Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, in an attempt to be positive, here's what confuses me as to the OP. Suppose someone calls me "a fag." What is his expection that I will be civil?
That's because the OP is built on an invented false premise that was specifically designed to impugn liberals.
You're paranoid.
Indeed. But nobody ever said or implied anything of the sort.
So, it was nycarbineer's hyperbole?
No it was fact. I was referring to this Foxfyre quote:
"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."
http://www.usmessageboard.com/8338573-post437.html
And the first definition of 'deem' is:
1. to form or have an opinion; judge; think:
So shut up until you have something intelligent and honest to say.
EASY. Ignore their ignorance...YOU know you aren't. Show by example. TURN the other cheek...move on...Well, in an attempt to be positive, here's what confuses me as to the OP. Suppose someone calls me "a fag." What is his expection that I will be civil?
Let them know your distain by keeping right on doing what you are.EASY. Ignore their ignorance...YOU know you aren't. Show by example. TURN the other cheek...move on...Well, in an attempt to be positive, here's what confuses me as to the OP. Suppose someone calls me "a fag." What is his expection that I will be civil?
Why should I brook disrespect from anyone whom I didn't disprespect? Where's that in the social code? I learned early on that bullies bully until someone stands up. Win or lose, they lose if someone stands up.
And that goes for the the left or right.
Though, as far as the OP goes, I agree no one should have the right to require another approve of his or her lifestyle. But, once someone takes money to become a "personality," they can suffer a financial injury for their public statements.
Not to worry guys. I long ago made a pledge to myself to not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage myself in exercises of futility.
Several have failed to grasp the context of the thread topic. Perhaps this is on purpose. Perhaps they simply are not capable of grasping a subject that complex. Who knows?
But, they do give the rest of us an excellent opportunity to point out the intolerance they seem to embrace and keep restating the principles of what true tolerance is. I imagine we've been able to persuade a few folks to think about it in a more constructive way--at least think about it. Who knows? Maybe we will start a whole new common sense trend?
I also believe that if I am not able to defend my own beliefs and convictions, that they aren't much worth having are they. So I never mind anybody who challenges my point of view. So long as they challenge what I say and not what they want me to have said.And as long as they stay on topic and not what they want the topic to be.
That's because the OP is built on an invented false premise that was specifically designed to impugn liberals.
You're paranoid.
Then why are you insisting that organizing a boycott against A&E if they don't keep DD going is somehow different than GLAAD protesting A&E if they do keep it going.
How is one different than the other?
Both are an attempt to materially harm A&E because they disagree with an A&E business decision.
You condemned GLAAD. Now prove you're not a partisan hack by condemning the pro-PR boycott.
Well, in an attempt to be positive, here's what confuses me as to the OP. Suppose someone calls me "a fag." What is his expection that I will be civil?
Not to worry guys. I long ago made a pledge to myself to not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage myself in exercises of futility.
Several have failed to grasp the context of the thread topic. Perhaps this is on purpose. Perhaps they simply are not capable of grasping a subject that complex. Who knows?
But, they do give the rest of us an excellent opportunity to point out the intolerance they seem to embrace and keep restating the principles of what true tolerance is. I imagine we've been able to persuade a few folks to think about it in a more constructive way--at least think about it. Who knows? Maybe we will start a whole new common sense trend?
I also believe that if I am not able to defend my own beliefs and convictions, that they aren't much worth having are they. So I never mind anybody who challenges my point of view. So long as they challenge what I say and not what they want me to have said.
Why do you only condemn liberal intolerance in this thread? Do you really think you're bias isn't transparent?
Fine. Do YOU condone it? Appears you do...Sure I did 2 pages back
Condone what? The Standoff?
Originally Posted by Foxfyre
Intolerance of intolerance is in itself intolerance - Foxfyre.
You're paranoid.
Then why are you insisting that organizing a boycott against A&E if they don't keep DD going is somehow different than GLAAD protesting A&E if they do keep it going.
How is one different than the other?
Both are an attempt to materially harm A&E because they disagree with an A&E business decision.
You condemned GLAAD. Now prove you're not a partisan hack by condemning the pro-PR boycott.
Do they not have a right to organize a boycott, carbine? They have the right to boycott whomever the hell they want to!
Market forces of Capitalism on the march...isn't it a shame that those that loathe market forces USE IT to their ends?Additionally, Carbine
I will prove I'm not a "partisan hack" by allowing then to do whatever they want. As in, the viewers of A&E are well within their rights to boycott the network.
Should a business do something stupid, I have the right to boycott them in protest.
So much for your tolerance.
You're paranoid.
Then why are you insisting that organizing a boycott against A&E if they don't keep DD going is somehow different than GLAAD protesting A&E if they do keep it going.
How is one different than the other?
Both are an attempt to materially harm A&E because they disagree with an A&E business decision.
You condemned GLAAD. Now prove you're not a partisan hack by condemning the pro-PR boycott.
Do they not have a right to organize a boycott, carbine? They have the right to boycott whomever the hell they want to!
What about the Dixie Chics?
As I remember it, no one demanded they be fired. People just stopped buying their music and stopped attending their concerts.
Well, in an attempt to be positive, here's what confuses me as to the OP. Suppose someone calls me "a fag." What is his expection that I will be civil?
There is no expectation of you to be civil. Well....sort of. I expect you to ignore it here and take your um differences of opinion to the flame zone
There is a huge difference between disagreeing with somebody and objecting to their verbage or whatever or even insulting them, and in physically or materially hurting somebody purely because they expressed an opinion you disagree with or don't like. It is our right to be who and what we are and to speak our beliefs and opinions and convictions. And when some group presumes to physically or materially harm us purely because they don't like who and what we are and/or what we say, that is wrong. That is evil intolerance.
\
You're paranoid.
Then why are you insisting that organizing a boycott against A&E if they don't keep DD going is somehow different than GLAAD protesting A&E if they do keep it going.
How is one different than the other?
Both are an attempt to materially harm A&E because they disagree with an A&E business decision.
You condemned GLAAD. Now prove you're not a partisan hack by condemning the pro-PR boycott.
Do they not have a right to organize a boycott, carbine? They have the right to boycott whomever the hell they want to!
Well, in an attempt to be positive, here's what confuses me as to the OP. Suppose someone calls me "a fag." What is his expection that I will be civil?
There is no expectation of you to be civil. Well....sort of. I expect you to ignore it here and take your um differences of opinion to the flame zone
There is a huge difference between disagreeing with somebody and objecting to their verbage or whatever or even insulting them, and in physically or materially hurting somebody purely because they expressed an opinion you disagree with or don't like. It is our right to be who and what we are and to speak our beliefs and opinions and convictions. And when some group presumes to physically or materially harm us purely because they don't like who and what we are and/or what we say, that is wrong. That is evil intolerance.
\
Well, that's certainly true. And, as I tried to say, Phil, for all his flamboyance, didn't flame anyone. He expressed his personal opinion. He didn't intend to harm or make anyone feel less human or deserving. He didn't say he wouldn't sell his duck calls to a gay hunting club.
If one demands another not express his opinion, that is intolerance. I agree.
BUT, Phil gets money for being a public figure. There can be a financial penalty. My guess is Phil will come out Ducks. (-:
So, it was nycarbineer's hyperbole?
No it was fact. I was referring to this Foxfyre quote:
"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."
http://www.usmessageboard.com/8338573-post437.html
And the first definition of 'deem' is:
1. to form or have an opinion; judge; think:
So shut up until you have something intelligent and honest to say.
Before your head explodes again, take a look:
'Duck Dynasty': Inside the Decision to Suspend Phil Robertson (Exclusive) - TheWrap
Then why are you insisting that organizing a boycott against A&E if they don't keep DD going is somehow different than GLAAD protesting A&E if they do keep it going.
How is one different than the other?
Both are an attempt to materially harm A&E because they disagree with an A&E business decision.
You condemned GLAAD. Now prove you're not a partisan hack by condemning the pro-PR boycott.
Do they not have a right to organize a boycott, carbine? They have the right to boycott whomever the hell they want to!
Can that materially harm A&E? A group boycotting A&E for the purpose of doing material harm is what Foxfyre deemed illegal,
and you agreed wtih her.
Why are you defending this group while still attacking GLAAD?
No it was fact. I was referring to this Foxfyre quote:
"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."
http://www.usmessageboard.com/8338573-post437.html
And the first definition of 'deem' is:
1. to form or have an opinion; judge; think:
So shut up until you have something intelligent and honest to say.
Before your head explodes again, take a look:
'Duck Dynasty': Inside the Decision to Suspend Phil Robertson (Exclusive) - TheWrap
Must you insist on trying to change the subject when you've had your ass handed to you?
You accused me of lying, now apologize.
