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

[NYcarbineer]

I don't know. I have asked any of you to post a link to a conservative group that has tried to get somebody fired or removed from their position or otherwise punished, just because that person expressed a personal opinion the group didn't like.

Conservative groups have protested what some teachers teach in the classroom.
Conservative groups have protested abortion clinics.
Somebody--was it you?--posted the NRA boycotting an expo that banned certain type weapons.
There are probably many other similar examples.

But all of those instances were protests against ACTIONS of somebody or some group and not due to anybody's opinion about something.

I don't know if there is an instance when any conservative group has demanded that somebody be fired just because they expressed an offensive opinion in an interview with somebody. If they did, they are just as wrong and just as hateful as GLAAD.

But then so far, some of you can't seem to understand that there is a difference between expressing a personal opinion and performing an action. Some of you seem to think these are one and the same. And to me, that is downright scary. I thought the Inquisition and Witch Burnings and putting people in the stocks and such for heresy had been pretty well eliminated by advanced societies. But some of you seem to think that anything you consider heresy must be physically punished. Yes, that is indeed scary.

Conservatives spent a year trying to convince people not to give Obama the job of president because of a guilt by association with things that the Reverend Wright SAID.

btw, none of your goalpost shiftings are legitimate; don't think that because I'm destroying them systematically implies otherwise.

Physically punished?

Are you saying that anyone who expresses the opinion that someone should be fired for what they said is guilty of trying to physically punish them in a manner that can be grouped with burning a witch?

Are you losing it? I mean 'it', as in your sanity, not 'it' as in this idiotic argument you've attempted.

You're losing that obviously.

Expressing an opinion that someone should be fired is one thing. Trying to get somebody fired is quite a different thing.

I know the difference between these two things.

Do you?

Did you ever mean this thread to be objective? You've turned it into the most comical exercise in poorly disguised partisan hackery I think I've ever seen on this board.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Only a liberal ..."

Yeah.

Well.

And that's where nothing remains to be said.

Sorry, this isn't your kingdom to rule, BD. You haven't the right to dictate speech. Only a liberal would say "that's where nothing remains to be said." Says you and what army?

I think you misunderstood Boop. She was rightfully chastising me for singling out a group for criticism here.

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]

Well see, just by chastising you did she alter your opinion. You weren't allowed to keep your opinion even if it was flawed. She sought you out. She was unable to tolerate your opinion. Is that right for someone to do? Even when someone like her does the same to conservatives? How is that just and fair? Is there not a double standard in place here? Now I'm confused.

Magnify this instance a thousand times over. You get GLAAD, who went so far as to not only chastise a man for his opinion, they sought his capitulation. I say don't let others force you to change your opinions simply because it offends them. You have a right to make such an opinion without being forced to capitulate.The right to change your opinions is yours and yours alone.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Conservatives spent a year trying to convince people not to give Obama the job of president because of a guilt by association with things that the Reverend Wright SAID.

btw, none of your goalpost shiftings are legitimate; don't think that because I'm destroying them systematically implies otherwise.

Physically punished?

Are you saying that anyone who expresses the opinion that someone should be fired for what they said is guilty of trying to physically punish them in a manner that can be grouped with burning a witch?

Are you losing it? I mean 'it', as in your sanity, not 'it' as in this idiotic argument you've attempted.

You're losing that obviously.

Expressing an opinion that someone should be fired is one thing. Trying to get somebody fired is quite a different thing.

I know the difference between these two things.

Do you?

Did you ever mean this thread to be objective? You've turned it into the most comical exercise in poorly disguised partisan hackery I think I've ever seen on this board.

She hasn't turned anything into "the most comical exercise in poorly disguised partisan hackery I (you) think I've ever seen on this board." You've spent the entirety of this thread trying to derail it, you were as a volcano of false equivalency. You don't have anything intelligent to add, simply cowardly acts of misdirection. And you accuse HER of partisan hackery?

You're one of the bigger partisan hacks on this board, carbine. You are a far cry from objective. In the spirit of what Foxfyre stands for, I will forgo negging you for making such an off base and patently egregious remark about someone. She wants tolerance? Here's my tolerance.

 

[BDBoop]

Oy vey.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Thanks for sharing BD. Do you have any substantial input forthcoming?

 

[Statistikhengst]

I realize that.

And this might sound a little barbaric to you, but anyone who is "gay" and is a "christian" isn't a Christian to me. I've read the Bible, studied the Bible, nowhere does it speak of letting gays become leaders of a church or being a Christian while doing things that fly in the face of God's teachings. It is disingenuous to force your lifestyle on a religion that has unanimously rejected the notion of gay marriage. It is also disingenuous for the homosexual to put himself in a hostile environment that isn't conducive to his lifestyle. I would admonish his brethren to treat him with love and kindness, but I will not force them to accept his way of life.

I see homosexuality as an affront to the God's divine order of creation. Scientifically speaking in my opinion, homosexuality is contrary to natural procreation. If you have to resort to artificial insemination so a gay couple can reproduce, it is therefore unnatural.

Thank you for the honest response, TK. You are most certainly entitled to your views and opinion as to what constitutes Christianity and what does not.

What struck me in your response was that you are essentially displaying much the same intolerance as PR did in the GQ article. And yes, you do have that right. However if I recall Pope Francis's recent remarks on the subject correctly he admonished those who were fixated on Christian dogma over and above the people themselves.

If we are dealing with the topic of intolerance per the OP then aren't gays just as much the children of God and their acceptance of the concept of eternal life something that is between them and God? Should we be hidebound by the intolerance that existed 2000+ years ago or should we deal with the reality of the life that surrounds us today? A single father can successfully raise a child even if he cannot conceive it himself. We see Stat doing that today so must we condemn him because he is not a heterosexual marriage? Are you as intolerant of him as you are of gays?

This is not intended as a personal criticism of you at all, just an observation on the light of the topic in the OR. I support your right to your beliefs but I am curious as to how you reconcile the differences here.

Alright, I will respond to this as best as I can, point by point. [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]

First:

What struck me in your response was that you are essentially displaying much the same intolerance as PR did in the GQ article. And yes, you do have that right. However if I recall Pope Francis's recent remarks on the subject correctly he admonished those who were fixated on Christian dogma over and above the people themselves.

Okay, firstly, my views of Christianity are based off of Protestantism, not of Catholicism. Therefore, I don't see the Pope as a true man of God. Anyone who prays to Mary and believes in the act of buying someone out of hell or purgatory does not truly understand the ultimate aspect of salvation and damnation. Christians worship Jesus Christ, not his mother. Pope Francis is an admirable man, but I cannot adhere to the tenets he believes in. We all have a general belief in God, therefore we should pray to God and to nobody else. In the end of all things, being a mere man will be irrelevant when God comes to earth at the end of days. All men will be judged equally for his transgressions. Catholics like gays are the children of God, but I believe personally that they are misguided and are stepping ever so closely to the wide path of destruction.

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Matthew 7:13-14 NKJV

If we are dealing with the topic of intolerance per the OP then aren't gays just as much the children of God and their acceptance of the concept of eternal life something that is between them and God? Should we be hidebound by the intolerance that existed 2000+ years ago or should we deal with the reality of the life that surrounds us today? A single father can successfully raise a child even if he cannot conceive it himself. We see Stat doing that today so must we condemn him because he is not a heterosexual marriage? Are you as intolerant of him as you are of gays?

As I said previously, all humankind are the children of God. But I must stand true to what I believe the Bible says about homosexuality. In the Book of Matthew, Chapter 7, it tells us not to judge others by our preconceived standards, lest we be judged by those same standards in heaven. It also warns us not to cast what is precious before swine, too. However, if a homosexual claims to be a member of my faith, I feel I must judge him according to the teaching of my faith. I am allowed that right. Christians are to help other Christians grow in the body of Christ.

Interesting you should ask that question, Derideo, "should we be hidebound to the intolerance of 2000+ years ago?" A lot of people think that we still believe in the old mosaic laws of the ancient Israelites, therefore we are seen as intolerant supposedly because it is assumed we are believing in such a system. However, Jesus did away with the old law and established a new covenant. All sin can be forgiven, any man can be redeemed, all he has to do is give his heart to God and expunge himself of his sinful ways. No man should die for his sin, since Jesus himself redeemed mankind with is death on the cross.

My rationale for "gay Christians" can be found here.

What Stat does with his life is of no concern of mine. It does not however stop me from disapproving of it. I cannot openly judge him for what he is. I am tolerant. I have never been intolerant of homosexuals my entire life. My uncle was gay, I have two gay friends. If I see two men holding hands on the street, I don't say a word. I don't cause a scene. Tolerance is a relative term to both gays and Christians. Frankly I've seen gays exercise more tolerance that Christians, and then again I have seen the converse.

[MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION] - uhm, ok, thanks. So, that means I can continue being straight, right? Cuz being gay does not interest me. I'm just a vagina lovin kind of guy. Perhaps you meant another member. Care to revise that posting?

 

[Bfgrn]

Sigh. I think only a liberal could see making a choice between two political candidates as 'silencing' somebody. Or thinks that is no different than hurting somebody purely because that somebody expressed a personal opinion.

When I choose between political candidates, it is never based on what a candidate expresses as his or her personal opinion about an issue. It is based on what that person expresses that he or she intends to DO about it or the track record of what that person has done about it in the past.

If you think that is the same thing as punishing Phil Robertson, who is running for no political office and who suggested no action whatsoever be taken regarding anything or anybody, then I just don't know what to say. I simply do not comprehend a kind of disconnect that makes it impossible for some of you to distinguish the difference between expressing an opinion or belief and acting to do something to somebody or stating your intention to do something to somebody.

I am making the connection as a fiscal conservative. Money equals the power to suppress the message you don't like and to replace it with one that you prefer. Since you equate what GLAAD is doing as "punishment" then you are equating it to money. By pouring money into elections the NRA is "punishing" those it disagrees with.

There is no actual difference in the end result since money decides the outcome.

What GLAAD did was try to hurt somebody, punish somebody, destroy somebody for NO OTHER REASON than the person expressed a personal opinion that GLAAD didn't like.

If you think that is okay and no different than any other protest, then that is your opinion. But I fear for my country if many share it with you.

I think was GLAAD did was evil. It SHOULD be criminal. It should at the very least be denounced by every citizen who values fair play and liberty to be who and what we are.

There's an old axiom: Robins and Bluejays don't nest together

You folks on the right are in THIS nest...

Westboro Baptists Support ‘Duck Dynasty’ Star Phil Robertson Following AE Suspension: Church Plans Picket

 

[TemplarKormac]

Thank you for the honest response, TK. You are most certainly entitled to your views and opinion as to what constitutes Christianity and what does not.

What struck me in your response was that you are essentially displaying much the same intolerance as PR did in the GQ article. And yes, you do have that right. However if I recall Pope Francis's recent remarks on the subject correctly he admonished those who were fixated on Christian dogma over and above the people themselves.

If we are dealing with the topic of intolerance per the OP then aren't gays just as much the children of God and their acceptance of the concept of eternal life something that is between them and God? Should we be hidebound by the intolerance that existed 2000+ years ago or should we deal with the reality of the life that surrounds us today? A single father can successfully raise a child even if he cannot conceive it himself. We see Stat doing that today so must we condemn him because he is not a heterosexual marriage? Are you as intolerant of him as you are of gays?

This is not intended as a personal criticism of you at all, just an observation on the light of the topic in the OR. I support your right to your beliefs but I am curious as to how you reconcile the differences here.

Alright, I will respond to this as best as I can, point by point. [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]

First:



Okay, firstly, my views of Christianity are based off of Protestantism, not of Catholicism. Therefore, I don't see the Pope as a true man of God. Anyone who prays to Mary and believes in the act of buying someone out of hell or purgatory does not truly understand the ultimate aspect of salvation and damnation. Christians worship Jesus Christ, not his mother. Pope Francis is an admirable man, but I cannot adhere to the tenets he believes in. We all have a general belief in God, therefore we should pray to God and to nobody else. In the end of all things, being a mere man will be irrelevant when God comes to earth at the end of days. All men will be judged equally for his transgressions. Catholics like gays are the children of God, but I believe personally that they are misguided and are stepping ever so closely to the wide path of destruction.

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Matthew 7:13-14 NKJV

If we are dealing with the topic of intolerance per the OP then aren't gays just as much the children of God and their acceptance of the concept of eternal life something that is between them and God? Should we be hidebound by the intolerance that existed 2000+ years ago or should we deal with the reality of the life that surrounds us today? A single father can successfully raise a child even if he cannot conceive it himself. We see Stat doing that today so must we condemn him because he is not a heterosexual marriage? Are you as intolerant of him as you are of gays?

As I said previously, all humankind are the children of God. But I must stand true to what I believe the Bible says about homosexuality. In the Book of Matthew, Chapter 7, it tells us not to judge others by our preconceived standards, lest we be judged by those same standards in heaven. It also warns us not to cast what is precious before swine, too. However, if a homosexual claims to be a member of my faith, I feel I must judge him according to the teaching of my faith. I am allowed that right. Christians are to help other Christians grow in the body of Christ.

Interesting you should ask that question, Derideo, "should we be hidebound to the intolerance of 2000+ years ago?" A lot of people think that we still believe in the old mosaic laws of the ancient Israelites, therefore we are seen as intolerant supposedly because it is assumed we are believing in such a system. However, Jesus did away with the old law and established a new covenant. All sin can be forgiven, any man can be redeemed, all he has to do is give his heart to God and expunge himself of his sinful ways. No man should die for his sin, since Jesus himself redeemed mankind with is death on the cross.

My rationale for "gay Christians" can be found here.

What Stat does with his life is of no concern of mine. It does not however stop me from disapproving of it. I cannot openly judge him for what he is. I am tolerant. I have never been intolerant of homosexuals my entire life. My uncle was gay, I have two gay friends. If I see two men holding hands on the street, I don't say a word. I don't cause a scene. Tolerance is a relative term to both gays and Christians. Frankly I've seen gays exercise more tolerance that Christians, and then again I have seen the converse.

[MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION] - uhm, ok, thanks. So, that means I can continue being straight, right? Cuz being gay does not interest me. I'm just a vagina lovin kind of guy. Perhaps you meant another member. Care to revise that posting?

Perhaps if you read the post I was responding to, you'll get what I responding to. I took Derideo as saying you were gay, with nothing other than that to work off of I responded in due kind. I missed that very last point "are you intolerant of him as you are gays?" Now that I know, I will rescind any insinuations that were made in that particular part of my post.

 

[Sunshine]

Expressing an opinion that someone should be fired is one thing. Trying to get somebody fired is quite a different thing.

I know the difference between these two things.

Do you?

Did you ever mean this thread to be objective? You've turned it into the most comical exercise in poorly disguised partisan hackery I think I've ever seen on this board.

She hasn't turned anything into "the most comical exercise in poorly disguised partisan hackery I (you) think I've ever seen on this board." You've spent the entirety of this thread trying to derail it, you were as a volcano of false equivalency. You don't have anything intelligent to add, simply cowardly acts of misdirection. And you accuse HER of partisan hackery?

You're one of the bigger partisan hacks on this board, carbine. You are a far cry from objective. In the spirit of what Foxfyre stands for, I will forgo negging you for making such an off base and patently egregious remark about someone. She wants tolerance? Here's my tolerance.

He's been cruisin' for a bruisin' for a while now.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

The revision has been made. Please accept my apologies, and this pineapple.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Unlike some people here, I can admit my mistakes. Isn't it sad that people are so entrenched in their stereotypical views of someone that they can't admit that maybe they could be wrong about this situation with Phil Robertson, perhaps?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Alright, I will respond to this as best as I can, point by point. [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]

First:



Okay, firstly, my views of Christianity are based off of Protestantism, not of Catholicism. Therefore, I don't see the Pope as a true man of God. Anyone who prays to Mary and believes in the act of buying someone out of hell or purgatory does not truly understand the ultimate aspect of salvation and damnation. Christians worship Jesus Christ, not his mother. Pope Francis is an admirable man, but I cannot adhere to the tenets he believes in. We all have a general belief in God, therefore we should pray to God and to nobody else. In the end of all things, being a mere man will be irrelevant when God comes to earth at the end of days. All men will be judged equally for his transgressions. Catholics like gays are the children of God, but I believe personally that they are misguided and are stepping ever so closely to the wide path of destruction.

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Matthew 7:13-14 NKJV




As I said previously, all humankind are the children of God. But I must stand true to what I believe the Bible says about homosexuality. In the Book of Matthew, Chapter 7, it tells us not to judge others by our preconceived standards, lest we be judged by those same standards in heaven. It also warns us not to cast what is precious before swine, too. However, if a homosexual claims to be a member of my faith, I feel I must judge him according to the teaching of my faith. I am allowed that right. Christians are to help other Christians grow in the body of Christ.

Interesting you should ask that question, Derideo, "should we be hidebound to the intolerance of 2000+ years ago?" A lot of people think that we still believe in the old mosaic laws of the ancient Israelites, therefore we are seen as intolerant supposedly because it is assumed we are believing in such a system. However, Jesus did away with the old law and established a new covenant. All sin can be forgiven, any man can be redeemed, all he has to do is give his heart to God and expunge himself of his sinful ways. No man should die for his sin, since Jesus himself redeemed mankind with is death on the cross.

My rationale for "gay Christians" can be found here.

What Stat does with his life is of no concern of mine. It does not however stop me from disapproving of it. I cannot openly judge him for what he is. I am tolerant. I have never been intolerant of homosexuals my entire life. My uncle was gay, I have two gay friends. If I see two men holding hands on the street, I don't say a word. I don't cause a scene. Tolerance is a relative term to both gays and Christians. Frankly I've seen gays exercise more tolerance that Christians, and then again I have seen the converse.

[MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION] - uhm, ok, thanks. So, that means I can continue being straight, right? Cuz being gay does not interest me. I'm just a vagina lovin kind of guy. Perhaps you meant another member. Care to revise that posting?

Perhaps if you read the post I was responding to, you'll get what I responding to. I took Derideo as saying you were gay, with nothing other than that to work off of I responded in due kind. I missed that very last point "are you intolerant of him as you are gays?" Now that I know, I will rescind any insinuations that were made in that particular part of my post.

Ah, I am seeing the context now. Not so sure why Derideo Te used me as an example. Must be some confusion. I am a single father, that is true. Divorced since 2010. But being divorced doesn't make one gay, it just makes one divorced. Plus, he never wrote that I was gay, he wrote something to the effect that I am not in a heterosexual marriage, which is correct, for I am not in a marriage at all, and after the last one, probably won't do it again. I can see that his wording must have been a little strange for you but I am sure he did not mean that in any way to confuse, either you or me.

And frankly, I wouldn't care if I were gay. But I'm not. In fact, right now I'm a little depressed that I had to cancel a date with a woman on Friday because extra work fell into my lap and I couldn't pass it up. Kind of a bummer. She is a terrific person and beautiful to boot. Sigh.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Expressing an opinion that someone should be fired is one thing. Trying to get somebody fired is quite a different thing.

I know the difference between these two things.

Do you?

Did you ever mean this thread to be objective? You've turned it into the most comical exercise in poorly disguised partisan hackery I think I've ever seen on this board.

She hasn't turned anything into "the most comical exercise in poorly disguised partisan hackery I (you) think I've ever seen on this board." You've spent the entirety of this thread trying to derail it, you were as a volcano of false equivalency. You don't have anything intelligent to add, simply cowardly acts of misdirection. And you accuse HER of partisan hackery?

You're one of the bigger partisan hacks on this board, carbine. You are a far cry from objective. In the spirit of what Foxfyre stands for, I will forgo negging you for making such an off base and patently egregious remark about someone. She wants tolerance? Here's my tolerance.

List ten times I've been proven factually wrong on this board.

 

[Sunshine]

Did you ever mean this thread to be objective? You've turned it into the most comical exercise in poorly disguised partisan hackery I think I've ever seen on this board.

She hasn't turned anything into "the most comical exercise in poorly disguised partisan hackery I (you) think I've ever seen on this board." You've spent the entirety of this thread trying to derail it, you were as a volcano of false equivalency. You don't have anything intelligent to add, simply cowardly acts of misdirection. And you accuse HER of partisan hackery?

You're one of the bigger partisan hacks on this board, carbine. You are a far cry from objective. In the spirit of what Foxfyre stands for, I will forgo negging you for making such an off base and patently egregious remark about someone. She wants tolerance? Here's my tolerance.

List ten times I've been proven factually wrong on this board.

More times than that in this one:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...re-is-nyc-s-list-of-christian-terrorists.html

 

[TemplarKormac]

[MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION] - uhm, ok, thanks. So, that means I can continue being straight, right? Cuz being gay does not interest me. I'm just a vagina lovin kind of guy. Perhaps you meant another member. Care to revise that posting?

Perhaps if you read the post I was responding to, you'll get what I responding to. I took Derideo as saying you were gay, with nothing other than that to work off of I responded in due kind. I missed that very last point "are you intolerant of him as you are gays?" Now that I know, I will rescind any insinuations that were made in that particular part of my post.

Ah, I am seeing the context now. Not so sure why Derideo Te used me as an example. Must be some confusion. I am a single father, that is true. Divorced since 2010. But being divorced doesn't make one gay, it just makes one divorced. Plus, he never wrote that I was gay, he wrote something to the effect that I am not in a heterosexual marriage, which is correct, for I am not in a marriage at all, and after the last one, probably won't do it again. I can see that his wording must have been a little strange for you but I am sure he did not mean that in any way to confuse, either you or me.

And frankly, I wouldn't care if I were gay. But I'm not. In fact, right now I'm a little depressed that I had to cancel a date with a woman on Friday because extra work fell into my lap and I couldn't pass it up. Kind of a bummer. She is a terrific person and beautiful to boot. Sigh.

Daw. I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not accusing Derideo of anything, just admitting that I misread his statement.

FYI: There are 3.4 billion women in this world, surely there will be another one for you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Expressing an opinion that someone should be fired is one thing. Trying to get somebody fired is quite a different thing.

I know the difference between these two things.

Do you?

I know conservatives tried to get Bill Maher fired. Where's your defense of him?[/QUOTE]

And of course, the rightwing nuts in the thread fall silent, thus proving I am right,

this thread is nothing more than garden variety rightwing hackery.

 

[Kosh]

Did you ever mean this thread to be objective? You've turned it into the most comical exercise in poorly disguised partisan hackery I think I've ever seen on this board.

She hasn't turned anything into "the most comical exercise in poorly disguised partisan hackery I (you) think I've ever seen on this board." You've spent the entirety of this thread trying to derail it, you were as a volcano of false equivalency. You don't have anything intelligent to add, simply cowardly acts of misdirection. And you accuse HER of partisan hackery?

You're one of the bigger partisan hacks on this board, carbine. You are a far cry from objective. In the spirit of what Foxfyre stands for, I will forgo negging you for making such an off base and patently egregious remark about someone. She wants tolerance? Here's my tolerance.

List ten times I've been proven factually wrong on this board.

You are a far left Obama drone 99.9% of what you post is incorrect/wrong.

Unless you are finally going to admit that you are programmed bot and you are as only as good as your programming.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay guys. Amidst the mea culpa's, including my own , let's don't get sidetracked into another discussion on another thread here unless it is directly pertinent to this topic. Dragging the train back onto the tracks. Unrelated side discussions might best be taken to PMs.

Re the mea culpa's, having been a facilitator in conflict management, I was required to take some training before embarking on that very part time avocation. The first thing they taught us is to be SURE of what the other person is saying before you accuse or deny or blame or criticize or pounce on him/her. I think sometimes in these threads we get excited and scan posts too quickly, or zero in on a particular word or phrase and ignore the rest of the post that would strongly qualify that word or phrase. And that doesn't even consider those of us who sometimes write in a kind of code that isn't immediately translatable. Or the inadvertent auto-correct or typo or omitted qualifier that we don't see until we have already been misunderstood. And I have certainly been as guilty as anybody in misterpreting what somebody intended to say.

The suggestion therefore is to carefully read what somebody else has said before we respond to it. If there is any question, give the person benefit of the doubt and opportunity to repeat or reword the statement to clarify.

To clarify the thread topic:

It is on the subject of tolerance and allowing people to be who they are.

 

[NYcarbineer]

She hasn't turned anything into "the most comical exercise in poorly disguised partisan hackery I (you) think I've ever seen on this board." You've spent the entirety of this thread trying to derail it, you were as a volcano of false equivalency. You don't have anything intelligent to add, simply cowardly acts of misdirection. And you accuse HER of partisan hackery?

You're one of the bigger partisan hacks on this board, carbine. You are a far cry from objective. In the spirit of what Foxfyre stands for, I will forgo negging you for making such an off base and patently egregious remark about someone. She wants tolerance? Here's my tolerance.

List ten times I've been proven factually wrong on this board.

More times than that in this one:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...re-is-nyc-s-list-of-christian-terrorists.html

And which ones of those weren't Christians? And don't make the circular argument that they can't be Christians because real Christians aren't terrorists.

PS. Negged for falsely accusing me of lying.

 

[Vox]

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



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?

I do not entirely agree with those definitions, but let's go with them anyway.

Okay PR was intolerant because of how he views homosexuality.
GLAAD is intolerant because of how they view PR's Christian beliefs.

PR, however, is tolerant of GLAAD's intolerance because he does not seek to silence GLAAD or punish them in any way or harm or discriminate against any person who happens to be gay. He simply expressed his opinion about what he believes the Bible to teach about homosexuality and his personal views about it.

GLAAD was not content to rebut PR's opinion or express their own views. They DID seek to punish, materially damage, hurt PR, not because of any action or threat to GLAAD or anybody else, but purely because he expressed an opinion they didn't like.

And in my point of view, GLAAD's kind of intolerance should NOT be tolerated by any of us who appreciate liberty and/or the right to be who we are when we are not harming or huting anybody else.

Tolerance does not mean agreement or acceptance to me. It means that we allow others to be who and what they are even if we do not agree with their lifestyle or what they believe and profess.

Ok, we are coming closer. The use of financial boycotting and/or firing is not unique to GLAAD. As provided in another post the NRA has done both to those who have expressed their opinions that are contrary to the NRA's stance. If you wish to condemn GLAAD then in all fairness you must condemn the NRA for hurting/harming their opponents financially.

The only reason I don't consider financial harm to be relevant is because it is used by both sides and it is currently treated as being part of "free speech" under the latest SCOTUS ruling. (Personally I disagree with that ruling but since it is now legal I give it a pass.)

Real harm stems from physical violence and threats of violence that can cause mental harm. That is where the line must be drawn. GLAAD calling for PR to be fired was not harming him under the current SCOTUS interpretation. However if GLAAD had issued death threats then they would have crossed the line. What is interesting is that death threats have been issued by those defending PR against the president of A&E. I can and do condemn those who are threatening actual violence now.

Except they DID NOT.

providing money for political candidates so they can be ELECTED instead of the others is not the same as blackmailing sponsors and employers to terminate the employment of somebody they hate.

If you do not understand the difference - nothing will make you understand, as you are just defending "your guys"