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

[NYcarbineer]

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!

Even here I have a problem TK. In my view of fair play, I think it is morally wrong to organize a boycott purely because you don't like what somebody says they believe. For instance I think a boycott of Chic-fil-a purely because their CEO supports traditional marriage is evil. He hurts no one in no way by stating his belief.

If he was refusing to hire or serve people who disagreed with him and/or who represented a group he didn't like purely because of what they believe, then I could see justification for a boycott. That would be a bad act that goes beyond simply being who and what we are.

Ha.

 

[bendog]

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. (-:

I get payed money to provide service to Public Safety institutions...MANY including Government entities like the IRS, etc... that I at some point and time would excoriate here on these very boards...am *I* a hypocrite for providing such service?

We all post here with at least an expectation of some anonymity, and we do not use our real life persona to somehow give extra credence to our opinions. A bit different from Phil.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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!

So an action that threatens or coerces, via an effort to do material to an organization and individuals affiliated with that organization

is OKAY,

but only if it's conservatives doing the coercing?

That sounds a bit partisan hackish to me.

It doesn't matter who does it!

Anyone who attempts to harm someone financially because of their opinion can be seen as an act of extortion. However, a boycott is different. It is a form of free expression, of association. The viewers themselves have no direct financial or material impact on A&E, other than their viewership.

You're losing this debate badly, Carbine.

 

[bendog]

Do they not have a right to organize a boycott, carbine? They have the right to boycott whomever the hell they want to!

Even here I have a problem TK. In my view of fair play, I think it is morally wrong to organize a boycott purely because you don't like what somebody says they believe. For instance I think a boycott of Chic-fil-a purely because their CEO supports traditional marriage is evil. He hurts no one in no way by stating his belief.

If he was refusing to hire or serve people who disagreed with him and/or who represented a group he didn't like purely because of what they believe, then I could see justification for a boycott. That would be a bad act that goes beyond simply being who and what we are.

Ha.

They have a right to organize any boycott they want. But, if people consider them to be even nuttier than Phil, they have to live with that consequence.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You are a liar. You will receive no such apology from me. GLAAD held real sway over A&E. Want to disprove it?

Because you're a pussy is why you won't apologize. I proved that Foxfyre said what I said she said.

You need to put away the plastic light sabre and grow up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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. The suggestion that you would allow one group to protest but not the other speaks to your graphic intolerance, not mine.

I guess then you misspoke when you agreed with Foxfyre that it should be illegal for groups to try to do material harm to others for their opinions.

 

[bendog]

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.

You are a liar. You will receive no such apology from me. GLAAD held real sway over A&E. Want to disprove it?

Because you're a pussy is why you won't apologize. I proved that Foxfyre said what I said she said.

You need to put away the plastic light sabre and grow up.

I'm trying for civility, but I understand your frustration. And, yeah, its a bit difficult to grasp the thought that there should be a legal prohibition on people organizing themselves economically to affectuate a change in what is opinined in "a free press." I'd disagree with those people in this instance, but .... rights are rights. There can be social consequences from exercising rights though, for both Phil and GLAAD.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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!

Even here I have a problem TK. In my view of fair play, I think it is morally wrong to organize a boycott purely because you don't like what somebody says they believe. For instance I think a boycott of Chic-fil-a purely because their CEO supports traditional marriage is evil. He hurts no one in no way by stating his belief.

If he was refusing to hire or serve people who disagreed with him and/or who represented a group he didn't like purely because of what they believe, then I could see justification for a boycott. That would be a bad act that goes beyond simply being who and what we are.

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]

Fair play involves letting either side boycott. Boycotts aren't boycotts when they turn into blatant acts of militarism, such as what GLAAD has done. Boycotts are passive acts of expression. They do no harm other than to prove a point. Boycotting in no way affects an opinion if that opinion is firmly held, Fox. Meaning no harm is being done to the entity in question. However, if that opinion is not firmly held, that's where boycotts get sketchy. If you boycott someone with a weakly held opinion, you are thereby taking advantage of them and their weakness.

By law you are allowed to boycott. According to the Constitution, it is an assertion of free speech. Just so you know, boycotts can have the unintended consequence of helping the person/place/thing being boycotted, as with Chick-fil-A's case. People wanting to boycott Phil Robertson's show had the unintended effect of helping his business instead.

 

[candycorn]

Some here don't seem to be getting it. 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. Nor does it matter what Bible verse is used or how that verse is interpreted.

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. Tolerance is not accepting or even respecting the beliefs or point of view of another. Tolerance is not being silent when we think somebody else is wrong in their views. But tolerance does allow each person his point of view without fear of angry mobs and retribution by those who just don't like what he/she says. Each is allowed to be who and what he/she is.

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.

So whoever pressured Cracker Barrel to put the DD stuff back on their shelves is "pure evil" now?

Are you fucking insane?

There are things called "acts of pure volition" of which you are unaware. They were compelled by their customers (of whom they are ultimately at the mercy of) to put the merchandise back on the shelf. To imply that each and every one of these customers are criminals for exerting pressure on an establishment is preposterous, something you completely fabricated.

You liberals...

You liberals are so dense. You're enough to knock the Earth out of orbit.

According to Foxy, nobody should do anything beyond having an opinion... She said that if you go beyond that, you're "pure evil" as if there was such a thing. Mike Huckabee (public figure hardly just another guy) said he'd boycott and made it a matter of religion Huckabee to boycott Cracker Barrel over Duck Dynasty | The Daily Caller!

So Huckabee must be pure evil now... If Foxy wants to deem people as evil for such benign actions, just have it apply to both sides of the argument. That's all I'm saying.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

You are a liar. You will receive no such apology from me. GLAAD held real sway over A&E. Want to disprove it?

Because you're a pussy is why you won't apologize. I proved that Foxfyre said what I said she said.

You need to put away the plastic light sabre and grow up.

Calling me a pussy? Weren't you just whining that she was somehow "impugning" liberals with her thread?

You need to pull that tin foil hat of yours out of your ass, act your age, not your IQ.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But what I'm not getting here is

Why candycorn, carbine, BD, Bfgrn and others won't take the time to sincerely address the OP? Hmm? Does it hit too close to home?

By trying to smear her and call her all sorts of names and pejoratives, you are all expressing intolerance. By trying to nitpick her words and not assess her message as a whole, you are expressing intolerance of her message.

Who is impugning who, exactly?

 

[The T]

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. (-:

I get payed money to provide service to Public Safety institutions...MANY including Government entities like the IRS, etc... that I at some point and time would excoriate here on these very boards...am *I* a hypocrite for providing such service?

We all post here with at least an expectation of some anonymity, and we do not use our real life persona to somehow give extra credence to our opinions. A bit different from Phil.

Point taken but as these boards ARE public...our words STILL carry weight, do they not?

 

[candycorn]

You're wrong of course. Most people side with the right of Duck Dynasty to express opinions without fear of censorship or other repercussions. This includes democrats and gays. John Stewart, Andrew Sullivan,etc.
You don't understand that this is a free speech issue and not a religious issue. Your own intolerance of free speech limits your ability to argue on the topic at hand. Your authoritarian views wont allow it.
Gay CNN Anchor Defends 'Duck Dynasty' Star - Video

It is a free speech issue.

But when he quotes the bible as his guide for his feelings about gays, he introduces the teachings, right? He's the one citing the bible as his spiritaul guide to make him think the way he thinks. I didn't bring it up. What I did bring up is that there are parts of the same text that are ignored out of convenience sake Of course, as I have demonstrated, part-time Christians seem to be the norm and in terms of politics, it's only that part of the bible that is in line with GOP supersition that seems to be harped upon. That you think this is just fine...well, that's between you and whom you worship I suppose.

However, you can't cite part of the work and think it elevates your stance/reinforces your positition when you ignore parts of the rest of the work as being totally out of step with 2013/2014 civilized society. Otherwise, those who oppose his viewpoints, can do the same thing, right?

One thing you missed:

How does his quoting the Bible affect you? How does doing such imply action or ill will? Hmm? "Civilized" is a relative term to you. "Civilized" only happens to be those that hold the same opinion as yours. Actually, the word you're looking for is "narcissism." Even the homosexuals who watch the show disagree, they don't care about what Phil Robertson thinks, they care about the show!

Why can't you do that, candycorn?

Never said it did. I think he had the right to say (and has the right still) whatever comes into his mind. And GLAAD has the right to organize any sort of response they deem appropriate outside of doing physical harm to him or anyone else.

You see sonny, I'm commenting on a thread written by a dingbat who thinks GLAAD had no such standing only because she agrees with what this guy from DD said. Now that there have been moves to counter-boycott, you'll notice Foxy (TTBOMK anyway) has not lambasted those who did the same thing GLAAD did.

As for "homosexuals who watch the show"...oh yeah as if you talked to everyone of them. When their lifestyle is compared to Beastiality, I would think that there were more than just a few who thought otherwise. Dunno for sure but the law of big numbers seems to indicate that there would be some. Your generalization is an earmark of your lazy research and weak mind.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So whoever pressured Cracker Barrel to put the DD stuff back on their shelves is "pure evil" now?

Are you fucking insane?

There are things called "acts of pure volition" of which you are unaware. They were compelled by their customers (of whom they are ultimately at the mercy of) to put the merchandise back on the shelf. To imply that each and every one of these customers are criminals for exerting pressure on an establishment is preposterous, something you completely fabricated.

You liberals...

You liberals are so dense. You're enough to knock the Earth out of orbit.

According to Foxy, nobody should do anything beyond having an opinion... She said that if you go beyond that, you're "pure evil" as if there was such a thing. Mike Huckabee (public figure hardly just another guy) said he'd boycott and made it a matter of religion Huckabee to boycott Cracker Barrel over Duck Dynasty | The Daily Caller!

So Huckabee must be pure evil now... If Foxy wants to deem people as evil for such benign actions, just have it apply to both sides of the argument. That's all I'm saying.

Once again your black and white thinking strikes again.

She's deeming the act evil, not the people themselves. Hate the sin, love the sinner perhaps?

 

[The T]

But what I'm not getting here is

Why candycorn, carbine, BD, Bfgrn and others won't take the time to sincerely address the OP? Hmm? Does it hit too close to home?

By trying to smear her and call her all sorts of names and pejoratives, you are all expressing intolerance. By trying to nitpick her words and not assess her message as a whole, you are expressing intolerance of her message.

Who is impugning who, exactly?

Just isn't in their DNA, Home training, Public Indoctrination, etc...They are whom they are...remember? They bought their ticket on the bus, and refuse to be talked out of it.

Two words to them?

Bon Voyage.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Fine. Do YOU condone it? Appears you do...

Condone what? The Standoff?

Originally Posted by Foxfyre
Intolerance of intolerance is in itself intolerance - Foxfyre.

Does simple logic befuddle you perhaps?

Yes because it says simply that there is no wrong or right. That everything should be accepted in order to be tolerant.

If someone expresses intolerant views whats the proper response? (this is also PC as hell)

Because if someone calls me a fag, I'm going to have something to say about it. When I do am I now the "wrong" party for not accepting the fag label?

Yes according to this logic.

I'm very intolerant of Child Molesters. Do I have to pretend they deserve breath or else be labeled as intolerant? Should I support them instead according to this new double think logic?

 

[The T]

Condone what? The Standoff?

Originally Posted by Foxfyre
Intolerance of intolerance is in itself intolerance - Foxfyre.

Does simple logic befuddle you perhaps?

Yes because it says simply that there is no wrong or right. That everything should be accepted in order to be tolerant.

If someone expresses intolerant views whats the proper response? (this is also PC as hell)

Because if someone calls me a fag, I'm going to have something to say about it. When I do am I now the "wrong" party for not accepting the fag label?

Yes according to this logic.

I'm very intolerant of Child Molesters. Do I have to pretend they deserve breath or else be labeled as intolerant? Should I support them instead according to this new double think logic?

The emboldened is all you needed to impart. I could have done without the rest. Brevity is the soul of wit. *I* for one don't need pictures to read. OK?

 

[Foxfyre]

And just once I wish NYcarboneer and/or CandyCorn was smart enough or tolerant enough to be honest about what I have said. Now pay attention here folks. I'm going to use them to teach a principle.

I can easily call either or both dishonest when he misrepresents what I say. It is doing a BAD ACT when he deliberately attributes something to me that is not accurate. And if it got to be a problem for me, or if he was continually derailing the thread, I would be fully justified in doing whatever I could to have him removed from the thread or the forum or otherwise 'punished' for his bad acts. There is no reason I should ever have to tolerate being deliberately misquoted or misrepresented as to what I have said or done or be subjected to having my rights violated due to somebody's immaturity or just plain meanness.

BUT. . .he is fully within his right to tell me that my opinion sucks, that I have it all wrong, that I am stupid, ignorant, partisan or whatever. That is his opinion. He has been invited to express his opinion on this thread and that would be expressing his opinion. I might think he is a total jerk and/or partisan hack and think he is wrong in everything he says, but I am tolerant if I allow him to be who and what he is without neg repping or trying to persuade somebody in authority to remove him.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Does simple logic befuddle you perhaps?

Yes because it says simply that there is no wrong or right. That everything should be accepted in order to be tolerant.

If someone expresses intolerant views whats the proper response? (this is also PC as hell)

Because if someone calls me a fag, I'm going to have something to say about it. When I do am I now the "wrong" party for not accepting the fag label?

Yes according to this logic.

I'm very intolerant of Child Molesters. Do I have to pretend they deserve breath or else be labeled as intolerant? Should I support them instead according to this new double think logic?

The emboldened is all you needed to impart. I could have done without the rest. Brevity is the soul of wit. *I* for one don't need pictures to read. OK?

Umm ok? Do you Agree or Disagree?

 

[candycorn]

There are things called "acts of pure volition" of which you are unaware. They were compelled by their customers (of whom they are ultimately at the mercy of) to put the merchandise back on the shelf. To imply that each and every one of these customers are criminals for exerting pressure on an establishment is preposterous, something you completely fabricated.

You liberals...

You liberals are so dense. You're enough to knock the Earth out of orbit.

According to Foxy, nobody should do anything beyond having an opinion... She said that if you go beyond that, you're "pure evil" as if there was such a thing. Mike Huckabee (public figure hardly just another guy) said he'd boycott and made it a matter of religion Huckabee to boycott Cracker Barrel over Duck Dynasty | The Daily Caller!

So Huckabee must be pure evil now... If Foxy wants to deem people as evil for such benign actions, just have it apply to both sides of the argument. That's all I'm saying.

Once again your black and white thinking strikes again.

She's deeming the act evil, not the people themselves. Hate the sin, love the sinner perhaps?

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.