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

[Derideo_Te]

WRONG. Science has proven that homosexuality is not genetic. The precursors to homosexuality is epigenetic. No man is more "born gay" than I am born a Christian. It's all a choice, pure and simple. And furthermore, you don't like calling conservatives dumb, but don't mind referring to them as bigots. How do you reconcile such reasoning?

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?

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?

Yes, PR had every right to express his opinion just as GLAAD had every right to express theirs too.

Both parties were demonstrating intolerance of the other therefore both parties are in the wrong in my opinion.

However I uphold the right of both parties to express their intolerant opinions irrespective of my own personal position.

Because to support and/or condemn one side or the other would make me guilty of intolerance and I am not going there. In essence I am being tolerant of their right to express their intolerance because that it what freedom of expression is all about.

 

[candycorn]

Sorry...groups do that all the time. Should the NRA stop trying to influence others?

The NRA doesn't go around trying to silence gun control advocates who disagree with them. When will you stop with the red herrings?

The NRA spends millions trying to get or keep people out of office in government. If that isn't trying to silence people I don't know what is.

And, while we're at it:

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons

"A massive boycott backed by the NRA and outdoorsmen and women outraged that the nation's largest outdoors show banned the exhibition of assault weapons has caused the show's organizers to abruptly cancel the week-long event in Harrisburg, Pa.

The successful boycott, started by the website mynortheastoutdoors.com, was the biggest demonstration of support by the outdoors industry yet against gun control efforts being pushed in Washington and in several states."

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons | WashingtonExaminer.com

You'll note Foxy was smart enough to not try to pull that nonsense. She abandoned her own thread because she painted herself into a corner.

I susupect she'll come back and say that since this guy from DD wasn' a political figure and he wasn't citing a candidate it's somehow different; that her brand of morality only applies in certain cases...much like GOP superstition.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYaewOBGybw]The West Wing: Bartlet quotes scripture. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[NYcarbineer]

He's completely being allowed to be himself.




It is going both ways between Glaad and this guy. They are both giving their opinion.

Correct.

No one’s being ‘censored,’ ‘shutdown,’ or otherwise ‘disallowed’ to give his opinion, express his views, or be who he is.

Yes. When somebody can have their business picketed or their customers threatened and harrassed by boycotters; when somebody has their advertisers harrassed and threatened and badgered if they don't drop a program; when Phil Robertson is fired - and all these people did absolutely nothing other than express an opinion - they are in effect being disallowed their opinion.

As I said, the intellectually honest know the difference between honest disagreement and disliking what others say as opposed to activists who would attempt to physically or economically hurt somebody because they don't like a person's opinion.

Again, for the very few individuals on this thread who can't seem to understand how those two things are different, I just sigh and reconcile myself to a world that is going to be populated with a few who are incapable of understanding.

But I am tolerant because I am going to allow you to be who you are. No neg rep. No reporting you hoping some mod will take my side. No trying to get other members to turn against you. I will simply disagree with you and allow you to be who you are. THAT is my definition of tolerance.

If you were intellectually honest you wouldn't be doing everything in your power to find any excuse you can not to indict groups you support despite them having done the same things that you claim are being done to A&E.

The NRA being a fine example.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The NRA doesn't go around trying to silence gun control advocates who disagree with them. When will you stop with the red herrings?

The NRA spends millions trying to get or keep people out of office in government. If that isn't trying to silence people I don't know what is.

And, while we're at it:

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons

"A massive boycott backed by the NRA and outdoorsmen and women outraged that the nation's largest outdoors show banned the exhibition of assault weapons has caused the show's organizers to abruptly cancel the week-long event in Harrisburg, Pa.

The successful boycott, started by the website mynortheastoutdoors.com, was the biggest demonstration of support by the outdoors industry yet against gun control efforts being pushed in Washington and in several states."

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons | WashingtonExaminer.com

You'll note Foxy was smart enough to not try to pull that nonsense. She abandoned her own thread because she painted herself into a corner.

I susupect she'll come back and say that since this guy from DD wasn' a political figure and he wasn't citing a candidate it's somehow different; that her brand of morality only applies in certain cases...much like GOP superstition.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYaewOBGybw]The West Wing: Bartlet quotes scripture. - YouTube[/ame]

This is standard practice with these people. They profess to be talking in a principled, non-biased, non-partisan manner about an issue,

but it's usually quite easy pull that costume off them by confronting them with examples of the causes they support doing exactly what they're claiming to disapprove of...

...then you get an inevitable barrage of 'yeah but's' trying to manufacture some difference between one example and the other.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Ya didn't ask me, but I will answer. YES, I have a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe because they are hypocrites. But they have a RIGHT to say whatever they want to say, whine and have a temper tantrum whenever they want, and then they need to change the channel if they don't like what they see or hear and stop trying to force everyone else to think as THEY do.

Sorry...groups do that all the time. Should the NRA stop trying to influence others?

The NRA doesn't go around trying to silence gun control advocates who disagree with them. When will you stop with the red herrings?

Actually the NRA does.

Colorado Recall Results: Democratic State Senators Defeated In Major Victory For NRA

Rhode Island Gun Recall: Voters Reject Council Ouster | TIME.com

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

Like it or not FF, Phil Robertson and Paula Deen are victims of the sanctions a free market creates. Corporate executives and corporate sponsors want no part of their vitriol. They see it as toxic to their ratings and profits.

You can't profess to be a 'free marketeer' and not accept the sanctions that come with it.

And to compare millionaires like Phil Robertson or Paula Deen to Rosa Parks is absurd.

But here is some food for thought...

The paradox of tolerance

Karl Popper on the paradox of tolerance - Windows on Humanity

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sorry...groups do that all the time. Should the NRA stop trying to influence others?

The NRA doesn't go around trying to silence gun control advocates who disagree with them. When will you stop with the red herrings?

The NRA spends millions trying to get or keep people out of office in government. If that isn't trying to silence people I don't know what is.

And, while we're at it:

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons

"A massive boycott backed by the NRA and outdoorsmen and women outraged that the nation's largest outdoors show banned the exhibition of assault weapons has caused the show's organizers to abruptly cancel the week-long event in Harrisburg, Pa.

The successful boycott, started by the website mynortheastoutdoors.com, was the biggest demonstration of support by the outdoors industry yet against gun control efforts being pushed in Washington and in several states."

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons | WashingtonExaminer.com

Here's a list of the groups, companies, and individuals whose boycotts closed down this outdoor show:

ESOS Boycott Supporters | My Northeast OutdoorsMy Northeast Outdoors

I suspect there will be little enthusiasm for attacking them by those who are attacking GLAAD et al.

 

[candycorn]

The NRA doesn't go around trying to silence gun control advocates who disagree with them. When will you stop with the red herrings?

The NRA spends millions trying to get or keep people out of office in government. If that isn't trying to silence people I don't know what is.

And, while we're at it:

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons

"A massive boycott backed by the NRA and outdoorsmen and women outraged that the nation's largest outdoors show banned the exhibition of assault weapons has caused the show's organizers to abruptly cancel the week-long event in Harrisburg, Pa.

The successful boycott, started by the website mynortheastoutdoors.com, was the biggest demonstration of support by the outdoors industry yet against gun control efforts being pushed in Washington and in several states."

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons | WashingtonExaminer.com

Here's a list of the groups, companies, and individuals whose boycotts closed down this outdoor show:

ESOS Boycott Supporters | My Northeast OutdoorsMy Northeast Outdoors

I suspect there will be little enthusiasm for attacking them by those who are attacking GLAAD et al.

I would suspect you're right.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

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?

Yes, PR had every right to express his opinion just as GLAAD had every right to express theirs too.

Both parties were demonstrating intolerance of the other therefore both parties are in the wrong in my opinion.

However I uphold the right of both parties to express their intolerant opinions irrespective of my own personal position.

Because to support and/or condemn one side or the other would make me guilty of intolerance and I am not going there. In essence I am being tolerant of their right to express their intolerance because that it what freedom of expression is all about.

I don't agree that PR's expressed opinion was intolerant. Critical or disapproving? Yes. Crudely and unpleasantly expressed? Yes. Untactful? Yes. Un-PC? Most definitely. Worthy of criticism? Absolutely. But he was wishing no ill will or restrictions or requirements on gay people; wishing them no harm; was not refusing to associate with or accommodate gay people. Therefore, his comments do not constitute intolerance.

GLAAD however was not content to simply express their opinion about PR's comments. They were not content to defend themselves or explain how their view was different or why PR was wrong. They were reactionary physically--going after PR to hurt him, punish him, if at all possible destroy him. THAT is more than expressing one's opinion. THAT is intolerance to the point of denying somebody the right to their opinion.

Tolerance and acceptance are two different things. In order to be tolerant, one does not have to agree with the other person or accept what they offer. All they have to do is to allow the other to be different. I think too many here are confusing the two.

 

[Foxfyre]

Correct.

No one’s being ‘censored,’ ‘shutdown,’ or otherwise ‘disallowed’ to give his opinion, express his views, or be who he is.

Yes. When somebody can have their business picketed or their customers threatened and harrassed by boycotters; when somebody has their advertisers harrassed and threatened and badgered if they don't drop a program; when Phil Robertson is fired - and all these people did absolutely nothing other than express an opinion - they are in effect being disallowed their opinion.

As I said, the intellectually honest know the difference between honest disagreement and disliking what others say as opposed to activists who would attempt to physically or economically hurt somebody because they don't like a person's opinion.

Again, for the very few individuals on this thread who can't seem to understand how those two things are different, I just sigh and reconcile myself to a world that is going to be populated with a few who are incapable of understanding.

But I am tolerant because I am going to allow you to be who you are. No neg rep. No reporting you hoping some mod will take my side. No trying to get other members to turn against you. I will simply disagree with you and allow you to be who you are. THAT is my definition of tolerance.

If you were intellectually honest you wouldn't be doing everything in your power to find any excuse you can not to indict groups you support despite them having done the same things that you claim are being done to A&E.

The NRA being a fine example.

The thread is not about the NRA. The thread is about tolerance and intolerance. If you know of a case where the NRA went after somebody and attempted to hurt or punish them physically or economically purely because that somebody said something the NRA didn't like, then state your case and post your links. That would certainly be pertinent for this thread and the NRA would be as wrong as GLAAD was in the Phil Robertson matter. I am unaware of any time the NRA did that, but I am willing to be educated.

Meanwhile I will continue to believe that stating an opinion and activism to hurt people are two separate things.

 

[Jackson]

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?

Yes, PR had every right to express his opinion just as GLAAD had every right to express theirs too.

Both parties were demonstrating intolerance of the other therefore both parties are in the wrong in my opinion.

However I uphold the right of both parties to express their intolerant opinions irrespective of my own personal position.

Because to support and/or condemn one side or the other would make me guilty of intolerance and I am not going there. In essence I am being tolerant of their right to express their intolerance because that it what freedom of expression is all about.

I don't agree that PR's expressed opinion was intolerant. Critical or disapproving? Yes. Crudely and unpleasantly expressed? Yes. Untactful? Yes. Un-PC? Most definitely. Worthy of criticism? Absolutely. But he was wishing no ill will or restrictions or requirements on gay people; wishing them no harm; was not refusing to associate with or accommodate gay people. Therefore, his comments do not constitute intolerance.

GLAAD however was not content to simply express their opinion about PR's comments. They were not content to defend themselves or explain how their view was different or why PR was wrong. They were reactionary physically--going after PR to hurt him, punish him, if at all possible destroy him. THAT is more than expressing one's opinion. THAT is intolerance to the point of denying somebody the right to their opinion.

Tolerance and acceptance are two different things. In order to be tolerant, one does not have to agree with the other person or accept what they offer. All they have to do is to allow the other to be different. I think too many here are confusing the two.

Exactly, Foxfyre. Allowing someone to be different. PR was still doing that while quoting the Bible, for he was not going to ignore, intimidate or go out to destroy homosexuals, he was stating what the Bible says about gays.

GLAAD was not tolerant of PR's views and most likely mine. For I an intolerant of those who are demonstrate intolerance of others. And that is exactly what GLAAD did. For that, I would no longer be a supporter, for once I was, before I realized they could be, I'll say it, a hater.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry...groups do that all the time. Should the NRA stop trying to influence others?

The NRA doesn't go around trying to silence gun control advocates who disagree with them. When will you stop with the red herrings?

Actually the NRA does.

Colorado Recall Results: Democratic State Senators Defeated In Major Victory For NRA

Rhode Island Gun Recall: Voters Reject Council Ouster | TIME.com

Again, advocacy for a cause is the American way. Of course I will join with anybody who is campaigning to get something done that I think needs to get done or campaigning to get something stopped that I think needs to be stopped. I support the candidates who I think will do the best job for my city, my state, my country as I define 'best job'. I give to organizations who are advocates for causes I believe in whether that is fighting breast cancer, promoting lower taxes and smaller government, protecting our Constitutional rights, feeding and sheltering the homeless, or getting the median landscaped out on Wyoming Blvd near our house.

But I will NOT join with anybody who is seeking to harm, punish, or destroy somebody purely for expressing a personal opinion no matter how much I disagree with that opinion. I see a huge difference between an expressed opinion and acting on that opinion. I believe to physically or economically punish people for no reason than they express an unpopular opinion to be wrong, unAmerican, and evil. It is the most hateful form of intolerance. And in my opinion, no freedom loving person should tolerate it.

And I can see the difference between advocacy and the form of intolerance that would punish people for what they think and believe.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

On the bright side, according to this thread, most people (left and right) seem to be tolerant of people they disagree with or find objectionable because they understand the bigger issues. It only seems to be a handful of authoritarian types who can't think outside their own bias.

 

[Foxfyre]

The NRA doesn't go around trying to silence gun control advocates who disagree with them. When will you stop with the red herrings?

The NRA spends millions trying to get or keep people out of office in government. If that isn't trying to silence people I don't know what is.

And, while we're at it:

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons

"A massive boycott backed by the NRA and outdoorsmen and women outraged that the nation's largest outdoors show banned the exhibition of assault weapons has caused the show's organizers to abruptly cancel the week-long event in Harrisburg, Pa.

The successful boycott, started by the website mynortheastoutdoors.com, was the biggest demonstration of support by the outdoors industry yet against gun control efforts being pushed in Washington and in several states."

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons | WashingtonExaminer.com

You'll note Foxy was smart enough to not try to pull that nonsense. She abandoned her own thread because she painted herself into a corner.

I susupect she'll come back and say that since this guy from DD wasn' a political figure and he wasn't citing a candidate it's somehow different; that her brand of morality only applies in certain cases...much like GOP superstition.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYaewOBGybw]The West Wing: Bartlet quotes scripture. - YouTube[/ame]

You'll notice that Foxy draws a distinction between boycotting AN ACTION by a group or entity or person--an ACTION that physically and materially affects others--as opposed to somebody simply expressing an opinion that does not physically or materially affect anybody.

Can you make that distinction? Or is it too difficult?

 

[Bfgrn]

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?

Yes, PR had every right to express his opinion just as GLAAD had every right to express theirs too.

Both parties were demonstrating intolerance of the other therefore both parties are in the wrong in my opinion.

However I uphold the right of both parties to express their intolerant opinions irrespective of my own personal position.

Because to support and/or condemn one side or the other would make me guilty of intolerance and I am not going there. In essence I am being tolerant of their right to express their intolerance because that it what freedom of expression is all about.

I don't agree that PR's expressed opinion was intolerant. Critical or disapproving? Yes. Crudely and unpleasantly expressed? Yes. Untactful? Yes. Un-PC? Most definitely. Worthy of criticism? Absolutely. But he was wishing no ill will or restrictions or requirements on gay people; wishing them no harm; was not refusing to associate with or accommodate gay people. Therefore, his comments do not constitute intolerance.

GLAAD however was not content to simply express their opinion about PR's comments. They were not content to defend themselves or explain how their view was different or why PR was wrong. They were reactionary physically--going after PR to hurt him, punish him, if at all possible destroy him. THAT is more than expressing one's opinion. THAT is intolerance to the point of denying somebody the right to their opinion.

Tolerance and acceptance are two different things. In order to be tolerant, one does not have to agree with the other person or accept what they offer. All they have to do is to allow the other to be different. I think too many here are confusing the two.

BS...

Your idea of 'tolerance' is for Phil Robertson to have the right to speak his mind. And for GLAAD to have the right to be SILENT.

And the violent threats and intimidation is coming from the right, not the left.

GLAAD spokesman Wilson Cruz said at the time:

“He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.”

Now, the tables have turned on GLAAD and they are the ones facing backlash because of their condemnation of Robertson.

Rich Ferraro, vice president of communications for GLAAD told The Wrap:

“In the five-and-a-half years I’ve worked at GLAAD, I’ve never received so many violently angry phone calls and social media posts attacking GLAAD for us speaking out against these comments.”

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, PR had every right to express his opinion just as GLAAD had every right to express theirs too.

Both parties were demonstrating intolerance of the other therefore both parties are in the wrong in my opinion.

However I uphold the right of both parties to express their intolerant opinions irrespective of my own personal position.

Because to support and/or condemn one side or the other would make me guilty of intolerance and I am not going there. In essence I am being tolerant of their right to express their intolerance because that it what freedom of expression is all about.

I don't agree that PR's expressed opinion was intolerant. Critical or disapproving? Yes. Crudely and unpleasantly expressed? Yes. Untactful? Yes. Un-PC? Most definitely. Worthy of criticism? Absolutely. But he was wishing no ill will or restrictions or requirements on gay people; wishing them no harm; was not refusing to associate with or accommodate gay people. Therefore, his comments do not constitute intolerance.

GLAAD however was not content to simply express their opinion about PR's comments. They were not content to defend themselves or explain how their view was different or why PR was wrong. They were reactionary physically--going after PR to hurt him, punish him, if at all possible destroy him. THAT is more than expressing one's opinion. THAT is intolerance to the point of denying somebody the right to their opinion.

Tolerance and acceptance are two different things. In order to be tolerant, one does not have to agree with the other person or accept what they offer. All they have to do is to allow the other to be different. I think too many here are confusing the two.

BS...

Your idea of 'tolerance' is for Phil Robertson to have the right to speak his mind. And for GLAAD to have the right to be SILENT.

And the violent threats and intimidation is coming from the right, not the left.

GLAAD spokesman Wilson Cruz said at the time:

“He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.”

Now, the tables have turned on GLAAD and they are the ones facing backlash because of their condemnation of Robertson.

Rich Ferraro, vice president of communications for GLAAD told The Wrap:

“In the five-and-a-half years I’ve worked at GLAAD, I’ve never received so many violently angry phone calls and social media posts attacking GLAAD for us speaking out against these comments.”

No. I have not at any point or any way suggested GLAAD should be silent. My only objection to GLAAD is that they did not just express their opinion in rebuttal to PR, but they sought to physically and materially punish him, hurt him, destroy him for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like.

Is it just the liberal mind that cannot distinguish between those two things? Is any conservative here having the same problem seeing expressing an opinion and materially punishing somebody as separate things? Am I explaining it that badly?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Maybe you should type slower.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

Yes, PR had every right to express his opinion just as GLAAD had every right to express theirs too.

Both parties were demonstrating intolerance of the other therefore both parties are in the wrong in my opinion.

However I uphold the right of both parties to express their intolerant opinions irrespective of my own personal position.

Because to support and/or condemn one side or the other would make me guilty of intolerance and I am not going there. In essence I am being tolerant of their right to express their intolerance because that it what freedom of expression is all about.

I don't agree that PR's expressed opinion was intolerant. Critical or disapproving? Yes. Crudely and unpleasantly expressed? Yes. Untactful? Yes. Un-PC? Most definitely. Worthy of criticism? Absolutely. But he was wishing no ill will or restrictions or requirements on gay people; wishing them no harm; was not refusing to associate with or accommodate gay people. Therefore, his comments do not constitute intolerance.

GLAAD however was not content to simply express their opinion about PR's comments. They were not content to defend themselves or explain how their view was different or why PR was wrong. They were reactionary physically--going after PR to hurt him, punish him, if at all possible destroy him. THAT is more than expressing one's opinion. THAT is intolerance to the point of denying somebody the right to their opinion.

Tolerance and acceptance are two different things. In order to be tolerant, one does not have to agree with the other person or accept what they offer. All they have to do is to allow the other to be different. I think too many here are confusing the two.

The topic is tolerance and here are some of the definitions;

n.
1. a fair and permissive attitude toward those whose race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3. any liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

Since what PR said is the opposite of those definitions that makes him intolerant. Likewise what GLAAD said was intolerant of PR's statements. Under the definition above both are equally guilty of intolerance.

Now you are trying to draw a distinction regarding the "level" of intolerance by introducing "acceptance". The line where intolerance becomes unacceptable is where actual harm comes to someone. GLAAD is in no position to inflict any harm therefore all they are doing is expressing their opinion. To condemn them for doing so is censorship since they cannot inflict any actual harm. And no, they cannot censor PR's opinion either. He is free to express it anywhere and anytime he wishes. However A&E gets to decide who uses their platform and that will be a business decision that will be based entirely upon revenue earnings/losses.

So on the original premise of the OP I am standing my ground. If you wish to switch to the topic of acceptance we can do so but before we go there let me point out that it is a slippery slope. PR included prostitution and terrorism in his statement. Do you really want to argue that those are acceptable and defensible?

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe you should type slower.

LOL. Do you think that would help?

DEFINITIONS: (Agree or disagree)

Expressing an opinion: Saying what you think or believe.

Activism: Promoting a cause.

Intolerance: Excluding, discriminating against, or seeking to harm, punish, or physically or materially hurting somebody purely because of who they are or what they think and say.

 

[candycorn]

I don't agree that PR's expressed opinion was intolerant. Critical or disapproving? Yes. Crudely and unpleasantly expressed? Yes. Untactful? Yes. Un-PC? Most definitely. Worthy of criticism? Absolutely. But he was wishing no ill will or restrictions or requirements on gay people; wishing them no harm; was not refusing to associate with or accommodate gay people. Therefore, his comments do not constitute intolerance.

GLAAD however was not content to simply express their opinion about PR's comments. They were not content to defend themselves or explain how their view was different or why PR was wrong. They were reactionary physically--going after PR to hurt him, punish him, if at all possible destroy him. THAT is more than expressing one's opinion. THAT is intolerance to the point of denying somebody the right to their opinion.

Tolerance and acceptance are two different things. In order to be tolerant, one does not have to agree with the other person or accept what they offer. All they have to do is to allow the other to be different. I think too many here are confusing the two.

BS...

Your idea of 'tolerance' is for Phil Robertson to have the right to speak his mind. And for GLAAD to have the right to be SILENT.

And the violent threats and intimidation is coming from the right, not the left.

GLAAD spokesman Wilson Cruz said at the time:

“He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.”

Now, the tables have turned on GLAAD and they are the ones facing backlash because of their condemnation of Robertson.

Rich Ferraro, vice president of communications for GLAAD told The Wrap:

“In the five-and-a-half years I’ve worked at GLAAD, I’ve never received so many violently angry phone calls and social media posts attacking GLAAD for us speaking out against these comments.”

No. I have not at any point or any way suggested GLAAD should be silent. My only objection to GLAAD is that they did not just express their opinion in rebuttal to PR, but they sought to physically and materially punish him, hurt him, destroy him for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like.

Is it just the liberal mind that cannot distinguish between those two things? Is any conservative here having the same problem seeing expressing an opinion and materially punishing somebody as separate things? Am I explaining it that badly?

No, you're just being intellectually dishonest.

Those who share your political views know this, know that if he had been suspended for pro-homosexual views you'd be the first to applaud A&E, and have looked the other way.

Those who don't share your skewed view of the world know this, know that if he ahd been suspended for pro-homosexual views you'd be the first to applaud A&E, and have called you out on it.

It's that simple.