In Politics and Society: Is it Intolerant to be Intolerant of Intolerance?

[Billy000]

Billy, I will respond no further to irrelevancy. I must apologize to Fox for helping to pull her thread off topic as it is. Your flawed contentions notwithstanding. Please answer her question, Billy, she has asked you six times, each time you evaded. Why can you not give a direct answer? It's a simple yes or no question:

Should Phil Robertson be able to express his beliefs without a group demanding he be fired simply for want of their disagreement?

I already amswered this. Yes, he should. Why? Because the first admendment only guarantees you won't be prosecuted for saying whatever you want. There has been no legal action against him (I agree there shouldn't)

 

[The T]

Billy, I will respond no further to irrelevancy. I must apologize to Fox for helping to pull her thread off topic as it is. Your flawed contentions notwithstanding. Please answer her question, Billy, she has asked you six times, each time you evaded. Why can you not give a direct answer? It's a simple yes or no question:

Should Phil Robertson be able to express his beliefs without a group demanding he be fired simply for want of their disagreement?

The obvious difference is that gay people were born gay. Conservatives are not. And I am against the idea of calling all conservatives dumb. They aren't.

I would like to know what they exactly have said about conservatives.

not true in the majority of cases.
and if even some are ( in some cases it is true) - that has absolutely nothing to do with expressing the views of not accepting them.

It is not about TOLERANCE.

It is all about FORCED ACCEPTANCE.

You must accept me, or I will destroy toy - is not tolerance at all.

You are making things up.

NO the poster is NOT. It is PRECISELY what this is about.

Wake up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.

It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.

It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..

. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.

For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.

Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?

NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.

You're making a convoluted but ultimately fallacious argument primarily designed to attempt to somehow shame the people you disagree with into unilateral disarmament.

You want to say that in English, carbine?

Foxfyre wants an open debate about homosexuality, but he wants the gay rights advocates, defenders, etc., to shut their microphones off,

out of respect for Foxfyre's absurd definition of 'tolerance'.

 

[SwimExpert]

Again dragging the train back on the tracks. The topic is NOT who is or is not a true Christian. The topic is NOT how people become gay. The topic is NOT what Jesus thought about homosexuality.

The topic is tolerance and/or the lack thereof. Could you answer the question please. Should Phil Robertson be able to express what he believes without an outside group demanding he be fired purely because they didn't like what he said?

(Maybe if it is bolded and colorized, people will see the question being asked. Then again, maybe they already know the answer but want to keep their heads buried in the sand.)

You're being intolerant of other topics.

No she isn't. If you want to be tolerant of other topics, go make another thread. It's that easy.

 

[The T]

Billy, I will respond no further to irrelevancy. I must apologize to Fox for helping to pull her thread off topic as it is. Your flawed contentions notwithstanding. Please answer her question, Billy, she has asked you six times, each time you evaded. Why can you not give a direct answer? It's a simple yes or no question:

Should Phil Robertson be able to express his beliefs without a group demanding he be fired simply for want of their disagreement?

I already amswered this. Yes, he should. Why? Because the first admendment only guarantees you won't be prosecuted for saying whatever you want. There has been no legal action against him (I agree there shouldn't)

And does his religion, and expression bother you as HE expresses HIS religion?

Apparently it does...Remember the price of Liberty? The FIRST AMENDMENT. Apparently it bothers the intolerant...YOU are included. I think anything further from you would be insulting to intellectual honesty, Billy. STOP while you have any creds left.

 

[NYcarbineer]

To the extent this is about the Duck Dynasty faux scandal,

be reminded that GLAAD stands for Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

What they did is what they do, and they make no secret of their mission and their goals.

 

[OKTexas]

I was raised Catholic. I know what Christianity is. I went to Church every Sunday.

You're still not getting it. I am not judging your faith. I am judging people who are hateful of gay people.

But again, do you approve of GLAAD demanding that A&E fire Phil Robertson because, in your point of view, he was 'hateful of gay people'? Or if you expect Christians to be tolerant of homosexuality, does it not follow that homosexuals should be tolerant of an expressed fundamentalist Christian view expressed by a fundamentalist Christian?

A person who believes gays should be compared to terrorists is not a true Christian in my opinion. Period. They can all themselves anything they want.

In red, this seems to be a recurring theme in your post, why is it the left can call anyone on the right terrorist and you have no problem. But have no doubt fagtivist are terrorists, instead of physical damage with bombs or bullets, they throw economic bombs to FORCE others to bend to their will. I ain't playing anymore.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Billy, I will respond no further to irrelevancy. I must apologize to Fox for helping to pull her thread off topic as it is. Your flawed contentions notwithstanding. Please answer her question, Billy, she has asked you six times, each time you evaded. Why can you not give a direct answer? It's a simple yes or no question:

Should Phil Robertson be able to express his beliefs without a group demanding he be fired simply for want of their disagreement?

I already amswered this. Yes, he should. Why? Because the first admendment only guarantees you won't be prosecuted for saying whatever you want. There has been no legal action against him (I agree there shouldn't)

That's a start. But as anybody here will tell you, this isn't a First Amendment issue. Government isn't involved. A militant gay rights group got him suspended for expressing his belief, not the government. Do you believe they were wrong in doing so?

 

[Vox]

Show me the evidence of that. Give a link to the research.

Here's a question to you Christians. If homosexuality is such a big deal, why did Jesus himself NOT to mention it in the Bible anywhere?

Read up, bud.

Study Finds Epigenetics, Not Genetics, Underlies Homosexuality

Jesus, Marriage, and Homosexuality | Catholic World Report - Global Church news and views

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]: I am simply responding to his inquiry. I will not engage in any further irrelevant discourse.

You need to have a better understanding of the stuff you post dude. What this study is saying is that "earmarks" LATCH onto GENES which manipulates how they are expressed. In other words, the study is saying you are born gay, but the genes were simply manipulated by these earmarks. It's not a gene, but your genes are manipulate to express the orientation. Biologically, yo are still born gay.

Nope.you lack basic understanding of what is written.

besides not everybody who is gay is a result of epigenetic twisting.

the issue is not an example of inborn anomaly like Down's syndrome or an infectious disease like mumps. It is MULTIFACTORIAL.

and if you want to discuss it - open your thread not derail this one with INCORRECT remarks.

 

[TemplarKormac]

To the extent this is about the Duck Dynasty faux scandal,

be reminded that GLAAD stands for Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

What they did is what they do, and they make no secret of their mission and their goals.

At the expense of their own members.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're being intolerant of other topics.

No she isn't. If you want to be tolerant of other topics, go make another thread. It's that easy.

Why the fuck are you commenting in this thread, troll, if not to stir the pot? Gtfo.

 

[Foxfyre]

To the extent this is about the Duck Dynasty faux scandal,

be reminded that GLAAD stands for Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

What they did is what they do, and they make no secret of their mission and their goals.

Once more folks, let's get off the who is a true Christian and how people get gay. This is not a thread about homosexuality. There are threads aplenty out there dealing with that. Nor is the this a Constitutional free speech issue. This is an issue of promoting tolerance and/or exposing intolerance. And how intolerance of intolerance can erode the very freedoms that some say they cherish above all. The freedom to be who we are.

GLAAD's mission was originally to promote tolerance. Now their mission seems to be to promote intolerance for anybody who doesn't embrace being gay and advancement of gay rights as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

And there seems to be a lot of that going around and it isn't just GLAAD. Too many seem to promote the idea that we MUST be tolerant of certain points of view and then they turn right around and condone others being punished because of their point of view.

Quite a few of you here get that. Why doesn't everybody?

 

[The T]

To the extent this is about the Duck Dynasty faux scandal,

be reminded that GLAAD stands for Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

What they did is what they do, and they make no secret of their mission and their goals.

Once more folks, let's get off the who is a true Christian and how people get gay. There are threads aplenty out there dealing with that. Nor is the this a Constitutional free speech issue. This is an issue of promoting tolerance and/or exposing intolerance. And how intolerance of intolerance can erode the very freedoms that some say they cherish above all. The freedom to be who we are.

GLAAD's mission was originally to promote tolerance. Now their mission seems to be to promote intolerance for anybody who doesn't embrace being gay as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

And there seems to be a lot of that going around. Too many seem to promote the idea that we MUST be tolerant of certain points of view and then they turn right around and condone others being punished because of their point of view.

Quite a few of you here get that. Why doesn't everybody?

Yep. The self-professed TOLERANT...seem to be the intolerant...

 

[Vox]

To the extent this is about the Duck Dynasty faux scandal,

be reminded that GLAAD stands for Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

What they did is what they do, and they make no secret of their mission and their goals.

Once more folks, let's get off the who is a true Christian and how people get gay. This is not a thread about homosexuality. There are threads aplenty out there dealing with that. Nor is the this a Constitutional free speech issue. This is an issue of promoting tolerance and/or exposing intolerance. And how intolerance of intolerance can erode the very freedoms that some say they cherish above all. The freedom to be who we are.

GLAAD's mission was originally to promote tolerance. Now their mission seems to be to promote intolerance for anybody who doesn't embrace being gay as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

And there seems to be a lot of that going around and it isn't just GLAAD. Too many seem to promote the idea that we MUST be tolerant of certain points of view and then they turn right around and condone others being punished because of their point of view.

Quite a few of you here get that. Why doesn't everybody?

Because people who are militantly intolerant of others speaking their opinions ( as Billy is, but not only him) are usually convinced THEY know what IS tolerant, accepted, and BETTER, including FOR YOU.
That is a mindset.

 

[NYcarbineer]

To the extent this is about the Duck Dynasty faux scandal,

be reminded that GLAAD stands for Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

What they did is what they do, and they make no secret of their mission and their goals.

Once more folks, let's get off the who is a true Christian and how people get gay. There are threads aplenty out there dealing with that. Nor is the this a Constitutional free speech issue. This is an issue of promoting tolerance and/or exposing intolerance. And how intolerance of intolerance can erode the very freedoms that some say they cherish above all. The freedom to be who we are.

GLAAD's mission was originally to promote tolerance. Now their mission seems to be to promote intolerance for anybody who doesn't embrace being gay as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

And there seems to be a lot of that going around. Too many seem to promote the idea that we MUST be tolerant of certain points of view and then they turn right around and condone others being punished because of their point of view.

Quite a few of you here get that. Why doesn't everybody?

That was not GLAAD's original mission. You're going to have to accept irrefutable facts relevant to this argument if you want to have worthwhile argument. You cannot assign inaccurate attributes to a person, or persons, and a group, and then argue against your invention,

and call it a worthwhile argument.

 

[The T]

To the extent this is about the Duck Dynasty faux scandal,

be reminded that GLAAD stands for Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

What they did is what they do, and they make no secret of their mission and their goals.

Once more folks, let's get off the who is a true Christian and how people get gay. This is not a thread about homosexuality. There are threads aplenty out there dealing with that. Nor is the this a Constitutional free speech issue. This is an issue of promoting tolerance and/or exposing intolerance. And how intolerance of intolerance can erode the very freedoms that some say they cherish above all. The freedom to be who we are.

GLAAD's mission was originally to promote tolerance. Now their mission seems to be to promote intolerance for anybody who doesn't embrace being gay as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

And there seems to be a lot of that going around and it isn't just GLAAD. Too many seem to promote the idea that we MUST be tolerant of certain points of view and then they turn right around and condone others being punished because of their point of view.

Quite a few of you here get that. Why doesn't everybody?

Because people who are militantly intolerant of others speaking their opinions ( as Billy is, but not only him) are usually convinced THEY know what IS tolerant, accepted, and BETTER, including FOR YOU.
That is a mindset.

And what they've been taught...they haven't grasped reality yet.

 

[NYcarbineer]

To the extent this is about the Duck Dynasty faux scandal,

be reminded that GLAAD stands for Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

What they did is what they do, and they make no secret of their mission and their goals.

Once more folks, let's get off the who is a true Christian and how people get gay. This is not a thread about homosexuality. There are threads aplenty out there dealing with that. Nor is the this a Constitutional free speech issue. This is an issue of promoting tolerance and/or exposing intolerance. And how intolerance of intolerance can erode the very freedoms that some say they cherish above all. The freedom to be who we are.

GLAAD's mission was originally to promote tolerance. Now their mission seems to be to promote intolerance for anybody who doesn't embrace being gay as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

And there seems to be a lot of that going around and it isn't just GLAAD. Too many seem to promote the idea that we MUST be tolerant of certain points of view and then they turn right around and condone others being punished because of their point of view.

Quite a few of you here get that. Why doesn't everybody?

Because people who are militantly intolerant of others speaking their opinions ( as Billy is, but not only him) are usually convinced THEY know what IS tolerant, accepted, and BETTER, including FOR YOU.
That is a mindset.

The defenders of Robertson's 'free speech' rights have made as many attacks against GLAAD et al, i.e. that side of the argument,

just for the fact that GLAAD etc. MADE their argument,

as if it was somehow their obligation to remain silent in the face of something they found objectionable.

What justifies that belief?

 

[NYcarbineer]

To the extent this is about the Duck Dynasty faux scandal,

be reminded that GLAAD stands for Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

What they did is what they do, and they make no secret of their mission and their goals.

Once more folks, let's get off the who is a true Christian and how people get gay. This is not a thread about homosexuality. There are threads aplenty out there dealing with that. Nor is the this a Constitutional free speech issue. This is an issue of promoting tolerance and/or exposing intolerance. And how intolerance of intolerance can erode the very freedoms that some say they cherish above all. The freedom to be who we are.

GLAAD's mission was originally to promote tolerance. Now their mission seems to be to promote intolerance for anybody who doesn't embrace being gay and advancement of gay rights as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

And there seems to be a lot of that going around and it isn't just GLAAD. Too many seem to promote the idea that we MUST be tolerant of certain points of view and then they turn right around and condone others being punished because of their point of view.

Quite a few of you here get that. Why doesn't everybody?

You might want to inform the rest of us what version of the definition of the word 'tolerant' you are using.

Consider the saying, or quote, whatever it is:

Remaining silent in the face of injustice is the same as supporting it.

Your implication is that the quote should be revised to say:

Remaining silent in the face of injustice is a noble act of tolerance.

...and before you say it, yes we could replace the word 'injustice' with something more precisely reflective of the DD discussion.

 

[The T]

Once more folks, let's get off the who is a true Christian and how people get gay. This is not a thread about homosexuality. There are threads aplenty out there dealing with that. Nor is the this a Constitutional free speech issue. This is an issue of promoting tolerance and/or exposing intolerance. And how intolerance of intolerance can erode the very freedoms that some say they cherish above all. The freedom to be who we are.

GLAAD's mission was originally to promote tolerance. Now their mission seems to be to promote intolerance for anybody who doesn't embrace being gay as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

And there seems to be a lot of that going around and it isn't just GLAAD. Too many seem to promote the idea that we MUST be tolerant of certain points of view and then they turn right around and condone others being punished because of their point of view.

Quite a few of you here get that. Why doesn't everybody?

Because people who are militantly intolerant of others speaking their opinions ( as Billy is, but not only him) are usually convinced THEY know what IS tolerant, accepted, and BETTER, including FOR YOU.
That is a mindset.

The defenders of Robertson's 'free speech' rights have made as many attacks against GLAAD et al, i.e. that side of the argument,

just for the fact that GLAAD etc. MADE their argument,

as if it was somehow their obligation to remain silent in the face of something they found objectionable.

What justifies that belief?

WHat Justifies YOUR intolerance of him/them?

YOU speak of arguments made of GLADD...but has ANYONE HERE stated they be silenced as GLADD has to be silenced?
NO.

WHOM is Intolerant?

Carbonated? YOU too need to THINK.

 

[Foxfyre]

To the extent this is about the Duck Dynasty faux scandal,

be reminded that GLAAD stands for Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

What they did is what they do, and they make no secret of their mission and their goals.

Once more folks, let's get off the who is a true Christian and how people get gay. There are threads aplenty out there dealing with that. Nor is the this a Constitutional free speech issue. This is an issue of promoting tolerance and/or exposing intolerance. The topic of this thread is how intolerance of intolerance can erode the very freedoms that some say they cherish above all. The freedom to be who we are.

GLAAD's mission was originally to promote tolerance. Now their mission seems to be to promote intolerance for anybody who doesn't embrace being gay as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

And there seems to be a lot of that going around. Too many seem to promote the idea that we MUST be tolerant of certain points of view and then they turn right around and condone others being punished because of their point of view.

Quite a few of you here get that. Why doesn't everybody?

That was not GLAAD's original mission. You're going to have to accept irrefutable facts relevant to this argument if you want to have worthwhile argument. You cannot assign inaccurate attributes to a person, or persons, and a group, and then argue against your invention,

and call it a worthwhile argument.

They don't use the word 'tolerance' specifically in their self promotion. Their speakers have and do use the term as their mission to ensure access, acceptance, and accuracy in how they are portrayed all boils down to one thing: "tolerance". I know because I have scheduled GLAAD speakers and have attended functions at which GLAAD representatives have spoken. That is my point of view. You are welcome to your own point of view and I have not admonished anybody for disagreeing with me on the topic.

But the issue of tolerance and intolerance IS the topic of this thread.

I don't want to discuss who is and who is not a Christian because that is not relevant to the topic.

I don't want to discuss who is and who is not gay or how somebody becomes gay or gay rights issues because that is not relevant to the topic.

And I don't want to make this a Constitutional free speech thread as that also is not relevant to the topic.

All are worthy subjects and all are discussed elsewhere and no doubt new interesting threads on these topics will be offered elsewhere, but they are not relevant to this topic.

The only reason gay people even got involved in the topic is because it was GLAAD, who mostly likely has many more gay than straight members among its membership, who demanded that A&E fire Phil Robertson for his stated beliefs about what the Bible says about homosexuality.

So do you approve an outside group--one that has absolutely nothing to do with A&E or Duck Dynasty--making such a demand? Is not such a demand the very definition of intolerance?