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

[Derideo_Te]

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"

I suggest that you keep your regular job as a projectionist at the local movie theater.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Interesting, you focus all your hatred and blame on GLAAD, yet it was a very powerful corporate executive who made the decision.

A decision the corporate executive would never have made had it not been the pressure applied by GLAAD.

The topic is tolerance. GLAAD wants tolerance for its members--tolerance that allows gays and lesbians be who and what they are and not be punished for that. It was GLAAD who would not extend the same tolerance to Phil Robertson and allow Robertson to be who and what he is.

PROOF?

SO, as long as gays are denigrated and their lifestyle is compared to bestiality, and they remain SILENT, that is your version of tolerance.

Do you think Sean Hannity giving out the numbers on the air of Dubuc and A&E Chairwoman Abbe Raven should be tolerated?

That’s clearly the right’s position.

If you’re gay or belong to another minority and you’re subject to a hateful, ignorant attack of lies, you’re supposed to just shut up, stay quite, and take the abuse without protest – because that’s the consequence of being a minority, particularly if you’re hated by so many as are gays.

 

[candycorn]

But this thread isn't about the NRA is it? Therefore I will dismiss this argument absent consideration. You disrespect the author of this OP by spouting irrelevance.

Reread the title of this thread and tell me where and how it excludes certain particular examples of tolerance/intolerance.

Are you claiming that despite the general principle appearance of the OP, Foxfyre was really just using that as a subterfuge to make another DD specific partisan attack on those who didn't like what Phil Robertson said?

Like I said, I will not address any further irrelevance from you. What the NRA did was and is not an example of tolerance and intolerance, it was advocacy done right. They didn't have someone silenced because they disagreed with them. Now if you can't distinguish between the two, I'm sorry, I can't help you.

Neither did GLAAD. This guy from DD can still say whatever he wants. He wasn't saying it on the show so he wasn't silenced in the least.

 

[candycorn]

and yet... I don't care.

And yet....I don't care that you don't care....

An example of apathy, am I right?

I would have to work up enough interest to know wha that guy is for me to exercise apathy.

 

[candycorn]

Exactly as I predicted.

There is a "fish in the barrel" aspect to this isn't there?

We're running out of fish.

Sad that you're so blinded by your smugness that you don't see you're the fish.

Sad that you're so blinded by ignorance that you don't see that people like Robertson who compare lifestyles to Beastiality are on the wrong side of history. Evolution is a great thing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But this thread isn't about the NRA is it? Therefore I will dismiss this argument absent consideration. You disrespect the author of this OP by spouting irrelevance.

Reread the title of this thread and tell me where and how it excludes certain particular examples of tolerance/intolerance.

Are you claiming that despite the general principle appearance of the OP, Foxfyre was really just using that as a subterfuge to make another DD specific partisan attack on those who didn't like what Phil Robertson said?

Like I said, I will not address any further irrelevance from you. What the NRA did was and is not an example of tolerance and intolerance, it was advocacy done right. They didn't have someone silenced because they disagreed with them. Now if you can't distinguish between the two, I'm sorry, I can't help you.

This doesn’t make any sense.

No one is being ‘silenced.’

What is it with the right and this bizarre misperception?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

A decision the corporate executive would never have made had it not been the pressure applied by GLAAD.

The topic is tolerance. GLAAD wants tolerance for its members--tolerance that allows gays and lesbians be who and what they are and not be punished for that. It was GLAAD who would not extend the same tolerance to Phil Robertson and allow Robertson to be who and what he is.

PROOF?

SO, as long as gays are denigrated and their lifestyle is compared to bestiality, and they remain SILENT, that is your version of tolerance.

Do you think Sean Hannity giving out the numbers on the air of Dubuc and A&E Chairwoman Abbe Raven should be tolerated?

That’s clearly the right’s position.

If you’re gay or belong to another minority and you’re subject to a hateful, ignorant attack of lies, you’re supposed to just shut up, stay quite, and take the abuse without protest – because that’s the consequence of being a minority, particularly if you’re hated by so many as are gays.

Nobody is saying the GLAAD should shut up, stay quiet and take abuse without protest.
What is wrong with you authoritarian types and this bizarre misconception?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

And yet....I don't care that you don't care....

An example of apathy, am I right?

I would have to work up enough interest to know wha that guy is for me to exercise apathy.

Less talking, more cooking!

 

[candycorn]

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 other by our preconceived standards, lest we be judged by those same standards om 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.

Can you watch and comment on the parts of the Bible discussed below?

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

@TemplarKormac...please respond to underlined request above.

 

[candycorn]

An example of apathy, am I right?

I would have to work up enough interest to know wha that guy is for me to exercise apathy.

Less talking, more cooking!

Less idiocy, more....well you have no talent outside of the idiocy. Nevermind.

 

[Antares]

I would have to work up enough interest to know wha that guy is for me to exercise apathy.

Less talking, more cooking!

Less idiocy, more....well you have no talent outside of the idiocy. Nevermind.

Besides sleeping around what "talent" do you have?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I would have to work up enough interest to know wha that guy is for me to exercise apathy.

Less talking, more cooking!

Less idiocy, more....well you have no talent outside of the idiocy. Nevermind.

What are you? Some sort of anti-idiot bigot? You should be suspended from work for your intolerant filthy hate speech!

 

[candycorn]

Less talking, more cooking!

Less idiocy, more....well you have no talent outside of the idiocy. Nevermind.

What are you? Some sort of anti-idiot bigot? You should be suspended from work for your intolerant filthy hate speech!

I don't embarass my employer. If you're self employed, you do however.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Less idiocy, more....well you have no talent outside of the idiocy. Nevermind.

What are you? Some sort of anti-idiot bigot? You should be suspended from work for your intolerant filthy hate speech!

I don't embarass my employer. If you're self employed, you do however.

Phil Robertson wouldn't have embarrassed his employer either if he had released his insulting remarks on an online site under an assumed name where hate speech can be fun and safe.
Now can the Henny Youngman one liners and make me some damn pancakes!

 

[Mac1958]

What are you? Some sort of anti-idiot bigot? You should be suspended from work for your intolerant filthy hate speech!

I don't embarass my employer. If you're self employed, you do however.

Phil Robertson wouldn't have embarrassed his employer either if he had released his insulting remarks on an online site under an assumed name where hate speech can not only be fun but safe.

Oh, bravo. Well put.

.

 

[candycorn]

What are you? Some sort of anti-idiot bigot? You should be suspended from work for your intolerant filthy hate speech!

I don't embarass my employer. If you're self employed, you do however.

Phil Robertson wouldn't have embarrassed his employer either if he had released his insulting remarks on an online site under an assumed name where hate speech can be fun and safe.
Now can the Henny Youngman one liners and make me some damn pancakes!

As I've always said about the GOP:


To women..."Make me some Pie."
To minorities..."Serve my pie."
To the poor..."Get your own pie"
To the non-christians..."IF you were a "real" American, you'd agree our pie is best.

I guess all crazy stereotypes have some truth to them.

 

[Antares]

I don't embarass my employer. If you're self employed, you do however.

Phil Robertson wouldn't have embarrassed his employer either if he had released his insulting remarks on an online site under an assumed name where hate speech can be fun and safe.
Now can the Henny Youngman one liners and make me some damn pancakes!

As I've always said about the GOP:


To women..."Make me some Pie."
To minorities..."Serve my pie."
To the poor..."Get your own pie"
To the non-christians..."IF you were a "real" American, you'd agree our pie is best.

I guess all crazy stereotypes have some truth to them.

As I've always said about Candy:

"So many men and women, so little time."

 

[Sunshine]

A decision the corporate executive would never have made had it not been the pressure applied by GLAAD.

The topic is tolerance. GLAAD wants tolerance for its members--tolerance that allows gays and lesbians be who and what they are and not be punished for that. It was GLAAD who would not extend the same tolerance to Phil Robertson and allow Robertson to be who and what he is.

PROOF?

SO, as long as gays are denigrated and their lifestyle is compared to bestiality, and they remain SILENT, that is your version of tolerance.

Do you think Sean Hannity giving out the numbers on the air of Dubuc and A&E Chairwoman Abbe Raven should be tolerated?

That’s clearly the right’s position.

If you’re gay or belong to another minority and you’re subject to a hateful, ignorant attack of lies, you’re supposed to just shut up, stay quite, and take the abuse without protest – because that’s the consequence of being a minority, particularly if you’re hated by so many as are gays.

Case examples self professed lawyer? I didn't think so.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Reread the title of this thread and tell me where and how it excludes certain particular examples of tolerance/intolerance.

Are you claiming that despite the general principle appearance of the OP, Foxfyre was really just using that as a subterfuge to make another DD specific partisan attack on those who didn't like what Phil Robertson said?

Like I said, I will not address any further irrelevance from you. What the NRA did was and is not an example of tolerance and intolerance, it was advocacy done right. They didn't have someone silenced because they disagreed with them. Now if you can't distinguish between the two, I'm sorry, I can't help you.

Neither did GLAAD. This guy from DD can still say whatever he wants. He wasn't saying it on the show so he wasn't silenced in the least.

He was suspended. He was silenced. The NRA doesn't make a habit of targeting individuals for annihilation. Anyway, as much as you want it to be, the NRA is not relevant here.

 

[Bfgrn]

Like I said, I will not address any further irrelevance from you. What the NRA did was and is not an example of tolerance and intolerance, it was advocacy done right. They didn't have someone silenced because they disagreed with them. Now if you can't distinguish between the two, I'm sorry, I can't help you.

Neither did GLAAD. This guy from DD can still say whatever he wants. He wasn't saying it on the show so he wasn't silenced in the least.

He was suspended. He was silenced. The NRA doesn't make a habit of targeting individuals for annihilation. Anyway, as much as you want it to be, the NRA is not relevant here.

Of course they do.

The N.R.A. Protection Racket
By RICHARD W. PAINTER


The most blatant protection racket is orchestrated by the National Rifle Association, which is ruthless against candidates who are tempted to stray from its view that all gun regulations are pure evil. Debra Maggart, a Republican leader in the Tennessee House of Representatives, was one of its most recent victims. The N.R.A. spent around $100,000 to defeat her in the primary, because she would not support a bill that would have allowed people to keep guns locked in their cars on private property without the property owner’s consent.

The message to Republicans is clear: “We will help you get elected and protect your seat from Democrats. We will spend millions on ads that make your opponent look worse than the average holdup man robbing a liquor store. In return, we expect you to oppose any laws that regulate guns. These include laws requiring handgun registration, meaningful background checks on purchasers, limiting the right to carry concealed weapons, limiting access to semiautomatic weapons or anything else that would diminish the firepower available to anybody who wants it. And if you don’t comply, we will load our weapons and direct everything in our arsenal at you in the next Republican primary.”

NYTimes

Richard W. Painter, a professor of law at the University of Minnesota, was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007.