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

[NYcarbineer]

Tolerance cannot be a one way street. If we expect others to allow us to be who and what we are no matter how much they think we are wrong or do not agree with our beliefs, opinions, or lifestyle, then the same courtesy must be extended to others.

Phil Robertson believes the Bible teaches a particular concept re homosexuality. But he does not suggest that homosexuals should not be allowed to live as they choose, say what they think, be who they are. He is adamently opposed to disrespecting or harming gay people in any way.

How about you reconcile your claim about Robertson with his own words from 2010:


"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

As you see, FF doesn't want to debate the points she can't win.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tolerance cannot be a one way street. If we expect others to allow us to be who and what we are no matter how much they think we are wrong or do not agree with our beliefs, opinions, or lifestyle, then the same courtesy must be extended to others.

Phil Robertson believes the Bible teaches a particular concept re homosexuality. But he does not suggest that homosexuals should not be allowed to live as they choose, say what they think, be who they are. He is adamently opposed to disrespecting or harming gay people in any way.

How about you reconcile your claim about Robertson with his own words from 2010:


"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

you ignorant idiot it was not HIS words and it was already pointed out to you, but you are too stupid to realize it and parade your ignorance yet again

the leftardism IS a mental disorder

If you can prove he didn't say that, then I and several hundred websites quoting it will stand corrected.

Otherwise fuck off.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When have you ever seen conservatives defend a liberal's 'free speech rights' with the amount of frenzied zeal that they are putting into this defense of this guy Robertson?

I'll help you. The answer is never.

So keep in mind, as much as they might claim to stand on 'principles', they are not.

This is not about conservatives being principled; this is all about conservatives having embraced hypocrisy, inconsistency, and double standards as just more weapons to use in the cause.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Some here don't seem to be getting it so far as my and most of our arguments are concerned. The issue is not whether we agree with or approve of what Robertson said or how he said it. (I attribute that to reading dysfuncion as I don't know how many times now that I've said I don't agree with Robertson'a interpretation of what the Bible teaches nor do I approve of the way he said it in that particular bruhaha.)

That is not the point.

Nor do I see this as a free speech issue. That is not the point either.

The point here is the issue of tolerance: the unalienable right of each of us to be who and what we are with impunity so long as we do not interfere with the rights of others.

There is no right to be 'accepted' by anybody. There is no right for Robertson's fundamentalist views to be accepted or acceptable to GLAAD than there is a right for gay people to be seen as no different from heterosexuals by a Phil Robertson. But if there is tolerance, each is allowed their own opinions and point of view by the other. Each is allowed to be who and what he is/they are.

To seek to threaten, punish, hurt, and/or destroy somebody for no other reason than they express an opinion you don't like is pure evil.

Then you're pure evil for wanting to criminalize what GLAAD did.

Did you just call her "pure evil"? You made her point for her, Carbine. You would do well not to put words in other people's mouths.

 

[Vox]

How about you reconcile your claim about Robertson with his own words from 2010:


"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

you ignorant idiot it was not HIS words and it was already pointed out to you, but you are too stupid to realize it and parade your ignorance yet again

the leftardism IS a mental disorder

If you can prove he didn't say that, then I and several hundred websites quoting it will stand corrected.

Otherwise fuck off.

you lying idiot it is the quote from his SERMON where he uses the quotes from the Bible.
But for the brainwashed ignorants like you are that is obviously the words of PR

 

[TemplarKormac]

When have you ever seen conservatives defend a liberal's 'free speech rights' with the amount of frenzied zeal that they are putting into this defense of this guy Robertson?

I'll help you. The answer is never.

So keep in mind, as much as they might claim to stand on 'principles', they are not.

This is not about conservatives being principled; this is all about conservatives having embraced hypocrisy, inconsistency, and double standards as just more weapons to use in the cause.

This whole "conservatives are evil, hypocritical and inconsistent" assertion proves her point yet again, since such assertion only applies to conservatives, not liberals. It speaks to your intolerance. You have such a biased view of the world that anyone who holds one view over another is as you described them. You are intolerant, accept it.

Liberals employ the same hypocrisy, inconsistency, and double standards, too. I can rattle off a list of Christians who have been targeted for their views on homosexuality, yet liberals preach of tolerance. Such behavior indicates a lack of tolerance, an obvious hypocrisy, and a glaring double standard. When a black liberal agrees with the other side, he is excoriated, labeled a traitor to the cause---just about any pejorative you can think of--simply for being a non partisan. Such can be said for a homosexual. There are gay conservatives, but from what I hear, they have their homosexuality question by all of the 'tolerant' liberals in America.

When have you seen a liberal defend a conservative's right to free speech with such passion and "frenzied zeal" as they have defended the rights of a black man or a gay man?

Let me help you.

The answer is never.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Some here don't seem to be getting it so far as my and most of our arguments are concerned. The issue is not whether we agree with or approve of what Robertson said or how he said it. (I attribute that to reading dysfuncion as I don't know how many times now that I've said I don't agree with Robertson'a interpretation of what the Bible teaches nor do I approve of the way he said it in that particular bruhaha.)

That is not the point.

Nor do I see this as a free speech issue. That is not the point either.

The point here is the issue of tolerance: the unalienable right of each of us to be who and what we are with impunity so long as we do not interfere with the rights of others.

There is no right to be 'accepted' by anybody. There is no right for Robertson's fundamentalist views to be accepted or acceptable to GLAAD than there is a right for gay people to be seen as no different from heterosexuals by a Phil Robertson. But if there is tolerance, each is allowed their own opinions and point of view by the other. Each is allowed to be who and what he is/they are.

To seek to threaten, punish, hurt, and/or destroy somebody for no other reason than they express an opinion you don't like is pure evil.

Then you're pure evil for wanting to criminalize what GLAAD did.

Did you just call her "pure evil"? You made her point for her, Carbine. You would do well not to put words in other people's mouths.

She described herself. Didn't you even read her post:

"To seek to threaten, punish, hurt, and/or destroy somebody for no other reason than they express an opinion you don't like is pure evil."

GLAAD expressed an opinion. FF earlier in this thread said GLAAD's actions should be criminalized. That would certainly qualify as seeking to punish somebody.

Therefore, by her own measuring stick and hers alone, FF is pure evil.

...so now you can be the weasel you are and deny that FF called for such criminalization, to try to force me to look it up and remind you,

and then you can run off, or else come up with some new weasel move.

 

[Statistikhengst]

When have you ever seen conservatives defend a liberal's 'free speech rights' with the amount of frenzied zeal that they are putting into this defense of this guy Robertson?

I'll help you. The answer is never.

So keep in mind, as much as they might claim to stand on 'principles', they are not.

This is not about conservatives being principled; this is all about conservatives having embraced hypocrisy, inconsistency, and double standards as just more weapons to use in the cause.

This whole "conservatives are evil, hypocritical and inconsistent" assertion proves her point yet again, since such assertion only applies to conservatives, not liberals. It speaks to your intolerance. You have such a biased view of the world that anyone who holds one view over another is as you described them. You are intolerant, accept it.

Liberals employ the same hypocrisy, inconsistency, and double standards, too. I can rattle off a list of Christians who have been targeted for their views on homosexuality, yet liberals preach of tolerance. Such behavior indicates a lack of tolerance, an obvious hypocrisy, and a glaring double standard.

When have you seen a liberal defend a conservative's right to free speech with such passion and "frenzied zeal" as they have defended the rights of a black man or a gay man?

Let me help you.

The answer is never.

I defend your right to free speech, without restrictions of any type at all...

 

[hunarcy]

She wrote naive blather. We live in a REAL world, not in her sheltered world.

Bfgrn is obviously here only to troll and flame. I have come to the conclusion that he's not worth the trouble to rebut.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Then you're pure evil for wanting to criminalize what GLAAD did.

Did you just call her "pure evil"? You made her point for her, Carbine. You would do well not to put words in other people's mouths.

She described herself. Didn't you even read her post:

"To seek to threaten, punish, hurt, and/or destroy somebody for no other reason than they express an opinion you don't like is pure evil."

GLAAD expressed an opinion. FF earlier in this thread said GLAAD's actions should be criminalized. That would certainly qualify as seeking to punish somebody.

Therefore, by her own measuring stick and hers alone, FF is pure evil.

...so now you can be the weasel you are and deny that FF called for such criminalization, to try to force me to look it up and remind you,

and then you can run off, or else come up with some new weasel move.

Carbine? What with all the name calling all of a sudden? Must I humble you?

Opinion- adj. A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Action - adj. Organized activity to accomplish an objective.

There is a huge difference between opinion and action. One isn't an action, but a belief. The other is acting on a belief. You can have your beliefs, but the actions arising from it may not be the least bit desirable to some.

The fact that you begrudge her the right to opine on her feelings of what GLAAD did is intolerant in and of itself. You are a hypocrite, carbine. I have never seen such a graceful reaffirmation of a point in my experiences in debating. You lost the moment you chose to call her names and distort her words. You lost the moment you made the implication that she was "evil" for having an opinion you disagreed with.

You were played like a fiddle, my friend.

 

[NYcarbineer]

you ignorant idiot it was not HIS words and it was already pointed out to you, but you are too stupid to realize it and parade your ignorance yet again

the leftardism IS a mental disorder

If you can prove he didn't say that, then I and several hundred websites quoting it will stand corrected.

Otherwise fuck off.

you lying idiot it is the quote from his SERMON where he uses the quotes from the Bible.
But for the brainwashed ignorants like you are that is obviously the words of PR

So because it was in a SERMON, we can assume he doesn't actually believe that.

What the fuck? Are you speaking Conservatopian or something, because you are making no sense whatsoever to normal people.

 

[TemplarKormac]

When have you ever seen conservatives defend a liberal's 'free speech rights' with the amount of frenzied zeal that they are putting into this defense of this guy Robertson?

I'll help you. The answer is never.

So keep in mind, as much as they might claim to stand on 'principles', they are not.

This is not about conservatives being principled; this is all about conservatives having embraced hypocrisy, inconsistency, and double standards as just more weapons to use in the cause.

This whole "conservatives are evil, hypocritical and inconsistent" assertion proves her point yet again, since such assertion only applies to conservatives, not liberals. It speaks to your intolerance. You have such a biased view of the world that anyone who holds one view over another is as you described them. You are intolerant, accept it.

Liberals employ the same hypocrisy, inconsistency, and double standards, too. I can rattle off a list of Christians who have been targeted for their views on homosexuality, yet liberals preach of tolerance. Such behavior indicates a lack of tolerance, an obvious hypocrisy, and a glaring double standard.

When have you seen a liberal defend a conservative's right to free speech with such passion and "frenzied zeal" as they have defended the rights of a black man or a gay man?

Let me help you.

The answer is never.

I defend your right to free speech, without restrictions of any type at all...

Likewise. But there are some ON BOTH SIDES who don't. Namely the person who thanked your post, carbine, candycorn and Bfgrn. They all react violently to differential opinions. God help someone if they disagree with homosexuality, God help someone if they are a Black Conservative Woman or Man, God help anyone who has not the same opinion as they do or approve of.

 

[hunarcy]

How about you reconcile your claim about Robertson with his own words from 2010:


"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

I would have hoped that, after your poor performance yesterday, you'd come in a bit more prepared today. But, you aren't.

Those aren't Phil Robertson's own words. He was reading a passage from the Bible, specifically Romans 1:26-32. Anything else?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I find it odd that liberals here are having to dig up dirt on the man simply to have a point. Unfortunately for them, what he said almost four years ago has no bearing on what has been said today. That sermon proves that A&E knew what they were getting when they signed him, which disproves the notion of this somehow being new to the public knowledge.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I buy the whole Bible, not just one Testament, dimwit.

You're the one citing parts of the Old Testament to justify you flawed views of my faith. You indirectly quoted Leviticus and Exodus with your little video. You accuse me of "adhering to a part of the Bible" when you only quote stuff from the Old Testament yourself; the only part you pro-gay liberals stick to. You say "don't cite what you don't believe" then why cite a Bible you don't believe in?

I doubt you're a Christian candycorn, so your statement is riddled, pockmarked with double standards. Save your self from embarrassment in the future, don't lecture me about A) a book you've only partially read, and B) a faith you aren't even apart of. If you really cared what the Bible taught, you'd take the time to read the entire book, not just parts of it that suit your political viewpoints.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged".

There is also a theological dispute between you and me on this.

Yeschuah said more than once and was quoted by more than one apostle:

"I have come not to take away even one whit of the law, but rather, to add to it" - which means that Halakhah (jewish law) should still apply to all Christians. That being said, law is constantly being re-interpreted all the time.

What I find to be totally hypocritical of many Christians vis-a-vis homosexuality is that they usually very quickly indicate that that most of the Old Testament laws don't really apply, since the Covenant of Jesus - in their words - replaces the old Abrahamic Covenant, and yet, they suddenly grab at two verses, one from Leviticus, one from Deuteronomy, to condemn homosexuality, forgetting all the time that Jesus himself never even said one word about it. Not only that, the verbage used in the hebrew and aramaic in those two verses are entirely different. But that would be stuff for an entirely different thread.

And finally, not a whole lot of love of fellow man coming out of many Christians when it comes to this. I don't see them condemning smokers or drinkers with the same intensity, in spite of fact that destroying the temple of God (a phrase to describe the human body in the OT) is a deadly sin.

Food for thought.

Actually, Stat, the Jewish law was not intended to make men right before God:












I admire your attempt at apologetics Stat, but this is what the Bible says about the Old Law. The ceremonial law is defunct. The moral law isn't. But the death penalty for not keeping the moral law has been paid for by the blood of Jesus Christ himself.

My reason for not following the ceremonial law in the Old Testament:

By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

-Hebrews 8:13

The New Testament covenantal system completely does away with what is deemed as "barbaric" practices by us today, in that day and age they weren't. They suited the times and the peoples for which they were written. You speak of judging, yet here you are judging the moral standards of the Old Testament. Simply put, in order for you to raise a valid objection against the moral statutes of the Old Testament, you must provide a standard by which such judgments can be made. You speak of judging, but judge Christians based on their "intolerance" of homosexuality. You speak of judgement, yet you don't quote the entire verse in Matthew 7: 1-6:

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

You speak of judgement, but judge any and all Christians by laws and commands that you yourself don't follow. Any pro-gay liberal who judges a Christian for his supposed intolerance should first address his own intolerance of said Christian's attitude towards homosexuality. Any Christian who mistreats or abuses a homosexual is wrong. Any homosexual who mistreats or abuses a Christian is wrong. Naturally those who abuse "God's temple" will have it taken from them, hence the sin of such being deadly. The punishment is clear, there is no need for us to go ballistic over it.

First, I am not going ballistic.

Second, you still did not address the direct quote of Jeshua from Matthew, I believe, 24 or 25....

I have not judged you. I challenge you. There is a difference. but you are smart, you knew that already.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Tolerance cannot be a one way street. If we expect others to allow us to be who and what we are no matter how much they think we are wrong or do not agree with our beliefs, opinions, or lifestyle, then the same courtesy must be extended to others.

Phil Robertson believes the Bible teaches a particular concept re homosexuality. But he does not suggest that homosexuals should not be allowed to live as they choose, say what they think, be who they are. He is adamently opposed to disrespecting or harming gay people in any way.

How about you reconcile your claim about Robertson with his own words from 2010:


"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

As you see, FF doesn't want to debate the points she can't win.

She doesn't want to debate anyone who can't debate the points she made in her OP. You would demand the same respect. So mean spirited you are.

 

[hunarcy]

Carbine? What with all the name calling all of a sudden? Must I humble you?

That's why he's angry and calling names. He made himself look like a fool and was humbled yesterday and can't come up with a more valid argument today, so he's frustrated and angry and taking it on FF because she's nice enough to take it and still treat him with civility.

He truly is working very hard to make himself appear to be an imbecile. It's sad to watch.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How about you reconcile your claim about Robertson with his own words from 2010:


"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

I would have hoped that, after your poor performance yesterday, you'd come in a bit more prepared today. But, you aren't.

Those aren't Phil Robertson's own words. He was reading a passage from the Bible, specifically Romans 1:26-32. Anything else?

Is this the start of a new defense...

...well, yeah, PR said that, but he doesn't really believe that...

that would not be at all surprising from the clowns around here.

 

[BDBoop]

Too bad TK and Hunarcy aren't striving for the example Foxy is setting. Whole lotta intolerance in this thread, for sure.

 

[Statistikhengst]

This whole "conservatives are evil, hypocritical and inconsistent" assertion proves her point yet again, since such assertion only applies to conservatives, not liberals. It speaks to your intolerance. You have such a biased view of the world that anyone who holds one view over another is as you described them. You are intolerant, accept it.

Liberals employ the same hypocrisy, inconsistency, and double standards, too. I can rattle off a list of Christians who have been targeted for their views on homosexuality, yet liberals preach of tolerance. Such behavior indicates a lack of tolerance, an obvious hypocrisy, and a glaring double standard.

When have you seen a liberal defend a conservative's right to free speech with such passion and "frenzied zeal" as they have defended the rights of a black man or a gay man?

Let me help you.

The answer is never.

I defend your right to free speech, without restrictions of any type at all...

Likewise. But there are some ON BOTH SIDES who don't. Namely the person who thanked your post, carbine, candycorn and Bfgrn. They all react violently to differential opinions. God help someone if they disagree with homosexuality, God help someone if they are a Black Conservative Woman or Man, God help anyone who has not the same opinion as they do or approve of.

Who is "they all"?

Define "violently", please...

Here I stand, a liberal who is tolerant of your views, and you think I react "violently"? Really?

Coconuts!