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

[Foxfyre]

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.

The difference is that Boop was making a legitimate observation and commenting on it. She was not presuming to disallow me to hold and/or express the opinion I appeared to express. Nor did she neg rep me or report me or otherwise try to 'hurt' me in any way. She had a legitimate gripe with what I said and/or how I said it, and said so. That, in my view is legitimate. It would have been legitimate even if she was wrong. Alas, in this case she happened to be right.

I would have had zero criticism of GLAAD if they had made a formal statement criticizing Phil Robertson's point of view and stating their own version of what is true about gays and lesbians. That way they would allow PR to be who and what he is without condoning or accepting what he said. I am on the record that I don't agree with what PR said or how he said it either. How could I possibly fault GLAAD for taking issue with it?

But where I take issue with GLAAD, is that they were not content just to rebut what PR said. They took it upon themselves to apply their resources and influence to materially punish him, hurt him, and/or destroy him. Not because he had any power or was seeking power to hurt them. Not because he wished any harm upon them or encouraged anyone to hate or despise them. They sought to hurt him purely because he expressed an opinion they didn't like.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Now let's return to discussing Fox's OP. We owe her to.

Yes, let's look on the bright side of life!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ]Always Look On The Bright Side of Life - YouTube[/ame]


(Scuse moi, Fyrefox!!!)

 

[Foxfyre]

Won't 'scuse it, dear Stat. Is is highly offensive to me. And very much off topic.

But I love you anyway.

 

[The T]

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

@Foxfyre

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.

The difference is that Boop was making a legitimate observation and commenting on it. She was not presuming to disallow me to hold and/or express the opinion I appeared to express. Nor did she neg rep me or report me or otherwise try to 'hurt' me in any way. She had a legitimate gripe with what I said and/or how I said it, and said so. That, in my view is legitimate. It would have been legitimate even if she was wrong. Alas, in this case she happened to be right.

I would have had zero criticism of GLAAD if they had made a formal statement criticizing Phil Robertson's point of view and stating their own version of what is true about gays and lesbians. That way they would allow PR to be who and what he is without condoning or accepting what he said. I am on the record that I don't agree with what PR said or how he said it either. How could I possibly fault GLAAD for taking issue with it?

But where I take issue with GLAAD, is that they were not content just to rebut what PR said. They took it upon themselves to apply their resources and influence to materially punish him, hurt him, and/or destroy him. Not because he had any power or was seeking power to hurt them. Not because he wished any harm upon them or encouraged anyone to hate or despise them. They sought to hurt him purely because he expressed an opinion they didn't like.

In other words, they impeded PR's Liberty for political gain as to further their cause of FORCED acceptance...which IS intolerant, AND a crime in of itself in a free society.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

The difference is that Boop was making a legitimate observation and commenting on it. She was not presuming to disallow me to hold and/or express the opinion I appeared to express. Nor did she neg rep me or report me or otherwise try to 'hurt' me in any way. She had a legitimate gripe with what I said and/or how I said it, and said so. That, in my view is legitimate. It would have been legitimate even if she was wrong. Alas, in this case she happened to be right.

I would have had zero criticism of GLAAD if they had made a formal statement criticizing Phil Robertson's point of view and stating their own version of what is true about gays and lesbians. That way they would allow PR to be who and what he is without condoning or accepting what he said. I am on the record that I don't agree with what PR said or how he said it either. How could I possibly fault GLAAD for taking issue with it?

But where I take issue with GLAAD, is that they were not content just to rebut what PR said. They took it upon themselves to apply their resources and influence to materially punish him, hurt him, and/or destroy him. Not because he had any power or was seeking power to hurt them. Not because he wished any harm upon them or encouraged anyone to hate or despise them. They sought to hurt him purely because he expressed an opinion they didn't like.

Point taken where you and BD are concerned. Mea culpa. It's that being the absolutist I am, I see opinions as the personal property of the owner, not to be changed or altered by anyone but the owner. Black and white as it may seem, there it is.

Alas, GLAAD took all that time to destroy a man, but all it did was unite their own supporters against them. There are gays out there who are TRUE victims of intolerance; so they must have seen what PR said to be rather harmless in comparison. The determination of tolerance is best left up to those who have experienced the lack thereof firsthand.

 

[Vox]

Maybe they're explaining it that badly. Perhaps the question is "Do words hurt?" If someone walked up to me on the street and told me I was ugly, that would be an opinion and it's up to me to deal with that if I don't like it.

But perhaps things become different when discrimination becomes institutionalized across the country. We cannot deny that that has been the case for gay people in our country for some time. Does feeding into the culture of bigotry against gay people create an actual harm?

except quite the opposite is going on - a militant bigoted gay group is threatening individuals all over the country - you must accept me or we will destroy you.

there are no more aggressively intolerant, bigoted and hateful people in nowadays USA as the gay and lesbian activist groups such as GLAAD - they are an example of what the hate and bigotry today looks like.
Nobody else.

While I think you and I might be pretty much on the same page, Vox, I think SwimExpert posed a question that deserves a closer look. It was a serious and important question.

Is it somehow different or more painful to say something negative or erroneous or unkind about a group that has suffered extreme discrimination such as the gay and lesbian community--I don't think anybody could honestly say there is widespread discrimination now--than it is to say something negative or erroneous or unkind about fundamentalist Christians who perhaps get the most negative press of any single group other than the Tea Party?

Who would be more objectionable? The gay group who tries to get a fundamentalist Christian fired when he states his Christian beliefs about homosexuality in an interview?

- or -

The Christian group who tries to get a gay guy fired when he states his beliefs about fundamentalist Christianity in an interview?

And is there a difference between these two circumstances?

it is an interesting question, however I do not think that you can compare the two( organizations) because TP is not a group think - it is a very loose associated community of individuals, the activist gay groups are group think.

persecution is always PERSONAL. So is forgiveness. and acceptance.
Activism is collectivist by it's nature.

Since the groups differ fundamentally by their mental origin they will not be possible to compare, because both their perception of what is appropriate and what is hurtful and the response to it will be different.

that's why you don't see too many lawsuits or hateful activism from the conservative groups - because their perception differs and they are not so toxic as the left groups are.

Even this discussion proves this - the left was not able to provide ANY comparable examples of the vile hate like GLAAD exhibits on the conservative side - NONE.
All they could provide were the actions on POLITICAL figures in the ELECTION process - which is laughable, because it just proves that the left does not understand the basic difference between individual and elected official.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

WOW, criminal? WHAT charge? WHAT law did they break??

You just LOST the 'tolerance' debate.

The operative term is "should." Knowing such things will never happen, she is tolerant of their methods. She didn't lose anything. She keeps her objectivity. The only thing she lacks (and fortunately so) is a sense of pomposity, or a need to feel self important.

"should", under what statute or law? What is truly ironic; this is a private matter. And WHO wants to wield the power of GOVERNMENT? The right.

Another loss for you brainless folks.

 

[Vox]

WOW, criminal? WHAT charge? WHAT law did they break??

You just LOST the 'tolerance' debate.

The operative term is "should." Knowing such things will never happen, she is tolerant of their methods. She didn't lose anything. She keeps her objectivity. The only thing she lacks (and fortunately so) is a sense of pomposity, or a need to feel self important.

"should", under what statute or law? What is truly ironic; this is a private matter. And WHO wants to wield the power of GOVERNMENT? The right.

Another loss for you brainless folks.

Harassment.

 

[TemplarKormac]

WOW, criminal? WHAT charge? WHAT law did they break??

You just LOST the 'tolerance' debate.

The operative term is "should." Knowing such things will never happen, she is tolerant of their methods. She didn't lose anything. She keeps her objectivity. The only thing she lacks (and fortunately so) is a sense of pomposity, or a need to feel self important.

"should", under what statute or law? What is truly ironic; this is a private matter. And WHO wants to wield the power of GOVERNMENT? The right.

Another loss for you brainless folks.

Stop trolling, dammit. All you, candy, and carbine have been doing for the past two hours is trolling Fox's thread. Can you not offer any cogent responses? Or are you too gutless to do otherwise? What you're doing is cowardly. It contributes nothing to the pertinent discourse of this thread.

 

[The T]

WOW, criminal? WHAT charge? WHAT law did they break??

You just LOST the 'tolerance' debate.

The operative term is "should." Knowing such things will never happen, she is tolerant of their methods. She didn't lose anything. She keeps her objectivity. The only thing she lacks (and fortunately so) is a sense of pomposity, or a need to feel self important.

"should", under what statute or law? What is truly ironic; this is a private matter. And WHO wants to wield the power of GOVERNMENT? The right.

Another loss for you brainless folks.

The GAY groups do it all the time. USE the power of government to further their agenda of forced acceptance. And THE RIGHT wants LESS Government. WHOM are you trying to kid anyway. Your statement is FALSE on it's face, in the middle and all around. It is the LEFT that uses the power of legislation/Government to usurp Liberty.

 

[Bfgrn]

The operative term is "should." Knowing such things will never happen, she is tolerant of their methods. She didn't lose anything. She keeps her objectivity. The only thing she lacks (and fortunately so) is a sense of pomposity, or a need to feel self important.

"should", under what statute or law? What is truly ironic; this is a private matter. And WHO wants to wield the power of GOVERNMENT? The right.

Another loss for you brainless folks.

Stop trolling, dammit. All you, candy, and carbine have been doing for the past two hours is trolling Fox's thread. Can you not offer any cogent responses? Or are you too gutless to do otherwise? What you're doing is cowardly. It contributes nothing to the pertinent discourse of this thread.

I have contributed actual cogent responses. What have you contributed? Fruit?

 

[Bfgrn]

The operative term is "should." Knowing such things will never happen, she is tolerant of their methods. She didn't lose anything. She keeps her objectivity. The only thing she lacks (and fortunately so) is a sense of pomposity, or a need to feel self important.

"should", under what statute or law? What is truly ironic; this is a private matter. And WHO wants to wield the power of GOVERNMENT? The right.

Another loss for you brainless folks.

The GAY groups do it all the time. USE the power of government to further their agenda of forced acceptance. And THE RIGHT wants LESS Government. WHOM are you trying to kid anyway. Your statement is FALSE on it's face, in the middle and all around. It is the LEFT that uses the power of legislation/Government to usurp Liberty.

If only the FACTS supported your ignorant dogma. This is a PRIVATE matter. If you want to make what GLAAD did a CRIMINAL matter, you have NO CHOICE but involve GOVERNMENT. Those are the FACTS pea brain.

 

[The T]

"should", under what statute or law? What is truly ironic; this is a private matter. And WHO wants to wield the power of GOVERNMENT? The right.

Another loss for you brainless folks.

Stop trolling, dammit. All you, candy, and carbine have been doing for the past two hours is trolling Fox's thread. Can you not offer any cogent responses? Or are you too gutless to do otherwise? What you're doing is cowardly. It contributes nothing to the pertinent discourse of this thread.

I have contributed actual cogent responses. What have you contributed? Fruit?

Son? You have contributed unadulterated garbage. You have zero clue about the thread but to blame, minimize, deny obfuscate that which you loathe.

Try again, and on topic this time?

 

[The T]

"should", under what statute or law? What is truly ironic; this is a private matter. And WHO wants to wield the power of GOVERNMENT? The right.

Another loss for you brainless folks.

The GAY groups do it all the time. USE the power of government to further their agenda of forced acceptance. And THE RIGHT wants LESS Government. WHOM are you trying to kid anyway. Your statement is FALSE on it's face, in the middle and all around. It is the LEFT that uses the power of legislation/Government to usurp Liberty.

If only the FACTS supported your ignorant dogma. This is a PRIVATE matter. If you want to make what GLAAD did a CRIMINAL matter, you have NO CHOICE but involve GOVERNMENT. Those are the FACTS pea brain.

truth is dogma? Really? WOOF!

 

[Vox]

The operative term is "should." Knowing such things will never happen, she is tolerant of their methods. She didn't lose anything. She keeps her objectivity. The only thing she lacks (and fortunately so) is a sense of pomposity, or a need to feel self important.

"should", under what statute or law? What is truly ironic; this is a private matter. And WHO wants to wield the power of GOVERNMENT? The right.

Another loss for you brainless folks.

Stop trolling, dammit. All you, candy, and carbine have been doing for the past two hours is trolling Fox's thread. Can you not offer any cogent responses? Or are you too gutless to do otherwise? What you're doing is cowardly. It contributes nothing to the pertinent discourse of this thread.

I'll give them benefit of the doubt and admit that they, most probably, do not understand the difference between the examples and accusations they are providing and the depth of the questions and distinctions Foxy posted and is very politely discussing throughout the thread.
Some on the left are able to get to the same level, but not many. Exactly because the fundamental differences how the left and the right views the world and others around them. Plus levels of competence differ as well.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

To clarify the topic, it is on the subject of tolerance and allowing people to be who and what they are.

Why are you telling me and not Sunshine?

So,

what's your opinion of the attempts by the Right to silence Bill Maher, Al Sharpton, and Ed Schultz?

Those attacks are no different than GLAAD's.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yep. When I say 'should', that is my opinion. I think what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson SHOULD be illegal. It SHOULD be considered sufficiently wrong that it should be against the law to intentionally target somebody and attempt to materially harm them for nothing more than expressing an opinion that somebody didn't agree with. When any person or group is allowed to do that to another person or group with impunity, we have no rights left.

 

[The T]

Yep. When I say 'should', that is my opinion. I think what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson SHOULD be illegal. It SHOULD be considered sufficiently wrong that it should be against the law to intentionally target somebody and attempt to materially harm them for nothing more than expressing an opinion that somebody didn't agree with. When any person or group is allowed to do that to another person or group with impunity, we have no rights left.

It should be a lot like TORT reform. prove your case in court to take another citizen's liberty from them, or pay the cost of the proceeding. I think PR has a good case to go against these people, but him being a Christian man? I think he will turn the other cheek, and move on.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yep. When I say 'should', that is my opinion. I think what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson SHOULD be illegal. It SHOULD be considered sufficiently wrong that it should be against the law to intentionally target somebody and attempt to materially harm them for nothing more than expressing an opinion that somebody didn't agree with. When any person or group is allowed to do that to another person or group with impunity, we have no rights left.

So if you COULD, you would wield the power of GOVERNMENT against GLAAD.

Sure sounds like what you love to accuse liberals of. But THAT is different, right FF?

 

[TemplarKormac]

"should", under what statute or law? What is truly ironic; this is a private matter. And WHO wants to wield the power of GOVERNMENT? The right.

Another loss for you brainless folks.

Stop trolling, dammit. All you, candy, and carbine have been doing for the past two hours is trolling Fox's thread. Can you not offer any cogent responses? Or are you too gutless to do otherwise? What you're doing is cowardly. It contributes nothing to the pertinent discourse of this thread.

I have contributed actual cogent responses. What have you contributed? Fruit?

I've contributed a hell of a lot more than you, fruitcake.