAAD can do, correct?  A poorly organized or funded group cannot.  But they can all be attempting to physically and/or materially hurt someone for being who and what they are.  Why you only seem to consider it a problem when it's an organization confuses me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why in the world you folks get your panties in a wad over boycotts is beyond me.  FF has repeatedly said she's not opposed to boycotts per se and has even participated in a few.  In fact, she's said it often enough that your deliberate ignoring of the fact is obvious.  I think she's shown an awful lot of patience by repeatedly trying to explain that which you chose to overlook.
Click to expand...


Okay Hunarcy, you know I appreciate you a lot, but you're giving Montrovant some grief he doesn't deserve here.   I have encouraged and invited differences of opinion and welcome having my point of view challenged and he is doing that competently, objectively, and without malice.  If I can't competently defend my point of view, it is probably flawed, yes?

I honestly welcome the mental workout. 

You two would likely be good friends in a different setting.


----------



## Montrovant

hunarcy said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I am concerned with the end result.  You see protest after protest, organized attack after organized attack on this business, that group, that person.  And more often than not more than half the people enlisted in the protest won't have any clue what the entity or person did or said to merit such attack.  They are just attacking as a pack of dogs thrills to the attack regardless of the purpose of it.  I don't see how any freedom loving person can condone that.
> 
> GLAAD was especially reprehensible when they intentionally distorted and misrepresented Phil Robertson's remarks on GQ Magazine and stirred up their ranks with a flat out lie about what Robertson said.  But even if they had not, they were still demonstrating that they were Robertson' judge and jury and he would not be allowed to express his opinion without being punished while they hold themselves up as immune to any form of intolerance expressed in any way by anybody.
> 
> That is a vastly different thing than me being offended by something Rush Limbaugh said and choosing to turn to a different radio station or me being offended by something the Dixie Chicks said and choosing to not buy any more of their albums or go to any more of their concerts.  And there is nothing wrong with me expressing my opinion and intent in a Letter to the Editor or any other forum made available to me.
> 
> To vote with our pocketbook or vote or rebuttal to what somebody said is a valid form of protest.  But to intentionally and deliberate organize to hurt somebody physically and/or materially is something quite different.  And if it is for no other reason than we don't like somebody or don't like what they say or how they say it, it is evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you change the actions when you are talking of a group or an individual?
> 
> It's fine if you change radio stations or decide not to buy more of their albums.  Is it fine if a group of people decide to do that?
> 
> Is it fine for you to do that as an individual if your intent is to hurt the person(s) who has the radio show or sells the albums?
> 
> What if you, as an individual, intentionally misrepresent or lie about what someone says?
> 
> What if you, as an individual, demand that someone lose their job because of who and what they are?
> 
> You make it sound as though both the intent and the actions taken by an individual and by a group are never the same.  A rich, prominent individual can do pretty much the same things GLAAD can do, correct?  A poorly organized or funded group cannot.  But they can all be attempting to physically and/or materially hurt someone for being who and what they are.  Why you only seem to consider it a problem when it's an organization confuses me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why in the world you folks get your panties in a wad over boycotts is beyond me.  FF has repeatedly said she's not opposed to boycotts per se and has even participated in a few.  In fact, she's said it often enough that your deliberate ignoring of the fact is obvious.  I think she's shown an awful lot of patience by repeatedly trying to explain that which you chose to overlook.
Click to expand...


Well, I wasn't specifically talking about boycotts.  I was trying to find out why there seemed to be a difference in Foxy's opinion when an individual or when a group does the same thing.

That said, we also have a difference of opinion about just what a boycott is, I think.  I consider a boycott a form of expression, an opinion that a person or group is attempting to get others to share.  Foxfyre, while she has clearly stated that she has no problem with boycotting because of acts and has, in fact, contributed to such, is opposed to boycotts merely because of who or what a person is.  

I believe that a boycott, for whatever reason, is perfectly fine because it is, in essence, a person saying, "I dislike xxx.  I think you, too, should dislike xxx and show it by not purchasing/watching/reading/listening to xxx.".  So I think we have a bit of a gap in our views of boycotts.

But my post was really intended to find out if there are specific things that groups cannot ethically do that individuals can, or vice versa.


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you change the actions when you are talking of a group or an individual?
> 
> It's fine if you change radio stations or decide not to buy more of their albums.  Is it fine if a group of people decide to do that?
> 
> Is it fine for you to do that as an individual if your intent is to hurt the person(s) who has the radio show or sells the albums?
> 
> What if you, as an individual, intentionally misrepresent or lie about what someone says?
> 
> What if you, as an individual, demand that someone lose their job because of who and what they are?
> 
> You make it sound as though both the intent and the actions taken by an individual and by a group are never the same.  A rich, prominent individual can do pretty much the same things GLAAD can do, correct?  A poorly organized or funded group cannot.  But they can all be attempting to physically and/or materially hurt someone for being who and what they are.  Why you only seem to consider it a problem when it's an organization confuses me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why in the world you folks get your panties in a wad over boycotts is beyond me.  FF has repeatedly said she's not opposed to boycotts per se and has even participated in a few.  In fact, she's said it often enough that your deliberate ignoring of the fact is obvious.  I think she's shown an awful lot of patience by repeatedly trying to explain that which you chose to overlook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I wasn't specifically talking about boycotts.  I was trying to find out why there seemed to be a difference in Foxy's opinion when an individual or when a group does the same thing.
> 
> That said, we also have a difference of opinion about just what a boycott is, I think.  I consider a boycott a form of expression, an opinion that a person or group is attempting to get others to share.  Foxfyre, while she has clearly stated that she has no problem with boycotting because of acts and has, in fact, contributed to such, is opposed to boycotts merely because of who or what a person is.
> 
> I believe that a boycott, for whatever reason, is perfectly fine because it is, in essence, a person saying, "I dislike xxx.  I think you, too, should dislike xxx and show it by not purchasing/watching/reading/listening to xxx.".  So I think we have a bit of a gap in our views of boycotts.
> 
> But my post was really intended to find out if there are specific things that groups cannot ethically do that individuals can, or vice versa.
Click to expand...


It is pretty simple for me and my sense of ethics.  An organized boycott of something purely because you don't like an opinion expressed by somebody - not okay.

An organized boycott of something or somebody doing bad ACTs that hurt people - okay.


----------



## Foxfyre

hunarcy said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was society showing tolerance to the Dixie Chicks ten years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Society WAS tolerant of the Dixie Chicks.  However, their customers stopped buying their albums.
> 
> Their customers never "researched them" to prepare to be blackballed, which is why GLAAD's actions toward Robertson was different than what happened to the Dixie Chicks.
Click to expand...


I think you're probably right, but I didn't research it a lot so I honestly don't know if there were any organized boycotts against the Dixie Chicks or not.  As I recall however, boycotts were mentioned and also some death threats that should never be acceptable to anybody.  That many of their fans were angry at the remarks--both their remarks given in London and even worse remarks they made trying to 'fix' the bruhaha--is legitimate.  But organizing in an effort to drive them out of country music--not legitimate or okay as I see it.  I honestly don't know if anybody did that.


----------



## TemplarKormac

I look at it like this:

I don't care who you are, what you do (within the bounds of law), what you stand for or how you stand for it. So long as you don't force that on me, my tolerance will be numbered as the stars in the sky. The Constitution gives you all the right in the world to believe what you want and do what you want (once again within the bounds of the law). That tolerance, however, goes away when you decide to tell me what I am, what I should do, what I stand for or how I stand for it, and threaten action against me because you yourself are intolerant of it. As long as you walk my fine line of tolerance, I'll walk yours. It's that simple.


----------



## Foxfyre

In looking up something else, I saw this cartoon that pretty well sums up tolerance in the USA these days I think:


----------



## TemplarKormac

To add to Fox's above post:


----------



## R.D.

Evander Holyfield sparks anger with homophobic comments | Mail Online


----------



## Foxfyre

TemplarKormac said:


> I look at it like this:
> 
> I don't care who you are, what you do (within the bounds of law), what you stand for or how you stand for it. So long as you don't force that on me, my tolerance will be numbered as the stars in the sky. The Constitution gives you all the right in the world to believe what you want and do what you want (once again within the bounds of the law). That tolerance, however, goes away when you decide to tell me what I am, what I should do, what I stand for or how I stand for it, and threaten action against me because you yourself are intolerant of it. As long as you walk my fine line of tolerance, I'll walk yours. It's that simple.



Well you are more tolerant than I am TK, because if you make a statement that I disagree with on a message board, I will often tell you why I disagree with it.  However, there are some, including you, at USMB who allow that, even welcome that, so long as I am addressing your opinion and not, as you explained, tellling YOU what YOU think, want, believe, who you are, or misrepresent what you say.  That makes for great discussion and give and take.

And there are some who simply are incapable of addressing and rebutting the other person's opinion.  They instead go after the person who expressed the opinion accusing him/her of all sorts of negative things while they rarely, if ever, address the opinion that provoked the attack.  And if we push back on that, the food fight starts.  Or, if they are unable to provoke a food fight, they get in a huff, snit, or whatever, put on their rubber pants, take their ball, and go home.  And if a thread dissolves into nothing but a food fight, I can be just as frustrated and 'go home' myself.

On a message board no harm no foul.  I can ignore those who accuse me of all manner of things including being a liar, being blindly partisan, being stupid, being whatever.  I probably won't respect them much if they do that, but oh well.  If I don't want my thoughts dictated by them, then I have to allow them their thoughts too.  And if they want to make it personal, that is their right.  I just don't have to participate.

In real life it gets more complicated.  There when people attack others for their beliefs, it can have real life consequences.  And at some point, as a society, as a culture, we have to be able to distinguish right from wrong in a material way when it comes to tolerance.  Organizing in an effort to stop those who are hurting others in a physical or material way, yes.  Organizing to punish somebody who expresses an opinon or uses a word we don't like?  I can't justify that on any moral or ethical grounds.


----------



## Foxfyre

R.D. said:


> Evander Holyfield sparks anger with homophobic comments | Mail Online



Hmmm interesting.  I wonder if GLAAD will go after Holyfield and Big Brother?  If they are equal opportunity vigilantes they will.  And, in my opinion, they would be just as wrong when they do that as they were to go after Phil Robertson.  Big Brother, however, has its own guidelines and rules and what they enforce in the matter is their own business.


----------



## R.D.

Foxfyre said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evander Holyfield sparks anger with homophobic comments | Mail Online
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm interesting.  I wonder if GLAAD will go after Holyfield and Big Brother?  If they are equal opportunity vigilantes they will.  And, in my opinion, they would be just as wrong when they do that as they were to go after Phil Robertson.  Big Brother, however, has its own guidelines and rules and what they enforce in the matter is their own business.
Click to expand...


We only know what they printed, but I call it pc overload and wrong.  Being offended is now taking on the same importance of being physically assaulted.   I get a little embarrassed for people who need constant saving from different points of view 

_'While Big Brother understands these are the views you hold, they arent the views that are held by a large section of society and expressing these views will be extremely offensive to many people. Do you understand why?'
_


----------



## Mac1958

R.D. said:


> Being offended is now taking on the same importance of being physically assaulted.   I get a little embarrassed for people who need constant saving from different points of view.




Bravo.


.


----------



## Foxfyre

R.D. said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evander Holyfield sparks anger with homophobic comments | Mail Online
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm interesting.  I wonder if GLAAD will go after Holyfield and Big Brother?  If they are equal opportunity vigilantes they will.  And, in my opinion, they would be just as wrong when they do that as they were to go after Phil Robertson.  Big Brother, however, has its own guidelines and rules and what they enforce in the matter is their own business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We only know what they printed, but I call it pc overload and wrong.  Being offended is now taking on the same importance of being physically assaulted.   I get a little embarrassed for people who need constant saving from different points of view
> 
> _'While Big Brother understands these are the views you hold, they arent the views that are held by a large section of society and expressing these views will be extremely offensive to many people. Do you understand why?'
> _
Click to expand...


Still, I can accept Big Brother's desire to avoid controversies like that and a desire NOT to offend a large segment of the population.  I don't have any problem with them issuing some reasonable rules of conduct.  At the same time, one in the house last season was accused of making racist statements and Big Brother aired those comments.  They dealt with it by putting out that typical disclaimer that the views of the house guests does not necessairly reflect those of Big Brother yadda yadda or however they word that.  And it was fine.

But if GLAAD doesn't come after Holyfield with the same vengeance they went after Phil Robertson, they are huge hypocrites.  And if they do, they are evil.  Sorta boxes them in doesn't it.


----------



## BDBoop

Nosmo King said:


> Was society showing tolerance to the Dixie Chicks ten years ago?  Is society showing intolerance to the Duck guy today?
> 
> Has society extended the olive branch of tolerance to Rush Limbaugh after his many gaffes?  Does Ed Schultz bask in the glow of tolerance after his pronouncements?
> 
> Should outrageous claims about any person or group be tolerated, or merely excused as 'opinions'?
> 
> I'm not speaking in terms of litigation as speech is a protected right.  But can the offended call for boycotts or public apologies?
> 
> Can the offended go too far?  I guess it depends on the offense.  Should the parents of a fallen hero be offended by the Westboro Baptist Church file suit to restrain Fred Phelps and his minions?  Or does the Reverend Phelps have every right to voice his 'opinions'?  Does the duck fellow have a right to voice his opinions, or does he have the right to offend?



Thank you.


----------



## R.D.

Foxfyre said:


> Still, I can accept Big Brother's desire to avoid controversies like that and a desire NOT to offend a large segment of the population.  I don't have any problem with them issuing some reasonable rules of conduct.  At the same time, one in the house last season was accused of making racist statements and Big Brother aired those comments.  They dealt with it by putting out that typical disclaimer that the views of the house guests does not necessairly reflect those of Big Brother yadda yadda or however they word that.  And it was fine.
> 
> But if GLAAD doesn't come after Holyfield with the same vengeance they went after Phil Robertson, they are huge hypocrites.  And if they do, they are evil.  Sorta boxes them in doesn't it.



I have to accept it, no way around it.  But the compulsion to protect a segment of the population causes them to in fact be offensive to the other segment that don't see his views as offensive.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Nosmo King said:


> Was society showing tolerance to the Dixie Chicks ten years ago?  Is society showing intolerance to the Duck guy today?
> 
> Has society extended the olive branch of tolerance to Rush Limbaugh after his many gaffes?  Does Ed Schultz bask in the glow of tolerance after his pronouncements?
> 
> Should outrageous claims about any person or group be tolerated, or merely excused as 'opinions'?
> 
> I'm not speaking in terms of litigation as speech is a protected right.  *But can the offended call for boycotts or public apologies? *
> 
> Can the offended go too far?  I guess it depends on the offense.  Should the parents of a fallen hero be offended by the Westboro Baptist Church file suit to restrain Fred Phelps and his minions?  Or does the Reverend Phelps have every right to voice his 'opinions'?  Does the duck fellow have a right to voice his opinions, or does he have the right to offend?



Of course they can. 

And private society is at liberty to heed the call for a boycott or ignore it.


----------



## Mac1958

R.D. said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, I can accept Big Brother's desire to avoid controversies like that and a desire NOT to offend a large segment of the population.  I don't have any problem with them issuing some reasonable rules of conduct.  At the same time, one in the house last season was accused of making racist statements and Big Brother aired those comments.  They dealt with it by putting out that typical disclaimer that the views of the house guests does not necessairly reflect those of Big Brother yadda yadda or however they word that.  And it was fine.
> 
> But if GLAAD doesn't come after Holyfield with the same vengeance they went after Phil Robertson, they are huge hypocrites.  And if they do, they are evil.  Sorta boxes them in doesn't it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to accept it, no way around it.  But the compulsion to protect a segment of the population causes them to in fact be offensive to the other segment that don't see his views as offensive.
Click to expand...



They're narcissists.  If they're offended, that's all that matters, and someone must pay.  They're above turning the other cheek.

.


----------



## Foxfyre

R.D. said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, I can accept Big Brother's desire to avoid controversies like that and a desire NOT to offend a large segment of the population.  I don't have any problem with them issuing some reasonable rules of conduct.  At the same time, one in the house last season was accused of making racist statements and Big Brother aired those comments.  They dealt with it by putting out that typical disclaimer that the views of the house guests does not necessairly reflect those of Big Brother yadda yadda or however they word that.  And it was fine.
> 
> But if GLAAD doesn't come after Holyfield with the same vengeance they went after Phil Robertson, they are huge hypocrites.  And if they do, they are evil.  Sorta boxes them in doesn't it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to accept it, no way around it.  But the compulsion to protect a segment of the population causes them to in fact be offensive to the other segment that don't see his views as offensive.
Click to expand...


Of course it does.  But as the now much maligned and speaker in that video that MOJO posted explained, that isn't an issue with the PC police.  The view of the PC police is the righteous one, and it must be forced on all of society as a matter of virtue and justice.  And any who would challenge their view must be silenced.   So any who would agree with or defend Holyfield's right to his opinion must be suppressed by force or figurtively or literally destroyed.  They don't matter because they are in the wrong, the bad guys, the evil ones.

But will they take on the left leaning Big Brother?  Or an Evander Holyfield who is 'gasp' black and an idol for many of their membership?   I would be really really amazed if they did.  But if they don't, that would make them huge hypocrites and even more hateful for going after a Phil Robertson.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Mac1958 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread topic is about allowing a person his her belief or opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will hurt him physically and/or materially for no other reason than he expressed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, threads do tend to get pushed entirely off the rails, we tend to let our minds wander a bit.
> 
> I think your question has been answered pretty clearly.  There are obviously people in our society who have taken it upon themselves to do exactly what you're talking about.  They feel that, based on their own code, they will use every legal means necessary to control the very words we use.  Threats, intimidation and punishment are all perfectly legitimate means for them.
> 
> There are plenty of examples just on the various PC-related threads here.  And now there is even a thread on which they have gathered to convince themselves that, since (in their minds) tolerance simply isn't going to happen, they may as well proudly run with intolerance.  Then they all pat themselves on the back for reaching this foregone conclusion and continue on.
> 
> This behavior - leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking - _uses our own cherished freedoms against us._
> 
> Seems to me that it takes a very cynical mix of narcissism and paranoia to think this way.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Incorrect. 

No one is leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking, as freedom of speech is a legal term in the context of the relationship between the speaker and his government. 

The issue here has nothing to do with freedom of speech, leveraged or otherwise, as no one is seeking to use the power and authority of the state to preempt speech.  

In a free and democratic society citizens are at liberty to speak out as they please. Private society in general will determine what is or is not appropriate speech. This is why there is no such thing as political correctness, as speech or actions considered inappropriate are determined so by private society as a whole, not one particular group. 

Everyone is at liberty to say or do what he wishes (assuming it doesnt violate the law, of course), and there is nothing stopping anyone from saying and doing whatever he wishes. And everyone is at liberty to object to speech he perceives to be inappropriate, to denounce that speech, to call for boycotts, petition sponsors, or start a campaign to remove the speaker from the venue in which he expresses his opinions. 

Private society as a whole will evaluate the merits of the issue and the two conflicting views and make a determination as to what is appropriate or not. 

That some might fear this process is perhaps understandable, but its infinitely preferable to government or the courts becoming involved and making the determination of what is appropriate or not. 

In fact, this process should be celebrated and encouraged, as it demonstrates the ability of a free and democratic society to govern itself with regard to creating and expressing mores and values that form the foundation of that free and democratic society.


----------



## Foxfyre

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread topic is about allowing a person his her belief or opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will hurt him physically and/or materially for no other reason than he expressed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, threads do tend to get pushed entirely off the rails, we tend to let our minds wander a bit.
> 
> I think your question has been answered pretty clearly.  There are obviously people in our society who have taken it upon themselves to do exactly what you're talking about.  They feel that, based on their own code, they will use every legal means necessary to control the very words we use.  Threats, intimidation and punishment are all perfectly legitimate means for them.
> 
> There are plenty of examples just on the various PC-related threads here.  And now there is even a thread on which they have gathered to convince themselves that, since (in their minds) tolerance simply isn't going to happen, they may as well proudly run with intolerance.  Then they all pat themselves on the back for reaching this foregone conclusion and continue on.
> 
> This behavior - leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking - _uses our own cherished freedoms against us._
> 
> Seems to me that it takes a very cynical mix of narcissism and paranoia to think this way.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> No one is leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking, as freedom of speech is a legal term in the context of the relationship between the speaker and his government.
> 
> The issue here has nothing to do with freedom of speech, leveraged or otherwise, as no one is seeking to use the power and authority of the state to preempt speech.
> 
> In a free and democratic society citizens are at liberty to speak out as they please. Private society in general will determine what is or is not appropriate speech. This is why there is no such thing as political correctness, as speech or actions considered inappropriate are determined so by private society as a whole, not one particular group.
> 
> Everyone is at liberty to say or do what he wishes (assuming it doesnt violate the law, of course), and there is nothing stopping anyone from saying and doing whatever he wishes. And everyone is at liberty to object to speech he perceives to be inappropriate, to denounce that speech, to call for boycotts, petition sponsors, or start a campaign to remove the speaker from the venue in which he expresses his opinions.
> 
> Private society as a whole will evaluate the merits of the issue and the two conflicting views and make a determination as to what is appropriate or not.
> 
> That some might fear this process is perhaps understandable, but its infinitely preferable to government or the courts becoming involved and making the determination of what is appropriate or not.
> 
> In fact, this process should be celebrated and encouraged, as it demonstrates the ability of a free and democratic society to govern itself with regard to creating and expressing mores and values that form the foundation of that free and democratic society.
Click to expand...


And some of us see how destructive, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people personally and/or materially for no offense worse than expressing an unpopular opinion or belief or for using a word that some in society have decided is taboo.  And some of us have adopted a cause to try to help others see how destructivve, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people that way, and one by one change hearts, minds, and ultimately the culture to one that is far more tolerant and values liberty than what we have now.

To make that long story short, I hope to do what I can to change the culture and make attacking people for their beliefs so socially unacceptable, people will choose not to do that.


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, threads do tend to get pushed entirely off the rails, we tend to let our minds wander a bit.
> 
> I think your question has been answered pretty clearly.  There are obviously people in our society who have taken it upon themselves to do exactly what you're talking about.  They feel that, based on their own code, they will use every legal means necessary to control the very words we use.  Threats, intimidation and punishment are all perfectly legitimate means for them.
> 
> There are plenty of examples just on the various PC-related threads here.  And now there is even a thread on which they have gathered to convince themselves that, since (in their minds) tolerance simply isn't going to happen, they may as well proudly run with intolerance.  Then they all pat themselves on the back for reaching this foregone conclusion and continue on.
> 
> This behavior - leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking - _uses our own cherished freedoms against us._
> 
> Seems to me that it takes a very cynical mix of narcissism and paranoia to think this way.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> No one is leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking, as freedom of speech is a legal term in the context of the relationship between the speaker and his government.
> 
> The issue here has nothing to do with freedom of speech, leveraged or otherwise, as no one is seeking to use the power and authority of the state to preempt speech.
> 
> In a free and democratic society citizens are at liberty to speak out as they please. Private society in general will determine what is or is not appropriate speech. This is why there is no such thing as political correctness, as speech or actions considered inappropriate are determined so by private society as a whole, not one particular group.
> 
> Everyone is at liberty to say or do what he wishes (assuming it doesnt violate the law, of course), and there is nothing stopping anyone from saying and doing whatever he wishes. And everyone is at liberty to object to speech he perceives to be inappropriate, to denounce that speech, to call for boycotts, petition sponsors, or start a campaign to remove the speaker from the venue in which he expresses his opinions.
> 
> Private society as a whole will evaluate the merits of the issue and the two conflicting views and make a determination as to what is appropriate or not.
> 
> That some might fear this process is perhaps understandable, but its infinitely preferable to government or the courts becoming involved and making the determination of what is appropriate or not.
> 
> In fact, this process should be celebrated and encouraged, as it demonstrates the ability of a free and democratic society to govern itself with regard to creating and expressing mores and values that form the foundation of that free and democratic society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And some of us see how destructive, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people personally and/or materially for no offense worse than expressing an unpopular opinion or belief or for using a word that some in society have decided is taboo.  And some of us have adopted a cause to try to help others see how destructivve, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people that way, and one by one change hearts, minds, and ultimately the culture to one that is far more tolerant and values liberty than what we have now.
> 
> To make that long story short, I hope to do what I can to change the culture and make attacking people for their beliefs so socially unacceptable, people will choose not to do that.
Click to expand...


What makes it unAmerican?  I hate that expression, as it's almost always extremely vague and based on seemingly nothing.

Is attacking someone for their opinion something Americans don't do?  Clearly not.  Is it something Americans didn't do in the past?  I would again say clearly not.  So how is it unAmerican?  Unethical or destructive, sure.  But not, I think, unAmerican.


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> No one is leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking, as freedom of speech is a legal term in the context of the relationship between the speaker and his government.
> 
> The issue here has nothing to do with freedom of speech, leveraged or otherwise, as no one is seeking to use the power and authority of the state to preempt speech.
> 
> In a free and democratic society citizens are at liberty to speak out as they please. Private society in general will determine what is or is not appropriate speech. This is why there is no such thing as political correctness, as speech or actions considered inappropriate are determined so by private society as a whole, not one particular group.
> 
> Everyone is at liberty to say or do what he wishes (assuming it doesnt violate the law, of course), and there is nothing stopping anyone from saying and doing whatever he wishes. And everyone is at liberty to object to speech he perceives to be inappropriate, to denounce that speech, to call for boycotts, petition sponsors, or start a campaign to remove the speaker from the venue in which he expresses his opinions.
> 
> Private society as a whole will evaluate the merits of the issue and the two conflicting views and make a determination as to what is appropriate or not.
> 
> That some might fear this process is perhaps understandable, but its infinitely preferable to government or the courts becoming involved and making the determination of what is appropriate or not.
> 
> In fact, this process should be celebrated and encouraged, as it demonstrates the ability of a free and democratic society to govern itself with regard to creating and expressing mores and values that form the foundation of that free and democratic society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And some of us see how destructive, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people personally and/or materially for no offense worse than expressing an unpopular opinion or belief or for using a word that some in society have decided is taboo.  And some of us have adopted a cause to try to help others see how destructivve, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people that way, and one by one change hearts, minds, and ultimately the culture to one that is far more tolerant and values liberty than what we have now.
> 
> To make that long story short, I hope to do what I can to change the culture and make attacking people for their beliefs so socially unacceptable, people will choose not to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes it unAmerican?  I hate that expression, as it's almost always extremely vague and based on seemingly nothing.
> 
> Is attacking someone for their opinion something Americans don't do?  Clearly not.  Is it something Americans didn't do in the past?  I would again say clearly not.  So how is it unAmerican?  Unethical or destructive, sure.  But not, I think, unAmerican.
Click to expand...


The Founders intended that we Americans would not live under the oppression of a Pope, Monarch, or dictator who would specify what Americans were required to believe and/or practice or profess to avoid the Inquisition or worse.  The Founders intended that Americans understand that liberty allows people to be who and what they are.

Therefore, those who now would presume to dictate to others what they must be, what they must believe, what they must profess, what they are and are not allowed to speak are, in my opinion, unAmerican.


----------



## Gracie

I must be unamerican then, cuz if I could give some oppression and cause harm to someones livelihood, I would. Certain people are not people at all and if I could silence their "rights", I would in a heart beat.

Which means they could do the same to me since I refuse to kowtow to THEIR beliefs which ARE evil, disgusting and can hurt society even more than it already is.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, threads do tend to get pushed entirely off the rails, we tend to let our minds wander a bit.
> 
> I think your question has been answered pretty clearly.  There are obviously people in our society who have taken it upon themselves to do exactly what you're talking about.  They feel that, based on their own code, they will use every legal means necessary to control the very words we use.  Threats, intimidation and punishment are all perfectly legitimate means for them.
> 
> There are plenty of examples just on the various PC-related threads here.  And now there is even a thread on which they have gathered to convince themselves that, since (in their minds) tolerance simply isn't going to happen, they may as well proudly run with intolerance.  Then they all pat themselves on the back for reaching this foregone conclusion and continue on.
> 
> This behavior - leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking - _uses our own cherished freedoms against us._
> 
> Seems to me that it takes a very cynical mix of narcissism and paranoia to think this way.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> No one is leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking, as freedom of speech is a legal term in the context of the relationship between the speaker and his government.
> 
> The issue here has nothing to do with freedom of speech, leveraged or otherwise, as no one is seeking to use the power and authority of the state to preempt speech.
> 
> In a free and democratic society citizens are at liberty to speak out as they please. Private society in general will determine what is or is not appropriate speech. This is why there is no such thing as political correctness, as speech or actions considered inappropriate are determined so by private society as a whole, not one particular group.
> 
> Everyone is at liberty to say or do what he wishes (assuming it doesnt violate the law, of course), and there is nothing stopping anyone from saying and doing whatever he wishes. And everyone is at liberty to object to speech he perceives to be inappropriate, to denounce that speech, to call for boycotts, petition sponsors, or start a campaign to remove the speaker from the venue in which he expresses his opinions.
> 
> Private society as a whole will evaluate the merits of the issue and the two conflicting views and make a determination as to what is appropriate or not.
> 
> That some might fear this process is perhaps understandable, but its infinitely preferable to government or the courts becoming involved and making the determination of what is appropriate or not.
> 
> In fact, this process should be celebrated and encouraged, as it demonstrates the ability of a free and democratic society to govern itself with regard to creating and expressing mores and values that form the foundation of that free and democratic society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And some of us see how destructive, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people personally and/or materially for no offense worse than expressing an unpopular opinion or belief or for using a word that some in society have decided is taboo.  And some of us have adopted a cause to try to help others see how destructivve, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people that way, and one by one change hearts, minds, and ultimately the culture to one that is far more tolerant and values liberty than what we have now.
> 
> To make that long story short, I hope to do what I can to change the culture and make attacking people for their beliefs so socially unacceptable, people will choose not to do that.
Click to expand...


So freedom of speech is "destructive, unethical, and unAmerican"?


----------



## Foxfyre

Gracie said:


> I must be unamerican then, cuz if I could give some oppression and cause harm to someones livelihood, I would. Certain people are not people at all and if I could silence their "rights", I would in a heart beat.
> 
> Which means they could do the same to me since I refuse to kowtow to THEIR beliefs which ARE evil, disgusting and can hurt society even more than it already is.



But is it worth it for bullies on each side to beat up on those they don't like from the other side until it is only the biggest baddest bully still standing?  Each side thinks the other is reprehensible.  So who can be trusted with making up the list of who will be deemed acceptable and who will not?  What will be deemed acceptable and what will not?

Why is a Phil Robertson who believes the Bible classifies homosexuality as a sin more reprehensible than an Evander Holyfield who says homosexuality is a choice, is not normal, and can be 'fixed' and those who have it should fix it?  Do either of them really hurt anybody with their opinions that the huge majority of people do not share?

If I believe your stated opinion about somebody might mislead some sweet young thing, does that give me license to silence you if I can?  To punish you if you speak?

Where does this kind of thing stop?  Who gets to be the judge and jury?  And who is authorized to determine who will be acceptable and who is not?  Who is allowed to speak their opinions and who isn't?

Mind you we are not talking about anybody's actions here.  We are talking about what people believe and who they are only.


----------



## Gracie

Maybe I am a simpleton, so I will keep it as simple and brief as possible.
Anyone who threatens the life or morals of common..note I said common..."decency" (and your miles may vary according to what is deemed "decent"), deserves to be silenced.

And for good measure, here is what I believe is called a strawman in these parts:
If you could kill hilter or pol pot or stalin or (insert name here)....knowing what they did but you could stop it by silencing them forever BEFORE they did what they did....would you? I would.


----------



## Foxfyre

Gracie said:


> Maybe I am a simpleton, so I will keep it as simple and brief as possible.
> Anyone who threatens the life or morals of common..note I said common..."decency" (and your miles may vary according to what is deemed "decent"), deserves to be silenced.
> 
> And for good measure, here is what I believe is called a strawman in these parts:
> If you could kill hilter or pol pot or stalin or (insert name here)....knowing what they did but you could stop it by silencing them forever BEFORE they did what they did....would you? I would.



Are you seriously saying that the opinions expressed by Phil Robertson and Evander Holyfield could possibly make them a Polpot or Hitler or Stalin?  What criteria do you use to determine that somebody's opinion is dangerous?

Again I am not speaking of what people DO to other people.  I am not speaking of what people say they INTEND TO DO to other people.  I am speaking of people who express an opinion or conviction that others don't like but who violate the rights of others in no way.


----------



## Gracie

Foxfyre said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I am a simpleton, so I will keep it as simple and brief as possible.
> Anyone who threatens the life or morals of common..note I said common..."decency" (and your miles may vary according to what is deemed "decent"), deserves to be silenced.
> 
> And for good measure, here is what I believe is called a strawman in these parts:
> If you could kill hilter or pol pot or stalin or (insert name here)....knowing what they did but you could stop it by silencing them forever BEFORE they did what they did....would you? I would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously saying that the opinions expressed by Phil Robertson and Evander Holyfield could possibly make them a Polpot or Hitler or Stalin?  What criteria do you use to determine that somebody's opinion is dangerous?
> 
> Again I am not speaking of what people DO to other people.  I am not speaking of what people say they INTEND TO DO to other people.  I am speaking of people who express an opinion or conviction that others don't like but who violate the rights of others in no way.
Click to expand...


No. I am not saying Robertson saying what he said has anything to do with polpot or stalin or hitler. Maybe I am not getting what you are trying to convey. I thought it was letting people be as they are. well, that is not possible sometimes. Sometimes, people have to be silenced. Or stopped. Hitler expressed an opinion and acted on it. I don't think it is in the generic possibilities of humans to accept anything they don't agree with, without it not becoming rights of others. Violence or violate, whatever you want to call it. Only one person could possibly do that and he was crucified..and also judged...and his rights were violated because He was not agreed with in what he taught. It's all connected because it is in our genetic makeup.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> No one is &#8216;leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking,&#8217; as &#8216;freedom of speech&#8217; is a legal term in the context of the relationship between the speaker and his government.
> 
> The issue here has nothing to do with &#8216;freedom of speech,&#8217; &#8216;leveraged&#8217; or otherwise, as no one is seeking to use the power and authority of the state to preempt speech.
> 
> In a free and democratic society citizens are at liberty to speak out as they please. Private society in general will determine what is or is not appropriate speech. This is why there is no such thing as &#8216;political correctness,&#8217; as speech or actions considered inappropriate are determined so by private society as a whole, not one particular group.
> 
> Everyone is at liberty to say or do what he wishes (assuming it doesn&#8217;t violate the law, of course), and there is nothing stopping anyone from saying and doing whatever he wishes. And everyone is at liberty to object to speech he perceives to be inappropriate, to denounce that speech, to call for boycotts, petition sponsors, or start a campaign to remove the speaker from the venue in which he expresses his opinions.
> 
> Private society as a whole will evaluate the merits of the issue and the two conflicting views and make a determination as to what is appropriate or not.
> 
> That some might fear this process is perhaps understandable, but it&#8217;s infinitely preferable to government or the courts becoming involved and making the determination of what is appropriate or not.
> 
> In fact, this process should be celebrated and encouraged, as it demonstrates the ability of a free and democratic society to govern itself with regard to creating and expressing mores and values that form the foundation of that free and democratic society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And some of us see how destructive, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people personally and/or materially for no offense worse than expressing an unpopular opinion or belief or for using a word that some in society have decided is taboo.  And some of us have adopted a cause to try to help others see how destructivve, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people that way, and one by one change hearts, minds, and ultimately the culture to one that is far more tolerant and values liberty than what we have now.
> 
> To make that long story short, I hope to do what I can to change the culture and make attacking people for their beliefs so socially unacceptable, people will choose not to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So freedom of speech is "destructive, unethical, and unAmerican"?
Click to expand...


A flaw:

Speech itself isn't destructive. Acting on that speech is what can be deemed or seen as destructive. To intimidate someone for their speech by using your speech and actions resulting therein, is itself unethical and un-American.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Foxfyre said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I look at it like this:
> 
> I don't care who you are, what you do (within the bounds of law), what you stand for or how you stand for it. So long as you don't force that on me, my tolerance will be numbered as the stars in the sky. The Constitution gives you all the right in the world to believe what you want and do what you want (once again within the bounds of the law). That tolerance, however, goes away when you decide to tell me what I am, what I should do, what I stand for or how I stand for it, and threaten action against me because you yourself are intolerant of it. As long as you walk my fine line of tolerance, I'll walk yours. It's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you are more tolerant than I am TK, because if you make a statement that I disagree with on a message board, I will often tell you why I disagree with it.  However, there are some, including you, at USMB who allow that, even welcome that, so long as I am addressing your opinion and not, as you explained, tellling YOU what YOU think, want, believe, who you are, or misrepresent what you say.  That makes for great discussion and give and take.
> 
> And there are some who simply are incapable of addressing and rebutting the other person's opinion.  They instead go after the person who expressed the opinion accusing him/her of all sorts of negative things while they rarely, if ever, address the opinion that provoked the attack.  And if we push back on that, the food fight starts.  Or, if they are unable to provoke a food fight, they get in a huff, snit, or whatever, put on their rubber pants, take their ball, and go home.  And if a thread dissolves into nothing but a food fight, I can be just as frustrated and 'go home' myself.
> 
> On a message board no harm no foul.  I can ignore those who accuse me of all manner of things including being a liar, being blindly partisan, being stupid, being whatever.  I probably won't respect them much if they do that, but oh well.  If I don't want my thoughts dictated by them, then I have to allow them their thoughts too.  And if they want to make it personal, that is their right.  I just don't have to participate.
> 
> In real life it gets more complicated.  There when people attack others for their beliefs, it can have real life consequences.  And at some point, as a society, as a culture, we have to be able to distinguish right from wrong in a material way when it comes to tolerance.  Organizing in an effort to stop those who are hurting others in a physical or material way, yes.  Organizing to punish somebody who expresses an opinion or uses a word we don't like?  I can't justify that on any moral or ethical grounds.
Click to expand...




> Well you are more tolerant than I am TK, because if you make a statement that I disagree with on a message board, I will often tell you why I disagree with it.  However, there are some, including you, at USMB who allow that, even welcome that, so long as I am addressing your opinion and not, as you explained, telling YOU what YOU think, want, believe, who you are, or misrepresent what you say.  That makes for great discussion and give and take.



I disagree. You are more tolerant than I could ever hope to be in my youth. I could be seen as overzealous, but I choose to disprove a position rather than to prevent someone from retaining it. That frame of mind ceases when someone else tells me that I am not allowed to have whatever positions and views I hold.



> And there are some who simply are incapable of addressing and rebutting the other person's opinion.  They instead go after the person who expressed the opinion accusing him/her of all sorts of negative things while they rarely, if ever, address the opinion that provoked the attack.  And if we push back on that, the food fight starts.  Or, if they are unable to provoke a food fight, they get in a huff, snit, or whatever, put on their rubber pants, take their ball, and go home.  And if a thread dissolves into nothing but a food fight, I can be just as frustrated and 'go home' myself.



My thinking is, as you have tried repeatedly, would be to instead of engaging them, ignore them. By your willingness to ignore them, you allow them to have their opinions and be who they are without affecting you, hence tolerance. The simplest way to drown out a noise is by plugging your ears, IMO. You should be allowed to voice your opinion without acknowledging the distractions. The intent is clearly obvious, so therefore, don't lend it credence. 




> On a message board no harm no foul.  I can ignore those who accuse me of all manner of things including being a liar, being blindly partisan, being stupid, being whatever.  I probably won't respect them much if they do that, but oh well.  If I don't want my thoughts dictated by them, then I have to allow them their thoughts too.  And if they want to make it personal, that is their right.  I just don't have to participate.



I'm glad we see eye to eye. Not much more to add here.



> In real life it gets more complicated.  There when people attack others for their beliefs, it can have real life consequences.  And at some point, as a society, as a culture, we have to be able to distinguish right from wrong in a material way when it comes to tolerance.  Organizing in an effort to stop those who are hurting others in a physical or material way, yes.  Organizing to punish somebody who expresses an opinion or uses a word we don't like?  I can't justify that on any moral or ethical grounds.



Like I told Bfgrn, speech itself isn't destructive, so long as it's confined to simple speech. When you use your beliefs and speech as a weapon, as a tool in an all out assault on someone who expresses their different opinions, you are little more than an eccentric entity, a malevolent force with no ethical standards of your own. You are only bent on destroying that person's will to express himself or his beliefs freely. The golden rule applies:

Do to others as you would have them do to you. 

If you wish to have your beliefs, you must also let others have theirs, lest they come to destroy you for them. Attacking others for their beliefs sets in motion a vicious cycle of attrition whereby each side tries to destroy the other over simple expressions of belief. I agree, this is immoral and unethical behavior.


----------



## Mac1958

.

If I say something you don't like, you're willing to (a) punish me for it and (b) intimidate me from saying it again.

If you say something I don't like, I see an opportunity to discuss the issue and to try to change your heart and mind.

You are about ego, paranoia and control.  I am about diversity of opinion, humility and communication.

I don't know how to fix your narcissism.

.


----------



## candycorn

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> No one is leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking, as freedom of speech is a legal term in the context of the relationship between the speaker and his government.
> 
> The issue here has nothing to do with freedom of speech, leveraged or otherwise, as no one is seeking to use the power and authority of the state to preempt speech.
> 
> In a free and democratic society citizens are at liberty to speak out as they please. Private society in general will determine what is or is not appropriate speech. This is why there is no such thing as political correctness, as speech or actions considered inappropriate are determined so by private society as a whole, not one particular group.
> 
> Everyone is at liberty to say or do what he wishes (assuming it doesnt violate the law, of course), and there is nothing stopping anyone from saying and doing whatever he wishes. And everyone is at liberty to object to speech he perceives to be inappropriate, to denounce that speech, to call for boycotts, petition sponsors, or start a campaign to remove the speaker from the venue in which he expresses his opinions.
> 
> Private society as a whole will evaluate the merits of the issue and the two conflicting views and make a determination as to what is appropriate or not.
> 
> That some might fear this process is perhaps understandable, but its infinitely preferable to government or the courts becoming involved and making the determination of what is appropriate or not.
> 
> In fact, this process should be celebrated and encouraged, as it demonstrates the ability of a free and democratic society to govern itself with regard to creating and expressing mores and values that form the foundation of that free and democratic society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And some of us see how destructive, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people personally and/or materially for no offense worse than expressing an unpopular opinion or belief or for using a word that some in society have decided is taboo.  And some of us have adopted a cause to try to help others see how destructivve, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people that way, and one by one change hearts, minds, and ultimately the culture to one that is far more tolerant and values liberty than what we have now.
> 
> To make that long story short, I hope to do what I can to change the culture and make attacking people for their beliefs so socially unacceptable, people will choose not to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So freedom of speech is "destructive, unethical, and unAmerican"?
Click to expand...


Again, only if you disagree with it.  

The Minnesota Vikings recently fired their punter who was a vocal proponent of homosexual equality.  

Unlike Dunk Dynasty, this wasn't  a broadcast network deciding not to show filmed episodes they purchased from a production house (i.e. the actors have already been paid); this was a direct termination that seemed to be for nothing other than his political stances.

Chris Kluwe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet you see no outrage from the guardians of free speech.  I wonder why?


----------



## Mac1958

candycorn said:


> The Minnesota Vikings recently fired their punter who was a vocal proponent of homosexual equality.
> 
> Unlike Dunk Dynasty, this wasn't  a broadcast network deciding not to show filmed episodes they purchased from a production house (i.e. the actors have already been paid); this was a direct termination that seemed to be for nothing other than his political stances.
> 
> Chris Kluwe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Yet you see no outrage from the guardians of free speech.  I wonder why?




I'm totally against this firing.  I can only imagine how this guy's opinion played in the culture that is the NFL, and I'm not surprised this happened.  Hopefully someday we'll get past this, someday soon.

Being consistent just isn't that tough for those who are intellectually honest.

.


----------



## Foxfyre

Gracie said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I am a simpleton, so I will keep it as simple and brief as possible.
> Anyone who threatens the life or morals of common..note I said common..."decency" (and your miles may vary according to what is deemed "decent"), deserves to be silenced.
> 
> And for good measure, here is what I believe is called a strawman in these parts:
> If you could kill hilter or pol pot or stalin or (insert name here)....knowing what they did but you could stop it by silencing them forever BEFORE they did what they did....would you? I would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously saying that the opinions expressed by Phil Robertson and Evander Holyfield could possibly make them a Polpot or Hitler or Stalin?  What criteria do you use to determine that somebody's opinion is dangerous?
> 
> Again I am not speaking of what people DO to other people.  I am not speaking of what people say they INTEND TO DO to other people.  I am speaking of people who express an opinion or conviction that others don't like but who violate the rights of others in no way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I am not saying Robertson saying what he said has anything to do with polpot or stalin or hitler. Maybe I am not getting what you are trying to convey. I thought it was letting people be as they are. well, that is not possible sometimes. Sometimes, people have to be silenced. Or stopped. Hitler expressed an opinion and acted on it. I don't think it is in the generic possibilities of humans to accept anything they don't agree with, without it not becoming rights of others. Violence or violate, whatever you want to call it. Only one person could possibly do that and he was crucified..and also judged...and his rights were violated because He was not agreed with in what he taught. It's all connected because it is in our genetic makeup.
Click to expand...


That's the trouble with words.  Sometimes it is difficult to find the right ones to use and sometimes even more difficult to put them together in a way that fully explains what we intend for others to understand.  And sometimes nigh unto impossible to express them without somebody taking offense or reading into them something that was never intended.

Again this is not a free speech issue and I strongly resist making it one.  It is not a constitutional or legal issue, and I strongly resist making it that too.  And most importantly it is not an issue of acceptance.  I am not proposing that we accept any opinion or belief put out there without objection, without challenge, without rebuttal.  But what I am proposing here is a change in the national psyche.  A change in the culture.  

Jesus's culture demanded orthodoxy and the Jews of that day did demand physical punishment, even unto death, for heretics. Jesus was crucified for the sin of blasphemy as the Jews defined that.  But that culture changed and, except for the very rare anomly/exception, I can't imagine modern day Jews calling for somebody to be punished for no other reason than they express an unorthodox opinion re Judaic beliefs.

There was an indefensible chapter in Christian history in which the heretic and/or unorthodox could be subject to the Inquisition and punishment by flogging, burning at the stake, imprisonment, or banishment.  That culture also changed and, except for the the rare anomaly/exception, I can't imagine modern day Christians calling for somebody to be punished for expressing an unorthodox opinion re Christian beliefs.

And now we have a culture that demands that the 'heretic', i.e. the politically incorrect, be punished physically and/or materially for no crime other than speaking a belief or opinion that is not P.C.   My hope is that we can change that culture too, one heart and soul at a time, to make it wrong, to make it socially unacceptable to hurt people for no other reason than we disagree with them.  Disagree with them yes.  Rebut their unacceptable point of view, yes.  Tell them off, yes.  Explain to them how and why their opinions are wrong, yes.  But do not presume to be their judge and jury and pass sentence upon them and deny them the right to be who and what they are.   For if we do, we forfeit our own right to be who and what we are.


----------



## AquaAthena

Foxfyre said:


> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?



_I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely._

I do know one person who is as you have described. She has a beautiful spirit and everyone she meets, wants to be her friend and she becomes just that. She gives a hug, when you greet her and one when you leave her presence and that applies to all people, including the very rich, the very poor, and from any political persuasion. She talks the talk and walks the walk. She is a generous soul...more so than any I have ever met.


----------



## Foxfyre

Mac1958 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Minnesota Vikings recently fired their punter who was a vocal proponent of homosexual equality.
> 
> Unlike Dunk Dynasty, this wasn't  a broadcast network deciding not to show filmed episodes they purchased from a production house (i.e. the actors have already been paid); this was a direct termination that seemed to be for nothing other than his political stances.
> 
> Chris Kluwe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Yet you see no outrage from the guardians of free speech.  I wonder why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm totally against this firing.  I can only imagine how this guy's opinion played in the culture that is the NFL, and I'm not surprised this happened.  Hopefully someday we'll get past this, someday soon.
> 
> Being consistent just isn't that tough for those who are intellectually honest.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Well, in the interest of intellectual honesty , the Vikings adamently deny that they fired Kluwe because of his opinions on anything.  From the linked Wiki article:



> On January 2, 2014, Kluwe alleged that he was released from the Vikings due to his support of same-sex marriage.[4][19] He stated that the Vikings requested that he "deliberately sacrifice my own numbers to help the team, a request with which I always complied."[20] *The team stated it was not previously made aware of Kluwe's allegations, and countered that he "was released strictly based on his football performance.*"[19][21][22] *Kluwe said that special teams coach Mike Priefer in 2012 made homophobic remarks and criticized the player for his views on same-sex marriage.[19] Preifer responded with a statement saying that "I do not tolerate discrimination of any type and am respectful of all individuals.* I personally have gay family members who I love and support just as I do any family member.&#8221;[23] Kluwe called the coach's acts "inexcusable", and hoped he prevented Preifer from ever coaching again.[24] He also alleged that head coach Leslie Frazier told him to stop speaking out on same-sex marriage.[19] On January 3, the Vikings announced that an investigation of the allegations would be performed by former Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court Eric Magnuson and former U.S. Department of Justice Trial Attorney Chris Madel.[25]



And here is Huffpo's piece on the flap that backs up Wiki:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/mike-priefer-vikings-coach-chris-kluwe_n_4533500.html

So which side is telling it like it is?  I don't know.  Do any of us know?

Also it is important to consider the difference between an employee and employer's agreements, relationships, and expectations versus some unrelated group or organization demanding somebody's head on a platter.   Phil Robertson's remarks had nothing to do whatsoever with A&E and were not made on A&E or Duck Dynasty.  He was in an interview with GQ Magazine who published those remarks.  And nobody has presumed to criticize GQ who were the ones who made the 'derogatory' remarks public and put them out there for all to see.  GLAAD instead went after the totally innocent A&E and Duck Dynasty and demanded Robertson's head on a platter.  I have not faulted A&E for whatever business decisions they make regarding their program content.  I faulted GLAAD who were the bully.

So whatever issues the Vikings and Kluwe have might be subject to criticism, but it isn't the same thing.  That is a flap between employer and employee, not an issue of an angry mob, group, or organization demanding that the Vikings fire Kluwe because of his views on something.

If some angry mob or group or organization HAD demanded that the Vikings fire Kluwe for his stated views, they would be every bit as wrong and reprehensible as GLAAD was when GLAAD went after Phil Robertson.


----------



## Mac1958

Foxfyre said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Minnesota Vikings recently fired their punter who was a vocal proponent of homosexual equality.
> 
> Unlike Dunk Dynasty, this wasn't  a broadcast network deciding not to show filmed episodes they purchased from a production house (i.e. the actors have already been paid); this was a direct termination that seemed to be for nothing other than his political stances.
> 
> Chris Kluwe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Yet you see no outrage from the guardians of free speech.  I wonder why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm totally against this firing.  I can only imagine how this guy's opinion played in the culture that is the NFL, and I'm not surprised this happened.  Hopefully someday we'll get past this, someday soon.
> 
> Being consistent just isn't that tough for those who are intellectually honest.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in the interest of intellectual honesty , the Vikings adamently deny that they fired Kluwe because of his opinions on anything.  From the linked Wiki article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On January 2, 2014, Kluwe alleged that he was released from the Vikings due to his support of same-sex marriage.[4][19] He stated that the Vikings requested that he "deliberately sacrifice my own numbers to help the team, a request with which I always complied."[20] *The team stated it was not previously made aware of Kluwe's allegations, and countered that he "was released strictly based on his football performance.*"[19][21][22] *Kluwe said that special teams coach Mike Priefer in 2012 made homophobic remarks and criticized the player for his views on same-sex marriage.[19] Preifer responded with a statement saying that "I do not tolerate discrimination of any type and am respectful of all individuals.* I personally have gay family members who I love and support just as I do any family member.[23] Kluwe called the coach's acts "inexcusable", and hoped he prevented Preifer from ever coaching again.[24] He also alleged that head coach Leslie Frazier told him to stop speaking out on same-sex marriage.[19] On January 3, the Vikings announced that an investigation of the allegations would be performed by former Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court Eric Magnuson and former U.S. Department of Justice Trial Attorney Chris Madel.[25]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which side is telling it like it is?  I don't know.  Do any of us know?
> 
> Also it is important to consider the difference between an employee and employer's agreements, relationships, and expectations versus what some unrelated group or organization demanding somebody's head on a platter.   Phil Robertson's remarks had nothing to do whatsoever with A&E and were not made on A&E or Duck Dynasty.  He was in an interview with GQ Magazine who published those remarks.  And nobody has presumed to criticize GQ who were the ones who made the 'derogatory' remarks public and put them out there for all to see.
> 
> So whatever issues the Vikings and Kluwe have might be subject to criticism, but it isn't the same thing.  That is a flap between employer and employee, not an issue of an angry mob, group, or organization demanding that the Vikings fire Kluwe because of his views on something.
Click to expand...



Yup, that's why I haven't belched out an opinion before this, I haven't gotten enough info.

So you're right -- assuming that he was dumped because of his views...

.


----------



## R.D.

candycorn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And some of us see how destructive, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people personally and/or materially for no offense worse than expressing an unpopular opinion or belief or for using a word that some in society have decided is taboo.  And some of us have adopted a cause to try to help others see how destructivve, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people that way, and one by one change hearts, minds, and ultimately the culture to one that is far more tolerant and values liberty than what we have now.
> 
> To make that long story short, I hope to do what I can to change the culture and make attacking people for their beliefs so socially unacceptable, people will choose not to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So freedom of speech is "destructive, unethical, and unAmerican"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, only if you disagree with it.
> 
> The Minnesota Vikings recently fired their punter who was a vocal proponent of homosexual equality.
> 
> Unlike Dunk Dynasty, this wasn't  a broadcast network deciding not to show filmed episodes they purchased from a production house (i.e. the actors have already been paid); this was a direct termination that seemed to be for nothing other than his political stances.
> 
> Chris Kluwe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Yet you see no outrage from the guardians of free speech.  I wonder why?
Click to expand...


_ Kluwe alleged that he was released from the Vikings due to his support of same-sex marriage_

Because he may be lying, he tossed many men under the bus riding a dialogue train for sympathy and support.


----------



## Foxfyre

AquaAthena said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely._
> 
> I do know one person who is as you have described. She has a beautiful spirit and everyone she meets, wants to be her friend and she becomes just that. She gives a hug, when you greet her and one when you leave her presence and that applies to all people, including the very rich, the very poor, and from any political persuasion. She talks the talk and walks the walk. She is a generous soul...more so than any I have ever met.
Click to expand...


Oh my.  Tell me you know more than one.  You have come across to me as such a person of course.  You certainly don't agree with all opinions, but that is not a requirement for the kind of tolerance I am promoting here.


----------



## AquaAthena

Foxfyre said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely._
> 
> I do know one person who is as you have described. She has a beautiful spirit and everyone she meets, wants to be her friend and she becomes just that. She gives a hug, when you greet her and one when you leave her presence and that applies to all people, including the very rich, the very poor, and from any political persuasion. She talks the talk and walks the walk. She is a generous soul...more so than any I have ever met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my.  Tell me you know more than one.  You have come across to me as such a person of course.  You certainly don't agree with all opinions, but that is not a requirement for the kind of tolerance I am promoting here.
Click to expand...


Well thank you, dearest one. 

I am no where near the kind of person I was referencing above. She is a virtual Mother Teresa and I am no where near that, nor do I want to be.


----------



## R.D.

It sounds exhausting to be that good .


----------



## Foxfyre

R.D. said:


> It sounds exhausting to be that good .



Yeah it would be.  

The thing is, if you read how Phil Robertson's friends and family describe him, he is a crusty old opinionated and crude guy.  He freely admits he was a real rounder in his youth messed up with drugs and alcohol and he did a lot of things he is not at all proud of.  He turned it around when he found Christ and allowed God to change him, but he still describes himself as a sinner just like all sinners who do the list of sins as he believes the Bible expresses them.  He also wishes no harm or malice to anybody, freely says he loves his gay brothers and sisters, and leaves it to God to sort things out in the end as he doesn't see that as his prerogative.

Duck Dynasty does exhibit a family who stays together and prays together, but it has neither a religious or political format.  It is a show intended to show a slice of Americana in a light and funny way and it accomplishes that and draws the largest audience A&E has ever had.  Maybe that cable has ever had.

I just don't see how a Phil Robertson is a danger or detriment to anybody.  And it should be socially and culturally unacceptable to punish him physically and/or materially purely because he isn't politically correct in his personal life.


----------



## hunarcy

Foxfyre said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you change the actions when you are talking of a group or an individual?
> 
> It's fine if you change radio stations or decide not to buy more of their albums.  Is it fine if a group of people decide to do that?
> 
> Is it fine for you to do that as an individual if your intent is to hurt the person(s) who has the radio show or sells the albums?
> 
> What if you, as an individual, intentionally misrepresent or lie about what someone says?
> 
> What if you, as an individual, demand that someone lose their job because of who and what they are?
> 
> You make it sound as though both the intent and the actions taken by an individual and by a group are never the same.  A rich, prominent individual can do pretty much the same things GLAAD can do, correct?  A poorly organized or funded group cannot.  But they can all be attempting to physically and/or materially hurt someone for being who and what they are.  Why you only seem to consider it a problem when it's an organization confuses me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why in the world you folks get your panties in a wad over boycotts is beyond me.  FF has repeatedly said she's not opposed to boycotts per se and has even participated in a few.  In fact, she's said it often enough that your deliberate ignoring of the fact is obvious.  I think she's shown an awful lot of patience by repeatedly trying to explain that which you chose to overlook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay Hunarcy, you know I appreciate you a lot, but you're giving Montrovant some grief he doesn't deserve here.   I have encouraged and invited differences of opinion and welcome having my point of view challenged and he is doing that competently, objectively, and without malice.  If I can't competently defend my point of view, it is probably flawed, yes?
> 
> I honestly welcome the mental workout.
> 
> You two would likely be good friends in a different setting.
Click to expand...


I hope I didn't seem antagonistic to Montrovant personally.  If I did, I apologize for the misimpression.  But the whole "objection to boycotts" seems to be a distraction to me in that no one has ever objected to people boycotting things they don't agree with;  objections arise when they go on a vendetta to destroy people they don't agree with by trying to ensure those who dare to have an unsanctioned opinion will "never work in this town again".    

You're right, I do enjoy Montrovant's posts in most cases.


----------



## AquaAthena

R.D. said:


> It sounds exhausting to be that good .



It would be for me. My sweet friend is accessible 24/7 to anyone for anything. I value my private nature too much, to be as she.


----------



## hunarcy

Montrovant said:


> I believe that a boycott, for whatever reason, is perfectly fine because it is, in essence, a person saying, "I dislike xxx.  I think you, too, should dislike xxx and show it by not purchasing/watching/reading/listening to xxx.".  So I think we have a bit of a gap in our views of boycotts.
> 
> But my post was really intended to find out if there are specific things that groups cannot ethically do that individuals can, or vice versa.



I totally agree, whether it's the opinion of an individual or a group.  It's only when a group begins to "research" sponsors to ensure the person who said/did something is hounded out of the public arena (creating a type of blacklist) that intolerance raises its ugly head.


----------



## Foxfyre

hunarcy said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that a boycott, for whatever reason, is perfectly fine because it is, in essence, a person saying, "I dislike xxx.  I think you, too, should dislike xxx and show it by not purchasing/watching/reading/listening to xxx.".  So I think we have a bit of a gap in our views of boycotts.
> 
> But my post was really intended to find out if there are specific things that groups cannot ethically do that individuals can, or vice versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I totally agree, whether it's the opinion of an individual or a group.  It's only when a group begins to "research" sponsors to ensure the person who said/did something is hounded out of the public arena (creating a type of blacklist) that intolerance raises its ugly head.
Click to expand...


And wham!!  Now hunarcy and Montrovant are allied in this and I am the odd 'man' out.  LOL.     (I really do love you guys.)

I honestly don't approve of organized boycotts for no other reason than we don't like somebody or disapprove of their opinion about something.  That is something that I would like to be made socially unacceptable in our culture and something seen as what only the lowest of the lowlifes do.  I see it as morally and ethically wrong to try to punish people for who and what they are when they are harming nobody else.  I can choose not to patronize those who offend me and if enough people also choose to do that, well, that's life.  But I won't go out of my way to organize punishment for somebody in that way.  I see that as wrong.

Organized boycotts for the purpose of protesting bad ACTS, however, I have no problem with.

There is a fine distinction between those two things.


----------



## BillyZane

Foxfyre said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that a boycott, for whatever reason, is perfectly fine because it is, in essence, a person saying, "I dislike xxx.  I think you, too, should dislike xxx and show it by not purchasing/watching/reading/listening to xxx.".  So I think we have a bit of a gap in our views of boycotts.
> 
> But my post was really intended to find out if there are specific things that groups cannot ethically do that individuals can, or vice versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I totally agree, whether it's the opinion of an individual or a group.  It's only when a group begins to "research" sponsors to ensure the person who said/did something is hounded out of the public arena (creating a type of blacklist) that intolerance raises its ugly head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And wham!!  Now hunarcy and Montrovant are allied in this and I am the odd 'man' out.  LOL.     (I really do love you guys.)
> 
> I honestly don't approve of organized boycotts for no other reason than we don't like somebody or disapprove of their opinion about something.  That is something that I would like to be made socially unacceptable in our culture and something seen as what only the lowest of the lowlifes do.  I see it as morally and ethically wrong to try to punish people for who and what they are when they are harming nobody else.  I can choose not to patronize those who offend me and if enough people also choose to do that, well, that's life.  But I won't go out of my way to organize punishment for somebody in that way.  I see that as wrong.
> 
> Organized boycotts for the purpose of protesting bad ACTS, however, I have no problem with.
> 
> There is a fine distinction between those two things.
Click to expand...


I must disagree with you here. Boycotts are a perfectly valid expression of disagreement. They aren't born of intolerance. 

Let me give two examples.

In one case, we have people who want Phil off the air PERIOD , doesn't matter that they are able to change the channel and not see or hear hm. That's not good enough, they want him SILENCED.

On the other hand, we have people who encouraged a boycott of the Rose Bowl, but in no way suggested the RB should be shut down over a gay wedding

The latter says "I'm tolerant , but won't be part of" while the former says "I want this silenced"


----------



## Foxfyre

BillyZane said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I totally agree, whether it's the opinion of an individual or a group.  It's only when a group begins to "research" sponsors to ensure the person who said/did something is hounded out of the public arena (creating a type of blacklist) that intolerance raises its ugly head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And wham!!  Now hunarcy and Montrovant are allied in this and I am the odd 'man' out.  LOL.     (I really do love you guys.)
> 
> I honestly don't approve of organized boycotts for no other reason than we don't like somebody or disapprove of their opinion about something.  That is something that I would like to be made socially unacceptable in our culture and something seen as what only the lowest of the lowlifes do.  I see it as morally and ethically wrong to try to punish people for who and what they are when they are harming nobody else.  I can choose not to patronize those who offend me and if enough people also choose to do that, well, that's life.  But I won't go out of my way to organize punishment for somebody in that way.  I see that as wrong.
> 
> Organized boycotts for the purpose of protesting bad ACTS, however, I have no problem with.
> 
> There is a fine distinction between those two things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must disagree with you here. Boycotts are a perfectly valid expression of disagreement. They aren't born of intolerance.
> 
> Let me give two examples.
> 
> In one case, we have people who want Phil off the air PERIOD , doesn't matter that they are able to change the channel and not see or hear hm. That's not good enough, they want him SILENCED.
> 
> On the other hand, we have people who encouraged a boycott of the Rose Bowl, but in no way suggested the RB should be shut down over a gay wedding
> 
> The latter says "I'm tolerant , but won't be part of" while the former says "I want this silenced"
Click to expand...


First I need to qualify my immediately preceding post to assure hunarcy and Montrovant--and you too Billy--that I do not see any of you as lowlifes when you disagree with me on this.  

But you see, I see both those things as morally and ethically wrong though the Phil Robertson thing is worse because it specifically targets an individual to be personally and materially hurt.  

But there is a difference between personally choosing not to attend a gay wedding at the Rose Bowl and trying to get everybody to choose that.  How does that gay wedding hurt anybody?   If the Rose Bowl chooses to host it, how does that harm me or you or anybody else in any way?  Do you--the rhetorical you--oppose gay marriage?  Okay that is your right so long as you don't harrass or interfere with those who don't oppose it.  It is your right not to participate.

But it should be morally and ethically wrong to try to spoil somebody else's activity purely because you don't want to participate in it.


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And wham!!  Now hunarcy and Montrovant are allied in this and I am the odd 'man' out.  LOL.     (I really do love you guys.)
> 
> I honestly don't approve of organized boycotts for no other reason than we don't like somebody or disapprove of their opinion about something.  That is something that I would like to be made socially unacceptable in our culture and something seen as what only the lowest of the lowlifes do.  I see it as morally and ethically wrong to try to punish people for who and what they are when they are harming nobody else.  I can choose not to patronize those who offend me and if enough people also choose to do that, well, that's life.  But I won't go out of my way to organize punishment for somebody in that way.  I see that as wrong.
> 
> Organized boycotts for the purpose of protesting bad ACTS, however, I have no problem with.
> 
> There is a fine distinction between those two things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must disagree with you here. Boycotts are a perfectly valid expression of disagreement. They aren't born of intolerance.
> 
> Let me give two examples.
> 
> In one case, we have people who want Phil off the air PERIOD , doesn't matter that they are able to change the channel and not see or hear hm. That's not good enough, they want him SILENCED.
> 
> On the other hand, we have people who encouraged a boycott of the Rose Bowl, but in no way suggested the RB should be shut down over a gay wedding
> 
> The latter says "I'm tolerant , but won't be part of" while the former says "I want this silenced"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First I need to qualify my immediately preceding post to assure hunarcy and Montrovant--and you too Billy--that I do not see any of you as lowlifes when you disagree with me on this.
> 
> But you see, I see both those things as morally and ethically wrong though the Phil Robertson thing is worse because it specifically targets an individual to be personally and materially hurt.
> 
> But there is a difference between personally choosing not to attend a gay wedding at the Rose Bowl and trying to get everybody to choose that.  How does that gay wedding hurt anybody?   If the Rose Bowl chooses to host it, how does that harm me or you or anybody else in any way?  Do you--the rhetorical you--oppose gay marriage?  Okay that is your right so long as you don't harrass or interfere with those who don't oppose it.  It is your right not to participate.
> 
> But it should be morally and ethically wrong to try to spoil somebody else's activity purely because you don't want to participate in it.
Click to expand...


What if the people trying to stop the Rose Bowl or prevent the gay wedding at the Rose Bowl honestly think it does hurt for it to happen?  That it encourages poor morals, gives a bad message to our children, or something along those lines?

There are so many different ways people see things, I find it hard to assume that anyone is just trying to hurt a person with a boycott or demand for firing or anything of the like.  They may honestly believe they are preventing or righting a wrong, or doing something for the good of the country, however wrong I find their reasoning.


----------



## BillyZane

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> I must disagree with you here. Boycotts are a perfectly valid expression of disagreement. They aren't born of intolerance.
> 
> Let me give two examples.
> 
> In one case, we have people who want Phil off the air PERIOD , doesn't matter that they are able to change the channel and not see or hear hm. That's not good enough, they want him SILENCED.
> 
> On the other hand, we have people who encouraged a boycott of the Rose Bowl, but in no way suggested the RB should be shut down over a gay wedding
> 
> The latter says "I'm tolerant , but won't be part of" while the former says "I want this silenced"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First I need to qualify my immediately preceding post to assure hunarcy and Montrovant--and you too Billy--that I do not see any of you as lowlifes when you disagree with me on this.
> 
> But you see, I see both those things as morally and ethically wrong though the Phil Robertson thing is worse because it specifically targets an individual to be personally and materially hurt.
> 
> But there is a difference between personally choosing not to attend a gay wedding at the Rose Bowl and trying to get everybody to choose that.  How does that gay wedding hurt anybody?   If the Rose Bowl chooses to host it, how does that harm me or you or anybody else in any way?  Do you--the rhetorical you--oppose gay marriage?  Okay that is your right so long as you don't harrass or interfere with those who don't oppose it.  It is your right not to participate.
> 
> But it should be morally and ethically wrong to try to spoil somebody else's activity purely because you don't want to participate in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if the people trying to stop the Rose Bowl or prevent the gay wedding at the Rose Bowl honestly think it does hurt for it to happen?  That it encourages poor morals, gives a bad message to our children, or something along those lines?
> 
> There are so many different ways people see things, I find it hard to assume that anyone is just trying to hurt a person with a boycott or demand for firing or anything of the like.  They may honestly believe they are preventing or righting a wrong, or doing something for the good of the country, however wrong I find their reasoning.
Click to expand...


I go further and suggest that their goals are irrelevant. Encouraging a boycott isn't causing harm to a person or entity. Oh, sure if the boycott grew large enough it could possibly cause financial harm, but the reality is we are much too diverse a people for a boycott to ever be that successful.

You could boycott a company because the owner is a pedophile and there would be people who support the guy and continue doing business with him rendering the boycott s little more than a symbolic gesture. Which all boycotts ultimately are. Now true, a company could decide hey we are alienating our customers and change their stance, but is that harming them?I say no


----------



## R.D.

Foxfyre said:


> First I need to qualify my immediately preceding post to assure hunarcy and Montrovant--and you too Billy--that I do not see any of you as lowlifes when you disagree with me on this.
> 
> But you see, I see both those things as morally and ethically wrong though the Phil Robertson thing is worse because it specifically targets an individual to be personally and materially hurt.
> 
> But there is a difference between personally choosing not to attend a gay wedding at the Rose Bowl and trying to get everybody to choose that.  How does that gay wedding hurt anybody?   If the Rose Bowl chooses to host it, how does that harm me or you or anybody else in any way?  Do you--the rhetorical you--oppose gay marriage?  Okay that is your right so long as you don't harrass or interfere with those who don't oppose it.  It is your right not to participate.
> 
> But it should be morally and ethically wrong to try to spoil somebody else's activity purely because you don't want to participate in it.



I think the Rose Bowl is a bigger issue than just not wanting to participate.  Those backing a boycott are in effect asking not to be *forced* to participate.


----------



## BillyZane

R.D. said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> First I need to qualify my immediately preceding post to assure hunarcy and Montrovant--and you too Billy--that I do not see any of you as lowlifes when you disagree with me on this.
> 
> But you see, I see both those things as morally and ethically wrong though the Phil Robertson thing is worse because it specifically targets an individual to be personally and materially hurt.
> 
> But there is a difference between personally choosing not to attend a gay wedding at the Rose Bowl and trying to get everybody to choose that.  How does that gay wedding hurt anybody?   If the Rose Bowl chooses to host it, how does that harm me or you or anybody else in any way?  Do you--the rhetorical you--oppose gay marriage?  Okay that is your right so long as you don't harrass or interfere with those who don't oppose it.  It is your right not to participate.
> 
> But it should be morally and ethically wrong to try to spoil somebody else's activity purely because you don't want to participate in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Rose Bowl is a bigger issue than just not wanting to participate.  Those backing a boycott are in effect asking not to be *forced* to participate.
Click to expand...


Actually not. Because watching the Rose Bowl does not constitutes participating in the gay wedding. It merely constitutes WATCHING a gay wedding.

So, all those who boycotted were doing was refusing to watch.

Again, that harms no one.


----------



## R.D.

BillyZane said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> First I need to qualify my immediately preceding post to assure hunarcy and Montrovant--and you too Billy--that I do not see any of you as lowlifes when you disagree with me on this.
> 
> But you see, I see both those things as morally and ethically wrong though the Phil Robertson thing is worse because it specifically targets an individual to be personally and materially hurt.
> 
> But there is a difference between personally choosing not to attend a gay wedding at the Rose Bowl and trying to get everybody to choose that.  How does that gay wedding hurt anybody?   If the Rose Bowl chooses to host it, how does that harm me or you or anybody else in any way?  Do you--the rhetorical you--oppose gay marriage?  Okay that is your right so long as you don't harrass or interfere with those who don't oppose it.  It is your right not to participate.
> 
> But it should be morally and ethically wrong to try to spoil somebody else's activity purely because you don't want to participate in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Rose Bowl is a bigger issue than just not wanting to participate.  Those backing a boycott are in effect asking not to be *forced* to participate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually not. Because watching the Rose Bowl does not constitutes participating in the gay wedding. It merely constitutes WATCHING a gay wedding.
> 
> So, all those who boycotted were doing was refusing to watch.
> 
> Again, that harms no one.
Click to expand...

Define harms.   

Watching is  participating.  The only way I can participate in the RB is to watch. 

The very reason they are airing a wedding in this venue is the very reason many would boycott it.  It's all a push and pull game.


----------



## BillyZane

R.D. said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Rose Bowl is a bigger issue than just not wanting to participate.  Those backing a boycott are in effect asking not to be *forced* to participate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually not. Because watching the Rose Bowl does not constitutes participating in the gay wedding. It merely constitutes WATCHING a gay wedding.
> 
> So, all those who boycotted were doing was refusing to watch.
> 
> Again, that harms no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define harms.
> 
> Watching is  participating.  The only way I can participate in the RB is to watch.
> 
> The very reason they are airing a wedding in this venue is the very reason many would boycott it.  It's all a push and pull game.
Click to expand...


You are no more participating in the Rose Bowl parade when you watch it, then you are participating in the Rose Bowl game when you watch it. Or do you put a jersey on and call your favorite team "us" when viewing?

LOL The Rose Bowl parade is pretty much open to anyone participating. Watching is NOT participating.


----------



## Bfgrn

TemplarKormac said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And some of us see how destructive, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people personally and/or materially for no offense worse than expressing an unpopular opinion or belief or for using a word that some in society have decided is taboo.  And some of us have adopted a cause to try to help others see how destructivve, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people that way, and one by one change hearts, minds, and ultimately the culture to one that is far more tolerant and values liberty than what we have now.
> 
> To make that long story short, I hope to do what I can to change the culture and make attacking people for their beliefs so socially unacceptable, people will choose not to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So freedom of speech is "destructive, unethical, and unAmerican"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A flaw:
> 
> Speech itself isn't destructive. Acting on that speech is what can be deemed or seen as destructive. To intimidate someone for their speech by using your speech and actions resulting therein, is itself unethical and un-American.
Click to expand...


You mean like Sean Hannity giving out the numbers on the air of Nancy Dubuc, the CEO of A&E Networks and A&E Chairwoman Abbe Raven, who received death threats?


----------



## R.D.

BillyZane said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually not. Because watching the Rose Bowl does not constitutes participating in the gay wedding. It merely constitutes WATCHING a gay wedding.
> 
> So, all those who boycotted were doing was refusing to watch.
> 
> Again, that harms no one.
> 
> 
> 
> Define harms.
> 
> Watching is  participating.  The only way I can participate in the RB is to watch.
> 
> The very reason they are airing a wedding in this venue is the very reason many would boycott it.  It's all a push and pull game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are no more participating in the Rose Bowl parade when you watch it, then you are participating in the Rose Bowl game when you watch it. Or do you put a jersey on and call your favorite team "us" when viewing?
> 
> LOL The Rose Bowl parade is pretty much open to anyone participating. Watching is NOT participating.
Click to expand...


You put in  the qualifier so which is it?

We won't agree.   These events are for viewership, without viewer participation they would cease to exist.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Bfgrn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So freedom of speech is "destructive, unethical, and unAmerican"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A flaw:
> 
> Speech itself isn't destructive. Acting on that speech is what can be deemed or seen as destructive. To intimidate someone for their speech by using your speech and actions resulting therein, is itself unethical and un-American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like Sean Hannity giving out the numbers on the air of Nancy Dubuc, the CEO of A&E Networks and A&E Chairwoman Abbe Raven, who received death threats?
Click to expand...


Since when did a phone call kill anyone? What about the Obamacare lady he helped after she was fired for talking to him on the phone? Does that seem like intolerance to you? And when did he give out Nancy Dubuc's personal phone number? Did he say 'go make death threats to her'? Of course not, he like anyone else in their right minds wouldn't endorse such behavior.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> I must disagree with you here. Boycotts are a perfectly valid expression of disagreement. They aren't born of intolerance.
> 
> Let me give two examples.
> 
> In one case, we have people who want Phil off the air PERIOD , doesn't matter that they are able to change the channel and not see or hear hm. That's not good enough, they want him SILENCED.
> 
> On the other hand, we have people who encouraged a boycott of the Rose Bowl, but in no way suggested the RB should be shut down over a gay wedding
> 
> The latter says "I'm tolerant , but won't be part of" while the former says "I want this silenced"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First I need to qualify my immediately preceding post to assure hunarcy and Montrovant--and you too Billy--that I do not see any of you as lowlifes when you disagree with me on this.
> 
> But you see, I see both those things as morally and ethically wrong though the Phil Robertson thing is worse because it specifically targets an individual to be personally and materially hurt.
> 
> But there is a difference between personally choosing not to attend a gay wedding at the Rose Bowl and trying to get everybody to choose that.  How does that gay wedding hurt anybody?   If the Rose Bowl chooses to host it, how does that harm me or you or anybody else in any way?  Do you--the rhetorical you--oppose gay marriage?  Okay that is your right so long as you don't harrass or interfere with those who don't oppose it.  It is your right not to participate.
> 
> But it should be morally and ethically wrong to try to spoil somebody else's activity purely because you don't want to participate in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if the people trying to stop the Rose Bowl or prevent the gay wedding at the Rose Bowl honestly think it does hurt for it to happen?  That it encourages poor morals, gives a bad message to our children, or something along those lines?
> 
> There are so many different ways people see things,* I find it hard to assume that anyone is just trying to hurt a person with a boycott or demand for firing or anything of the like. * They may honestly believe they are preventing or righting a wrong, or doing something for the good of the country, however wrong I find their reasoning.
Click to expand...


And with good reason, because no one is trying hurt anyone.


----------



## Bfgrn

TemplarKormac said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> A flaw:
> 
> Speech itself isn't destructive. Acting on that speech is what can be deemed or seen as destructive. To intimidate someone for their speech by using your speech and actions resulting therein, is itself unethical and un-American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like Sean Hannity giving out the numbers on the air of Nancy Dubuc, the CEO of A&E Networks and A&E Chairwoman Abbe Raven, who received death threats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when did a phone call kill anyone? What about the Obamacare lady he helped after she was fired for talking to him on the phone? Does that seem like intolerance to you? And when did he give out Nancy Dubuc's personal phone number? Did he say 'go make death threats to her'? Of course not, he like anyone else in their right minds wouldn't endorse such behavior.
Click to expand...


NEVER any culpability from you folks on the right. You folks preach 'personal responsibility' and practice total 'victim-hood', blaming EVERYONE but yourselves. How can any group of people be so blind?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Bfgrn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like Sean Hannity giving out the numbers on the air of Nancy Dubuc, the CEO of A&E Networks and A&E Chairwoman Abbe Raven, who received death threats?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when did a phone call kill anyone? What about the Obamacare lady he helped after she was fired for talking to him on the phone? Does that seem like intolerance to you? And when did he give out Nancy Dubuc's personal phone number? Did he say 'go make death threats to her'? Of course not, he like anyone else in their right minds wouldn't endorse such behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NEVER any culpability from you folks on the right. You folks preach 'personal responsibility' and practice total 'victim-hood', blaming EVERYONE but yourselves. How can any group of people be so blind?
Click to expand...


Sure, but you never proved to me or anyone else that Hannity ever provided Nancy Dubuc's number on air or anywhere. So, blaming him for the folks who made death threats on her is garbage. You might wish to leave now, we have no need for you to pollute this area with your invective. 

When you learn to refrain from lying about people to make your case, then you can lecture the rest of us on personal responsibility, are we clear? It appears my friend, you might be wallowing in victimhood.


----------



## Bfgrn

TemplarKormac said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when did a phone call kill anyone? What about the Obamacare lady he helped after she was fired for talking to him on the phone? Does that seem like intolerance to you? And when did he give out Nancy Dubuc's personal phone number? Did he say 'go make death threats to her'? Of course not, he like anyone else in their right minds wouldn't endorse such behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEVER any culpability from you folks on the right. You folks preach 'personal responsibility' and practice total 'victim-hood', blaming EVERYONE but yourselves. How can any group of people be so blind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, but you never proved to me or anyone else that Hannity ever provided Nancy Dubuc's number on air or anywhere. So, blaming him for the folks who made death threats on her is garbage. You might wish to leave now, we have no need for you to pollute this area with your invective.
> 
> When you learn to refrain from lying about people to make your case, then you can lecture the rest of us on personal responsibility, are we clear? It appears my friend, you might be wallowing in victimhood.
Click to expand...


Sean Hannity is so upset at the suspension of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson that he encouraged his radio audience on Thursday to call executives at A&E and even supplied some phone numbers -- multiple times.

Speaking of Robertson's religious objections to homosexuality, Hannity said: "A&E knows how he feels about this. Why did they put him with a GQ guy in the first place? How stupid are they? By the way, the number to -- the CEO at A&E is Abbe Raven -- if you wanna give her your opinion about this, or Nancy Dubuc is [phone number redacted]. The general number at A&E is [redacted]."

NOW what smart ***?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Bfgrn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> NEVER any culpability from you folks on the right. You folks preach 'personal responsibility' and practice total 'victim-hood', blaming EVERYONE but yourselves. How can any group of people be so blind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but you never proved to me or anyone else that Hannity ever provided Nancy Dubuc's number on air or anywhere. So, blaming him for the folks who made death threats on her is garbage. You might wish to leave now, we have no need for you to pollute this area with your invective.
> 
> When you learn to refrain from lying about people to make your case, then you can lecture the rest of us on personal responsibility, are we clear? It appears my friend, you might be wallowing in victimhood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sean Hannity is so upset at the suspension of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson that he encouraged his radio audience on Thursday to call executives at A&E and even supplied some phone numbers -- multiple times.
> 
> Speaking of Robertson's religious objections to homosexuality, Hannity said: "A&E knows how he feels about this. Why did they put him with a GQ guy in the first place? How stupid are they? By the way, the number to -- the CEO at A&E is Abbe Raven -- if you wanna give her your opinion about this, or Nancy Dubuc is [phone number redacted]. The general number at A&E is [redacted]."
> 
> NOW what smart ***?
Click to expand...


Are you saying people aren't allowed to call the company and address Dubuc in her professional capacity? And here we thought that you guys were tolerant. The viewers have every right to their opinions, they don't have the right to make death threats. It is utterly partisan for you to pin the blame on Hannity. 

Perhaps you weren't reading your own article, since you missed this part:


> "There are plenty of gay-themed programs on television," Hannity said later, using The L Word as an example. "I don't know any conservatives that are demanding that these shows be taken off the air."
> 
> He then gave out the two A&E phone numbers again, adding: *"I'm not telling people what to say. Be polite. I always urge that. But call them and tell them what you think.*"



Once again, you're full of it. Now if you would so kindly stop trying to derail a thread in the CDZ, that would be great.


----------



## Bfgrn

TemplarKormac said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but you never proved to me or anyone else that Hannity ever provided Nancy Dubuc's number on air or anywhere. So, blaming him for the folks who made death threats on her is garbage. You might wish to leave now, we have no need for you to pollute this area with your invective.
> 
> When you learn to refrain from lying about people to make your case, then you can lecture the rest of us on personal responsibility, are we clear? It appears my friend, you might be wallowing in victimhood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sean Hannity is so upset at the suspension of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson that he encouraged his radio audience on Thursday to call executives at A&E and even supplied some phone numbers -- multiple times.
> 
> Speaking of Robertson's religious objections to homosexuality, Hannity said: "A&E knows how he feels about this. Why did they put him with a GQ guy in the first place? How stupid are they? By the way, the number to -- the CEO at A&E is Abbe Raven -- if you wanna give her your opinion about this, or Nancy Dubuc is [phone number redacted]. The general number at A&E is [redacted]."
> 
> NOW what smart ***?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying people aren't allowed to call the company and address Dubuc in her professional capacity? And here we thought that you guys were tolerant. The viewers have every right to their opinions, they don't have the right to make death threats. It is utterly partisan for you to pin the blame on Hannity.
> 
> Perhaps you weren't reading your own article, since you missed this part:
> 
> 
> 
> "There are plenty of gay-themed programs on television," Hannity said later, using The L Word as an example. "I don't know any conservatives that are demanding that these shows be taken off the air."
> 
> He then gave out the two A&E phone numbers again, adding: *"I'm not telling people what to say. Be polite. I always urge that. But call them and tell them what you think.*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you're full of it. Now if you would so kindly stop trying to derail a thread in the CDZ, that would be great.
Click to expand...


People are completely allowed to "call the company and address Dubuc in her professional capacity." But only through PUBLIC and professional channels. A&E's corporate phone number is public domain and is the PROPER channel to air complaints. Hannity was WAY out of bounds giving out those people's PERSONAL phone numbers. That is an infringement of privacy and Hannity was wrong giving out those phone numbers. 

I fully expected excuses and obfuscation once I proved you were wrong. You could have saved yourself this embarrassment if you had researched this before your condescending reply.


----------



## Foxfyre

A person's direct line at A&E or anywhere else is not like giving out a personal phone number.  Those are not 'private' numbers.  It is no different than any activist group, left or right, giving out the direct line to somebody in state or local government or any corporation and that is done all the time.  Giving out an unlisted private phone number to somebody's home WOULD BE a violation of privacy.  I'm sure nobody did that in the Duck Dynasty flap.

How could suggesting folks call somebody to express their opinions somehow be more sinister than staging a boycott or protest or picket of somebody to express opinions?  It seems like most of you think that boycott or protest is the "American Way".  Seems to me suggesting phone calls or e-mails or snail mail is a much less contentious and a much more civil way to express public opinion than trying to hurt a business with a boycott.  Most especially when the activist suggesting it is not handing out talking points for people to say and urges them to be polite and respectful.

I have been reading most of the thread--it moves pretty fast now and then and I'm sure I miss posts and I apologize for that--and I have been thinking about what some of you are saying.  About that boycott that most of you--left and right--seem to think is okay to organize and doesn't really hurt anybody anyway. . . .if you don't think it accomplishes anything why do it?  For what purpose?


----------



## Katzndogz

Bfgrn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> NEVER any culpability from you folks on the right. You folks preach 'personal responsibility' and practice total 'victim-hood', blaming EVERYONE but yourselves. How can any group of people be so blind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but you never proved to me or anyone else that Hannity ever provided Nancy Dubuc's number on air or anywhere. So, blaming him for the folks who made death threats on her is garbage. You might wish to leave now, we have no need for you to pollute this area with your invective.
> 
> When you learn to refrain from lying about people to make your case, then you can lecture the rest of us on personal responsibility, are we clear? It appears my friend, you might be wallowing in victimhood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sean Hannity is so upset at the suspension of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson that he encouraged his radio audience on Thursday to call executives at A&E and even supplied some phone numbers -- multiple times.
> 
> Speaking of Robertson's religious objections to homosexuality, Hannity said: "A&E knows how he feels about this. Why did they put him with a GQ guy in the first place? How stupid are they? By the way, the number to -- the CEO at A&E is Abbe Raven -- if you wanna give her your opinion about this, or Nancy Dubuc is [phone number redacted]. The general number at A&E is [redacted]."
> 
> NOW what smart ***?
Click to expand...


The corporate phone numbers of A&E is a matter of public record.  It's not like Hannity hired busloads of protesters to go to private homes and protest like liberals do.


----------



## Foxfyre

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> First I need to qualify my immediately preceding post to assure hunarcy and Montrovant--and you too Billy--that I do not see any of you as lowlifes when you disagree with me on this.
> 
> But you see, I see both those things as morally and ethically wrong though the Phil Robertson thing is worse because it specifically targets an individual to be personally and materially hurt.
> 
> But there is a difference between personally choosing not to attend a gay wedding at the Rose Bowl and trying to get everybody to choose that.  How does that gay wedding hurt anybody?   If the Rose Bowl chooses to host it, how does that harm me or you or anybody else in any way?  Do you--the rhetorical you--oppose gay marriage?  Okay that is your right so long as you don't harrass or interfere with those who don't oppose it.  It is your right not to participate.
> 
> But it should be morally and ethically wrong to try to spoil somebody else's activity purely because you don't want to participate in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if the people trying to stop the Rose Bowl or prevent the gay wedding at the Rose Bowl honestly think it does hurt for it to happen?  That it encourages poor morals, gives a bad message to our children, or something along those lines?
> 
> There are so many different ways people see things,* I find it hard to assume that anyone is just trying to hurt a person with a boycott or demand for firing or anything of the like. * They may honestly believe they are preventing or righting a wrong, or doing something for the good of the country, however wrong I find their reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And with good reason, because no one is trying &#8216;hurt&#8217; anyone.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but when you are trying to get somebody fired, you ARE trying to hurt them physically (removing them from something they may love doing) and materially (trying to take away their livelihod.)  What good is a boycott if the intent is not to force somebody to do something you want them to do?

And of course those doing it feel righteous and virtuous when they do it because it is for the 'common good' yes?  It is the _right thing to do_ to silence a Phil Robertson and his opinions about homosexuality.  He must be made an example yes of what people must not be allowed to be.  What people must not be allowed to say.  At least not in a public forum.  He must be destroyed to save the nation's virtue.

The problem comes and that nobody--left or right--seems to want to address is who should be given authority to dictate what people must be or not be?  What people are not allowed to say?


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if the people trying to stop the Rose Bowl or prevent the gay wedding at the Rose Bowl honestly think it does hurt for it to happen?  That it encourages poor morals, gives a bad message to our children, or something along those lines?
> 
> There are so many different ways people see things,* I find it hard to assume that anyone is just trying to hurt a person with a boycott or demand for firing or anything of the like. * They may honestly believe they are preventing or righting a wrong, or doing something for the good of the country, however wrong I find their reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And with good reason, because no one is trying hurt anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but when you are trying to get somebody fired, you ARE trying to hurt them physically (removing them from something they may love doing) and materially (trying to take away their livelihod.)  What good is a boycott if the intent is not to force somebody to do something you want them to do?
> 
> And of course those doing it feel righteous and virtuous when they do it because it is for the 'common good' yes?  It is the _right thing to do_ to silence a Phil Robertson and his opinions about homosexuality.  He must be made an example yes of what people must not be allowed to be.  What people must not be allowed to say.  At least not in a public forum.  He must be destroyed to save the nation's virtue.
> 
> The problem comes and that nobody--left or right--seems to want to address is who should be given authority to dictate what people must be or not be?  What people are not allowed to say?
Click to expand...


I think you miss my point.  You can try to have someone's opinion removed from the air without the intent of seeing them hurt.  However, the one may not be possible with the other.

A person might be totally happy if Phil Robertson were to become a behind-the-scenes employee at A&E but feel he shouldn't have his own reality show to publicly promote whatever message they don't like of his.  Trying to have his show cancelled would not be with the intent of harming him, only with the intent of removing that message.  

A boycott is entirely about trying to get someone or a company to do what you want.  I've never said anything differently.  They can be effective.  That doesn't mean the intent behind them has to be hurting someone, even though in almost every instance someone will be hurt if they work.

I think the 'who gets to decide' question has been addressed.  The answer is each individual.  Each person decides what they think is right and wrong, and society as a whole will either make rules that follow the general consensus or, as is often the case, will make social standards outside of the law that follow the consensus.  This is, as I understand it, the very thing you hope to see.  

If you can convince enough people that Phil Robertson's message(s) are unacceptable, he and others who say similar things will have a very hard time finding employment which allows them to publicly promote such things.  As you've said, it's not a legal argument.  It's just about what things society in general finds acceptable.


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And with good reason, because no one is trying hurt anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but when you are trying to get somebody fired, you ARE trying to hurt them physically (removing them from something they may love doing) and materially (trying to take away their livelihod.)  What good is a boycott if the intent is not to force somebody to do something you want them to do?
> 
> And of course those doing it feel righteous and virtuous when they do it because it is for the 'common good' yes?  It is the _right thing to do_ to silence a Phil Robertson and his opinions about homosexuality.  He must be made an example yes of what people must not be allowed to be.  What people must not be allowed to say.  At least not in a public forum.  He must be destroyed to save the nation's virtue.
> 
> The problem comes and that nobody--left or right--seems to want to address is who should be given authority to dictate what people must be or not be?  What people are not allowed to say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you miss my point.  You can try to have someone's opinion removed from the air without the intent of seeing them hurt.  However, the one may not be possible with the other.
> 
> A person might be totally happy if Phil Robertson were to become a behind-the-scenes employee at A&E but feel he shouldn't have his own reality show to publicly promote whatever message they don't like of his.  Trying to have his show cancelled would not be with the intent of harming him, only with the intent of removing that message.
> 
> A boycott is entirely about trying to get someone or a company to do what you want.  I've never said anything differently.  They can be effective.  That doesn't mean the intent behind them has to be hurting someone, even though in almost every instance someone will be hurt if they work.
> 
> I think the 'who gets to decide' question has been addressed.  The answer is each individual.  Each person decides what they think is right and wrong, and society as a whole will either make rules that follow the general consensus or, as is often the case, will make social standards outside of the law that follow the consensus.  This is, as I understand it, the very thing you hope to see.
> 
> If you can convince enough people that Phil Robertson's message(s) are unacceptable, he and others who say similar things will have a very hard time finding employment which allows them to publicly promote such things.  As you've said, it's not a legal argument.  It's just about what things society in general finds acceptable.
Click to expand...


Nobody had an objection about Phil Robertson's message on Duck Dynasty.  I don't watch much Duck Dynasty, but from what little I have seen, it has nothing to do with politics or any socioeconomic issues out there.  It is a light hearted and funny series of glimpses into a family living their light hearted and funny lives.

His relationship with A&E was not an issue.   He gave an interview to GQ magazine, totally unrelated to A&E, who asked him his opinion, and then published an edited version of that opinion.  So if somebody objects to the opinion, why is GQ, who made the comments public, not the villain in this scenario?   Why go to A&E and demand that A&E fire Phil Robertson if the purpose is not to hurt Phil Robertson as much as possible?   Obviously GLAAD's problem is with Phil Robertson and not because 'defamatory' material was put out there.  If they were really offended by the comments, they would have gone after GQ who published them.

In my opinion, we show tolerance and are much more noble as a people if we choose what we approve of, what inspires us, what helps us make better choices and/or be better people rather than trying to punish those who are different from us or who don't share our opinions.


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but when you are trying to get somebody fired, you ARE trying to hurt them physically (removing them from something they may love doing) and materially (trying to take away their livelihod.)  What good is a boycott if the intent is not to force somebody to do something you want them to do?
> 
> And of course those doing it feel righteous and virtuous when they do it because it is for the 'common good' yes?  It is the _right thing to do_ to silence a Phil Robertson and his opinions about homosexuality.  He must be made an example yes of what people must not be allowed to be.  What people must not be allowed to say.  At least not in a public forum.  He must be destroyed to save the nation's virtue.
> 
> The problem comes and that nobody--left or right--seems to want to address is who should be given authority to dictate what people must be or not be?  What people are not allowed to say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you miss my point.  You can try to have someone's opinion removed from the air without the intent of seeing them hurt.  However, the one may not be possible with the other.
> 
> A person might be totally happy if Phil Robertson were to become a behind-the-scenes employee at A&E but feel he shouldn't have his own reality show to publicly promote whatever message they don't like of his.  Trying to have his show cancelled would not be with the intent of harming him, only with the intent of removing that message.
> 
> A boycott is entirely about trying to get someone or a company to do what you want.  I've never said anything differently.  They can be effective.  That doesn't mean the intent behind them has to be hurting someone, even though in almost every instance someone will be hurt if they work.
> 
> I think the 'who gets to decide' question has been addressed.  The answer is each individual.  Each person decides what they think is right and wrong, and society as a whole will either make rules that follow the general consensus or, as is often the case, will make social standards outside of the law that follow the consensus.  This is, as I understand it, the very thing you hope to see.
> 
> If you can convince enough people that Phil Robertson's message(s) are unacceptable, he and others who say similar things will have a very hard time finding employment which allows them to publicly promote such things.  As you've said, it's not a legal argument.  It's just about what things society in general finds acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody had an objection about Phil Robertson's message on Duck Dynasty.  I don't watch much Duck Dynasty, but from what little I have seen, it has nothing to do with politics or any socioeconomic issues out there.  It is a light hearted and funny series of glimpses into a family living their light hearted and funny lives.
> 
> His relationship with A&E was not an issue.   He gave an interview to GQ magazine, totally unrelated to A&E, who asked him his opinion, and then published an edited version of that opinion.  So if somebody objects to the opinion, why is GQ, who made the comments public, not the villain in this scenario?   Why go to A&E and demand that A&E fire Phil Robertson if the purpose is not to hurt Phil Robertson as much as possible?   Obviously GLAAD's problem is with Phil Robertson and not because 'defamatory' material was put out there.  If they were really offended by the comments, they would have gone after GQ who published them.
> 
> In my opinion, we show tolerance and are much more noble as a people if we choose what we approve of, what inspires us, what helps us make better choices and/or be better people rather than trying to punish those who are different from us or who don't share our opinions.
Click to expand...


I think that an interview is looked at differently than employing someone in their own reality show.  I have never watched DD so I don't know what kinds of things are said on the show.  However there is certainly a difference between what may have been an unpaid interview and long term employment as a reality tv star.

Rightly or wrongly, the members of GLAAD may have felt that A&E, by employing Robertson in that capacity, were implying an agreement with his publicly spoken messages.  GQ, on the other hand, merely interviewed him one time.  If a reporter interviews Kim Jong Un, no one is likely to consider them to be supporting his regime.  Dennis Rodman travels to North Korea and spends some time with Kim Jong Un, and plans on possibly bringing other former NBA players to the country, and there are people who think he is supporting or helping Kim Jong Un.

I think there is just a degree of separation given by default to an interview that doesn't apply to most other kinds of interaction.


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you miss my point.  You can try to have someone's opinion removed from the air without the intent of seeing them hurt.  However, the one may not be possible with the other.
> 
> A person might be totally happy if Phil Robertson were to become a behind-the-scenes employee at A&E but feel he shouldn't have his own reality show to publicly promote whatever message they don't like of his.  Trying to have his show cancelled would not be with the intent of harming him, only with the intent of removing that message.
> 
> A boycott is entirely about trying to get someone or a company to do what you want.  I've never said anything differently.  They can be effective.  That doesn't mean the intent behind them has to be hurting someone, even though in almost every instance someone will be hurt if they work.
> 
> I think the 'who gets to decide' question has been addressed.  The answer is each individual.  Each person decides what they think is right and wrong, and society as a whole will either make rules that follow the general consensus or, as is often the case, will make social standards outside of the law that follow the consensus.  This is, as I understand it, the very thing you hope to see.
> 
> If you can convince enough people that Phil Robertson's message(s) are unacceptable, he and others who say similar things will have a very hard time finding employment which allows them to publicly promote such things.  As you've said, it's not a legal argument.  It's just about what things society in general finds acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody had an objection about Phil Robertson's message on Duck Dynasty.  I don't watch much Duck Dynasty, but from what little I have seen, it has nothing to do with politics or any socioeconomic issues out there.  It is a light hearted and funny series of glimpses into a family living their light hearted and funny lives.
> 
> His relationship with A&E was not an issue.   He gave an interview to GQ magazine, totally unrelated to A&E, who asked him his opinion, and then published an edited version of that opinion.  So if somebody objects to the opinion, why is GQ, who made the comments public, not the villain in this scenario?   Why go to A&E and demand that A&E fire Phil Robertson if the purpose is not to hurt Phil Robertson as much as possible?   Obviously GLAAD's problem is with Phil Robertson and not because 'defamatory' material was put out there.  If they were really offended by the comments, they would have gone after GQ who published them.
> 
> In my opinion, we show tolerance and are much more noble as a people if we choose what we approve of, what inspires us, what helps us make better choices and/or be better people rather than trying to punish those who are different from us or who don't share our opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that an interview is looked at differently than employing someone in their own reality show.  I have never watched DD so I don't know what kinds of things are said on the show.  However there is certainly a difference between what may have been an unpaid interview and long term employment as a reality tv star.
> 
> Rightly or wrongly, the members of GLAAD may have felt that A&E, by employing Robertson in that capacity, were implying an agreement with his publicly spoken messages.  GQ, on the other hand, merely interviewed him one time.  If a reporter interviews Kim Jong Un, no one is likely to consider them to be supporting his regime.  Dennis Rodman travels to North Korea and spends some time with Kim Jong Un, and plans on possibly bringing other former NBA players to the country, and there are people who think he is supporting or helping Kim Jong Un.
> 
> I think there is just a degree of separation given by default to an interview that doesn't apply to most other kinds of interaction.
Click to expand...


And you don't see a problem with trying to hurt Phil Robertson personally purely because he gave his honest opinion in an GQ interview?  Is that okay?

Is sure isn't okay with me and I'm making my best argument for why it shouldn't be okay with anybody.

Was it okay for American Family Association to try to get Ellen Degeneres fired from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason than Ellen Degeneres is gay?

That isn't okay with me either and I'm making my best argument for why it shouldn't be okay with anybody.


----------



## Foxfyre

I wonder what ya'll think about this fairly short ZO lecture that has now gone viral.  Does he give anybody some food for thought on this whole concept of tolerance?  Who is demonstrating it.  And who isn't?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-u_uT3YS-Uk]Mellisa Harris Perry's Panel Shows Bigotry, Not the Robertsons - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody had an objection about Phil Robertson's message on Duck Dynasty.  I don't watch much Duck Dynasty, but from what little I have seen, it has nothing to do with politics or any socioeconomic issues out there.  It is a light hearted and funny series of glimpses into a family living their light hearted and funny lives.
> 
> His relationship with A&E was not an issue.   He gave an interview to GQ magazine, totally unrelated to A&E, who asked him his opinion, and then published an edited version of that opinion.  So if somebody objects to the opinion, why is GQ, who made the comments public, not the villain in this scenario?   Why go to A&E and demand that A&E fire Phil Robertson if the purpose is not to hurt Phil Robertson as much as possible?   Obviously GLAAD's problem is with Phil Robertson and not because 'defamatory' material was put out there.  If they were really offended by the comments, they would have gone after GQ who published them.
> 
> In my opinion, we show tolerance and are much more noble as a people if we choose what we approve of, what inspires us, what helps us make better choices and/or be better people rather than trying to punish those who are different from us or who don't share our opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that an interview is looked at differently than employing someone in their own reality show.  I have never watched DD so I don't know what kinds of things are said on the show.  However there is certainly a difference between what may have been an unpaid interview and long term employment as a reality tv star.
> 
> Rightly or wrongly, the members of GLAAD may have felt that A&E, by employing Robertson in that capacity, were implying an agreement with his publicly spoken messages.  GQ, on the other hand, merely interviewed him one time.  If a reporter interviews Kim Jong Un, no one is likely to consider them to be supporting his regime.  Dennis Rodman travels to North Korea and spends some time with Kim Jong Un, and plans on possibly bringing other former NBA players to the country, and there are people who think he is supporting or helping Kim Jong Un.
> 
> I think there is just a degree of separation given by default to an interview that doesn't apply to most other kinds of interaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you don't see a problem with trying to hurt Phil Robertson personally purely because he gave his honest opinion in an GQ interview?  Is that okay?
> 
> Is sure isn't okay with me and I'm making my best argument for why it shouldn't be okay with anybody.
> 
> Was it okay for American Family Association to try to get Ellen Degeneres fired from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason than Ellen Degeneres is gay?
> 
> That isn't okay with me either and I'm making my best argument for why it shouldn't be okay with anybody.
Click to expand...


I think it depends on just what opinion it is that he gave.  If he had said it is ok to gas Jews like Hitler, I would probably be fine with groups trying to get him fired.  If he said we should kill all infidels against Allah, I would probably be fine with groups trying to get him fired.

I'm a bit more on the fence with Phil Robertson.  I think he came across as a bit of an ass.  I'm not particularly upset that GLAAD tried to get him fired.  I think they overreacted, but I don't see it as evil the way you do.  

I think that some opinions are vile enough and promote a mindset potentially dangerous enough that I'd rather not see them on the air.  I personally just avoid whatever programs might show them, but if others feel like going further, I tend to brush it off.  It has to remain legal of course, but if it is just an expression of group dislike, I see it as little different than trying to get a show cancelled because you think it sucks.

Now when someone tries to get Joe the pharmacist fired because they heard he is privately a racist, that's a different argument.

I think that trying to get a message out of the public eye is usually silly but valid, I suppose.


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that an interview is looked at differently than employing someone in their own reality show.  I have never watched DD so I don't know what kinds of things are said on the show.  However there is certainly a difference between what may have been an unpaid interview and long term employment as a reality tv star.
> 
> Rightly or wrongly, the members of GLAAD may have felt that A&E, by employing Robertson in that capacity, were implying an agreement with his publicly spoken messages.  GQ, on the other hand, merely interviewed him one time.  If a reporter interviews Kim Jong Un, no one is likely to consider them to be supporting his regime.  Dennis Rodman travels to North Korea and spends some time with Kim Jong Un, and plans on possibly bringing other former NBA players to the country, and there are people who think he is supporting or helping Kim Jong Un.
> 
> I think there is just a degree of separation given by default to an interview that doesn't apply to most other kinds of interaction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you don't see a problem with trying to hurt Phil Robertson personally purely because he gave his honest opinion in an GQ interview?  Is that okay?
> 
> Is sure isn't okay with me and I'm making my best argument for why it shouldn't be okay with anybody.
> 
> Was it okay for American Family Association to try to get Ellen Degeneres fired from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason than Ellen Degeneres is gay?
> 
> That isn't okay with me either and I'm making my best argument for why it shouldn't be okay with anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it depends on just what opinion it is that he gave.  If he had said it is ok to gas Jews like Hitler, I would probably be fine with groups trying to get him fired.  If he said we should kill all infidels against Allah, I would probably be fine with groups trying to get him fired.
> 
> I'm a bit more on the fence with Phil Robertson.  I think he came across as a bit of an ass.  I'm not particularly upset that GLAAD tried to get him fired.  I think they overreacted, but I don't see it as evil the way you do.
> 
> I think that some opinions are vile enough and promote a mindset potentially dangerous enough that I'd rather not see them on the air.  I personally just avoid whatever programs might show them, but if others feel like going further, I tend to brush it off.  It has to remain legal of course, but if it is just an expression of group dislike, I see it as little different than trying to get a show cancelled because you think it sucks.
> 
> Now when someone tries to get Joe the pharmacist fired because they heard he is privately a racist, that's a different argument.
> 
> I think that trying to get a message out of the public eye is usually silly but valid, I suppose.
Click to expand...


I don't require you to see it as evil as I do.   And I have appreciated your contribution to this thread.  But why would somebody care if a show sucked?  Why not just not tune it out or just not attend?  If enough people feel as you do, and there are terrible reviews, then the show closes.  If enough people want to attend or watch the show, then it continues.  Doesn't hurt me one way or the other.

But I do see it as evil for attacking somebody - ANYBODY - and trying to hurt them for no other reason than they express an opinion I don't share.  I may loathe the person--I WOULD loathe the person--who says Jews should be gassed and such a comment would get a very harsh piece of my mind, but unless he proposes that be made the policy or acts it out himself, my ethics require tht I have to allow him that opinion.  I do not and should not have the right to strike him or actively seek to hurt him for expressing that opinion.  Another person may think I am just as loathesome because I think Barack Obama is a terrible president or because I think the federal government should get out of ALL welfare programs or because I think a loving traditional marriage is the best situation for raising kids, whether they are straight or gay.  But any of us can strongly object to opinions we disagree with or see as abhorrent.  And we should also have that right.

But telling somebody off is not the same thing as striking them.

Rebutting or objecting to what somebody says is not the same thing as organizing to hurt or destroy them.

In all cases people should be able to say what they think about a really abhorrent opinion and we all should be able to rebut the public figure who we see as really wrong.  But it should be socially unacceptable to organize to hurt such public figure for nothing more than a wrong opinion.  That is what I want and hope for in our culture.

Words can sometimes hurt if they are from people I respect.  Otherwise, how can they hurt me?  Folks keep sending me examples of what the numbnuts are saying about me on other threads since I moved this topic to the CDZ.  They apparently can't stand not being allowed to get to me here.    I'm being accused of some interesting things and being called a lot of unattractive names.  But how can that hurt me?  It won't make my enemies any more enemy and my friends won't believe them.  If they should garner enough support to make my experience here sufficiently unpleasant, I simply find another board to play on.

Words expressed as activism and urging action can and should sometimes be actively attacked.  Words expressed purely as opinion in a proper forum should be allowed no matter how reprehensible we think they are.  But if they're going to force such words on us, we definitely should be able to rebut them.


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you don't see a problem with trying to hurt Phil Robertson personally purely because he gave his honest opinion in an GQ interview?  Is that okay?
> 
> Is sure isn't okay with me and I'm making my best argument for why it shouldn't be okay with anybody.
> 
> Was it okay for American Family Association to try to get Ellen Degeneres fired from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason than Ellen Degeneres is gay?
> 
> That isn't okay with me either and I'm making my best argument for why it shouldn't be okay with anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it depends on just what opinion it is that he gave.  If he had said it is ok to gas Jews like Hitler, I would probably be fine with groups trying to get him fired.  If he said we should kill all infidels against Allah, I would probably be fine with groups trying to get him fired.
> 
> I'm a bit more on the fence with Phil Robertson.  I think he came across as a bit of an ass.  I'm not particularly upset that GLAAD tried to get him fired.  I think they overreacted, but I don't see it as evil the way you do.
> 
> I think that some opinions are vile enough and promote a mindset potentially dangerous enough that I'd rather not see them on the air.  I personally just avoid whatever programs might show them, but if others feel like going further, I tend to brush it off.  It has to remain legal of course, but if it is just an expression of group dislike, I see it as little different than trying to get a show cancelled because you think it sucks.
> 
> Now when someone tries to get Joe the pharmacist fired because they heard he is privately a racist, that's a different argument.
> 
> I think that trying to get a message out of the public eye is usually silly but valid, I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't require you to see it as evil as I do.   And I have appreciated your contribution to this thread.  But why would somebody care if a show sucked?  Why not just not tune it out or just not attend?  If enough people feel as you do, and there are terrible reviews, then the show closes.  If enough people want to attend or watch the show, then it continues.  Doesn't hurt me one way or the other.
> 
> But I do see it as evil for attacking somebody - ANYBODY - and trying to hurt them for no other reason than they express an opinion I don't share.  I may loathe the person--I WOULD loathe the person--who says Jews should be gassed and such a comment would get a very harsh piece of my mind, but unless he proposes that be made the policy or acts it out himself, my ethics require tht I have to allow him that opinion.  I do not and should not have the right to strike him or actively seek to hurt him for expressing that opinion.  Another person may think I am just as loathesome because I think Barack Obama is a terrible president or because I think the federal government should get out of ALL welfare programs or because I think a loving traditional marriage is the best situation for raising kids, whether they are straight or gay.  But any of us can strongly object to opinions we disagree with or see as abhorrent.  And we should also have that right.
> 
> But telling somebody off is not the same thing as striking them.
> 
> Rebutting or objecting to what somebody says is not the same thing as organizing to hurt or destroy them.
> 
> In all cases people should be able to say what they think about a really abhorrent opinion and we all should be able to rebut the public figure who we see as really wrong.  But it should be socially unacceptable to organize to hurt such public figure for nothing more than a wrong opinion.  That is what I want and hope for in our culture.
> 
> Words can sometimes hurt if they are from people I respect.  Otherwise, how can they hurt me?  Folks keep sending me examples of what the numbnuts are saying about me on other threads since I moved this topic to the CDZ.  They apparently can't stand not being allowed to get to me here.    I'm being accused of some interesting things and being called a lot of unattractive names.  But how can that hurt me?  It won't make my enemies any more enemy and my friends won't believe them.  If they should garner enough support to make my experience here sufficiently unpleasant, I simply find another board to play on.
> 
> Words expressed as activism and urging action can and should sometimes be actively attacked.  Words expressed purely as opinion in a proper forum should be allowed no matter how reprehensible we think they are.  But if they're going to force such words on us, we definitely should be able to rebut them.
Click to expand...


As to why people care if a show just sucks, the reason is twofold.  One part is that a crappy show is taking a spot that might be used by a good show.  The other is just a matter of principle; that show sucks and doesn't deserve to be on!  

Organizing in an attempt to get someone off the air is not preventing them from expressing their opinion.  As long as you aren't doing that and aren't engaging in activities like extortion or blackmail that are illegal, 'going after' someone is basically expressing an opinion in an organized fashion.  And as I've said, the intent does not have to be to hurt the person(s) involved.  It can be simply to have whatever venue they are using to voice their opinions removed.

Why would someone want to do this?  Because there are opinions and beliefs that you don't want to see spread.  Because when an opinion is not fought against it can be seen as a tacit acceptance of or support for that opinion.  Because when someone with those kinds of opinions (whatever they may be) is held up as an admirable celebrity, it sends a bad message.

There is also a distinction between my accepting someone trying to do such things as ethical and my wanting them to succeed.  I don't particularly want Phil Robertson fired.  I don't care enough to want him fired.  So I have no desire to see GLAAD successful in any campaign to have him removed.  I can, however, see the possibility that at least some of GLAAD's members may have better reasoning behind their actions than simply a desire to see Robertson hurt.

And as long as such actions as boycotts remain legal, I am fine if they are unacceptable by societal standards.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> A person's direct line at A&E or anywhere else is not like giving out a personal phone number.  Those are not 'private' numbers.  It is no different than any activist group, left or right, giving out the direct line to somebody in state or local government or any corporation and that is done all the time.  Giving out an unlisted private phone number to somebody's home WOULD BE a violation of privacy.  I'm sure nobody did that in the Duck Dynasty flap.
> 
> How could suggesting folks call somebody to express their opinions somehow be more sinister than staging a boycott or protest or picket of somebody to express opinions?  It seems like most of you think that boycott or protest is the "American Way".  Seems to me suggesting phone calls or e-mails or snail mail is a much less contentious and a much more civil way to express public opinion than trying to hurt a business with a boycott.  Most especially when the activist suggesting it is not handing out talking points for people to say and urges them to be polite and respectful.
> 
> I have been reading most of the thread--it moves pretty fast now and then and I'm sure I miss posts and I apologize for that--and I have been thinking about what some of you are saying.  About that boycott that most of you--left and right--seem to think is okay to organize and doesn't really hurt anybody anyway. . . .if you don't think it accomplishes anything why do it?  For what purpose?



Wrong...they ARE private numbers. You can't 'tweet' corporate phone systems.


----------



## hunarcy

Montrovant said:


> Why would someone want to do this?  Because there are opinions and beliefs that you don't want to see spread.  Because when an opinion is not fought against it can be seen as a tacit acceptance of or support for that opinion.  Because when someone with those kinds of opinions (whatever they may be) is held up as an admirable celebrity, it sends a bad message.



I agree, but the opinion must be fought and defeated in the open, not censored and stifled, left to fester in the back channels of our society.   Being held in secret gives such ideas a "decadent" allure and allows it to live on and grow like a cancer.

That's why censorship is so destructive.


----------



## Mathbud1

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robertson's own words do the conflating;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I say I am going to the store to buy corn flakes, radishes, and tomato soup and ya'll can decide what you want for supper, is that conflating those things?  What Robertson did was provide a list of things that he believes are sins.  That is NOT conflating the things that he listed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it is. You combined the things you are buying into a shopping list. PR combined homosexuality into a list of other despicable things. In essence he said that there is no difference whatsoever between the terrorists who murdered 3000 innocent people on 9/11 and the gay couple who live next door. How would you feel if someone lumped you in with mass murderers? You would have every right to be be offended and call out the person who did that to you irrespective of their belief that their "bible" was telling them that retired ladies in NM are plotting to fly planes into tall buildings using radishes and soup cans.
Click to expand...


Wrong. Combining things into a list does not mean that you think they are equal.

Corn Flakes = Radishes?

Even saying you value them the same is incorrect. I may love corn flakes and hate radishes but need them for a recipe.

I can list murder and lying as sins. That does not mean that I think lying = murder.


----------



## Montrovant

Mathbud1 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I say I am going to the store to buy corn flakes, radishes, and tomato soup and ya'll can decide what you want for supper, is that conflating those things?  What Robertson did was provide a list of things that he believes are sins.  That is NOT conflating the things that he listed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it is. You combined the things you are buying into a shopping list. PR combined homosexuality into a list of other despicable things. In essence he said that there is no difference whatsoever between the terrorists who murdered 3000 innocent people on 9/11 and the gay couple who live next door. How would you feel if someone lumped you in with mass murderers? You would have every right to be be offended and call out the person who did that to you irrespective of their belief that their "bible" was telling them that retired ladies in NM are plotting to fly planes into tall buildings using radishes and soup cans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. Combining things into a list does not mean that you think they are equal.
> 
> Corn Flakes = Radishes?
> 
> Even saying you value them the same is incorrect. I may love corn flakes and hate radishes but need them for a recipe.
> 
> I can list murder and lying as sins. That does not mean that I think lying = murder.
Click to expand...


That's completely true.

However, I would like to point out that rarely, if ever, do I see homosexuality compared with lying, or disrespecting one's parents, or taking the name of god in vain when it comes to comparing sins.  Bestiality?  Pedophilia?  Murder?  Yep, those kinds of comparisons are made plenty.

I won't try to speculate on Phil Robertson's views.  Enough people seem to compare homosexuality to horrible things that when anyone else does it, whatever their motivations, I can understand why some might find it hard to believe their motives are benign.


----------



## R.D.

Montrovant said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it is. You combined the things you are buying into a shopping list. PR combined homosexuality into a list of other despicable things. In essence he said that there is no difference whatsoever between the terrorists who murdered 3000 innocent people on 9/11 and the gay couple who live next door. How would you feel if someone lumped you in with mass murderers? You would have every right to be be offended and call out the person who did that to you irrespective of their belief that their "bible" was telling them that retired ladies in NM are plotting to fly planes into tall buildings using radishes and soup cans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Combining things into a list does not mean that you think they are equal.
> 
> Corn Flakes = Radishes?
> 
> Even saying you value them the same is incorrect. I may love corn flakes and hate radishes but need them for a recipe.
> 
> I can list murder and lying as sins. That does not mean that I think lying = murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's completely true.
> 
> However, I would like to point out that rarely, if ever, do I see homosexuality compared with lying, or disrespecting one's parents, or taking the name of god in vain when it comes to comparing sins.  Bestiality?  Pedophilia?  Murder?  Yep, those kinds of comparisons are made plenty.
> 
> I won't try to speculate on Phil Robertson's views.  Enough people seem to compare homosexuality to horrible things that when anyone else does it, whatever their motivations, I can understand why some might find it hard to believe their motives are benign.
Click to expand...


Homosexuality is sexual behavior so to make other sexual comparisons only makes sense.  Selective outrage is what took over.   He did go further though

_Everything is blurred on whats right and whats wrong Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Robertson then paraphrased Corinthians from the Bible: *Dont be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers*they wont inherit the kingdom of God. Dont deceive yourself. Its not right.

_

If he had followed with pedophilia instead of bestiality he would have been accused of claiming homosexuals were dangerous child predictors.


----------



## hunarcy

R.D. said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Combining things into a list does not mean that you think they are equal.
> 
> Corn Flakes = Radishes?
> 
> Even saying you value them the same is incorrect. I may love corn flakes and hate radishes but need them for a recipe.
> 
> I can list murder and lying as sins. That does not mean that I think lying = murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's completely true.
> 
> However, I would like to point out that rarely, if ever, do I see homosexuality compared with lying, or disrespecting one's parents, or taking the name of god in vain when it comes to comparing sins.  Bestiality?  Pedophilia?  Murder?  Yep, those kinds of comparisons are made plenty.
> 
> I won't try to speculate on Phil Robertson's views.  Enough people seem to compare homosexuality to horrible things that when anyone else does it, whatever their motivations, I can understand why some might find it hard to believe their motives are benign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is sexual behavior so to make other sexual comparisons only makes sense.  Selective outrage is what took over.   He did go further though
> 
> _Everything is blurred on whats right and whats wrong Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Robertson then paraphrased Corinthians from the Bible: *Dont be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers*they wont inherit the kingdom of God. Dont deceive yourself. Its not right.
> 
> _
> 
> If he had followed with pedophilia instead of bestiality he would have been accused of claiming homosexuals were dangerous child predictors.
Click to expand...


No matter what he'd said, because he didn't say it was acceptable, he'd have been held to be intolerant and judgmental.  But, if you look at his whole quote, he said they were to be loved and judgment would come at a different time by a grander authority.


----------



## Montrovant

R.D. said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Combining things into a list does not mean that you think they are equal.
> 
> Corn Flakes = Radishes?
> 
> Even saying you value them the same is incorrect. I may love corn flakes and hate radishes but need them for a recipe.
> 
> I can list murder and lying as sins. That does not mean that I think lying = murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's completely true.
> 
> However, I would like to point out that rarely, if ever, do I see homosexuality compared with lying, or disrespecting one's parents, or taking the name of god in vain when it comes to comparing sins.  Bestiality?  Pedophilia?  Murder?  Yep, those kinds of comparisons are made plenty.
> 
> I won't try to speculate on Phil Robertson's views.  Enough people seem to compare homosexuality to horrible things that when anyone else does it, whatever their motivations, I can understand why some might find it hard to believe their motives are benign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is sexual behavior so to make other sexual comparisons only makes sense.  Selective outrage is what took over.   He did go further though
> 
> _Everything is blurred on whats right and whats wrong Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Robertson then paraphrased Corinthians from the Bible: *Dont be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers*they wont inherit the kingdom of God. Dont deceive yourself. Its not right.
> 
> _
> 
> If he had followed with pedophilia instead of bestiality he would have been accused of claiming homosexuals were dangerous child predictors.
Click to expand...


Comparisons to all sexual behaviors do not make sense.  If I were to say that swinging is a sin, would it make sense to compare it to rape?

And again, what Robertson was trying to say was not my point.  My point is that when those who demonize homosexuals use some of the same comparisons over and over; gays and pedophiles; gays and bestiality; whenever someone uses those same comparisons it's understandable that they will cause a particular reaction.  It's unfortunate, but you can see enough of those kinds of comparisons right here on this board that I think the reason for such a reaction is understandable.


----------



## Montrovant

hunarcy said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's completely true.
> 
> However, I would like to point out that rarely, if ever, do I see homosexuality compared with lying, or disrespecting one's parents, or taking the name of god in vain when it comes to comparing sins.  Bestiality?  Pedophilia?  Murder?  Yep, those kinds of comparisons are made plenty.
> 
> I won't try to speculate on Phil Robertson's views.  Enough people seem to compare homosexuality to horrible things that when anyone else does it, whatever their motivations, I can understand why some might find it hard to believe their motives are benign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is sexual behavior so to make other sexual comparisons only makes sense.  Selective outrage is what took over.   He did go further though
> 
> _Everything is blurred on whats right and whats wrong Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Robertson then paraphrased Corinthians from the Bible: *Dont be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers*they wont inherit the kingdom of God. Dont deceive yourself. Its not right.
> 
> _
> 
> If he had followed with pedophilia instead of bestiality he would have been accused of claiming homosexuals were dangerous child predictors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter what he'd said, because he didn't say it was acceptable, he'd have been held to be intolerant and judgmental.  But, if you look at his whole quote, he said they were to be loved and judgment would come at a different time by a grander authority.
Click to expand...


For some, I'm sure that's true.

On the other hand, if you insult someone, then say they are to be loved, that doesn't make the insult disappear.


----------



## hunarcy

Montrovant said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is sexual behavior so to make other sexual comparisons only makes sense.  Selective outrage is what took over.   He did go further though
> 
> _Everything is blurred on whats right and whats wrong Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Robertson then paraphrased Corinthians from the Bible: *Dont be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers*they wont inherit the kingdom of God. Dont deceive yourself. Its not right.
> 
> _
> 
> If he had followed with pedophilia instead of bestiality he would have been accused of claiming homosexuals were dangerous child predictors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter what he'd said, because he didn't say it was acceptable, he'd have been held to be intolerant and judgmental.  But, if you look at his whole quote, he said they were to be loved and judgment would come at a different time by a grander authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For some, I'm sure that's true.
> 
> On the other hand, if you insult someone, then say they are to be loved, that doesn't make the insult disappear.
Click to expand...


True, but if he was talking about types of sin, and that his Bible says an activity is a sin, is it an insult?


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's completely true.
> 
> However, I would like to point out that rarely, if ever, do I see homosexuality compared with lying, or disrespecting one's parents, or taking the name of god in vain when it comes to comparing sins.  Bestiality?  Pedophilia?  Murder?  Yep, those kinds of comparisons are made plenty.
> 
> I won't try to speculate on Phil Robertson's views.  Enough people seem to compare homosexuality to horrible things that when anyone else does it, whatever their motivations, I can understand why some might find it hard to believe their motives are benign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is sexual behavior so to make other sexual comparisons only makes sense.  Selective outrage is what took over.   He did go further though
> 
> _Everything is blurred on whats right and whats wrong Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Robertson then paraphrased Corinthians from the Bible: *Dont be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers*they wont inherit the kingdom of God. Dont deceive yourself. Its not right.
> 
> _
> 
> If he had followed with pedophilia instead of bestiality he would have been accused of claiming homosexuals were dangerous child predictors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comparisons to all sexual behaviors do not make sense.  If I were to say that swinging is a sin, would it make sense to compare it to rape?
> 
> And again, what Robertson was trying to say was not my point.  My point is that when those who demonize homosexuals use some of the same comparisons over and over; gays and pedophiles; gays and bestiality; whenever someone uses those same comparisons it's understandable that they will cause a particular reaction.  It's unfortunate, but you can see enough of those kinds of comparisons right here on this board that I think the reason for such a reaction is understandable.
Click to expand...


This is a valid observation.  Which is why I have been clear that I don't agree with Robertson's interpretation of that scripture and I didn't appreciate the way he gave it in that interview, even though he did soften it with his qualifying remarks and made it clear he holds no contempt or malice for homosexuals and includes himself among all sinners.

But the whole point here is that we all won't agree on the way much of anything is.  We won't all agree on what is or what is not good, evil, sin, corruption, ethical, beneficial, or whatever.  There are plenty of people who think the religious views I hold are an abomination and who won't even discuss them with me and see me as evil because I hold them.  That would include a lot of Atheists and also some devout Christians.  

But if they are interviewed and express their opinion that such religious views are an abomination, should I take personal offense at that to the point I need to lash out and hurt that person for saying it?  Do I organize an angry mob or group or enlist my organization to punish the person expressing that?  Or, if I feel the record needs to be set straight, do I write a letter to the editor of GQ and express that?  Which is the tolerant way to act?

Which should an ethical and moral society push as a societal norm?


----------



## Foxfyre

hunarcy said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter what he'd said, because he didn't say it was acceptable, he'd have been held to be intolerant and judgmental.  But, if you look at his whole quote, he said they were to be loved and judgment would come at a different time by a grander authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For some, I'm sure that's true.
> 
> On the other hand, if you insult someone, then say they are to be loved, that doesn't make the insult disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but if he was talking about types of sin, and that his Bible says an activity is a sin, is it an insult?
Click to expand...


In this case it almost certainly was not intended to be one.  But even if it had, shouldn't we as a society insist that somebody be the grown up in the room?  If I took everything expressed on a message board that I don't believe or don't agree with or don't accept as the truth as a personal insult that deserved retaliation, I would be angry and insulted and on the defensive all the time here.  And I would run out of rep very quickly every day just by the neg reps I would be handing out.

I don't see the ethics or why it is 'fun' or even satisfying for some to neg rep somebody just because that somebody expressed an opinion that is disagreed with.  Even if you think the opinion is hyper partisan or expresses some kind of -ist or some kind of -phobia.  I accept that it is perfectly legal to do so and ingrained in the USMB culture.

But I would like for it to be socially unacceptable in our real lives culture.


----------



## hunarcy

Foxfyre said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> For some, I'm sure that's true.
> 
> On the other hand, if you insult someone, then say they are to be loved, that doesn't make the insult disappear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but if he was talking about types of sin, and that his Bible says an activity is a sin, is it an insult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this case it almost certainly was not intended to be one.  But even if it had, shouldn't we as a society insist that somebody be the grown up in the room?  If I took everything expressed on a message board that I don't believe or don't agree with or don't accept as the truth as a personal insult that deserved retaliation, I would be angry and insulted and on the defensive all the time here.  And I would run out of rep very quickly every day just by the neg reps I would be handing out.
> 
> I don't see the ethics or why it is 'fun' or even satisfying for some to neg rep somebody just because that somebody expressed an opinion that is disagreed with.  Even if you think the opinion is hyper partisan or expresses some kind of -ist or some kind of -phobia.  I accept that it is perfectly legal to do so and ingrained in the USMB culture.
> 
> But I would like for it to be socially unacceptable in our real lives culture.
Click to expand...


As I look at my record, I seem to run out of reps because I give a lot of positive ones.  Most of the negs I give out are for vulgarities and insult filled flamers.  People who seem to routinely lie get on ignore and other than that, I try to read all the posts in a thread in which I participate 

But, I do get your point.


----------



## Montrovant

hunarcy said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter what he'd said, because he didn't say it was acceptable, he'd have been held to be intolerant and judgmental.  But, if you look at his whole quote, he said they were to be loved and judgment would come at a different time by a grander authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For some, I'm sure that's true.
> 
> On the other hand, if you insult someone, then say they are to be loved, that doesn't make the insult disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but if he was talking about types of sin, and that his Bible says an activity is a sin, is it an insult?
Click to expand...


I'm not saying he did intentionally insult anyone, just that it can easily and understandably be perceived as one.


----------



## BillyZane

Montrovant said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> For some, I'm sure that's true.
> 
> On the other hand, if you insult someone, then say they are to be loved, that doesn't make the insult disappear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but if he was talking about types of sin, and that his Bible says an activity is a sin, is it an insult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying he did intentionally insult anyone, just that it can easily and understandably be perceived as one.
Click to expand...


What's the difference anyway? when did we become such wimps in this country? Someone insults me , I go on about my life. No matter how harsh the insult, it's still just words.


----------



## hunarcy

BillyZane said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but if he was talking about types of sin, and that his Bible says an activity is a sin, is it an insult?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying he did intentionally insult anyone, just that it can easily and understandably be perceived as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the difference anyway? when did we become such wimps in this country? Someone insults me , I go on about my life. No matter how harsh the insult, it's still just words.
Click to expand...


Even if my feelings are hurt, I don't call for a "jihad" on those who insult me.


----------



## BillyZane

hunarcy said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying he did intentionally insult anyone, just that it can easily and understandably be perceived as one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the difference anyway? when did we become such wimps in this country? Someone insults me , I go on about my life. No matter how harsh the insult, it's still just words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if my feelings are hurt, I don't call for a "jihad" on those who insult me.
Click to expand...


Exactly.

But look at society today. "You called me fag, I'm suing" or "you hate God, I'm suing" or whatever. Jesus people toughen up.

We have a bunch of adults in this nation who need to relearn sticks and stones.


----------



## R.D.

Montrovant said:


> Comparisons to all sexual behaviors do not make sense.  If I were to say that swinging is a sin, would it make sense to compare it to rape?
> 
> And again, what Robertson was trying to say was not my point.  My point is that when those who demonize homosexuals use some of the same comparisons over and over; gays and pedophiles; gays and bestiality; whenever someone uses those same comparisons it's understandable that they will cause a particular reaction.  It's unfortunate, but you can see enough of those kinds of comparisons right here on this board that I think the reason for such a reaction is understandable.



So can we assume you're intent here is  to demonize swingers?


----------



## Foxfyre

hunarcy said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but if he was talking about types of sin, and that his Bible says an activity is a sin, is it an insult?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this case it almost certainly was not intended to be one.  But even if it had, shouldn't we as a society insist that somebody be the grown up in the room?  If I took everything expressed on a message board that I don't believe or don't agree with or don't accept as the truth as a personal insult that deserved retaliation, I would be angry and insulted and on the defensive all the time here.  And I would run out of rep very quickly every day just by the neg reps I would be handing out.
> 
> I don't see the ethics or why it is 'fun' or even satisfying for some to neg rep somebody just because that somebody expressed an opinion that is disagreed with.  Even if you think the opinion is hyper partisan or expresses some kind of -ist or some kind of -phobia.  I accept that it is perfectly legal to do so and ingrained in the USMB culture.
> 
> But I would like for it to be socially unacceptable in our real lives culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I look at my record, I seem to run out of reps because I give a lot of positive ones.  Most of the negs I give out are for vulgarities and insult filled flamers.  People who seem to routinely lie get on ignore and other than that, I try to read all the posts in a thread in which I participate
> 
> But, I do get your point.
Click to expand...


I also try to read all the posts on the threads I participate in, but sometimes I just don't take the time when my time is limited and the thread is really active and fast moving.  Have caused myself some grief because of that too and have hurt some feelings or generated resentment by those who felt ignored.

I get my share of accusations and insults and vulgarities thrown my way by people who don't know any other way to conduct themselves on a message board.  I have been accused of many things because I am a Christian, because I am a conservative, because I describe myself as a classical liberal, because. . .because. . .because.  The funniest is that my insults are far worse because I make them civilly.    And I do get very weary of numbnuts who don't know me at all telling me over and over what I think, what I want, what I feel, what I promote.  But such idiots have no ability to affect my feelings or how I choose to conduct myself.  But if I had the power to do so, would I demand they be banished from the board?  No I would not.  (Though I'll admit I sometimes really enjoy seeing some turn pink.  )

However, when somebody I befriend betrays me with unkind and untrue remarks behind my back or accuses me of being a liar or thanks those who make dishonest, cruel or unfounded accusations about me, I'm as human as the next person.  That  does hurt and it is difficult for me to forgive.  But would I demand such person be banished from the board if I had the power to do that?  No I would not.

It is that which I would like to change in our culture.  Dislike, even hate people if you must.  We don't have to appreciate what they say or anything about them.  But if we want to be allowed our own opinions without fear, common sense says we must allow others their opinions too so long as they do not violate somebody else's rights.


----------



## Montrovant

BillyZane said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but if he was talking about types of sin, and that his Bible says an activity is a sin, is it an insult?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying he did intentionally insult anyone, just that it can easily and understandably be perceived as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the difference anyway? when did we become such wimps in this country? Someone insults me , I go on about my life. No matter how harsh the insult, it's still just words.
Click to expand...


Meh, I wasn't trying to say we should overreact to insults, just got sidetracked about whether what Phil Robertson said could be seen as insulting.


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying he did intentionally insult anyone, just that it can easily and understandably be perceived as one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the difference anyway? when did we become such wimps in this country? Someone insults me , I go on about my life. No matter how harsh the insult, it's still just words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh, I wasn't trying to say we should overreact to insults, just got sidetracked about whether what Phil Robertson said could be seen as insulting.
Click to expand...


What COULD be seen as insulting and what SHOULD be seen as insulting are two separate things.  If I say that conservative principles are more compassionate than liberal principles, most liberals take strong offense to that.  If I say that what is purported to be conservative principles are not conservative at all, both conservatives or liberals could take offense to that.  You can go right down the line re opinions about marriage and family, religion, wages and benefits, unions, or just pick almost any sociopolitical subject--any opinion you express, pro or con, is likely to be resented by somebody who will take offense.

We as a culture have mostly lost our capacity to disagree and to discuss principles, concepts, values, and ideas without feeling compelled to demonize the opponent.  And when disagreeing or resenting the opinion of the other is acted out to punish the other in some way, our environment becomes toxic, destructive, and harmful with the most powerful having the ability to dictate to the weaker what and who they must be in order to be acceptable.


----------



## hunarcy

Foxfyre said:


> The funniest is that my insults are far worse because I make them civilly.



I LOVE that.  My mother used to call that style of argument the "Southern Slow Death".  LOL!


----------



## hunarcy

Foxfyre said:


> However, when somebody I befriend betrays me with unkind and untrue remarks behind my back or accuses me of being a liar or thanks those who make dishonest, cruel or unfounded accusations about me, I'm as human as the next person.  That  does hurt and it is difficult for me to forgive.  But would I demand such person be banished from the board if I had the power to do that?  No I would not.
> 
> It is that which I would like to change in our culture.  Dislike, even hate people if you must.  We don't have to appreciate what they say or anything about them.  But if we want to be allowed our own opinions without fear, common sense says we must allow others their opinions too so long as they do not violate somebody else's rights.



That feeling of betrayal in that sort of circumstance is, I believe, natural and a part of all our natures.  But, you seem to handle it with grace because you HAVE an attitude of tolerance.  Remember, everyone has an opinion...but not everyone's opinion matters.


----------



## hunarcy

Montrovant said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying he did intentionally insult anyone, just that it can easily and understandably be perceived as one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the difference anyway? when did we become such wimps in this country? Someone insults me , I go on about my life. No matter how harsh the insult, it's still just words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh, I wasn't trying to say we should overreact to insults, just got sidetracked about whether what Phil Robertson said could be seen as insulting.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry...it's those stray thought sirens that keep trying to lure me to the rocks of deflections.    I'll try to do better.   )


----------



## Foxfyre

So I just did a quick google and this is all over the internet:



> Former heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield said he does not think being gay is normal and compared it to a handicap that can be fixed.
> 
> Holyfield made the anti-gay comments in the "UK Celebrity Big Brother" house while speaking to reality star Luisa Zissman about gay boxers. When Zissman -- who was seemingly unaware of the fact Orlando Cruz came out in 2012 -- said it would be good for a gay boxer to be public about his sexuality, Holyfield was taken aback.
> 
> "What would be good about it?" he asked. "That ain't normal."
> 
> *After saying that the Bible spells out what's wrong and what's right, Holyfield compared being gay to having a handicap that could be fixed. *
> Evander Holyfield Says Being Gay Is Not Normal, Compares It To A Handicap



So I have to wonder.  Why isn't GLAAD and the Rainbow Coalition all over this?  What makes Phil Robertson's opinion so much worse than Holyfield's opinion?  Wouldn't you think they would have at least issued a statement?

And again, wouldn't you think they would criticize the dozens of publications who are reporting the remarks over and over again?  Who would know Holyfield even said it if it didn't get so much publicity?  Isn't it the publicity that would have any chance to 'denigrate' or 'harm' gays if in fact gay people are harmed by an opinion?

Again, I think we need a cultural re-do in America and more good people need to start speaking out and demanding some common sense.


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> So I just did a quick google and this is all over the internet:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Former heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield said he does not think being gay is normal and compared it to a handicap that can be fixed.
> 
> Holyfield made the anti-gay comments in the "UK Celebrity Big Brother" house while speaking to reality star Luisa Zissman about gay boxers. When Zissman -- who was seemingly unaware of the fact Orlando Cruz came out in 2012 -- said it would be good for a gay boxer to be public about his sexuality, Holyfield was taken aback.
> 
> "What would be good about it?" he asked. "That ain't normal."
> 
> *After saying that the Bible spells out what's wrong and what's right, Holyfield compared being gay to having a handicap that could be fixed. *
> Evander Holyfield Says Being Gay Is Not Normal, Compares It To A Handicap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I have to wonder.  Why isn't GLAAD and the Rainbow Coalition all over this?  What makes Phil Robertson's opinion so much worse than Holyfield's opinion?  Wouldn't you think they would have at least issued a statement?
> 
> And again, wouldn't you think they would criticize the dozens of publications who are reporting the remarks over and over again?  Who would know Holyfield even said it if it didn't get so much publicity?  Isn't it the publicity that would have any chance to 'denigrate' or 'harm' gays if in fact gay people are harmed by an opinion?
> 
> Again, I think we need a cultural re-do in America and more good people need to start speaking out and demanding some common sense.
Click to expand...


To be fair to GLAAD, I don't think Evander Holyfield is very much in the public eye these days.  What he says on the subject is unlikely to carry nearly as much weight as Phil Robertson, who is currently at the peak of popularity.


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I just did a quick google and this is all over the internet:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Former heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield said he does not think being gay is normal and compared it to a handicap that can be fixed.
> 
> Holyfield made the anti-gay comments in the "UK Celebrity Big Brother" house while speaking to reality star Luisa Zissman about gay boxers. When Zissman -- who was seemingly unaware of the fact Orlando Cruz came out in 2012 -- said it would be good for a gay boxer to be public about his sexuality, Holyfield was taken aback.
> 
> "What would be good about it?" he asked. "That ain't normal."
> 
> *After saying that the Bible spells out what's wrong and what's right, Holyfield compared being gay to having a handicap that could be fixed. *
> Evander Holyfield Says Being Gay Is Not Normal, Compares It To A Handicap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I have to wonder.  Why isn't GLAAD and the Rainbow Coalition all over this?  What makes Phil Robertson's opinion so much worse than Holyfield's opinion?  Wouldn't you think they would have at least issued a statement?
> 
> And again, wouldn't you think they would criticize the dozens of publications who are reporting the remarks over and over again?  Who would know Holyfield even said it if it didn't get so much publicity?  Isn't it the publicity that would have any chance to 'denigrate' or 'harm' gays if in fact gay people are harmed by an opinion?
> 
> Again, I think we need a cultural re-do in America and more good people need to start speaking out and demanding some common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be fair to GLAAD, I don't think Evander Holyfield is very much in the public eye these days.  What he says on the subject is unlikely to carry nearly as much weight as Phil Robertson, who is currently at the peak of popularity.
Click to expand...


No doubt.  But it still smacks of opportunism and less than authentic outrage when they apply their 'rules' so selectively.

In any case, I am still hoping that reasonableness will prevail and restore a culture in which what people DO that affects others is considered actionable but people are allowed their opinions, convictions, beliefs, and even their biases and prejudices, in peace.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I just did a quick google and this is all over the internet:
> 
> 
> 
> So I have to wonder.  Why isn't GLAAD and the Rainbow Coalition all over this?  What makes Phil Robertson's opinion so much worse than Holyfield's opinion?  Wouldn't you think they would have at least issued a statement?
> 
> And again, wouldn't you think they would criticize the dozens of publications who are reporting the remarks over and over again?  Who would know Holyfield even said it if it didn't get so much publicity?  Isn't it the publicity that would have any chance to 'denigrate' or 'harm' gays if in fact gay people are harmed by an opinion?
> 
> Again, I think we need a cultural re-do in America and more good people need to start speaking out and demanding some common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair to GLAAD, I don't think Evander Holyfield is very much in the public eye these days.  What he says on the subject is unlikely to carry nearly as much weight as Phil Robertson, who is currently at the peak of popularity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No doubt.  But it still smacks of opportunism and less than authentic outrage when they apply their 'rules' so selectively.
> 
> In any case, I am still hoping that reasonableness will prevail and restore a culture in which what people DO that affects others is considered actionable but people are allowed their opinions, convictions, beliefs, and even their biases and prejudices, in peace.
Click to expand...


You seem incapable of ever putting yourself in someone else's shoes.

Never any acknowledgment of the hate crimes against gays.


----------



## Foxfyre

Whose shoes I put on or hate crimes against gays are not the topic of this thread.  I have never condoned hate crimes against anybody and I don't think anybody on this thread is condoning hate crimes.  Thanks for understanding.

So what makes Evander Holyfield's public comments that were specifically about gays more tolerable than Phil Robertson's comments about what he believes the Bible teaches?

Or is it possible that neither comment has power to hurt anybody and while we can disagree with what they said and object to the way it was said, is it possible to make it culturally unacceptable to punish people for no crime other than believing something we don't believe?


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Whose shoes I put on or hate crimes against gays are not the topic of this thread.  I have never condoned hate crimes against anybody and I don't think anybody on this thread is condoning hate crimes.  Thanks for understanding.
> 
> So what makes Evander Holyfield's public comments that were specifically about gays more tolerable than Phil Robertson's comments about what he believes the Bible teaches?
> 
> Or is it possible that neither comment has power to hurt anybody and while we can disagree with what they said and object to the way it was said, is it possible to make it culturally unacceptable to punish people for no crime other than believing something we don't believe?



There is quite a difference between what Holyfield said and what Robertson said. Are you unable to discern the difference?

Maybe GLAAD is more tolerant than you wish to paint them.


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I just did a quick google and this is all over the internet:
> 
> 
> 
> So I have to wonder.  Why isn't GLAAD and the Rainbow Coalition all over this?  What makes Phil Robertson's opinion so much worse than Holyfield's opinion?  Wouldn't you think they would have at least issued a statement?
> 
> And again, wouldn't you think they would criticize the dozens of publications who are reporting the remarks over and over again?  Who would know Holyfield even said it if it didn't get so much publicity?  Isn't it the publicity that would have any chance to 'denigrate' or 'harm' gays if in fact gay people are harmed by an opinion?
> 
> Again, I think we need a cultural re-do in America and more good people need to start speaking out and demanding some common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair to GLAAD, I don't think Evander Holyfield is very much in the public eye these days.  What he says on the subject is unlikely to carry nearly as much weight as Phil Robertson, who is currently at the peak of popularity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No doubt.  But it still smacks of opportunism and less than authentic outrage when they apply their 'rules' so selectively.
> 
> In any case, I am still hoping that reasonableness will prevail and restore a culture in which what people DO that affects others is considered actionable but people are allowed their opinions, convictions, beliefs, and even their biases and prejudices, in peace.
Click to expand...


Certainly, there may be some hypocrisy involved.

On the other hand, GLAAD may not go after every anti-gay comment made but specifically target those most widely disseminated.  

Further, according to the article, the show came out with a statement opposed to Holyfield's words and said that they will monitor to make sure he doesn't say anything similar again.  So that could also have something to do with it.


----------



## Foxfyre

I still say who among us has the righteous authority to dictate what somebody else must think, believe, or say?  And who should have the righteous authority to organize an angry mob, group, or organization to go after and physically and/or materially punish somebody if they say something that offends us?  How does anybody equate that with a tolerant society?


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> I still say who among us has the righteous authority to dictate what somebody else must think, believe, or say?  And who should have the righteous authority to organize an angry mob, group, or organization to go after and physically and/or materially punish somebody if they say something that offends us?  How does anybody equate that with a tolerant society?



That's fine, but as has been said many times, no one is being preventing from thinking, believing, or saying pretty much whatever they want.

Everyone should have the authority to organize to go after someone, so long as the actions they take remain legal.

Whether those actions are righteous is an individual judgement.

None of which, so far as I can tell, has anything to do with why GLAAD might have decided to go after Phil Robertson and not go after Evander Holyfield.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> I still say who among us has the righteous authority to dictate what somebody else must think, believe, or say?  And who should have the righteous authority to organize an angry mob, group, or organization to go after and physically and/or materially punish somebody if they say something that offends us?  How does anybody equate that with a tolerant society?



Coming from the group of people who believe they have the righteous authority to dictate who someone can fall in love with, and what a woman is allowed to do with her uterus.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism. 
Barry Goldwater


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still say who among us has the righteous authority to dictate what somebody else must think, believe, or say?  And who should have the righteous authority to organize an angry mob, group, or organization to go after and physically and/or materially punish somebody if they say something that offends us?  How does anybody equate that with a tolerant society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coming from the group of people who believe they have the righteous authority to dictate who someone can fall in love with, and what a woman is allowed to do with her uterus.
> 
> "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
> Barry Goldwater
> 
> Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
> Barry Goldwater
Click to expand...


This is not a thread about Republicans or Democxrats or social issues of any kind.  This thread has to do with freedom of thought, belief, conviction without fear.  Try to concentrate on that please.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still say who among us has the righteous authority to dictate what somebody else must think, believe, or say?  And who should have the righteous authority to organize an angry mob, group, or organization to go after and physically and/or materially punish somebody if they say something that offends us?  How does anybody equate that with a tolerant society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coming from the group of people who believe they have the righteous authority to dictate who someone can fall in love with, and what a woman is allowed to do with her uterus.
> 
> "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
> Barry Goldwater
> 
> Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
> Barry Goldwater
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not a thread about Republicans or Democxrats or social issues of any kind.  This thread has to do with freedom of thought, belief, conviction without fear.  Try to concentrate on that please.
Click to expand...


Of course it is about "Republicans or Democrats or social issues". It is about how one group of people will even go as far as defending a man who advocates pedophilia because of their fear of gays. Then those same people try to control what someone can say.

You keep trying to equate physical punishment with material consequences. They are not even close to being the same. The gay community suffers physical punishment (hate crimes like beatings and murders) and people like Phil Robertson add fuel to the people who carry out those beatings and murders. 

I have news for you FF, those people who beat and murder gays, fire bomb abortion clinics and execute doctors who perform those legal procedures are NOT liberals. They are conservatives.


----------



## Mac1958

Foxfyre said:


> This is not a thread about Republicans or Democxrats or social issues of any kind.  This thread has to do with freedom of thought, belief, conviction without fear.



As we've seen on this thread and many others, those who want to intimidate and punish others for their opinions will usually either (a) try to justify their behavior, and/or (b) deflect to another topic.  Their narcissism and intolerance run deep, and they will protect this strategy with great energy because it has been so effective for them.

The only way this changes is if -- and this is a huge "if" -- society makes it clear to these people that the ability to express our opinions without fear is fundamental and critical to a free society, and that we refuse to be intimidated.  It will be at that point that honest discussion and debate can begin on the issues with an eye toward truly fixing our problems.  Not until then.

Here's the problem, FF:  *These are, by and large, people who literally WANT to live under a more authoritarian existence.*  They *WANT* heavier rules and restrictions on the behavior of citizens.  So trying to appeal to them with words like "freedom" and "liberty" is literally a waste of time, it goes in precisely the wrong direction.   "Freedom" and "liberty" to them means less control over the populace, a bad thing.

That's why I think the only way to get them to engage in honest discourse is through society, through the culture.

.


----------



## Mac1958

.
  [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], come to think of it, here's another thing:

*They even practice their behavior within the context of a discussion about that behavior.*

There have been multiple instances here in which I've been called a racist for saying that a racist should be able to speak in public about his views.  *So they play the "guilt by association" game in an effort to intimidate me and put me on the defensive as we are discussing how they try to intimidate people and put them on the defensive!*

Meanwhile, of course, they are avoiding an open and honest discussion about racism.

Here's what I don't know yet:  I wonder if they consciously realize they're doing this, or if it's just become implanted in their DNA.  Maybe it's both, depending on the situation.  

Either way, the bottom line remains this:  We cannot solve or fix problems unless and until we can have open and honest discussions about them, and I'd love to know why these people don't want to see that happen.

.


----------



## Bfgrn

Mac1958 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a thread about Republicans or Democxrats or social issues of any kind.  This thread has to do with freedom of thought, belief, conviction without fear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we've seen on this thread and many others, those who want to intimidate and punish others for their opinions will usually either (a) try to justify their behavior, and/or (b) deflect to another topic.  Their narcissism and intolerance run deep, and they will protect this strategy with great energy because it has been so effective for them.
> 
> The only way this changes is if -- and this is a huge "if" -- society makes it clear to these people that the ability to express our opinions without fear is fundamental and critical to a free society, and that we refuse to be intimidated.  It will be at that point that honest discussion and debate can begin on the issues with an eye toward truly fixing our problems.  Not until then.
> 
> Here's the problem, FF:  *These are, by and large, people who literally WANT to live under a more authoritarian existence.*  They *WANT* heavier rules and restrictions on the behavior of citizens.  So trying to appeal to them with words like "freedom" and "liberty" is literally a waste of time, it goes in precisely the wrong direction.   "Freedom" and "liberty" to them means less control over the populace, a bad thing.
> 
> That's why I think the only way to get them to engage in honest discourse is through society, through the culture.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


That is nonsense. 

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

The homophobes, racists and bigots don't reside on the left. 

What you folks on the right are unwilling to admit is that you AGREE with what Phil Robertson said. THAT is what all these threads have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And you are totally wrong on authoritarianism. It has been proven beyond any doubt to be a right wing trait.

FF is having angst over Phil Roberson being materially punished...a man whose net worth is 15 million dollars...

Oh, the humanity!


----------



## Bfgrn

Mac1958 said:


> .
> [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], come to think of it, here's another thing:
> 
> *They even practice their behavior within the context of a discussion about that behavior.*
> 
> There have been multiple instances here in which I've been called a racist for saying that a racist should be able to speak in public about his views.  *So they play the "guilt by association" game in an effort to intimidate me and put me on the defensive as we are discussing how they try to intimidate people and put them on the defensive!*
> 
> Meanwhile, of course, they are avoiding an open and honest discussion about racism.
> 
> Here's what I don't know yet:  I wonder if they consciously realize they're doing this, or if it's just become implanted in their DNA.  Maybe it's both, depending on the situation.
> 
> Either way, the bottom line remains this:  We cannot solve or fix problems unless and until we can have open and honest discussions about them, and I'd love to know why these people don't want to see that happen.
> 
> .



A racist IS able to speak in public about his views. But he is not able to demand SILENCE in response.


----------



## Mac1958

Bfgrn said:


> What you folks on the right...



Funny thing is, if we were to make a list of the issues and where we stand on them, the number of issues with which I agree with the Left would be longer.

The problem for me is that my higher priority is actually fixing our problems, whether it is done my way or not.  And I know that -- as I've said a zillion times here -- we can't even begin to fix our problems until we can have open and honest communication about them.  My ego is not such that problems have to be fixed my way, as long as they're fixed.

And intimating & punishing people for their opinion in what is supposed to be a free society can not lead to open and honest communication.

.


----------



## Papawx3

Foxfyre said:


> I still say who among us has the righteous authority to dictate what somebody else must think, believe, or say?  And who should have the righteous authority to organize an angry mob, group, or organization to go after and physically and/or materially punish somebody if they say something that offends us?  How does anybody equate that with a tolerant society?



I agree.  That's been my personal 'motto' for a very long time.  As an American, I think I should have the right to think, believe and say what I want without someone else vilifying me for it. 
At the same time, I leave others to their own thoughts and speech.  Their business is their own, just as is mine. If they leave me alone, I'll do the same for them.  Self-righteous indignation at other folk's thoughts and speech is for fools.


----------



## Bfgrn

Mac1958 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you folks on the right...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing is, if we were to make a list of the issues and where we stand on them, the number of issues with which I agree with the Left would be longer.
> 
> The problem for me is that my higher priority is actually fixing our problems, whether it is done my way or not.  And I know that -- as I've said a zillion times here -- we can't even begin to fix our problems until we can have open and honest communication about them.  My ego is not such that problems have to be fixed my way, as long as they're fixed.
> 
> And intimating & punishing people for their opinion in what is supposed to be a free society can not lead to open and honest communication.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I'd also like to solve our problems, but maybe you need to look at who is obstructing that path.

If the antics of the tea party doesn't open your eyes, then you are not being honest with yourself.

FF always 'claims' she and fellow conservatives are "classical liberals". They are not liberals under any prefix. They are conservatives. Here is a true classic liberal who was a Nobel Prize winner. See if anything he says rings true about the tea partiers.

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek 

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them. 

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. 

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. 

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.


----------



## OODA_Loop

_*The conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are
recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to
be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others.*_ - F. A. Hayek

What horseshit.


----------



## protectionist

Foxfyre said:


> The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
> 
> This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
> 
> I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
> 
> I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way.  Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
> 
> That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not.  There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
> 
> We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share.  And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
> 
> I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
> 
> What do you think?



As with most things in life, tolerance has its limits, and moderation is an important concept.  Egyptians found out recently how their illustrious Arab Spring tolerance could result, with the Muslim Brotherhood gaining power, and then imposing the highest degrees of INtolerance anyone could ever remember.  Same thing happened with Neville Chamberlain of England when he showed tolerance toward Adolph Hitler in 1938.

  A lot of how tolerance may be conducted has a lot to do with whom and what you are tolerating.  I don't think too many people want to tolerate rape, wife-beating, murder, and pedophilia, yet they call for the tolerance of Islam which advocates these things in the Koran (if not commands them)


----------



## Mac1958

Bfgrn said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you folks on the right...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing is, if we were to make a list of the issues and where we stand on them, the number of issues with which I agree with the Left would be longer.
> 
> The problem for me is that my higher priority is actually fixing our problems, whether it is done my way or not.  And I know that -- as I've said a zillion times here -- we can't even begin to fix our problems until we can have open and honest communication about them.  My ego is not such that problems have to be fixed my way, as long as they're fixed.
> 
> And intimating & punishing people for their opinion in what is supposed to be a free society can not lead to open and honest communication.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd also like to solve our problems, but maybe you need to look at who is obstructing that path.
> 
> If the antics of the tea party doesn't open your eyes, then you are not being honest with yourself.
> 
> FF always 'claims' she and fellow conservatives are "classical liberals". They are not liberals under any prefix. They are conservatives. Here is a true classic liberal who was a Nobel Prize winner. See if anything he says rings true about the tea partiers.
> 
> Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek
> 
> In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.
> 
> When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.
> 
> To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.
> 
> It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.
> 
> In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.
> 
> Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.
Click to expand...



Oh, I don't have much use for the Tea Party.  They did have my attention for (literally) about two weeks there, when they were talking about limited, responsible, efficient government.  But then the Palin/Beck/Bachmann brigade co-opted the movement and that was it for me, immedately.  Now, the Cruz types and their absolutist rhetoric (although it may not just be rhetoric, I'm not quite sure) have pushed me further away.

But I think you and I are talking about two different things otherwise.  On the topics with which I disagree with conservatives, I think they're wrong, same as you.  That's how opinions work.  They think they're right on those issues, I think they're wrong.  But they are more willing, at least in my observation and experience, to debate the issue head on, as wrong as I think they are.  But when I'm debating an issue and the other person is constantly deflecting and trying to put me on the defensive by calling me a "this" or a "that", I'm just wasting my time.  And that happens far less to me with conservatives.

But far more than that is my original point:  Playing word games, using intimidation and punishment to control the conversation -- meh, that hurts the debate more than helps it.  And I have to deal with that crap much more with lefties.

Abortion is a perfect example:  I'm pro-choice, but I can certainly understand the pro-lifers feeling that it's murder.  I admit that it's an innocent human life -- something I've tried many times to get lefties here to admit -- but they keep diverting from that so that they don't have to take it head-on.  How can we have a conversation about it if we can't even agree on facts?

Look, I'm a freedom of expression psycho, a pure lunatic and nutcase on the topic.  But my motives are constructive.

.


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coming from the group of people who believe they have the righteous authority to dictate who someone can fall in love with, and what a woman is allowed to do with her uterus.
> 
> "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
> Barry Goldwater
> 
> Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
> Barry Goldwater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a thread about Republicans or Democxrats or social issues of any kind.  This thread has to do with freedom of thought, belief, conviction without fear.  Try to concentrate on that please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is about "Republicans or Democrats or social issues". It is about how one group of people will even go as far as defending a man who advocates pedophilia because of their fear of gays. Then those same people try to control what someone can say.
> 
> You keep trying to equate physical punishment with material consequences. They are not even close to being the same. The gay community suffers physical punishment (hate crimes like beatings and murders) and people like Phil Robertson add fuel to the people who carry out those beatings and murders.
> 
> I have news for you FF, those people who beat and murder gays, fire bomb abortion clinics and execute doctors who perform those legal procedures are NOT liberals. They are conservatives.
Click to expand...


Phil Robertson has never beaten or murdered gays, has never fire bombed an abortion clinic, nor harmed any doctor and he, nor any conservative, have done that.   There isn't a single person, left or right, who has posted in this thread or elsewhere who advocates that.   Don't confuse evil ACTS, left or right, with an ideology.  Again we are not speaking of social issues or ideology here.  I have used examples from both left and right leaning groups to emphasize that.

Phil Robertson, on the other hand, did say that he includes himself as a sinner among the list of sins in the Bible, and that he loves his gay brothers and sisters and he wishes them all well.  He was clear he does not see it as his or anybody else's prerogative to pass judgment on anybody--that is God's job to sort out.

So what was his inexcusable sin so far as GLAAD was concerned?  He believes the Bible says homosexuality, among a whole lot of other things, is a sin.  And they went after him to punish him physically (get him fired) and materially (destroy his income) for just expressing an opinion about what he thinks the Bible teaches.

That is intolerance, pure and simple, and of the most evil variety short of physical assault.  And it is THAT kind of intolerance that this thread is intended to address.  I don't CARE in this thread what any other social issues are, who is for what, or what is or is not legal to do.  I want us to become a culture that embraces tolerance for what people think, believe, hold dear, and focuses our anger on bad ACTS of people whether in the private sector or government.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bfgrn said:


> Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek
> 
> In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.


Now there's an unbiased opinion! Cato is a Libertarian think tank and probably bitter that they can't win shit.


> When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions.


Horse manure. Notice he doesn't bother defining what a 'typical' conservative is. Anytime you start trying to build on an opinionated assumption you are no longer aiming for accuracy or fairmindedness.

Reagan was a conservative who said if you agree with him 70% you were an ally. Conservatives often make deals with the left, the left has had more power for much longer thatn the right in the last 50 years. 


> To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.
> 
> It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.


This guy is a flaming idiot. Disagree with a liberal and they are shocked, then outraged. Libs don't believe in coercion? You mean like passing laws because you don't like something so no one should have it, or you support something so everyone should support it. Jail time isn't coercion? 


> In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.


...and the steamy pile grows higher. Liberals are elitists and are often caught not following the laws they imposed on others. Do you even watch the news? I think even CNN can't sweep it all under the rug. I personally know liberals (yes I'll admit it) and just about every one of them are willing to bend the rules o suit themselves. They'll pay someone under the table and scream about the greed in others. They'll build what they want on their property but demand everyone else follow building codes. And on and on....

Most Libertarians disagree with social consevativism but they don't throw the hissy fit this Bozo does.


----------



## Montrovant

Bfgrn said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a thread about Republicans or Democxrats or social issues of any kind.  This thread has to do with freedom of thought, belief, conviction without fear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we've seen on this thread and many others, those who want to intimidate and punish others for their opinions will usually either (a) try to justify their behavior, and/or (b) deflect to another topic.  Their narcissism and intolerance run deep, and they will protect this strategy with great energy because it has been so effective for them.
> 
> The only way this changes is if -- and this is a huge "if" -- society makes it clear to these people that the ability to express our opinions without fear is fundamental and critical to a free society, and that we refuse to be intimidated.  It will be at that point that honest discussion and debate can begin on the issues with an eye toward truly fixing our problems.  Not until then.
> 
> Here's the problem, FF:  *These are, by and large, people who literally WANT to live under a more authoritarian existence.*  They *WANT* heavier rules and restrictions on the behavior of citizens.  So trying to appeal to them with words like "freedom" and "liberty" is literally a waste of time, it goes in precisely the wrong direction.   "Freedom" and "liberty" to them means less control over the populace, a bad thing.
> 
> That's why I think the only way to get them to engage in honest discourse is through society, through the culture.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is nonsense.
> 
> The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.
> 
> The homophobes, racists and bigots don't reside on the left.
> 
> What you folks on the right are unwilling to admit is that you AGREE with what Phil Robertson said. THAT is what all these threads have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
> 
> And you are totally wrong on authoritarianism. It has been proven beyond any doubt to be a right wing trait.
> 
> FF is having angst over Phil Roberson being materially punished...a man whose net worth is 15 million dollars...
> 
> Oh, the humanity!
Click to expand...


This kind of partisan ridiculousness is maddening.

There are no homophobes, racists, or bigots that are politically left?  Really?

The people who fight for more freedoms are always liberals, and those who fight to restrict freedoms are always conservatives?

Authoritarianism is a 'proven' right wing trait?

Your world appears to be not only black and white, but everything in it seems based on political ideology, as though that is the only defining characteristic of a person.

And I think it good to mention that we are in the CDZ.


----------



## hunarcy

Montrovant said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As we've seen on this thread and many others, those who want to intimidate and punish others for their opinions will usually either (a) try to justify their behavior, and/or (b) deflect to another topic.  Their narcissism and intolerance run deep, and they will protect this strategy with great energy because it has been so effective for them.
> 
> The only way this changes is if -- and this is a huge "if" -- society makes it clear to these people that the ability to express our opinions without fear is fundamental and critical to a free society, and that we refuse to be intimidated.  It will be at that point that honest discussion and debate can begin on the issues with an eye toward truly fixing our problems.  Not until then.
> 
> Here's the problem, FF:  *These are, by and large, people who literally WANT to live under a more authoritarian existence.*  They *WANT* heavier rules and restrictions on the behavior of citizens.  So trying to appeal to them with words like "freedom" and "liberty" is literally a waste of time, it goes in precisely the wrong direction.   "Freedom" and "liberty" to them means less control over the populace, a bad thing.
> 
> That's why I think the only way to get them to engage in honest discourse is through society, through the culture.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is nonsense.
> 
> The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.
> 
> The homophobes, racists and bigots don't reside on the left.
> 
> What you folks on the right are unwilling to admit is that you AGREE with what Phil Robertson said. THAT is what all these threads have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
> 
> And you are totally wrong on authoritarianism. It has been proven beyond any doubt to be a right wing trait.
> 
> FF is having angst over Phil Roberson being materially punished...a man whose net worth is 15 million dollars...
> 
> Oh, the humanity!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This kind of partisan ridiculousness is maddening.
> 
> There are no homophobes, racists, or bigots that are politically left?  Really?
> 
> The people who fight for more freedoms are always liberals, and those who fight to restrict freedoms are always conservatives?
> 
> Authoritarianism is a 'proven' right wing trait?
> 
> Your world appears to be not only black and white, but everything in it seems based on political ideology, as though that is the only defining characteristic of a person.
> 
> And I think it good to mention that we are in the CDZ.
Click to expand...


"The homophobes, racists and bigots don't reside on the left. "  Stupidity like that is why I had to move that guy to the ignore list.  He's so "black/white" that he can't see that he's mostly what he accuses the Right of being.


----------



## Bfgrn

Iceweasel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek
> 
> In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.
> 
> 
> 
> Now there's an unbiased opinion! Cato is a Libertarian think tank and probably bitter that they can't win shit.
> 
> 
> 
> When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Horse manure. Notice he doesn't bother defining what a 'typical' conservative is. Anytime you start trying to build on an opinionated assumption you are no longer aiming for accuracy or fairmindedness.
> 
> Reagan was a conservative who said if you agree with him 70% you were an ally. Conservatives often make deals with the left, the left has had more power for much longer thatn the right in the last 50 years.
> 
> 
> 
> To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.
> 
> It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This guy is a flaming idiot. Disagree with a liberal and they are shocked, then outraged. Libs don't believe in coercion? You mean like passing laws because you don't like something so no one should have it, or you support something so everyone should support it. Jail time isn't coercion?
> 
> 
> 
> In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and the steamy pile grows higher. Liberals are elitists and are often caught not following the laws they imposed on others. Do you even watch the news? I think even CNN can't sweep it all under the rug. I personally know liberals (yes I'll admit it) and just about every one of them are willing to bend the rules o suit themselves. They'll pay someone under the table and scream about the greed in others. They'll build what they want on their property but demand everyone else follow building codes. And on and on....
> 
> Most Libertarians disagree with social consevativism but they don't throw the hissy fit this Bozo does.
Click to expand...


Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan


----------



## Bfgrn

Montrovant said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As we've seen on this thread and many others, those who want to intimidate and punish others for their opinions will usually either (a) try to justify their behavior, and/or (b) deflect to another topic.  Their narcissism and intolerance run deep, and they will protect this strategy with great energy because it has been so effective for them.
> 
> The only way this changes is if -- and this is a huge "if" -- society makes it clear to these people that the ability to express our opinions without fear is fundamental and critical to a free society, and that we refuse to be intimidated.  It will be at that point that honest discussion and debate can begin on the issues with an eye toward truly fixing our problems.  Not until then.
> 
> Here's the problem, FF:  *These are, by and large, people who literally WANT to live under a more authoritarian existence.*  They *WANT* heavier rules and restrictions on the behavior of citizens.  So trying to appeal to them with words like "freedom" and "liberty" is literally a waste of time, it goes in precisely the wrong direction.   "Freedom" and "liberty" to them means less control over the populace, a bad thing.
> 
> That's why I think the only way to get them to engage in honest discourse is through society, through the culture.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is nonsense.
> 
> The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.
> 
> The homophobes, racists and bigots don't reside on the left.
> 
> What you folks on the right are unwilling to admit is that you AGREE with what Phil Robertson said. THAT is what all these threads have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
> 
> And you are totally wrong on authoritarianism. It has been proven beyond any doubt to be a right wing trait.
> 
> FF is having angst over Phil Roberson being materially punished...a man whose net worth is 15 million dollars...
> 
> Oh, the humanity!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This kind of partisan ridiculousness is maddening.
> 
> There are no homophobes, racists, or bigots that are politically left?  Really?
> 
> The people who fight for more freedoms are always liberals, and those who fight to restrict freedoms are always conservatives?
> 
> Authoritarianism is a 'proven' right wing trait?
> 
> Your world appears to be not only black and white, but everything in it seems based on political ideology, as though that is the only defining characteristic of a person.
> 
> And I think it good to mention that we are in the CDZ.
Click to expand...


Those are the facts Montrovant. Are they 'absolute', no. Are they highly accurate, yes.

Name ONE conservative who was an advocate for the rights on ANY minority? There aren't any.


----------



## Plasmaball

Mac1958 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a thread about Republicans or Democxrats or social issues of any kind.  This thread has to do with freedom of thought, belief, conviction without fear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we've seen on this thread and many others, those who want to intimidate and punish others for their opinions will usually either (a) try to justify their behavior, and/or (b) deflect to another topic.  Their narcissism and intolerance run deep, and they will protect this strategy with great energy because it has been so effective for them.
> 
> The only way this changes is if -- and this is a huge "if" -- society makes it clear to these people that the ability to express our opinions without fear is fundamental and critical to a free society, and that we refuse to be intimidated.  It will be at that point that honest discussion and debate can begin on the issues with an eye toward truly fixing our problems.  Not until then.
> 
> Here's the problem, FF:  *These are, by and large, people who literally WANT to live under a more authoritarian existence.*  They *WANT* heavier rules and restrictions on the behavior of citizens.  So trying to appeal to them with words like "freedom" and "liberty" is literally a waste of time, it goes in precisely the wrong direction.   "Freedom" and "liberty" to them means less control over the populace, a bad thing.
> 
> That's why I think the only way to get them to engage in honest discourse is through society, through the culture.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


holy crap you are still repeating the same stuff over and over again still? Wow...thats just sad.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bfgrn said:


> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> James M. Buchanan


There is no such thing as a classical liberal any more, I guess Jimmy didn't get the memo. Today they are called 'Libertarians'. Of course there is a natural heirachy as far as wealth and power goes. And yes, liberals believe in it too. Many of the uber wealthy are liberal and many are in government dictating away for all of us. Have you ever heard of Obamacare, for example?

Reality sucks when it differs from your political-religious views.


----------



## Foxfyre

Iceweasel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> James M. Buchanan
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a classical liberal any more, I guess Jimmy didn't get the memo. Today they are called 'Libertarians'. Of course there is a natural heirachy as far as wealth and power goes. And yes, liberals believe in it too. Many of the uber wealthy are liberal and many are in government dictating away for all of us. Have you ever heard of Obamacare, for example?
> 
> Reality sucks when it differs from your political-religious views.
Click to expand...


I will remind the members posting here that the topic for this thread is very specific.  And ideology and/or religion is not part of it.  The topic is tolerance for the point of view, opinions, beliefs, and convictions of others regardless of their political affiliations or leanings.

But there ARE still classical liberals i.e. libertarian (little "L" to distinguish it from the Libertarian (large L) party.  CATO doesn't try to win sh*t--they are strongly libertarian (small "L") however.   Our Founders were classical liberals and they intended for us to have a constitution that promoted the kind of tolerance that I speak of in the OP.  A culture in which the biggest, baddest, and strongest cannot force the others to toe the line in what is acceptable or not acceptable to believe or speak.  A culture in which no monarch, dictator, pope, or other potentate would have the power to dictate to the people what they must believe, think, or express or else there would be consequences imposed.


----------



## Plasmaball

Foxfyre said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> James M. Buchanan
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a classical liberal any more, I guess Jimmy didn't get the memo. Today they are called 'Libertarians'. Of course there is a natural heirachy as far as wealth and power goes. And yes, liberals believe in it too. Many of the uber wealthy are liberal and many are in government dictating away for all of us. Have you ever heard of Obamacare, for example?
> 
> Reality sucks when it differs from your political-religious views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will remind the members posting here that the topic for this thread is very specific.  And ideology and/or religion is not part of it.  The topic is tolerance for the point of view, opinions, beliefs, and convictions of others regardless of their political affiliations or leanings.
Click to expand...


nobody cares....


----------



## Iceweasel

Foxfyre said:


> I will remind the members posting here that the topic for this thread is very specific.  And ideology and/or religion is not part of it.


No, for the left, politics IS religion. That's why when you disagree with them you aren't just wrong, you're evil.


> But there ARE still classical liberals i.e. libertarian (little "L" to distinguish it from the Libertarian (large L) party.  CATO doesn't try to win sh*t--they are strongly libertarian (small "L") however.


I've never heard anything parsed quite like that before. Libertarians don't try to win anything? In which country? Here, they often eff up elections for Republicans by voting for third party guys that can't win. So the one that does win is farther from what they would have had.


> Our Founders were classical liberals and they intended for us to have a constitution that promoted the kind of tolerance that I speak of in the OP.  A culture in which the biggest, baddest, and strongest cannot force the others to toe the line in what is acceptable or not acceptable to believe or speak.  A culture in which no monarch, dictator, pope, or other potentate would have the power to dictate to the people what they must believe, think, or express or else there would be consequences imposed.


I don't share your religious beliefs so I don't automatically know what you are talking about. Conservativism isn't an ideology that forces its' will onto others. Some conservatives might but that's true for leftists as well. I wonder how the "libertarians" reconciled their hands off policy with slavery since so many owned them. What they set up wasn't a libertarian utopia but a representative democracy, a republic. Where representatives pass laws with their constituents in mind, even if it upsets a minority. But if you don't like the laws you vote in a different representative.


----------



## BlackSand

Montrovant said:


> The people who fight for more freedoms are always liberals, and those who fight to restrict freedoms are always conservatives?



Some people think their freedoms come from government and political gamesmanship.
They also think that because the government says they can do something it is an expression of their own freedom.

Do you want to be free to do what the government allows you to do ... Or you want to be free?
Laws and regulations are required to maintain the peace ... But not to the extent that they have become an intrusion on our present lives ... And not to the extent they are used as campaign measures and divisive weapons.

But I am a Conservative ... So what do I know anyway?
People need to go on thinking they have freedom ... And complaining about how messed up things are at the same time ... Because they are free to do as they are told.

.


----------



## Mac1958

Plasmaball said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a thread about Republicans or Democxrats or social issues of any kind.  This thread has to do with freedom of thought, belief, conviction without fear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we've seen on this thread and many others, those who want to intimidate and punish others for their opinions will usually either (a) try to justify their behavior, and/or (b) deflect to another topic.  Their narcissism and intolerance run deep, and they will protect this strategy with great energy because it has been so effective for them.
> 
> The only way this changes is if -- and this is a huge "if" -- society makes it clear to these people that the ability to express our opinions without fear is fundamental and critical to a free society, and that we refuse to be intimidated.  It will be at that point that honest discussion and debate can begin on the issues with an eye toward truly fixing our problems.  Not until then.
> 
> Here's the problem, FF:  *These are, by and large, people who literally WANT to live under a more authoritarian existence.*  They *WANT* heavier rules and restrictions on the behavior of citizens.  So trying to appeal to them with words like "freedom" and "liberty" is literally a waste of time, it goes in precisely the wrong direction.   "Freedom" and "liberty" to them means less control over the populace, a bad thing.
> 
> That's why I think the only way to get them to engage in honest discourse is through society, through the culture.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> holy crap you are still repeating the same stuff over and over again still? Wow...thats just sad.
Click to expand...



My goodness, you certainly do pay rapt attention to my posts.

Obviously not everyone sees every one of my posts, because different people keep making the same points to me.

I'll bet you wouldn't be so cranky if you agreed with me.

Calm down.  Put me on ignore if it's causing you this much trauma.

.


----------



## Bfgrn

BlackSand said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who fight for more freedoms are always liberals, and those who fight to restrict freedoms are always conservatives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people think their freedoms come from government and political gamesmanship.
> They also think that because the government says they can do something it is an expression of their own freedom.
> 
> Do you want to be free to do what the government allows you to do ... Or you want to be free?
> Laws and regulations are required to maintain the peace ... But not to the extent that they have become an intrusion on our present lives ... And not to the extent they are used as campaign measures and divisive weapons.
> 
> But I am a Conservative ... So what do I know anyway?
> People need to go on thinking they have freedom ... And complaining about how messed up things are at the same time ... Because they are free to do as they are told.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.

Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being.

I've lived to see the total failure of two revolutions of extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism creates the same end...failure.

Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems.

So you are more than welcome to defend conservatism, but what you profess is not conservatism, it's narcissism.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone


----------



## BlackSand

Bfgrn said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who fight for more freedoms are always liberals, and those who fight to restrict freedoms are always conservatives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people think their freedoms come from government and political gamesmanship.
> They also think that because the government says they can do something it is an expression of their own freedom.
> 
> Do you want to be free to do what the government allows you to do ... Or you want to be free?
> Laws and regulations are required to maintain the peace ... But not to the extent that they have become an intrusion on our present lives ... And not to the extent they are used as campaign measures and divisive weapons.
> 
> But I am a Conservative ... So what do I know anyway?
> People need to go on thinking they have freedom ... And complaining about how messed up things are at the same time ... Because they are free to do as they are told.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.
> 
> Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being.
> 
> I've lived to see the total failure of two revolutions of extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism creates the same end...failure.
> 
> Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems.
> 
> So you are more than welcome to defend conservatism, but what you profess is not conservatism, it's narcissism.
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
Click to expand...


Conservatism is based in the idea that you have the freedom to be responsible or irresponsible.
If you cannot handle your responsibilities ... Then I don't see where you could provide better direction for what those of us who can should do.

.


----------



## Foxfyre

BlackSand said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who fight for more freedoms are always liberals, and those who fight to restrict freedoms are always conservatives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people think their freedoms come from government and political gamesmanship.
> They also think that because the government says they can do something it is an expression of their own freedom.
> 
> Do you want to be free to do what the government allows you to do ... Or you want to be free?
> Laws and regulations are required to maintain the peace ... But not to the extent that they have become an intrusion on our present lives ... And not to the extent they are used as campaign measures and divisive weapons.
> 
> But I am a Conservative ... So what do I know anyway?
> People need to go on thinking they have freedom ... And complaining about how messed up things are at the same time ... Because they are free to do as they are told.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Liberals fight for more freedoms?  Even if that was appropriate for this thread it is absurd on the face of it given the thesis of this thread.  Where are the liberals fighting for Phil Robertson to have freedom to say what he believes that the Bible says?  Where are the liberals fighting for freedom to hire who we want, smoke in our own business if we choose to do that, buy the automobile that we want, buy the lightbulb that we want, or put that pesky creche where we want at Christmas?  Or to use words that are familiar in our culture if we aren't a memberof a protected class?  I could list dozens of other things.  Modern American liberalism has become the antithesis of freedom as the Founders understood freedom.

Those who call themselves conservative who would use the federal government to impose whatever 'morality' on the people are not conservatives at all.  They are pure statists just as almost all who identify themselves as liberal are statists.

The Founders, to a man, would have condemned GLAAD for going after Phil Robertson for no offense other than Robertson stated an opinion GLAAD didn't like.  The Founders, to a man, would have condemned the American Family Association for going after Ellen Degeneres for no offense other than she is openly gay and promotes gay rights.

And instead of some here trying to make this a political or ideological issue, most especially when you think what anybody has done in the past is in any way pertinent, I wonder if more than two or three are able to see the real issue here?  What is freedom?  What is liberty?  And can it exist if the biggest and/or best funded bullies can punish people for no offense other than what they believe and/or who they are?


----------



## BlackSand

Foxfyre said:


> And instead of some here trying to make this a political or ideological issue, most especially when you think what anybody has done in the past is in any way pertinent, I wonder if more than two or three are able to see the real issue here?  What is freedom?  What is liberty?  And can it exist if the biggest and/or best funded bullies can punish people for no offense other than what they believe and/or who they are?



The only reason they can do that is because too many people have already surrendered their freedom and personal responsibility to the government.
It doesn't matter if it results in corporate welfare, social welfare, any regulatory or budget matter ... Too many people have opened the door and given the government the power to corrupt and abuse.

They trusted their own desires and intentions to the extent they convinced themselves that the responsible thing to do was to give the fox a key to the hen-house.

.


----------



## Plasmaball

Mac1958 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As we've seen on this thread and many others, those who want to intimidate and punish others for their opinions will usually either (a) try to justify their behavior, and/or (b) deflect to another topic.  Their narcissism and intolerance run deep, and they will protect this strategy with great energy because it has been so effective for them.
> 
> The only way this changes is if -- and this is a huge "if" -- society makes it clear to these people that the ability to express our opinions without fear is fundamental and critical to a free society, and that we refuse to be intimidated.  It will be at that point that honest discussion and debate can begin on the issues with an eye toward truly fixing our problems.  Not until then.
> 
> Here's the problem, FF:  *These are, by and large, people who literally WANT to live under a more authoritarian existence.*  They *WANT* heavier rules and restrictions on the behavior of citizens.  So trying to appeal to them with words like "freedom" and "liberty" is literally a waste of time, it goes in precisely the wrong direction.   "Freedom" and "liberty" to them means less control over the populace, a bad thing.
> 
> That's why I think the only way to get them to engage in honest discourse is through society, through the culture.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> holy crap you are still repeating the same stuff over and over again still? Wow...thats just sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My goodness, you certainly do pay rapt attention to my posts.
> 
> Obviously not everyone sees every one of my posts, because different people keep making the same points to me.
> 
> I'll bet you wouldn't be so cranky if you agreed with me.
> 
> Calm down.  Put me on ignore if it's causing you this much trauma.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

yawn.


----------



## hunarcy

BlackSand said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who fight for more freedoms are always liberals, and those who fight to restrict freedoms are always conservatives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people think their freedoms come from government and political gamesmanship.
> They also think that because the government says they can do something it is an expression of their own freedom.
> 
> Do you want to be free to do what the government allows you to do ... Or you want to be free?
> Laws and regulations are required to maintain the peace ... But not to the extent that they have become an intrusion on our present lives ... And not to the extent they are used as campaign measures and divisive weapons.
> 
> But I am a Conservative ... So what do I know anyway?
> People need to go on thinking they have freedom ... And complaining about how messed up things are at the same time ... Because they are free to do as they are told.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Well, talking about rights, if we could push the Federal Government back to their enumerated duties and leave all other topics to the individual states, as the 10th Amendment says they should be, then everyone would be happier as we debate rights.  

THEN cities like Chicago could continue their experiments in gun control without being rebuked by SCOTUS.  I'll bet the Left wishes they'd never moved to the Federal Courts with their gun control arguments.  

But, as long as it's a Federal issue, then everyone in the nation has to follow the same rules and Chicago gets its gun ban slapped down.


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who fight for more freedoms are always liberals, and those who fight to restrict freedoms are always conservatives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people think their freedoms come from government and political gamesmanship.
> They also think that because the government says they can do something it is an expression of their own freedom.
> 
> Do you want to be free to do what the government allows you to do ... Or you want to be free?
> Laws and regulations are required to maintain the peace ... But not to the extent that they have become an intrusion on our present lives ... And not to the extent they are used as campaign measures and divisive weapons.
> 
> But I am a Conservative ... So what do I know anyway?
> People need to go on thinking they have freedom ... And complaining about how messed up things are at the same time ... Because they are free to do as they are told.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals fight for more freedoms?  Even if that was appropriate for this thread it is absurd on the face of it given the thesis of this thread.  Where are the liberals fighting for Phil Robertson to have freedom to say what he believes that the Bible says?  Where are the liberals fighting for freedom to hire who we want, smoke in our own business if we choose to do that, buy the automobile that we want, buy the lightbulb that we want, or put that pesky creche where we want at Christmas?  Or to use words that are familiar in our culture if we aren't a memberof a protected class?  I could list dozens of other things.  Modern American liberalism has become the antithesis of freedom as the Founders understood freedom.
> 
> Those who call themselves conservative who would use the federal government to impose whatever 'morality' on the people are not conservatives at all.  They are pure statists just as almost all who identify themselves as liberal are statists.
> 
> *The Founders, to a man, would have condemned GLAAD for going after Phil Robertson for no offense other than Robertson stated an opinion GLAAD didn't like.  The Founders, to a man, would have condemned the American Family Association for going after Ellen Degeneres for no offense other than she is openly gay and promotes gay rights*.
> 
> And instead of some here trying to make this a political or ideological issue, most especially when you think what anybody has done in the past is in any way pertinent, I wonder if more than two or three are able to see the real issue here?  What is freedom?  What is liberty?  And can it exist if the biggest and/or best funded bullies can punish people for no offense other than what they believe and/or who they are?
Click to expand...


Sorry, I don't think anyone can say what the founders would think of today's issues.

Even if they did, I seriously doubt the founders would all agree about these issues.  They were not in agreement on a lot of things.


----------



## hunarcy

Montrovant said:


> Sorry, I don't think anyone can say what the founders would think of today's issues.
> 
> Even if they did, I seriously doubt the founders would all agree about these issues.  They were not in agreement on a lot of things.



AND, that's why they advocated tolerance in speech so all ideas could be heard.


----------



## R.D.

Bfgrn said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who fight for more freedoms are always liberals, and those who fight to restrict freedoms are always conservatives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people think their freedoms come from government and political gamesmanship.
> They also think that because the government says they can do something it is an expression of their own freedom.
> 
> Do you want to be free to do what the government allows you to do ... Or you want to be free?
> Laws and regulations are required to maintain the peace ... But not to the extent that they have become an intrusion on our present lives ... And not to the extent they are used as campaign measures and divisive weapons.
> 
> But I am a Conservative ... So what do I know anyway?
> People need to go on thinking they have freedom ... And complaining about how messed up things are at the same time ... Because they are free to do as they are told.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate....
> 
> Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being....
> 
> Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems.
> 
> So you are more than welcome to defend conservatism, but what you profess is not conservatism, it's narcissism.
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
Click to expand...

While you  insist on trying to  make it political you shoot yourself in the foot trying to do so


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people think their freedoms come from government and political gamesmanship.
> They also think that because the government says they can do something it is an expression of their own freedom.
> 
> Do you want to be free to do what the government allows you to do ... Or you want to be free?
> Laws and regulations are required to maintain the peace ... But not to the extent that they have become an intrusion on our present lives ... And not to the extent they are used as campaign measures and divisive weapons.
> 
> But I am a Conservative ... So what do I know anyway?
> People need to go on thinking they have freedom ... And complaining about how messed up things are at the same time ... Because they are free to do as they are told.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals fight for more freedoms?  Even if that was appropriate for this thread it is absurd on the face of it given the thesis of this thread.  Where are the liberals fighting for Phil Robertson to have freedom to say what he believes that the Bible says?  Where are the liberals fighting for freedom to hire who we want, smoke in our own business if we choose to do that, buy the automobile that we want, buy the lightbulb that we want, or put that pesky creche where we want at Christmas?  Or to use words that are familiar in our culture if we aren't a memberof a protected class?  I could list dozens of other things.  Modern American liberalism has become the antithesis of freedom as the Founders understood freedom.
> 
> Those who call themselves conservative who would use the federal government to impose whatever 'morality' on the people are not conservatives at all.  They are pure statists just as almost all who identify themselves as liberal are statists.
> 
> *The Founders, to a man, would have condemned GLAAD for going after Phil Robertson for no offense other than Robertson stated an opinion GLAAD didn't like.  The Founders, to a man, would have condemned the American Family Association for going after Ellen Degeneres for no offense other than she is openly gay and promotes gay rights*.
> 
> And instead of some here trying to make this a political or ideological issue, most especially when you think what anybody has done in the past is in any way pertinent, I wonder if more than two or three are able to see the real issue here?  What is freedom?  What is liberty?  And can it exist if the biggest and/or best funded bullies can punish people for no offense other than what they believe and/or who they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't think anyone can say what the founders would think of today's issues.
> 
> Even if they did, I seriously doubt the founders would all agree about these issues.  They were not in agreement on a lot of things.
Click to expand...


The Founders left a wealth of information behind that fully informs us about their thought processes that went into every aspect of the Constitution.  So I am very confident that the principles that guided them in their convictions and ultimately allowed them to achieve consensus would be just as applicable today.  And I am quite confident that to a man, they would advocate for a Phil Robertson or Ellen Degeneres to be able to be who they are and state what they believe without fear that bullies would set upon them and try to hurt them.

And though we wander there now and then--I have been guilty of that too and I apologize--again this has nothing to do with government or the Constitution and it is not a legal issue.

It is an issue of right and wrong, morality and ethics.  It is an issue of whether we will be a culture of liberty or a culture of bullies.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people think their freedoms come from government and political gamesmanship.
> They also think that because the government says they can do something it is an expression of their own freedom.
> 
> Do you want to be free to do what the government allows you to do ... Or you want to be free?
> Laws and regulations are required to maintain the peace ... But not to the extent that they have become an intrusion on our present lives ... And not to the extent they are used as campaign measures and divisive weapons.
> 
> But I am a Conservative ... So what do I know anyway?
> People need to go on thinking they have freedom ... And complaining about how messed up things are at the same time ... Because they are free to do as they are told.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals fight for more freedoms?  Even if that was appropriate for this thread it is absurd on the face of it given the thesis of this thread.  Where are the liberals fighting for Phil Robertson to have freedom to say what he believes that the Bible says?  Where are the liberals fighting for freedom to hire who we want, smoke in our own business if we choose to do that, buy the automobile that we want, buy the lightbulb that we want, or put that pesky creche where we want at Christmas?  Or to use words that are familiar in our culture if we aren't a memberof a protected class?  I could list dozens of other things.  Modern American liberalism has become the antithesis of freedom as the Founders understood freedom.
> 
> Those who call themselves conservative who would use the federal government to impose whatever 'morality' on the people are not conservatives at all.  They are pure statists just as almost all who identify themselves as liberal are statists.
> 
> *The Founders, to a man, would have condemned GLAAD for going after Phil Robertson for no offense other than Robertson stated an opinion GLAAD didn't like.  The Founders, to a man, would have condemned the American Family Association for going after Ellen Degeneres for no offense other than she is openly gay and promotes gay rights*.
> 
> And instead of some here trying to make this a political or ideological issue, most especially when you think what anybody has done in the past is in any way pertinent, I wonder if more than two or three are able to see the real issue here?  What is freedom?  What is liberty?  And can it exist if the biggest and/or best funded bullies can punish people for no offense other than what they believe and/or who they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't think anyone can say what the founders would think of today's issues.
> 
> Even if they did, I seriously doubt the founders would all agree about these issues.  They were not in agreement on a lot of things.
Click to expand...


Then, why may I ask, did they leave behind the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers? Those document both sides of the field. One side for government, the other against. All of these opinions and observations later went into the creation of our Democratic Republic, taking in the best of both worlds.


----------



## Montrovant

TemplarKormac said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals fight for more freedoms?  Even if that was appropriate for this thread it is absurd on the face of it given the thesis of this thread.  Where are the liberals fighting for Phil Robertson to have freedom to say what he believes that the Bible says?  Where are the liberals fighting for freedom to hire who we want, smoke in our own business if we choose to do that, buy the automobile that we want, buy the lightbulb that we want, or put that pesky creche where we want at Christmas?  Or to use words that are familiar in our culture if we aren't a memberof a protected class?  I could list dozens of other things.  Modern American liberalism has become the antithesis of freedom as the Founders understood freedom.
> 
> Those who call themselves conservative who would use the federal government to impose whatever 'morality' on the people are not conservatives at all.  They are pure statists just as almost all who identify themselves as liberal are statists.
> 
> *The Founders, to a man, would have condemned GLAAD for going after Phil Robertson for no offense other than Robertson stated an opinion GLAAD didn't like.  The Founders, to a man, would have condemned the American Family Association for going after Ellen Degeneres for no offense other than she is openly gay and promotes gay rights*.
> 
> And instead of some here trying to make this a political or ideological issue, most especially when you think what anybody has done in the past is in any way pertinent, I wonder if more than two or three are able to see the real issue here?  What is freedom?  What is liberty?  And can it exist if the biggest and/or best funded bullies can punish people for no offense other than what they believe and/or who they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't think anyone can say what the founders would think of today's issues.
> 
> Even if they did, I seriously doubt the founders would all agree about these issues.  They were not in agreement on a lot of things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then, why may I ask, did they leave behind the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers? Those document both sides of the field. One side for government, the other against. All of these opinions and observations later went into the creation of our Democratic Republic, taking in the best of both worlds.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how that's an argument that we can know what the founders would think of modern issues.

Look, it may be hard for us to understand, but just the concept of television is something so foreign to them that we can't know how they would react to it.   I don't think that gays were much appreciated in the founders' time, either.  And from everything I've read, the founders were very much of different minds about any number of fundamental issues.

So the idea that we know they would all agree about threats of boycotts or lawsuits regarding a reality tv star and a gay tv talk show host is asinine.  At best one can take a somewhat educated guess.


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't think anyone can say what the founders would think of today's issues.
> 
> Even if they did, I seriously doubt the founders would all agree about these issues.  They were not in agreement on a lot of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why may I ask, did they leave behind the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers? Those document both sides of the field. One side for government, the other against. All of these opinions and observations later went into the creation of our Democratic Republic, taking in the best of both worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how that's an argument that we can know what the founders would think of modern issues.
> 
> Look, it may be hard for us to understand, but just the concept of television is something so foreign to them that we can't know how they would react to it.   I don't think that gays were much appreciated in the founders' time, either.  And from everything I've read, the founders were very much of different minds about any number of fundamental issues.
> 
> So the idea that we know they would all agree about threats of boycotts or lawsuits regarding a reality tv star and a gay tv talk show host is asinine.  At best one can take a somewhat educated guess.
Click to expand...


It is a very strong argument that we do know the principles the Founders used to form this republic.  They left behind, as TK mentioned, the federalist and anti-federalist papers and a massive amount of their notes, diaries, transcripts of speeches, letters, and opinions written.

This has been the problem we've had with this topic from the beginning.  Everybody wants to talk about legalities, case law, ideology, partisanship, sins of others, sins from the past, sins in the present, and/or are trying to make it a free speech issue.  It is none of those things.  It is a PRINCIPLE that is applicable no matter what the circumstances, subject matter, or any history that exists.

The principle is a concept of liberty that allows a person his her thoughts, beliefs, opinions, ideas and to be who or what he/she is with impunity so long as he/she does not infringe on the rights of others.

And the Founders, to a man, strongly supported that principle.


----------



## Foxfyre

Mac1958 said:


> .
> [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], come to think of it, here's another thing:
> 
> *They even practice their behavior within the context of a discussion about that behavior.*
> 
> There have been multiple instances here in which I've been called a racist for saying that a racist should be able to speak in public about his views.  *So they play the "guilt by association" game in an effort to intimidate me and put me on the defensive as we are discussing how they try to intimidate people and put them on the defensive!*
> 
> Meanwhile, of course, they are avoiding an open and honest discussion about racism.
> 
> Here's what I don't know yet:  I wonder if they consciously realize they're doing this, or if it's just become implanted in their DNA.  Maybe it's both, depending on the situation.
> 
> Either way, the bottom line remains this:  We cannot solve or fix problems unless and until we can have open and honest discussions about them, and I'd love to know why these people don't want to see that happen.
> 
> .



DNA?  Hmmm.  Have to think about that. I've been usuing the metaphor that I think it is something in the water they drink that prevents some from being able to focus on a concept.   But it sure does making open and honest discussions about ANYTHING at USMB extremely difficult if not nigh onto impossible at times.

But yeah, as long as they want to make it about Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, religious, non-religious or whatever, or what contractual arrangements somebody has with somebody else, or our right to protest and boycott, we just spin our wheels or whistle in the wind.

*So long as he/she does not tread on the rights of others, each person should be able to express his her beliefs, opinions, thoughts, ideas, or convictions without fear that an angry mob, group, or organization will descend on him/her to inflict physical and/or material punishment.*

That is the principle that many are doing everything but stand on their heads to avoid discussing as is.   There seems to be some unexplainable compulsion to make that principle into something else.  But you are right.  It should apply without exception to: the:
--Democrat
--Republican
--Libertarian
--classical liberal
--tea partier
--Moveon.org
--NRA
--GLAAD
--out-of-the-mainstream social or political or think tank group
--educator
--advocate
--religious
--political activist
--racist
--bigot
--anti-semitic
--mysogynist
--humanitarian
--poet, writer, artist
--visionary
--and/or fill in the blank with any other designation

We don't have to like what any of these say.  There should be nothing to prevent any of us from disliking or disassociating ourselves with anybody.  Nothing to prevent any of us to express our own opinions about what they say, rebut them, condemn them, or applaud them and we should also be able to do so without fear that the angry mob, group, or organization will descend upon us to punish us physically and/or materially.


----------



## Foxfyre

BlackSand said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people think their freedoms come from government and political gamesmanship.
> They also think that because the government says they can do something it is an expression of their own freedom.
> 
> Do you want to be free to do what the government allows you to do ... Or you want to be free?
> Laws and regulations are required to maintain the peace ... But not to the extent that they have become an intrusion on our present lives ... And not to the extent they are used as campaign measures and divisive weapons.
> 
> But I am a Conservative ... So what do I know anyway?
> People need to go on thinking they have freedom ... And complaining about how messed up things are at the same time ... Because they are free to do as they are told.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.
> 
> Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being.
> 
> I've lived to see the total failure of two revolutions of extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism creates the same end...failure.
> 
> Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems.
> 
> So you are more than welcome to defend conservatism, but what you profess is not conservatism, it's narcissism.
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatism is based in the idea that you have the freedom to be responsible or irresponsible.
> If you cannot handle your responsibilities ... Then I don't see where you could provide better direction for what those of us who can should do.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


This is another way of saying what I have been arguing on this from the beginning.  There is no liberty at all unless we each have the right to make wrong choices as well as right choices; unless we have the right to be wrong about something as much as we have the right to be right about something.

What I have been arguing in this thread is a culture that respects the unalienable right of each of us to say what we think, even if it is wrong, if it is ugly, if it is stupid, if it is ignorant, or if it is as right as rain.  If our culture does not respect that unalienable right, then there is no freedom.


----------



## BlackSand

Foxfyre said:


> This is another way of saying what I have been arguing on this from the beginning.  There is no liberty at all unless we each have the right to make wrong choices as well as right choices; unless we have the right to be wrong about something as much as we have the right to be right about something.
> 
> What I have been arguing in this thread is a culture that respects the unalienable right of each of us to say what we think, even if it is wrong, if it is ugly, if it is stupid, if it is ignorant, or if it is as right as rain.  If our culture does not respect that unalienable right, then there is no freedom.



What you are talking about is when "ugly" became wrong, stupid and ignorant.
Some people don't respond to anything other than ugly ... And think that their ideas are worthwhile, correct and brilliant ... Until someone else tells them to take a flying leap.

They still don't think they are wrong, stupid, intrusive, immoral, unethical or disrespecting when they are told to take a flying leap ... But they may understand how much of their crap we are going to tolerate. 

.


----------



## Foxfyre

BlackSand said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another way of saying what I have been arguing on this from the beginning.  There is no liberty at all unless we each have the right to make wrong choices as well as right choices; unless we have the right to be wrong about something as much as we have the right to be right about something.
> 
> What I have been arguing in this thread is a culture that respects the unalienable right of each of us to say what we think, even if it is wrong, if it is ugly, if it is stupid, if it is ignorant, or if it is as right as rain.  If our culture does not respect that unalienable right, then there is no freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are talking about is when "ugly" became wrong, stupid and ignorant.
> Some people don't respond to anything other than ugly ... And think that their ideas are worthwhile, correct and brilliant ... Until someone else tells them to take a flying leap.
> 
> They still don't think they are wrong, stupid, intrusive, immoral, unethical or disrespecting when they are told to take a flying leap ... But they may understand how much of their crap we are going to tolerate.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Ah but here we are smack dab into the very heart of the thesis of the OP.  

Several on this thread have made posts that, in my opinion, are ugly as well as wrong, stupid, and ignorant and that were intended to be insulting.  Many were off topic and I have been trying to ignore those as much as possible.  But if they had persisted and continued to the point that they were seriously derailing the thread, I would report them as bad ACTS.  Not bad opinions.  

As Mac pointed out, we can never have an honest discussion about anything if everybody's opinions are not included in the mix.  But we can set the parameters of what the discussion will be and not allow unrelated issues or concepts to interfere with the focus on a specific subject to be discussed.

It is the difference between a 'bad' opinion and a 'bad' act.

Some seem to think it is fair game to punish a 'bad' opinion just as much as it is to punish a 'bad' act.  And only a few of us seem to want to focus on discussing that in relation to unalienable rights and promoting liberty.

Tolerance in the context of the OP is not about appreciating or condemning the 'bad' opinions of others.  We all should be able to do that as appropriate.  Tolerance, in the context of the OP, however, is allowing people to have 'bad' opinions without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after them to physically and/or materially punish them.


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why may I ask, did they leave behind the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers? Those document both sides of the field. One side for government, the other against. All of these opinions and observations later went into the creation of our Democratic Republic, taking in the best of both worlds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how that's an argument that we can know what the founders would think of modern issues.
> 
> Look, it may be hard for us to understand, but just the concept of television is something so foreign to them that we can't know how they would react to it.   I don't think that gays were much appreciated in the founders' time, either.  And from everything I've read, the founders were very much of different minds about any number of fundamental issues.
> 
> So the idea that we know they would all agree about threats of boycotts or lawsuits regarding a reality tv star and a gay tv talk show host is asinine.  At best one can take a somewhat educated guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a very strong argument that we do know the principles the Founders used to form this republic.  They left behind, as TK mentioned, the federalist and anti-federalist papers and a massive amount of their notes, diaries, transcripts of speeches, letters, and opinions written.
> 
> This has been the problem we've had with this topic from the beginning.  Everybody wants to talk about legalities, case law, ideology, partisanship, sins of others, sins from the past, sins in the present, and/or are trying to make it a free speech issue.  It is none of those things.  It is a PRINCIPLE that is applicable no matter what the circumstances, subject matter, or any history that exists.
> 
> The principle is a concept of liberty that allows a person his her thoughts, beliefs, opinions, ideas and to be who or what he/she is with impunity so long as he/she does not infringe on the rights of others.
> 
> And the Founders, to a man, strongly supported that principle.
Click to expand...


I disagree that the founders all agreed with that principle.  I think the treatment of minorities, women, and non-landowners in that time makes it a difficult argument to make that ALL of the founders agreed. 

When you add in the differences in technology and communication between then and now, the principles and ways of living we take for granted that they were unfamiliar with, again, I think assuming we know that the founders would all agree on just about anything is silly.  

I doubt they would all agree on just who would be included in 'all men' from the phrase all men are created equal, myself.


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how that's an argument that we can know what the founders would think of modern issues.
> 
> Look, it may be hard for us to understand, but just the concept of television is something so foreign to them that we can't know how they would react to it.   I don't think that gays were much appreciated in the founders' time, either.  And from everything I've read, the founders were very much of different minds about any number of fundamental issues.
> 
> So the idea that we know they would all agree about threats of boycotts or lawsuits regarding a reality tv star and a gay tv talk show host is asinine.  At best one can take a somewhat educated guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a very strong argument that we do know the principles the Founders used to form this republic.  They left behind, as TK mentioned, the federalist and anti-federalist papers and a massive amount of their notes, diaries, transcripts of speeches, letters, and opinions written.
> 
> This has been the problem we've had with this topic from the beginning.  Everybody wants to talk about legalities, case law, ideology, partisanship, sins of others, sins from the past, sins in the present, and/or are trying to make it a free speech issue.  It is none of those things.  It is a PRINCIPLE that is applicable no matter what the circumstances, subject matter, or any history that exists.
> 
> The principle is a concept of liberty that allows a person his her thoughts, beliefs, opinions, ideas and to be who or what he/she is with impunity so long as he/she does not infringe on the rights of others.
> 
> And the Founders, to a man, strongly supported that principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree that the founders all agreed with that principle.  I think the treatment of minorities, women, and non-landowners in that time makes it a difficult argument to make that ALL of the founders agreed.
> 
> When you add in the differences in technology and communication between then and now, the principles and ways of living we take for granted that they were unfamiliar with, again, I think assuming we know that the founders would all agree on just about anything is silly.
> 
> I doubt they would all agree on just who would be included in 'all men' from the phrase all men are created equal, myself.
Click to expand...


But don't you see?  What they saw as the norm of their culture, what they adopted as policy as the most reasonable and practical way to form a government in their culture, had ZERO to do with the principle of freedom of thought, ideas, concepts, ideas, values, convictions.  They DIDN"T all agree on the policy--it took them eleven long years of often heated debate, argument, give and take, and compromise from the signing of the Declaration of Independence that provided the PRINCIPLE behind the Constitution and the signing of the Constitution.  Even then only 38 of the 41 representatives present at the signing actually signed the final document.

But they were, to a man, even those who didn't ultimately sign the final document, agreed on the principle of unalienable rights that the Constitution was intended to recognize and protect.  And they were of one mind that no federal potentate would ever again have the power or ability to dictate what the people would think or believe or express about anything.  And they were of one mind that the existing societies that did dictate what people must think, believe, or express would be allowed to exist, but would not be allowed to force those on others.

And it is that principle that we seem to have abandoned in our modern culture.  Too many not only claim the right to their own opinions, but presume to force them on everybody else to the point that those who don't share them will be physically and/or materially punished.

I think that is wrong.  And it should be culturally unacceptable in America.


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a very strong argument that we do know the principles the Founders used to form this republic.  They left behind, as TK mentioned, the federalist and anti-federalist papers and a massive amount of their notes, diaries, transcripts of speeches, letters, and opinions written.
> 
> This has been the problem we've had with this topic from the beginning.  Everybody wants to talk about legalities, case law, ideology, partisanship, sins of others, sins from the past, sins in the present, and/or are trying to make it a free speech issue.  It is none of those things.  It is a PRINCIPLE that is applicable no matter what the circumstances, subject matter, or any history that exists.
> 
> The principle is a concept of liberty that allows a person his her thoughts, beliefs, opinions, ideas and to be who or what he/she is with impunity so long as he/she does not infringe on the rights of others.
> 
> And the Founders, to a man, strongly supported that principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree that the founders all agreed with that principle.  I think the treatment of minorities, women, and non-landowners in that time makes it a difficult argument to make that ALL of the founders agreed.
> 
> When you add in the differences in technology and communication between then and now, the principles and ways of living we take for granted that they were unfamiliar with, again, I think assuming we know that the founders would all agree on just about anything is silly.
> 
> I doubt they would all agree on just who would be included in 'all men' from the phrase all men are created equal, myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But don't you see?  What they saw as the norm of their culture, what they adopted as policy as the most reasonable and practical way to form a government in their culture, had ZERO to do with the principle of freedom of thought, ideas, concepts, ideas, values, convictions.  They DIDN"T all agree on the policy--it took them eleven long years of often heated debate, argument, give and take, and compromise from the signing of the Declaration of Independence that provided the PRINCIPLE behind the Constitution and the signing of the Constitution.  Even then only 38 of the 41 representatives present at the signing actually signed the final document.
> 
> But they were, to a man, even those who didn't ultimately sign the final document, agreed on the principle of unalienable rights that the Constitution was intended to recognize and protect.  And they were of one mind that no federal potentate would ever again have the power or ability to dictate what the people would think or believe or express about anything.  And they were of one mind that the existing societies that did dictate what people must think, believe, or express would be allowed to exist, but would not be allowed to force those on others.
> 
> And it is that principle that we seem to have abandoned in our modern culture.  Too many not only claim the right to their own opinions, but presume to force them on everybody else to the point that those who don't share them will be physically and/or materially punished.
> 
> I think that is wrong.  And it should be culturally unacceptable in America.
Click to expand...


That's just it, I don't think they were of one mind about it.  I don't think they would have all agreed about who had the rights you are talking about.  I think some might have considered gays to be unnatural abominations, or something of the sort, and not men deserving the unalienable rights we are talking about.  Some might have felt that women were not deserving.  Some might have felt minorities of various types were not.  They may have all agreed that there are unalienable rights, but I think there would have been plenty of disagreement about just what that meant.

Move ahead to today's situations and I don't see how you can know if they would consider the situations we are describing as violations of those unalienable rights.  Would the founders have considered it a violation of someone's rights to have their job as a television personality ended because of their expressed opinions, or because of their homosexuality?  As far as I'm concerned, a definitive answer is impossible.


----------



## BlackSand

Foxfyre said:


> Ah but here we are smack dab into the very heart of the thesis of the OP.
> 
> Several on this thread have made posts that, in my opinion, are ugly as well as wrong, stupid, and ignorant and that were intended to be insulting.  Many were off topic and I have been trying to ignore those as much as possible.  But if they had persisted and continued to the point that they were seriously derailing the thread, I would report them as bad ACTS.  Not bad opinions.
> 
> As Mac pointed out, we can never have an honest discussion about anything if everybody's opinions are not included in the mix.  But we can set the parameters of what the discussion will be and not allow unrelated issues or concepts to interfere with the focus on a specific subject to be discussed.
> 
> It is the difference between a 'bad' opinion and a 'bad' act.
> 
> Some seem to think it is fair game to punish a 'bad' opinion just as much as it is to punish a 'bad' act.  And only a few of us seem to want to focus on discussing that in relation to unalienable rights and promoting liberty.
> 
> Tolerance in the context of the OP is not about appreciating or condemning the 'bad' opinions of others.  We all should be able to do that as appropriate.  Tolerance, in the context of the OP, however, is allowing people to have 'bad' opinions without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after them to physically and/or materially punish them.



Yeah  But then you have to determine the difference in an act and an opinion in accordance to results  Because an opinion means absolutely nothing until it results in an action.
I mentioned earlier about tolerance in regards to the necessity to interact with others through contribution, acceptance or participation.
If we need to fool ourselves into thinking that because someone has expressed their opinion it means that we are all more dedicated to act appropriately  Then I think that is a fool's errand.

*A simple analogy that won't be worth arguing with ...*

When fire ants build a nest in my yard  I don't give a crap what there needs are, what their opinions are or whether they have the right to be there.
Just because I understand that they bite me as a defense weapon because I am a giant, they feel threatened and it is the only way they can do anything  Doesn't change my opinion of them.
I am still going to garage  Getting a container of poison  And killing as many of the bastards as I can.

Do I not think the fire ants have a reason to fear me  Nope.
Do I fail to understand that their fear is both justified and worthy of recognition  Nope.
Do I care if they decide to build their nest in the woods behind my house and not in my yard  Nope.
Do I think that fire ants are not an important part of our eco-system  Nope.
Do you think I will ever tolerate them building a nest in my yard and biting the crap out of me  Nope.

That is the difference in understanding another person's opinions, justification and reasoning  Then the ability for it to affect change in any manner as far as tolerance is concerned.
I understand that humans are not fire ants before some fool thinks that is worthy of discussion  It was an analogy to make the premise more malleable without involving politics.

.


----------



## BlackSand

Montrovant said:


> That's just it, I don't think they were of one mind about it.  I don't think they would have all agreed about who had the rights you are talking about.  I think some might have considered gays to be unnatural abominations, or something of the sort, and not men deserving the unalienable rights we are talking about.  Some might have felt that women were not deserving.  Some might have felt minorities of various types were not.  They may have all agreed that there are unalienable rights, but I think there would have been plenty of disagreement about just what that meant.
> 
> Move ahead to today's situations and I don't see how you can know if they would consider the situations we are describing as violations of those unalienable rights.  Would the founders have considered it a violation of someone's rights to have their job as a television personality ended because of their expressed opinions, or because of their homosexuality?  As far as I'm concerned, a definitive answer is impossible.



I am pretty sure they all had opinions on gays, women and minorities ... Luckily, they were smart enough to understand it was none of the Federal Government's business.
They also felt that some issues could be handled better and with more accurate or appropriate legislation at the Local or State Level than the Federal Level.

You can try to use a paintbrush as a hammer all day long ... But it is not going to be worthwhile or productive in any case.

*Edit:*
They also left us the tools necessary to make appropriate changes ... We have bastardized the extent as to what is appropriate.
Left to our own devices ... The government has changed in regards to basic rights for minorities ... And states have progressed further as far as rights for gays than the Federal Government has ... Get a clue folks.

.


----------



## Foxfyre

BlackSand said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah but here we are smack dab into the very heart of the thesis of the OP.
> 
> Several on this thread have made posts that, in my opinion, are ugly as well as wrong, stupid, and ignorant and that were intended to be insulting.  Many were off topic and I have been trying to ignore those as much as possible.  But if they had persisted and continued to the point that they were seriously derailing the thread, I would report them as bad ACTS.  Not bad opinions.
> 
> As Mac pointed out, we can never have an honest discussion about anything if everybody's opinions are not included in the mix.  But we can set the parameters of what the discussion will be and not allow unrelated issues or concepts to interfere with the focus on a specific subject to be discussed.
> 
> It is the difference between a 'bad' opinion and a 'bad' act.
> 
> Some seem to think it is fair game to punish a 'bad' opinion just as much as it is to punish a 'bad' act.  And only a few of us seem to want to focus on discussing that in relation to unalienable rights and promoting liberty.
> 
> Tolerance in the context of the OP is not about appreciating or condemning the 'bad' opinions of others.  We all should be able to do that as appropriate.  Tolerance, in the context of the OP, however, is allowing people to have 'bad' opinions without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after them to physically and/or materially punish them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah &#8230; But then you have to determine the difference in an act and an opinion in accordance to results &#8230; Because an opinion means absolutely nothing until it results in an action.
> I mentioned earlier about tolerance in regards to the necessity to interact with others through contribution, acceptance or participation.
> If we need to fool ourselves into thinking that because someone has expressed their opinion it means that we are all more dedicated to act appropriately &#8230; Then I think that is a fool's errand.
> 
> *A simple analogy that won't be worth arguing with ...*
> 
> When fire ants build a nest in my yard &#8230; I don't give a crap what there needs are, what their opinions are or whether they have the right to be there.
> Just because I understand that they bite me as a defense weapon because I am a giant, they feel threatened and it is the only way they can do anything &#8230; Doesn't change my opinion of them.
> I am still going to garage &#8230; Getting a container of poison &#8230; And killing as many of the bastards as I can.
> 
> Do I not think the fire ants have a reason to fear me &#8230; Nope.
> Do I fail to understand that their fear is both justified and worthy of recognition &#8230; Nope.
> Do I care if they decide to build their nest in the woods behind my house and not in my yard &#8230; Nope.
> Do I think that fire ants are not an important part of our eco-system &#8230; Nope.
> Do you think I will ever tolerate them building a nest in my yard and biting the crap out of me &#8230; Nope.
> 
> That is the difference in understanding another person's opinions, justification and reasoning &#8230; Then the ability for it to affect change in any manner as far as tolerance is concerned.
> I understand that humans are not fire ants before some fool thinks that is worthy of discussion &#8230; It was an analogy to make the premise more malleable without involving politics.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Actually it is a pretty good analogy.

Let's take another example that involves people.  If GLAAD gets in my face and tries to demand that I do something or don't do something they think I should do, and threaten me with physical and/or material harm if I don't do it, I will resist that with every legal weapon at my disposal.  And I will fight back with ANY means necessary if my physical person, or that of my loved ones, is threatened.

Does that mean I hate gay people?  Nope.
Does it mean that I condone discrimination against gay people because they are gay?  Nope.
Does it mean I am homophobic?  Nope.
Does it mean that I am unsympathetic to the discomfort of some people as to how others will see them if they 'come out'?  Nope.
Does it mean that I am unaware of wrong bad acts committed by people toward gay people?  Nope.
Does it mean that I am unaware of bigoted or prejudiced views of gays?  Nope.
Does it mean that I wish any harm or discomfort to any gay person?  Nope.
Does it mean that I can't embrace the gay people among my friends, family, neighbors, associates?  Nope.

Just as you are unwilling to have fire ants invade your space and reduce your unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, so am I unwilling to have GLAAD (or any other organization doing bad ACTS) invade mine.

Now likewise, let's say that I believe the Bible says homosexuality is a sin.  (I don't believe it says that, but that's a matter for another thread.)  Let's just pretend I do:

Does that mean I hate gay people?  Nope.
Does it mean that I condone discrimination against gay people because they are gay?  Nope.
Does it mean I am homophobic?  Nope.
Does it mean that I am unsympathetic to the discomfort of some people as to how others will see them if they 'come out'?  Nope.
Does it mean that I am unaware of wrong bad acts committed by people toward gay people?  Nope.
Does it mean that I am unaware of bigoted or prejudiced views of gays?  Nope.
Does it mean that I wish any harm or discomfort to any gay person?  Nope.
Does it mean that I can't embrace the gay people among my friends, family, neighbors, associates?  Nope.

My opinion about what the Bible says or teaches is an opinion.  Nothing more.  And I should be able to express it without fear that GLAAD or any other angry mob, group, or organization will come after me and try to punish me physically and/or materially.

EDIT:  And as an aside, even if I DID hold all that list of views, it would still be my opinion to have.  Might make me a really unappealing or intolerable person to most of you.  But so long as it is expressed as opinion and I do not act on it, I still should not have any angry mob, group, or organizating coming after me to hurt me.


----------



## Montrovant

As far as I'm aware, GLAAD didn't punish anyone physically or materially.

What they did was try and get A&E to punish Phil Robertson.  That A&E capitulated with that doesn't mean that GLAAD actually did the punishing.

What you are actually saying is that you don't think people should organize to have someone punished rather than to do the actual punishing.

I think that is likely the important distinction and difference of opinion for most of this argument.  Some people are accepting of a demand to have someone punished, others are not.  I don't think anyone is arguing that it would be ok for GLAAD to actually have punished Phil Robertson themselves. 

Minutae pointed out; back to regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## BillyZane

BlackSand said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another way of saying what I have been arguing on this from the beginning.  There is no liberty at all unless we each have the right to make wrong choices as well as right choices; unless we have the right to be wrong about something as much as we have the right to be right about something.
> 
> What I have been arguing in this thread is a culture that respects the unalienable right of each of us to say what we think, even if it is wrong, if it is ugly, if it is stupid, if it is ignorant, or if it is as right as rain.  If our culture does not respect that unalienable right, then there is no freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are talking about is when "ugly" became wrong, stupid and ignorant.
> Some people don't respond to anything other than ugly ... And think that their ideas are worthwhile, correct and brilliant ... Until someone else tells them to take a flying leap.
> 
> They still don't think they are wrong, stupid, intrusive, immoral, unethical or disrespecting when they are told to take a flying leap ... But they may understand how much of their crap we are going to tolerate.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Unfortunately , Americans have every right to be as wrong, stupid, and ignorant as they wish. Personally I wish someone wouldn't exercise that right so freely, but I don't advocate making it illegal for them to do so.

However,  I wouldn't have a problem with limiting certain privileges and such from those who continually do so. For example, if you are an idiot out on the road, don't be surprised when the state tells you you can't drive etc etc.


----------



## hunarcy

Montrovant said:


> As far as I'm aware, GLAAD didn't punish anyone physically or materially.
> 
> What they did was try and get A&E to punish Phil Robertson.  That A&E capitulated with that doesn't mean that GLAAD actually did the punishing.
> 
> What you are actually saying is that you don't think people should organize to have someone punished rather than to do the actual punishing.
> 
> I think that is likely the important distinction and difference of opinion for most of this argument.  Some people are accepting of a demand to have someone punished, others are not.  I don't think anyone is arguing that it would be ok for GLAAD to actually have punished Phil Robertson themselves.
> 
> Minutae pointed out; back to regularly scheduled programming.



As I have said over and over, GLAAD had a right to be offended if they felt offended.  GLAAD had a right to complain.  GLAAD had a right to even boycott.  Where they went wrong, in my humble opinion, was when they went beyond all that to "researching" him in order to "black list" him in the future.


----------



## Foxfyre

BillyZane said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another way of saying what I have been arguing on this from the beginning.  There is no liberty at all unless we each have the right to make wrong choices as well as right choices; unless we have the right to be wrong about something as much as we have the right to be right about something.
> 
> What I have been arguing in this thread is a culture that respects the unalienable right of each of us to say what we think, even if it is wrong, if it is ugly, if it is stupid, if it is ignorant, or if it is as right as rain.  If our culture does not respect that unalienable right, then there is no freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are talking about is when "ugly" became wrong, stupid and ignorant.
> Some people don't respond to anything other than ugly ... And think that their ideas are worthwhile, correct and brilliant ... Until someone else tells them to take a flying leap.
> 
> They still don't think they are wrong, stupid, intrusive, immoral, unethical or disrespecting when they are told to take a flying leap ... But they may understand how much of their crap we are going to tolerate.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately , Americans have every right to be as wrong, stupid, and ignorant as they wish. Personally I wish someone wouldn't exercise that right so freely, but I don't advocate making it illegal for them to do so.
> 
> However,  I wouldn't have a problem with limiting certain privileges and such from those who continually do so. For example, if you are an idiot out on the road, don't be surprised when the state tells you you can't drive etc etc.
Click to expand...


Driving on the road, however, is not an opinion.  It is an act.  And when done irresponsibly to the point that it impedes the ability of others to use the road or if it endangers others, it is a bad ACT. Those should be physically and/or materially punished.

But those who think there should be no speed limits, traffic lseat belt laws, or other traffic  laws are not forcing anything on anybody.  They are expressing an opinion.  It might be an ignorant or foolish opinion to some of us, but that is all it is.  An opinion.   We should be able to agree or disagree with it at will.  But a tolerant society would not try to physically and/or materially hurt somebody for no other reason than he or she expressed it.


----------



## Foxfyre

hunarcy said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I'm aware, GLAAD didn't punish anyone physically or materially.
> 
> What they did was try and get A&E to punish Phil Robertson.  That A&E capitulated with that doesn't mean that GLAAD actually did the punishing.
> 
> What you are actually saying is that you don't think people should organize to have someone punished rather than to do the actual punishing.
> 
> I think that is likely the important distinction and difference of opinion for most of this argument.  Some people are accepting of a demand to have someone punished, others are not.  I don't think anyone is arguing that it would be ok for GLAAD to actually have punished Phil Robertson themselves.
> 
> Minutae pointed out; back to regularly scheduled programming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have said over and over, GLAAD had a right to be offended if they felt offended.  GLAAD had a right to complain.  GLAAD had a right to even boycott.  Where they went wrong, in my humble opinion, was when they went beyond all that to "researching" him in order to "black list" him in the future.
Click to expand...


Agreed. GLAAD had every right to be offended, to rebut anything Robertson said, and to choose, as an organization, to boycott A&E or any of Robertson's advertisers and to inform A&E and the advertisers that they were doing so and why.  But in my opinion, that is as far as they can go without becoming far more intolerant than Robertson has ever been about anything.  To try to materially and physically harm Robertson was a bad ACT because Robertson committed no bad ACT.  To try to demand that others materially and/or physically harm Robertson is a bad ACT.  And to do bad ACTS should not be socially acceptable to any of us.

I want to change our culture so that we all will choose tolerance over bad ACTS.

And it is also my opinion that if GLAAD did choose to be offended, issue a rebuttal, and choose as an organization to boycott A&E etc., that makes them rather immature, thin skinned, hateful. intolerant, mean spirited, and hypocritical, most especially since they demand tolerance for who and what they are.  And it should also be my right to express that opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after me to hurt me.


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree that the founders all agreed with that principle.  I think the treatment of minorities, women, and non-landowners in that time makes it a difficult argument to make that ALL of the founders agreed.
> 
> When you add in the differences in technology and communication between then and now, the principles and ways of living we take for granted that they were unfamiliar with, again, I think assuming we know that the founders would all agree on just about anything is silly.
> 
> I doubt they would all agree on just who would be included in 'all men' from the phrase all men are created equal, myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But don't you see?  What they saw as the norm of their culture, what they adopted as policy as the most reasonable and practical way to form a government in their culture, had ZERO to do with the principle of freedom of thought, ideas, concepts, ideas, values, convictions.  They DIDN"T all agree on the policy--it took them eleven long years of often heated debate, argument, give and take, and compromise from the signing of the Declaration of Independence that provided the PRINCIPLE behind the Constitution and the signing of the Constitution.  Even then only 38 of the 41 representatives present at the signing actually signed the final document.
> 
> But they were, to a man, even those who didn't ultimately sign the final document, agreed on the principle of unalienable rights that the Constitution was intended to recognize and protect.  And they were of one mind that no federal potentate would ever again have the power or ability to dictate what the people would think or believe or express about anything.  And they were of one mind that the existing societies that did dictate what people must think, believe, or express would be allowed to exist, but would not be allowed to force those on others.
> 
> And it is that principle that we seem to have abandoned in our modern culture.  Too many not only claim the right to their own opinions, but presume to force them on everybody else to the point that those who don't share them will be physically and/or materially punished.
> 
> I think that is wrong.  And it should be culturally unacceptable in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just it, I don't think they were of one mind about it.  I don't think they would have all agreed about who had the rights you are talking about.  I think some might have considered gays to be unnatural abominations, or something of the sort, and not men deserving the unalienable rights we are talking about.  Some might have felt that women were not deserving.  Some might have felt minorities of various types were not.  They may have all agreed that there are unalienable rights, but I think there would have been plenty of disagreement about just what that meant.
> 
> Move ahead to today's situations and I don't see how you can know if they would consider the situations we are describing as violations of those unalienable rights.  Would the founders have considered it a violation of someone's rights to have their job as a television personality ended because of their expressed opinions, or because of their homosexuality?  As far as I'm concerned, a definitive answer is impossible.
Click to expand...


Well we'll just have to agree to disagree on that Montro.  You obviously do not want to agree with it--obviously' DON'T agree with it--but I have studied the founding documents sufficiently to be pretty secure that I'm on solid footing with my opinions about that.  But rest assured, I will not be organizing an angry mob, group, or gearing up an organization to come after you to punish you or silence you just because I think you've got that wrong.    And I would still enjoy having a cup of coffee with you.


----------



## BillyZane

Foxfyre said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are talking about is when "ugly" became wrong, stupid and ignorant.
> Some people don't respond to anything other than ugly ... And think that their ideas are worthwhile, correct and brilliant ... Until someone else tells them to take a flying leap.
> 
> They still don't think they are wrong, stupid, intrusive, immoral, unethical or disrespecting when they are told to take a flying leap ... But they may understand how much of their crap we are going to tolerate.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately , Americans have every right to be as wrong, stupid, and ignorant as they wish. Personally I wish someone wouldn't exercise that right so freely, but I don't advocate making it illegal for them to do so.
> 
> However,  I wouldn't have a problem with limiting certain privileges and such from those who continually do so. For example, if you are an idiot out on the road, don't be surprised when the state tells you you can't drive etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Driving on the road, however, is not an opinion.  It is an act.  And when done irresponsibly to the point that it impedes the ability of others to use the road or if it endangers others, it is a bad ACT. Those should be physically and/or materially punished.
> 
> But those who think there should be no speed limits, traffic lseat belt laws, or other traffic  laws are not forcing anything on anybody.  They are expressing an opinion.  It might be an ignorant or foolish opinion to some of us, but that is all it is.  An opinion.   We should be able to agree or disagree with it at will.  But a tolerant society would not try to physically and/or materially hurt somebody for no other reason than he or she expressed it.
Click to expand...


I agree 100% we should differentiate between voicing an opinion and acting on that opinion.

For instance, if I were to opine that all blacks are stupid and thus unworthy of humane treatment, hey I have that right, but if I ACT on that opinion, then I've crossed the line.

I don't opine that all blacks are stupid


----------



## Foxfyre

BillyZane said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately , Americans have every right to be as wrong, stupid, and ignorant as they wish. Personally I wish someone wouldn't exercise that right so freely, but I don't advocate making it illegal for them to do so.
> 
> However,  I wouldn't have a problem with limiting certain privileges and such from those who continually do so. For example, if you are an idiot out on the road, don't be surprised when the state tells you you can't drive etc etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Driving on the road, however, is not an opinion.  It is an act.  And when done irresponsibly to the point that it impedes the ability of others to use the road or if it endangers others, it is a bad ACT. Those should be physically and/or materially punished.
> 
> But those who think there should be no speed limits, traffic lseat belt laws, or other traffic  laws are not forcing anything on anybody.  They are expressing an opinion.  It might be an ignorant or foolish opinion to some of us, but that is all it is.  An opinion.   We should be able to agree or disagree with it at will.  But a tolerant society would not try to physically and/or materially hurt somebody for no other reason than he or she expressed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree 100% we should differentiate between voicing an opinion and acting on that opinion.
> 
> For instance, if I were to opine that all blacks are stupid and thus unworthy of humane treatment, hey I have that right, but if I ACT on that opinion, then I've crossed the line.
> 
> I don't opine that all blacks are stupid
Click to expand...


That's a good example.  I don't know how many people here at USMB say they can't stand and won't tolerate racists.  But do they really think they'll change the heart and mind of that racist by neg repping him, putting him on ignore, reporting him, yadda yadda for nothing worse than stating a racist opinion?  Or do they increase the toxic environment at USMB and foster more food fights and flaming and just feed the justification that the racist uses for his/her racism?

My mother, rest her soul, would never be discourteous, unkind, or unpleasant to any person just because that person was of a different race.  She worked for Don Perkins in the State of New Mexico government and worked side by side with and supervised black employees who she treated like family.  She would be absolutely livid if anybody accused her or suggested that she was prejudiced or racist in any way.  She honestly believed she was not.  But she was a product of her culture--the depression era and the WWII generation--and every once in awhile she would come with a incredible one liner like:  "Have you noticed that as the 'nigras'--that's as politically correct as she ever got --. . .that as the 'nigras' get more education, their skin is getting lighter?"   And she wouldn't notice me slinking silently into the floor.  She honestly could not see anything wrong with that.

But there are some here who, instead of just shaking their heads, smiling, and moving on, would be outraged and immediately brand my mother as a hateful, bigoted, stupid racist.  And,  if she was a nationally known personality, would organize a campaign to hurt her.

Tolerance--real, freedom loving, freeing tolerance--allows people to be wrong when they are hurting absolutely nobody.


----------



## hunarcy

Foxfyre said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Driving on the road, however, is not an opinion.  It is an act.  And when done irresponsibly to the point that it impedes the ability of others to use the road or if it endangers others, it is a bad ACT. Those should be physically and/or materially punished.
> 
> But those who think there should be no speed limits, traffic lseat belt laws, or other traffic  laws are not forcing anything on anybody.  They are expressing an opinion.  It might be an ignorant or foolish opinion to some of us, but that is all it is.  An opinion.   We should be able to agree or disagree with it at will.  But a tolerant society would not try to physically and/or materially hurt somebody for no other reason than he or she expressed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 100% we should differentiate between voicing an opinion and acting on that opinion.
> 
> For instance, if I were to opine that all blacks are stupid and thus unworthy of humane treatment, hey I have that right, but if I ACT on that opinion, then I've crossed the line.
> 
> I don't opine that all blacks are stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a good example.  I don't know how many people here at USMB say they can't stand and won't tolerate racists.  But do they really think they'll change the heart and mind of that racist by neg repping him, putting him on ignore, reporting him, yadda yadda for nothing worse than stating a racist opinion?
> 
> My mother, rest her soul, would never be discourteous, unkind, or unpleasant to any person just because that person was of a different race.  She worked for Don Perkins in the State of New Mexico government and worked side by side with and supervised black employees who she treated like family.  She would be absolutely livid if anybody accused her or suggested that she was prejudiced or racist in any way.  She honestly believed she was not.  But she was a product of her culture--the depression era and the WWII generation--and every once in awhile she would come with a incredible one liner like:  "Have you noticed that as the 'nigras'--that's as politically correct as she ever got --. . .that as the 'nigras' get more education, their skin is getting lighter?"   And she wouldn't notice me slinking silently into the floor.  She honestly could not see anything wrong with that.
> 
> But there are some here who, instead of just shaking their heads, smiling, and moving on, would be outraged and immediately brand my mother as a hateful, bigoted, stupid racist.  And,  if she was a nationally known personality, would organize a campaign to hurt her.
> 
> Tolerance--real, freedom loving, freeing tolerance--allows people to be wrong when they are hurting absolutely nobody.
Click to expand...



We have freedom of association for a reason.  We don't have to associate with those who we don't approve or agree.  We merely have to tolerate them and do no harm.


----------



## Foxfyre

hunarcy said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 100% we should differentiate between voicing an opinion and acting on that opinion.
> 
> For instance, if I were to opine that all blacks are stupid and thus unworthy of humane treatment, hey I have that right, but if I ACT on that opinion, then I've crossed the line.
> 
> I don't opine that all blacks are stupid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good example.  I don't know how many people here at USMB say they can't stand and won't tolerate racists.  But do they really think they'll change the heart and mind of that racist by neg repping him, putting him on ignore, reporting him, yadda yadda for nothing worse than stating a racist opinion?
> 
> My mother, rest her soul, would never be discourteous, unkind, or unpleasant to any person just because that person was of a different race.  She worked for Don Perkins in the State of New Mexico government and worked side by side with and supervised black employees who she treated like family.  She would be absolutely livid if anybody accused her or suggested that she was prejudiced or racist in any way.  She honestly believed she was not.  But she was a product of her culture--the depression era and the WWII generation--and every once in awhile she would come with a incredible one liner like:  "Have you noticed that as the 'nigras'--that's as politically correct as she ever got --. . .that as the 'nigras' get more education, their skin is getting lighter?"   And she wouldn't notice me slinking silently into the floor.  She honestly could not see anything wrong with that.
> 
> But there are some here who, instead of just shaking their heads, smiling, and moving on, would be outraged and immediately brand my mother as a hateful, bigoted, stupid racist.  And,  if she was a nationally known personality, would organize a campaign to hurt her.
> 
> Tolerance--real, freedom loving, freeing tolerance--allows people to be wrong when they are hurting absolutely nobody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have freedom of association for a reason.  We don't have to associate with those who we don't approve or agree.  We merely have to tolerate them and do no harm.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  We don't even have to be quiet about it if we don't approve or agree with their opinions.  But when there are no bad ACTS involved, I want America to be a culture that respects a person's right to be wrong and does not seek to punish him/her for no other reason than a crappy opinion.


----------



## BlackSand

Foxfyre said:


> Exactly.  We don't even have to be quiet about it if we don't approve or agree with their opinions.  But when there are no bad ACTS involved, I want America to be a culture that respects a person's right to be wrong and does not seek to punish him/her for no other reason than a crappy opinion.



True Respect can never be expected or demanded, only desired and earned ... Honor is a gift you give yourself.
Never try to be better than someone else ... Always try to be better than yourself.

.


----------



## hunarcy

Foxfyre said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good example.  I don't know how many people here at USMB say they can't stand and won't tolerate racists.  But do they really think they'll change the heart and mind of that racist by neg repping him, putting him on ignore, reporting him, yadda yadda for nothing worse than stating a racist opinion?
> 
> My mother, rest her soul, would never be discourteous, unkind, or unpleasant to any person just because that person was of a different race.  She worked for Don Perkins in the State of New Mexico government and worked side by side with and supervised black employees who she treated like family.  She would be absolutely livid if anybody accused her or suggested that she was prejudiced or racist in any way.  She honestly believed she was not.  But she was a product of her culture--the depression era and the WWII generation--and every once in awhile she would come with a incredible one liner like:  "Have you noticed that as the 'nigras'--that's as politically correct as she ever got --. . .that as the 'nigras' get more education, their skin is getting lighter?"   And she wouldn't notice me slinking silently into the floor.  She honestly could not see anything wrong with that.
> 
> But there are some here who, instead of just shaking their heads, smiling, and moving on, would be outraged and immediately brand my mother as a hateful, bigoted, stupid racist.  And,  if she was a nationally known personality, would organize a campaign to hurt her.
> 
> Tolerance--real, freedom loving, freeing tolerance--allows people to be wrong when they are hurting absolutely nobody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have freedom of association for a reason.  We don't have to associate with those who we don't approve or agree.  We merely have to tolerate them and do no harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  We don't even have to be quiet about it if we don't approve or agree with their opinions.  But when there are no bad ACTS involved, I want America to be a culture that respects a person's right to be wrong and does not seek to punish him/her for no other reason than a crappy opinion.
Click to expand...


Well said.


----------

