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

[bendog]

PS, Merry Christmas to all. And it that's offensive .... tough. (-:

 

[The T]

I got a better one. Don't become so tolerant you tolerate the injustice of minority bullies.

To the point that they legislate intolerance out of existence...due to their intolerance. SEE where this will head? Absence of liberty.

That is the very heart of why this particular issue is so important. If one group can physically and materially hurt somebody purely because it doesn't like what that somebody said, then there are no unalienable rights. We have dissolved into anarchy in which the best financed and most politcially powerful can deny anybody the right to express his/her opinion about anything.

It is a dangerous thing if an organization like GLAAD or any other group, left or right, can dictate to people what they are or are not allowed to think, speak, believe, or express. It means that anybody they dissaprove of has no liberties at all.

Liberty has always been a two way street...and it has to be practiced with respect, and with responsibility. For some day it might be you being challenged to defend it.

 

[The T]

PS, Merry Christmas to all. And it that's offensive .... tough. (-:

It's Ok Brother(?)...SAME to you. God Bless.

 

[hunarcy]

Is a boycott never an attempt to harm someone financially?

Is it perfectly reasonable to harm someone financially as long as it's done indirectly?

Viewers may not have a direct financial impact, but their indirect impact can be substantial. That is generally the point behind a boycott, isn't it? To try and get a person/company to change based on financial impact, be it a direct one (people stop buying a product) or indirect (loss of viewership causes sponsors to leave)?

There's nothing wrong with a boycott in and of itself. When people stop buying or using the goods or services of a certain company or country as a protest, it can get attention. However, when the attempt is not a boycott but is, instead, an attempt to completely silence people by driving them out of public life, that's a different thing and is intolerant.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Is a boycott never an attempt to harm someone financially?

Is it perfectly reasonable to harm someone financially as long as it's done indirectly?

Viewers may not have a direct financial impact, but their indirect impact can be substantial. That is generally the point behind a boycott, isn't it? To try and get a person/company to change based on financial impact, be it a direct one (people stop buying a product) or indirect (loss of viewership causes sponsors to leave)?

When we boycotted Nestle, of COURSE it was intended to hurt them financially. We had tried appealing to their better instincts without success. So we decided to hit them in the pocketbook. Not for what they said. Not for what they thought. Not for what they believed about anything. But we were determined to persuade them to stop a very bad ACT that was seriously hurting people. To this day I think we were right to do that. And once they did stop the bad ACT we stopped the boycott.

It was the same with South Africa. We were determined to protest/boycott the unconscionable and hurtful practice of Apartheid in that country. It was for a BAD ACT and not for whatever beliefs or convictions were held by anybody in that country. When South Africa discontinued the bad act, then we discontinued to boycott.

But to physically or materially punish somebody for no reason other than he/she expressed an opinion we disagree with or don't like? No. That is wrong. That is unAmerican. That is evil.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

But I am not focused on the 'law' here. Yes, I do think there should be a law prohibiting the intentional physical or material harm to another person or entity due to an expressed opinion that somebody didn't like. I think that is a violation of our unalienable right to be who and what we are so long as we do not tread on somebody's elses rights.

The fact that something is legal does not necessarily make it right, ethical, or honorable.

Back in the 70's the Nestle Corporation was using a very unethical marketing stragy pushing their infant formula in developing countries. Those of us who saw that as a bad ACT--not a wrong opinion but a bad ACT--did boycott everything we could find associated with the Nestle Corporation. I'm sure there was a financial pinch in all that and nobody likes to be constantly portrayed as a villain, and in time Nestle stopped that unethical practice. And we all started buying Nestle products again.

That in my view is an ethical and honorable reason to boycott somebody.

But let's say that the CEO of Nestle, in an interview with some magazine, said he believed the Bible condemned Democrats or condemned Republicans.

That is an opinion. It has no power to hurt any Democrat or any Republican. It singles nobody out for defamation. Would we be within our right to make a public statement saying we believed that CEO was wrong about that? Of course we are and it would be ethical to do so. Would we be within our right to take our business elsewhee? Yes, that is our right too and ethical to say so.

Is it within our right to organize a boycott of Nestle to physically or materially punish that CEO purely for expressing his opinion? It is a legal right, yes. But an ethical right no. That would be evil.

What if I say that it is the ACT of the CEO publishing their opinion that I am opposed to? Not that the CEO holds whatever opinion, but that they put it out in a magazine article? If I feel that having an opinion is fine, discussing it is fine, but am against publishing it?

Or put another way, if you knew that Nestle wanted to use an unethical marketing strategy but did not only because they could not legally get away with it, why is a boycott against them evil?

I think it would be worse to limit legal boycotts to what you or anyone else decides is an acceptable reason than to have boycotts based solely on a person's opinion. As TK said, boycotts are a form of expression. They are a way of saying, "I don't like XXXX about this company. I don't think they should be supported. I will try to convince others to agree with me.". You seem to be advocating suppressing someone's opinion in order to keep them from suppressing someone's opinion.

Let me ask this : Would you consider it evil if someone organized a movement to say that Nestle is bad because of the CEO's opinion if they didn't call for people to stop buying their products? Is it only the direct call to financially harm the company/CEO that is evil, or is it the intent? One could, with the proper resources, probably do great harm to a company financially without ever actually asking anyone to stop buying/viewing their product.

The idea of making a boycott illegal based on the reasoning behind the boycott is, to me, going against the very principle of people being free to express themselves.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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?

About what? Your grey area(s)? Right is right, wrong is wrong. All depends on how you were brought up...is the course of liberty too strong to be understood?

Do you see why this is bull now?

I've presented the same thing to you, Templar and Fox and everytime I get a response like "What about it?"

This logic cannot be explained..Someone can be for liberty and still judge a child molester as being immoral cant they?

Or do I have to be tolerant of child molesters too now in this environment?

You and Templar are the last ones I thought would be on the PC police payroll but when its offensive to you its different it seems

 

[Foxfyre]

[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.

But I am not focused on the 'law' here. Yes, I do think there should be a law prohibiting the intentional physical or material harm to another person or entity due to an expressed opinion that somebody didn't like. I think that is a violation of our unalienable right to be who and what we are so long as we do not tread on somebody's elses rights.

The fact that something is legal does not necessarily make it right, ethical, or honorable.

Back in the 70's the Nestle Corporation was using a very unethical marketing stragy pushing their infant formula in developing countries. Those of us who saw that as a bad ACT--not a wrong opinion but a bad ACT--did boycott everything we could find associated with the Nestle Corporation. I'm sure there was a financial pinch in all that and nobody likes to be constantly portrayed as a villain, and in time Nestle stopped that unethical practice. And we all started buying Nestle products again.

That in my view is an ethical and honorable reason to boycott somebody.

But let's say that the CEO of Nestle, in an interview with some magazine, said he believed the Bible condemned Democrats or condemned Republicans.

That is an opinion. It has no power to hurt any Democrat or any Republican. It singles nobody out for defamation. Would we be within our right to make a public statement saying we believed that CEO was wrong about that? Of course we are and it would be ethical to do so. Would we be within our right to take our business elsewhee? Yes, that is our right too and ethical to say so.

Is it within our right to organize a boycott of Nestle to physically or materially punish that CEO purely for expressing his opinion? It is a legal right, yes. But an ethical right no. That would be evil.

What if I say that it is the ACT of the CEO publishing their opinion that I am opposed to? Not that the CEO holds whatever opinion, but that they put it out in a magazine article? If I feel that having an opinion is fine, discussing it is fine, but am against publishing it?

Or put another way, if you knew that Nestle wanted to use an unethical marketing strategy but did not only because they could not legally get away with it, why is a boycott against them evil?

I think it would be worse to limit legal boycotts to what you or anyone else decides is an acceptable reason than to have boycotts based solely on a person's opinion. As TK said, boycotts are a form of expression. They are a way of saying, "I don't like XXXX about this company. I don't think they should be supported. I will try to convince others to agree with me.". You seem to be advocating suppressing someone's opinion in order to keep them from suppressing someone's opinion.

Let me ask this : Would you consider it evil if someone organized a movement to say that Nestle is bad because of the CEO's opinion if they didn't call for people to stop buying their products? Is it only the direct call to financially harm the company/CEO that is evil, or is it the intent? One could, with the proper resources, probably do great harm to a company financially without ever actually asking anyone to stop buying/viewing their product.

The idea of making a boycott illegal based on the reasoning behind the boycott is, to me, going against the very principle of people being free to express themselves.

If my 'right to express myself' includes taking away your 'right you express yourself' then neither of us have any rights at all.

Your hypothetical example would be worthy of discussion, but it would almost certainly derail the thread to get into that, so I will respectfully decline to comment on the 'what if' related to a desire or a wish to do something bad to somebody.

The principle is simple. An expressed opinion does not have to be agreed with or appreciated or respected. But if we do not treat it as an unalienable right to hold and express an opinion in a forum appropriate to do that, then there are no unalienable rights. We are all at the mercy of those who hold the power and can enforce whatever discipline on anybody they wish to enforce. Those with the power can speak and be whatever they want to be. And they will dictate to the rest of us who and what we must be to avoid physical and/or material punishment.

 

[The T]

@Foxfyre

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.

But I am not focused on the 'law' here. Yes, I do think there should be a law prohibiting the intentional physical or material harm to another person or entity due to an expressed opinion that somebody didn't like. I think that is a violation of our unalienable right to be who and what we are so long as we do not tread on somebody's elses rights.

The fact that something is legal does not necessarily make it right, ethical, or honorable.

Back in the 70's the Nestle Corporation was using a very unethical marketing stragy pushing their infant formula in developing countries. Those of us who saw that as a bad ACT--not a wrong opinion but a bad ACT--did boycott everything we could find associated with the Nestle Corporation. I'm sure there was a financial pinch in all that and nobody likes to be constantly portrayed as a villain, and in time Nestle stopped that unethical practice. And we all started buying Nestle products again.

That in my view is an ethical and honorable reason to boycott somebody.

But let's say that the CEO of Nestle, in an interview with some magazine, said he believed the Bible condemned Democrats or condemned Republicans.

That is an opinion. It has no power to hurt any Democrat or any Republican. It singles nobody out for defamation. Would we be within our right to make a public statement saying we believed that CEO was wrong about that? Of course we are and it would be ethical to do so. Would we be within our right to take our business elsewhee? Yes, that is our right too and ethical to say so.

Is it within our right to organize a boycott of Nestle to physically or materially punish that CEO purely for expressing his opinion? It is a legal right, yes. But an ethical right no. That would be evil.

What if I say that it is the ACT of the CEO publishing their opinion that I am opposed to? Not that the CEO holds whatever opinion, but that they put it out in a magazine article? If I feel that having an opinion is fine, discussing it is fine, but am against publishing it?

Or put another way, if you knew that Nestle wanted to use an unethical marketing strategy but did not only because they could not legally get away with it, why is a boycott against them evil?

I think it would be worse to limit legal boycotts to what you or anyone else decides is an acceptable reason than to have boycotts based solely on a person's opinion. As TK said, boycotts are a form of expression. They are a way of saying, "I don't like XXXX about this company. I don't think they should be supported. I will try to convince others to agree with me.". You seem to be advocating suppressing someone's opinion in order to keep them from suppressing someone's opinion.

Let me ask this : Would you consider it evil if someone organized a movement to say that Nestle is bad because of the CEO's opinion if they didn't call for people to stop buying their products? Is it only the direct call to financially harm the company/CEO that is evil, or is it the intent? One could, with the proper resources, probably do great harm to a company financially without ever actually asking anyone to stop buying/viewing their product.

The idea of making a boycott illegal based on the reasoning behind the boycott is, to me, going against the very principle of people being free to express themselves.

What is publishing but speech? Does it matter what it was except that is void by law that could kill someone? Rob them of their life, liberty, pursuit of property? A kin to yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre where no such condition exists...and people get maimed/killed thus impeding their liberty...Responsibility.

Mr. Robertson meets the criteria no matter if you, me or the guy next to read this thread agrees with it. He took no liberty from anyone.

WE are guaranteed LIFE, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness per the Constitution. WE are not guaranteed NOT to be offended.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Is a boycott never an attempt to harm someone financially?

Is it perfectly reasonable to harm someone financially as long as it's done indirectly?

Viewers may not have a direct financial impact, but their indirect impact can be substantial. That is generally the point behind a boycott, isn't it? To try and get a person/company to change based on financial impact, be it a direct one (people stop buying a product) or indirect (loss of viewership causes sponsors to leave)?

No, not always.

What of the Montgomery Bus Boycott? Was that an attempt by civil rights supporters to harm the the Montgomery Transit System? Yes and no. Yes, because if I recall, transit systems back then relied on a combination of taxes and fares. Not only could their point be made through money, but in principle as well. No, because what happened to Rosa Parks was an act of blatant discrimination because of her skin color. That boycott lasted 381 days, until December of 1956.

Should a boycott of that nature be deemed unethical, or seminal?

Compare that to this case. A man quotes from Corinthians 6:9-11. He states on an interview that he believes homosexuality is sinful. A militant gay rights group goes on call with the executives of A&E to ask that this man be suspended. A&E agrees, and based on it's perfectly good right to do so, they suspend him. Lets stop right there.
What stopped GLAAD from simply organizing a boycott of their own? What stopped them from merely changing the channel? Instead they chose to make a spectacle out of him. That is the unethicality which Fox speaks, this sets a terrible precedent that could ultimately be adopted by our government (which I believe has already done so).

Continuing on. As news of this suspension spreads, millions of people across America (including homosexuals and liberals) voice their displeasure of this suspension. Many of the view this as an attack on him for expressing himself. They naturally feel displeased at the prospect of the show not having it's full compliment of stars on screen. So they boycott the network. Are they wanting to do harm to them? Yes, simply because they suspended the man for his opinion. They were speaking out against the egregious display of intolerance shown by the network. Ethically speaking, it is wrong to boycott someone for doing something well within their rights to do. This applies to both sides.

I think I may be grasping what Fox is trying to get at here.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Is a boycott never an attempt to harm someone financially?

Is it perfectly reasonable to harm someone financially as long as it's done indirectly?

Viewers may not have a direct financial impact, but their indirect impact can be substantial. That is generally the point behind a boycott, isn't it? To try and get a person/company to change based on financial impact, be it a direct one (people stop buying a product) or indirect (loss of viewership causes sponsors to leave)?

When we boycotted Nestle, of COURSE it was intended to hurt them financially. We had tried appealing to their better instincts without success. So we decided to hit them in the pocketbook. Not for what they said. Not for what they thought. Not for what they believed about anything. But we were determined to persuade them to stop a very bad ACT that was seriously hurting people. To this day I think we were right to do that. And once they did stop the bad ACT we stopped the boycott.

It was the same with South Africa. We were determined to protest/boycott the unconscionable and hurtful practice of Apartheid in that country. It was for a BAD ACT and not for whatever beliefs or convictions were held by anybody in that country. When South Africa discontinued the bad act, then we discontinued to boycott.

But to physically or materially punish somebody for no reason other than he/she expressed an opinion we disagree with or don't like? No. That is wrong. That is unAmerican. That is evil.

And if someone feels that promoting a particular opinion is harmful? In this particular case, if the members of GLAAD think that a popular public figure promoting the idea that homosexuality is similar to bestiality will be harmful to the gay community? Whether you agree or disagree with that opinion, is it not the act of publishing it that caused the reaction, rather than the opinion itself? Just as you seem to be saying you don't care what practices Nestle thinks are appropriate, only what practices they actually engage in? So it is not Robertson's opinion that is the issue, but the act of presenting it the way he did.

Sure, there's a good dose of devil's advocate here. I'd guess that there was a lot of, "Robertson is an ass for saying that, let's hurt him." involved. That doesn't change that what GLAAD did seems to be expressing their opinion, just as Robertson did. Was A&E under any legal obligation to do what GLAAD wanted?

The only ones who really directly harmed Phil Robertson financially would be his employers for suspending him.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The Montgomery Bus Boycott apparently never should've happened because its wrong to be intolerant of intolerance

welcome to crazy land

 

[Moonglow]

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

I am just sick and tired of being sick and tired.

 

[Foxfyre]

But I am not focused on the 'law' here. Yes, I do think there should be a law prohibiting the intentional physical or material harm to another person or entity due to an expressed opinion that somebody didn't like. I think that is a violation of our unalienable right to be who and what we are so long as we do not tread on somebody's elses rights.

The fact that something is legal does not necessarily make it right, ethical, or honorable.

Back in the 70's the Nestle Corporation was using a very unethical marketing stragy pushing their infant formula in developing countries. Those of us who saw that as a bad ACT--not a wrong opinion but a bad ACT--did boycott everything we could find associated with the Nestle Corporation. I'm sure there was a financial pinch in all that and nobody likes to be constantly portrayed as a villain, and in time Nestle stopped that unethical practice. And we all started buying Nestle products again.

That in my view is an ethical and honorable reason to boycott somebody.

But let's say that the CEO of Nestle, in an interview with some magazine, said he believed the Bible condemned Democrats or condemned Republicans.

That is an opinion. It has no power to hurt any Democrat or any Republican. It singles nobody out for defamation. Would we be within our right to make a public statement saying we believed that CEO was wrong about that? Of course we are and it would be ethical to do so. Would we be within our right to take our business elsewhee? Yes, that is our right too and ethical to say so.

Is it within our right to organize a boycott of Nestle to physically or materially punish that CEO purely for expressing his opinion? It is a legal right, yes. But an ethical right no. That would be evil.

What if I say that it is the ACT of the CEO publishing their opinion that I am opposed to? Not that the CEO holds whatever opinion, but that they put it out in a magazine article? If I feel that having an opinion is fine, discussing it is fine, but am against publishing it?

Or put another way, if you knew that Nestle wanted to use an unethical marketing strategy but did not only because they could not legally get away with it, why is a boycott against them evil?

I think it would be worse to limit legal boycotts to what you or anyone else decides is an acceptable reason than to have boycotts based solely on a person's opinion. As TK said, boycotts are a form of expression. They are a way of saying, "I don't like XXXX about this company. I don't think they should be supported. I will try to convince others to agree with me.". You seem to be advocating suppressing someone's opinion in order to keep them from suppressing someone's opinion.

Let me ask this : Would you consider it evil if someone organized a movement to say that Nestle is bad because of the CEO's opinion if they didn't call for people to stop buying their products? Is it only the direct call to financially harm the company/CEO that is evil, or is it the intent? One could, with the proper resources, probably do great harm to a company financially without ever actually asking anyone to stop buying/viewing their product.

The idea of making a boycott illegal based on the reasoning behind the boycott is, to me, going against the very principle of people being free to express themselves.

What is publishing but speech? Does it matter what it was except that is void by law that could kill someone? Rob them of their life, liberty, pursuit of property? A kin to yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre where no such condition exists...and people get maimed/killed thus impeding their liberty...Responsibility.

Mr. Robertson meets the criteria no matter if you, me or the guy next to read this thread agrees with it. He took no liberty from anyone.

WE are guaranteed LIFE, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness per the Constitution. WE are not guaranteed NOT to be offended.

It is interesting who the targets became too. A&E had absolutely nothing to do with that interview other than consenting to it. And, according to what I have read and heard reported, they DID consent to it. Phil Robertson answered questions that he was asked by the GQ interviewer and then GQ edited the final article to be published in the magazine.

If ANYBODY is to blame for what got published, it was GQ. And yet so far they have been left out of the discussion. No demands. No boycotts. No organized protest of any kind.

That makes GLAAD's unconscionable and hateful assault on Phil Robertson all the more reprehensible. It obviously is not what he said that has them all riled up, but it is who and what he is. And that is the worst and most evil kind of intolerance.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Is a boycott never an attempt to harm someone financially?

Is it perfectly reasonable to harm someone financially as long as it's done indirectly?

Viewers may not have a direct financial impact, but their indirect impact can be substantial. That is generally the point behind a boycott, isn't it? To try and get a person/company to change based on financial impact, be it a direct one (people stop buying a product) or indirect (loss of viewership causes sponsors to leave)?

No, not always.

What of the Montgomery Bus Boycott? Was that an attempt by civil rights supporters to harm the the Montgomery Transit System? Yes and no. Yes, because if I recall, transit systems back then relied on a combination of taxes and fares. Not only could their point be made through money, but in principle as well. No, because what happened to Rosa Parks was an act of blatant discrimination because of her skin color. That boycott lasted 381 days, until December of 1956.

Should a boycott of that nature be deemed unethical, or seminal?

Compare that to this case. A man quotes from Corinthians 6:9-11. He states on an interview that he believes homosexuality is sinful. A militant gay rights group goes on call with the executives of A&E to ask that this man be suspended. A&E agrees, and based on it's perfectly good right to do so, they suspend him. Lets stop right there.
What stopped GLAAD from simply organizing a boycott of their own? What stopped them from merely changing the channel? Instead they chose to make a spectacle out of him. That is the unethicality which Fox speaks, this sets a terrible precedent that could ultimately be adopted by our government (which I believe has already done so).

Continuing on. As news of this suspension spreads, millions of people across America (including homosexuals and liberals) voice their displeasure of this suspension. Many of the view this as an attack on him for expressing himself. They naturally feel displeased at the prospect of the show not having it's full compliment of stars on screen. So they boycott the network. Are they wanting to do harm to them? Yes, simply because they suspended the man for his opinion. They were speaking out against the egregious display of intolerance shown by the network. Ethically speaking, it is wrong to boycott someone for doing something well within their rights to do. This applies to both sides.

I think I may be grasping what Fox is trying to get at here.

To clarify, are you saying that it is ethically wrong to boycott A&E for suspending Robertson, assuming they had the right to do so?

 

[Kosh]

This would be a whole lot different if you used one of the "slurs" to refer to gays/homosexuals.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Is a boycott never an attempt to harm someone financially?

Is it perfectly reasonable to harm someone financially as long as it's done indirectly?

Viewers may not have a direct financial impact, but their indirect impact can be substantial. That is generally the point behind a boycott, isn't it? To try and get a person/company to change based on financial impact, be it a direct one (people stop buying a product) or indirect (loss of viewership causes sponsors to leave)?

No, not always.

What of the Montgomery Bus Boycott? Was that an attempt by civil rights supporters to harm the the Montgomery Transit System? Yes and no. Yes, because if I recall, transit systems back then relied on a combination of taxes and fares. Not only could their point be made through money, but in principle as well. No, because what happened to Rosa Parks was an act of blatant discrimination because of her skin color. That boycott lasted 381 days, until December of 1956.

Should a boycott of that nature be deemed unethical, or seminal?

Compare that to this case. A man quotes from Corinthians 6:9-11. He states on an interview that he believes homosexuality is sinful. A militant gay rights group goes on call with the executives of A&E to ask that this man be suspended. A&E agrees, and based on it's perfectly good right to do so, they suspend him. Lets stop right there.
What stopped GLAAD from simply organizing a boycott of their own? What stopped them from merely changing the channel? Instead they chose to make a spectacle out of him. That is the unethicality which Fox speaks, this sets a terrible precedent that could ultimately be adopted by our government (which I believe has already done so).

Continuing on. As news of this suspension spreads, millions of people across America (including homosexuals and liberals) voice their displeasure of this suspension. Many of the view this as an attack on him for expressing himself. They naturally feel displeased at the prospect of the show not having it's full compliment of stars on screen. So they boycott the network. Are they wanting to do harm to them? Yes, simply because they suspended the man for his opinion. They were speaking out against the egregious display of intolerance shown by the network. Ethically speaking, it is wrong to boycott someone for doing something well within their rights to do. This applies to both sides.

I think I may be grasping what Fox is trying to get at here.

To clarify, are you saying that it is ethically wrong to boycott A&E for suspending Robertson, assuming they had the right to do so?

Yes. If someone has a right to do something, who are we to begrudge them of it? HOWEVER, the likewise would be true of GLAAD. What they did was equally as unethical to Mr. Robertson. For a boycott to be substantial, it needs a productive purpose, not an ideological one.

 

[The T]

Umm ok? Do you Agree or Disagree?

About what? Your grey area(s)? Right is right, wrong is wrong. All depends on how you were brought up...is the course of liberty too strong to be understood?

Do you see why this is bull now?

I've presented the same thing to you, Templar and Fox and everytime I get a response like "What about it?"

This logic cannot be explained..Someone can be for liberty and still judge a child molester as being immoral cant they?

Or do I have to be tolerant of child molesters too now in this environment?

You and Templar are the last ones I thought would be on the PC police payroll but when its offensive to you its different it seems

I repeat the premise. Mr. Robertson did nothing wrong but to voice his opinion, as YOU have the right to voice yours as YOU do. Are YOU in YOUR RIGHT?

ARE YOU right in placing limitations?

"WHAT ABOUT IT"?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So shut up until you have something intelligent and honest to say.

If you would limit yourself to intelligent and honest, you'd never post again.

FF was saying that when you threaten to go after a person's livelihood by trying to drive them completely out of public life, you go beyond reasonable rebuke. That's what GLAAD was doing and that's what is different from all the examples you offered.

You really need to learn to read. I think that deficiency may be what's causing your misunderstanding of the facts here.

 

[The T]

No, not always.

What of the Montgomery Bus Boycott? Was that an attempt by civil rights supporters to harm the the Montgomery Transit System? Yes and no. Yes, because if I recall, transit systems back then relied on a combination of taxes and fares. Not only could their point be made through money, but in principle as well. No, because what happened to Rosa Parks was an act of blatant discrimination because of her skin color. That boycott lasted 381 days, until December of 1956.

Should a boycott of that nature be deemed unethical, or seminal?

Compare that to this case. A man quotes from Corinthians 6:9-11. He states on an interview that he believes homosexuality is sinful. A militant gay rights group goes on call with the executives of A&E to ask that this man be suspended. A&E agrees, and based on it's perfectly good right to do so, they suspend him. Lets stop right there.
What stopped GLAAD from simply organizing a boycott of their own? What stopped them from merely changing the channel? Instead they chose to make a spectacle out of him. That is the unethicality which Fox speaks, this sets a terrible precedent that could ultimately be adopted by our government (which I believe has already done so).

Continuing on. As news of this suspension spreads, millions of people across America (including homosexuals and liberals) voice their displeasure of this suspension. Many of the view this as an attack on him for expressing himself. They naturally feel displeased at the prospect of the show not having it's full compliment of stars on screen. So they boycott the network. Are they wanting to do harm to them? Yes, simply because they suspended the man for his opinion. They were speaking out against the egregious display of intolerance shown by the network. Ethically speaking, it is wrong to boycott someone for doing something well within their rights to do. This applies to both sides.

I think I may be grasping what Fox is trying to get at here.

To clarify, are you saying that it is ethically wrong to boycott A&E for suspending Robertson, assuming they had the right to do so?

Yes. If someone has a right to do something, who are we to begrudge them of it? HOWEVER, the likewise would be true of GLAAD. What they did was equally as unethical to Mr. Robertson.

Up to the individual to make up their own mind...right or wrong. Price of a free society...but wrong to use the freedom as a tool to deprive another of their Liberty, and precisely what GLADD was doing.