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

[Foxfyre]

NO A&E can DO whatever they like. Their network...but I wouldn't count on as much viewership as they once had. AH! The price of liberty. It's a two-way street. ALWAYS has been that way. And NO it doesn't have to be that way. A&E CHOSE to do what they did...

Now you get it.

So the people who opt not to watch any more are they being intolerant also?

They are exercising their liberty. Fair enough?

It depends on how one views tolerance.

I view it as leaving somebody in peace and not seeking to physically or materially punish him no matter how much of an idiot, bigot, jerk, fanatic, partisan, brainwashed groupee or whatever he might be so long as he does not act that out in a way that harms others.

I am quite intolerant of the point of view of people like that and choose not to be around such people any more than is absoluely necessary. But so long as they are not trampling on the rights of others, I am tolerant when it comes to people having the right to be that way if that is the way they are.

 

[The T]

See?

It seems that the intolerant label is only being used by someone who doesnt like the action.

Meaning its subjective. Meaning theres no right or wrong like I said to begin with

Should having liberty be used to impede the liberty of another with malice?

I dont know, are the people who will stop watching A&E doing so to impede the liberty of another with Malice?

Does it matter? A&E sell programming...if no one buys it? Is that MALICE, or choice?

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Gee, with all that broad-brushing, I bet your hand is getting tired, too!!!

 

[Statistikhengst]

PR has the right to express his religious views without repercussions.

He most certainly does NOT!

Good Lord!

He has the right to say anything he wants, but there are many forms of repercussion from which he has no legal protection at all.

He DOES however have an unalienable right to express his religious or any other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after him to punish him, hurt him, harm him, destroy him. Just as they have a right to express their contempt for any of his religious or other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after them to punish them, hurt them, harm them, destroy them.

Too many here--people I actually like, enjoy and admire--seem unable to grasp that simple concept. Tolerance is NOT agreement, endorsement, acceptance, or anything of that nature. Tolerance IS allowing the other person, however disagreeable, to be who or what he/she is so long as s/he is not infringing on the rights of others.

Phil Robertson's expressed opinions whenever, whatever, wherever, just as one example, are one man's opinion. Phil isn't running for political office. He is not calling for retribution or action against anybody. He has no power or intent or motive whatsoever to harm anybody, including gay and lesbian people, purely by stating what he believes.

To attempt to physically or materially harm him (or anybody else) for no reason other than he said something somebody disagrees with is evil.

The bold: I concur with you. But cons will just keep going on and on and on about how hateful libs are.. uhuh...

And who exactly is threatening him with harm? If you think a boycott causes him harm, then are you willing to lambaste all those Pastors and others who wanted boycotts of places like Starbucks because they are not openly hostile to gays, right?

 

[The T]

He most certainly does NOT!

Good Lord!

He has the right to say anything he wants, but there are many forms of repercussion from which he has no legal protection at all.

He DOES however have an unalienable right to express his religious or any other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after him to punish him, hurt him, harm him, destroy him. Just as they have a right to express their contempt for any of his religious or other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after them to punish them, hurt them, harm them, destroy them.

Too many here--people I actually like, enjoy and admire--seem unable to grasp that simple concept. Tolerance is NOT agreement, endorsement, acceptance, or anything of that nature. Tolerance IS allowing the other person, however disagreeable, to be who or what he/she is so long as s/he is not infringing on the rights of others.

Phil Robertson's expressed opinions whenever, whatever, wherever, just as one example, are one man's opinion. Phil isn't running for political office. He is not calling for retribution or action against anybody. He has no power or intent or motive whatsoever to harm anybody, including gay and lesbian people, purely by stating what he believes.

To attempt to physically or materially harm him (or anybody else) for no reason other than he said something somebody disagrees with is evil.

The bold: I concur with you. But cons will just keep going on and on and on about how hateful libs are.. uhuh...

And who exactly is threatening him with harm? If you think a boycott causes him harm, then are you willing to lambaste all those Pastors and others who wanted boycotts of places like Starbucks because they are not openly hostile to gays, right?

ISN'T just about LIBS sport...as a plethora of posts aptly demonstrates...and YOU need to explain that to TK...and YOU telling HIM he painted with such strokes?

 

[Statistikhengst]

So does this^

By your use of the words "so does" it indicates that my words mean nothing either except Fox received thanks for saying nothing.

I was merely pointing out that if you dont accept intolerance then she believes that is intolerance. Basically there is no right or wrong because if you take a side you yourself are showing a negative trait which is intolerance.

So you cant judge, you cant express disagreement...basically its a PC mexican standoff and its bullshit.

Agree?

You know you're a paranoid liberal when:

A three word response from a conservative provokes you to write an essay in disagreement.

you know you are a crazy assed Conservative when a Liberal actual takes time and energy to explain something to you, so that you will understand him better, but you only heard three words....

You see, TK, that sword cuts in both directions. Really sure you want to go there?

 

[Politico]

Who is this guy?

Just another tool putting up a Youtube video of himself.

 

[The T]

By your use of the words "so does" it indicates that my words mean nothing either except Fox received thanks for saying nothing.

I was merely pointing out that if you dont accept intolerance then she believes that is intolerance. Basically there is no right or wrong because if you take a side you yourself are showing a negative trait which is intolerance.

So you cant judge, you cant express disagreement...basically its a PC mexican standoff and its bullshit.

Agree?

You know you're a paranoid liberal when:

A three word response from a conservative provokes you to write an essay in disagreement.

you know you are a crazy assed Conservative when a Liberal actual takes time and energy to explain something to you, so that you will understand him better, but you only heard three words....

You see, TK, that sword cuts in both directions. Really sure you want to go there?

Done with your love fest sport?

Sword? Really? Indeed it does...and it cuts YOU this time. Get over yourself.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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?

Probably depends on the context, but in most cases, I bet a person could feel offended.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Personally, I took Phil's comment to be more bizarre (in keeping with his entire life) than hateful or intolerant. The entire Robinson schtick is based on the premise of it's ok to be different. A&E has a right to be concerned about its advertising base, but if I were to bet, I'd bet this was more a flap (hah) that will vanish into thin air.

However, as to the OP, I'd merely note (with respect) that anyone who acts with intolerance towards another's presonal lifestyle has no reason to expect any tolerance from those whom he/she has intentionally offended? Jesus opined on turning the other cheek, but he also kicked out the money lenders from the Temple because he was offended.

Jesus's 'turning the other cheek' was more in line with the defiinition of true tolerance. A form of forgiveness. As for the money changers, Jesus was not reacting in a physical way to bad speech. He never did that. He was reacting to bad ACTS that were hurting people. A huge difference between those two things. A distinction that many of our friends don't seem to be able to make.

The OP does not pertain to bad ACTS. It does not pertain to any effort to hinder any person's ability to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. We are NOT talking about manifested discrimination here.

We are talking about a person being allowed to be who and what he is, including speaking his/her opinions, without fear that some angry group or mob with use that as an excuse to physically or materially harm him.

The right to be who and what they are is what the gay and lesbian community has been rightfully lobbying to achieve for generations now. And for the most part they have achieved their goal. But the irony is that a group like GLAAD is now not willing to allow the same right to a Phil Robertson or anybody else who expresses an opinion they don't share. They are not willing to allow him to be unmolested when he is who and what he is. And that is just plain wrong.

I have seen you write this many times. So I now ask of you: exactly WHO threaten him with physical violence, and what was threatened to be done to him. Please be specific. Thank you.

 

[WillReadmore]

The issue is that GLAAD wants its members and those it is advocates for to be tolerated for who and what they are. They do not want to be punished physically or materially for stating who and what they are, what they believe, what they want, what they care about. But in this instance, they are not willing to extend the same tolerance to a Phil Robertson and allow him to be who and what he is, state what he believes, what he wants, what he cares about.

GLAAD is right on this.

If the statements had been made against a racial group, the same would apply - once again, there is no reason to leave such statements unopposed.

I don't remember any opposition to Robertson when he remained as a private citizen. He was certainly being tolerated. But, once he used his fame to make a public statement, he should have been more than aware that he would be opposed.

 

[Foxfyre]

He most certainly does NOT!

Good Lord!

He has the right to say anything he wants, but there are many forms of repercussion from which he has no legal protection at all.

He DOES however have an unalienable right to express his religious or any other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after him to punish him, hurt him, harm him, destroy him. Just as they have a right to express their contempt for any of his religious or other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after them to punish them, hurt them, harm them, destroy them.

Too many here--people I actually like, enjoy and admire--seem unable to grasp that simple concept. Tolerance is NOT agreement, endorsement, acceptance, or anything of that nature. Tolerance IS allowing the other person, however disagreeable, to be who or what he/she is so long as s/he is not infringing on the rights of others.

Phil Robertson's expressed opinions whenever, whatever, wherever, just as one example, are one man's opinion. Phil isn't running for political office. He is not calling for retribution or action against anybody. He has no power or intent or motive whatsoever to harm anybody, including gay and lesbian people, purely by stating what he believes.

To attempt to physically or materially harm him (or anybody else) for no reason other than he said something somebody disagrees with is evil.

The bold: I concur with you. But cons will just keep going on and on and on about how hateful libs are.. uhuh...

And who exactly is threatening him with harm? If you think a boycott causes him harm, then are you willing to lambaste all those Pastors and others who wanted boycotts of places like Starbucks because they are not openly hostile to gays, right?

I would ask you to quote me a specific quote in which I went on and on about "how hateful libs are." And when you are unable to do that, maybe you might be charitable enough to post all the instances in this thread I have asked everybody NOT to make it a partisan thing. And if you don't have it in you to be charitable about that, at least be fair and point out all the times the liberals have taken partisan shots at the eeeeeeeevul conservatives, including me. Both are out of line when they do that. I was out of line when I slipped and did that.

I have done my damndest to make this as bipartisan as it possibly can be. I have no problem with anybody from GLAAD personally boycotting A&E and/or Duck Dynasty or any product using Phil Robertson to sell it or whatever or whomever they choose not to patronize for whatever reason.

This thread has never been about that. Or critcism of anybody for their personal choices.

But. . .When you organize and demand that somebody be fired you are physically and materially harming somebody. And when that is for no offense other than the person stated an opinion that you disagree with and/or don't like, it is wrong. It is evil. It is taking intolerance into a destructive area that should be acceptable to nobody who values liberty.

I must be the world's worst communicator because I have said that so many times now and in every possible way I can think of. And still some seem unable to grasp the concept.

 

[Samson]

I must be the world's worst communicator because I have said that so many times now and in every possible way I can think of. And still some seem unable to grasp the concept.

What Concept?

 

[The T]

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?

Probably depends on the context, but in most cases, I bet a person could feel offended.

And that's the problem, isn't it? NO thought involved. TK is correct of your flaw.

 

[Statistikhengst]

He DOES however have an unalienable right to express his religious or any other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after him to punish him, hurt him, harm him, destroy him. Just as they have a right to express their contempt for any of his religious or other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after them to punish them, hurt them, harm them, destroy them.

Too many here--people I actually like, enjoy and admire--seem unable to grasp that simple concept. Tolerance is NOT agreement, endorsement, acceptance, or anything of that nature. Tolerance IS allowing the other person, however disagreeable, to be who or what he/she is so long as s/he is not infringing on the rights of others.

Phil Robertson's expressed opinions whenever, whatever, wherever, just as one example, are one man's opinion. Phil isn't running for political office. He is not calling for retribution or action against anybody. He has no power or intent or motive whatsoever to harm anybody, including gay and lesbian people, purely by stating what he believes.

To attempt to physically or materially harm him (or anybody else) for no reason other than he said something somebody disagrees with is evil.

The bold: I concur with you. But cons will just keep going on and on and on about how hateful libs are.. uhuh...

And who exactly is threatening him with harm? If you think a boycott causes him harm, then are you willing to lambaste all those Pastors and others who wanted boycotts of places like Starbucks because they are not openly hostile to gays, right?

I would ask you to quote me a specific quote in which I went on and on about "how hateful libs are." And when you are unable to do that, maybe you might be charitable enough to post all the instances in this thread I have asked everybody NOT to make it a partisan thing. And if you don't have it in you to be charitable about that, at least be fair and point out all the times the liberals have taken partisan shots at the eeeeeeeevul conservatives, including me. Both are out of line when they do that. I was out of line when I slipped and did that.

I have done my damndest to make this as bipartisan as it possibly can be. I have no problem with anybody from GLAAD personally boycotting A&E and/or Duck Dynasty or any product using Phil Robertson to sell it or whatever or whomever they choose not to patronize for whatever reason.

This thread has never been about that. Or critcism of anybody.

But. . .When you organize and demand that somebody be fired you are physically and materially harming somebody. And when that is for no offense other than the person stated an opinion that you disagree with and/or don't like, it is wrong. It is evil. It is taking intolerance into a destructive area that should be acceptable to nobody who values liberty.

I must be the world's worst communicator because I have said that so many times now and in every possible way I can think of. And still some seem unable to grasp the concept.

I didn't say you. I said "cons" - plural, meaning, more than one. And references from them about liberals in this way ARE ALL OVER THIS THREAD. Surely you can see that.

 

[The T]

The bold: I concur with you. But cons will just keep going on and on and on about how hateful libs are.. uhuh...

And who exactly is threatening him with harm? If you think a boycott causes him harm, then are you willing to lambaste all those Pastors and others who wanted boycotts of places like Starbucks because they are not openly hostile to gays, right?

I would ask you to quote me a specific quote in which I went on and on about "how hateful libs are." And when you are unable to do that, maybe you might be charitable enough to post all the instances in this thread I have asked everybody NOT to make it a partisan thing. And if you don't have it in you to be charitable about that, at least be fair and point out all the times the liberals have taken partisan shots at the eeeeeeeevul conservatives, including me. Both are out of line when they do that. I was out of line when I slipped and did that.

I have done my damndest to make this as bipartisan as it possibly can be. I have no problem with anybody from GLAAD personally boycotting A&E and/or Duck Dynasty or any product using Phil Robertson to sell it or whatever or whomever they choose not to patronize for whatever reason.

This thread has never been about that. Or critcism of anybody.

But. . .When you organize and demand that somebody be fired you are physically and materially harming somebody. And when that is for no offense other than the person stated an opinion that you disagree with and/or don't like, it is wrong. It is evil. It is taking intolerance into a destructive area that should be acceptable to nobody who values liberty.

I must be the world's worst communicator because I have said that so many times now and in every possible way I can think of. And still some seem unable to grasp the concept.

I didn't say you. I said "cons" - plural, meaning, more than one. And references from them about liberals in this way ARE ALL OVER THIS THREAD. Surely you can see that.

YOUR meaning was clear.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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?

Probably depends on the context, but in most cases, I bet a person could feel offended.

And that's the problem, isn't it? NO thought involved. TK is correct of your flaw.

Maybe an English course for you, sport?

There was no reason to attack what I wrote in that post. It is simple logic and free of partisanship. Only a hack attacks something like that.

And BTW, being "offended" always involves feelings, for taking offense is in and of itself a feeling. It is part of the human condition. And feelings are also thoughts, btw.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I would ask you to quote me a specific quote in which I went on and on about "how hateful libs are." And when you are unable to do that, maybe you might be charitable enough to post all the instances in this thread I have asked everybody NOT to make it a partisan thing. And if you don't have it in you to be charitable about that, at least be fair and point out all the times the liberals have taken partisan shots at the eeeeeeeevul conservatives, including me. Both are out of line when they do that. I was out of line when I slipped and did that.

I have done my damndest to make this as bipartisan as it possibly can be. I have no problem with anybody from GLAAD personally boycotting A&E and/or Duck Dynasty or any product using Phil Robertson to sell it or whatever or whomever they choose not to patronize for whatever reason.

This thread has never been about that. Or critcism of anybody.

But. . .When you organize and demand that somebody be fired you are physically and materially harming somebody. And when that is for no offense other than the person stated an opinion that you disagree with and/or don't like, it is wrong. It is evil. It is taking intolerance into a destructive area that should be acceptable to nobody who values liberty.

I must be the world's worst communicator because I have said that so many times now and in every possible way I can think of. And still some seem unable to grasp the concept.

I didn't say you. I said "cons" - plural, meaning, more than one. And references from them about liberals in this way ARE ALL OVER THIS THREAD. Surely you can see that.

YOUR meaning was clear.

correct, just as I explained it. Cons - with S, plural.

And your very behaviour right now proves my point.

 

[Statistikhengst]

He DOES however have an unalienable right to express his religious or any other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after him to punish him, hurt him, harm him, destroy him. Just as they have a right to express their contempt for any of his religious or other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after them to punish them, hurt them, harm them, destroy them.

Too many here--people I actually like, enjoy and admire--seem unable to grasp that simple concept. Tolerance is NOT agreement, endorsement, acceptance, or anything of that nature. Tolerance IS allowing the other person, however disagreeable, to be who or what he/she is so long as s/he is not infringing on the rights of others.

Phil Robertson's expressed opinions whenever, whatever, wherever, just as one example, are one man's opinion. Phil isn't running for political office. He is not calling for retribution or action against anybody. He has no power or intent or motive whatsoever to harm anybody, including gay and lesbian people, purely by stating what he believes.

To attempt to physically or materially harm him (or anybody else) for no reason other than he said something somebody disagrees with is evil.

The bold: I concur with you. But cons will just keep going on and on and on about how hateful libs are.. uhuh...

And who exactly is threatening him with harm? If you think a boycott causes him harm, then are you willing to lambaste all those Pastors and others who wanted boycotts of places like Starbucks because they are not openly hostile to gays, right?

I would ask you to quote me a specific quote in which I went on and on about "how hateful libs are." And when you are unable to do that, maybe you might be charitable enough to post all the instances in this thread I have asked everybody NOT to make it a partisan thing. And if you don't have it in you to be charitable about that, at least be fair and point out all the times the liberals have taken partisan shots at the eeeeeeeevul conservatives, including me. Both are out of line when they do that. I was out of line when I slipped and did that.

I have done my damndest to make this as bipartisan as it possibly can be. I have no problem with anybody from GLAAD personally boycotting A&E and/or Duck Dynasty or any product using Phil Robertson to sell it or whatever or whomever they choose not to patronize for whatever reason.

This thread has never been about that. Or critcism of anybody for their personal choices.

But. . .When you organize and demand that somebody be fired you are physically and materially harming somebody. And when that is for no offense other than the person stated an opinion that you disagree with and/or don't like, it is wrong. It is evil. It is taking intolerance into a destructive area that should be acceptable to nobody who values liberty.

I must be the world's worst communicator because I have said that so many times now and in every possible way I can think of. And still some seem unable to grasp the concept.

Bullshit. You are financially hurting him, not physically. Come on, Fox, you know better than this!!!

 

[ClosedCaption]

Should having liberty be used to impede the liberty of another with malice?

I dont know, are the people who will stop watching A&E doing so to impede the liberty of another with Malice?

Does it matter? A&E sell programming...if no one buys it? Is that MALICE, or choice?

I repeated your question back and you say now your own set up doesn't matter? Why'd you ask in the first place?