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

[Montrovant]

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.

If someone is a Nielsen viewer, watches Duck Dynasty regularly, and decides to stop because of what Phil Robertson said in the GQ interview....couldn't that be construed as materially harming him? Would that be evil?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

Is it not my right? Or is it not my right simply because I hit the nail on the head?

You see, my sword doesn't cut one way. Not all liberals take the time to explain anything to me, except for how much they hate my guts and want to string them up like Christmas lights because I disagree with them. I make examples of them if they do. Pogo for example is a liberal, so is Mertex and Noomi, they take the time to respectfully disagree with me. None of them call me names and get melodramatic like some others do. Other liberals make spectacles of themselves, spew self righteous invective and endless pejoratives in my direction instead of making an actual argument. That's a fact of life you will have to accept, Stat. I do the same to conservatives on this board, so don't go prejudging me for whom I associate, okay? (I remember you telling me that a day or so ago)

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You set the bar exactly where it would be just beyond what Phil Robertson has done. I doubt that's coincidental.

You pretend that words alone are harmless. Hitler was little more than a big talker before he eventually came to power and could 'act out' his words.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

If someone is a Nielsen viewer, watches Duck Dynasty regularly, and decides to stop because of what Phil Robertson said in the GQ interview....couldn't that be construed as materially harming him? Would that be evil?

According to these people it would be. And if you encouraged your neighbor, or your friends, or the people at work to do the same,

then you're even eviler and in the view of Foxfyre you'd be close to committing acts she believes should be illegal.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

You set the bar exactly where it would be just beyond what Phil Robertson has done. I doubt that's coincidental.

You pretend that words alone are harmless. Hitler was little more than a big talker before he eventually came to power and could 'act out' his words.

Godwin's law has been invoked from this point forward.

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1

Now to the other parts of your post.

A&E once described itself as a "champion of lesbian and gay rights" yet somehow even with that self proclamation, they chose to hire him. Speaks to a double standard doesn't it? Why hire a man that completely contradicts your values, only to punish him nearly four years later for expressing himself? An old child's colloquialism:

"Sticks and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." So many people like you let words hurt them, and in return you hurt the folks who utter them. That's not how life works.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
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.

No. You're just wrong. If you're so tolerant, why are you spending so much time trying to admonish people to think and do as you do?

 

[Vox]

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?

you can CALL him whatever you feel like is appropriate - but you do not have the right, unless you are an intolerant bigot, to engage in persecuting the guy who just called you a word.
Big fucking deal. a word

 

[TemplarKormac]

[
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.

No. You're just wrong. If you're so tolerant, why are you spending so much time trying to admonish people to think and do as you do?

"You're just wrong" does not qualify as an argument. If you were so tolerant, why did you compare Fox to Hitler? Why do you begrudge PR the right to speak his mind?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You set the bar exactly where it would be just beyond what Phil Robertson has done. I doubt that's coincidental.

You pretend that words alone are harmless. Hitler was little more than a big talker before he eventually came to power and could 'act out' his words.

Godwin's law has been invoked from this point forward.

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1

Now to the other parts of your post.

A&E once described itself as a "champion of lesbian and gay rights" yet somehow even with that self proclamation, they chose to hire him. Speaks to a double standard doesn't it? Why hire a man that completely contradicts your values, only to punish him nearly four years later for expressing himself? Words are harmless.

"Sticks and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

You don't think Adolf Hitler is history's best example of someone who was able to use the power of words alone to ultimately do harm?

I asked Foxfyre earlier if white supremacists got a cable channel and started broadcasting anti-semitic propaganda and the like 24/7 if it would be unethical for Jewish groups to organize boycotts,

since Foxfyre came out unequivocally that boycotts are unethical if they are just over 'words'.

I notice she didn't answer. I'm pretty sure why.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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?

Is it not my right? Or is it not my right simply because I hit the nail on the head?

You see, my sword doesn't cut one way. Not all liberals take the time to explain anything to me, except for how much they hate my guts and want to string them up like Christmas lights because I disagree with them. I make examples of them if they do. Pogo for example is a liberal, so is Mertex and Noomi, they take the time to respectfully disagree with me. None of them call me names and get melodramatic like some others do. Other liberals make spectacles of themselves, spew self righteous invective and endless pejoratives in my direction instead of making an actual argument. That's a fact of life you will have to accept, Stat. I do the same to conservatives on this board, so don't go prejudging me for whom I associate, okay? (I remember you telling me that a day or so ago)

Did I ever say that is is not your right?

Answer: NO.

All I did was to take your statement and reformulate it from the other side. Why the umbrage? If it was so innocent when you formulated it, isn't my formulation just as innocent? Hmmm???

And just to be clear, I have never called you a name, or?

Oh and:

Other Conservative make spectacles of themselves, spew self righteous invective and endless pejoratives in my direction instead of making an actual argument. That's a fact of life you will have to accept, TK.


I hope the point is getting across.

The point is that you keep making generalizations and then it itches when I remind you of those generalizations.

the key point here is that I have done absolutely none of these things to you. Food for thought for you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
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.

No. You're just wrong. If you're so tolerant, why are you spending so much time trying to admonish people to think and do as you do?

"You're just wrong" does not qualify as an argument. If you were so tolerant, why did you compare Fox to Hitler? Why do you begrudge PR the right to speak his mind?

My arguments in this thread stand on their own merits with or without your substanceless opinions of them.

If you could read and think you'd understand the argument I made using Hitler. Maybe you should reread it, focusing on what argument I'm making,

and then, if you disagre with that argument, refute it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You set the bar exactly where it would be just beyond what Phil Robertson has done. I doubt that's coincidental.

You pretend that words alone are harmless. Hitler was little more than a big talker before he eventually came to power and could 'act out' his words.

Godwin's law has been invoked from this point forward.

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1

Now to the other parts of your post.

A&E once described itself as a "champion of lesbian and gay rights" yet somehow even with that self proclamation, they chose to hire him. Speaks to a double standard doesn't it? Why hire a man that completely contradicts your values, only to punish him nearly four years later for expressing himself? Words are harmless.

"Sticks and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

You don't think Adolf Hitler is history's best example of someone who was able to use the power of words alone to ultimately do harm?

I asked Foxfyre earlier if white supremacists got a cable channel and started broadcasting anti-semitic propaganda and the like 24/7 if it would be unethical for Jewish groups to organize boycotts,

since Foxfyre came out unequivocally that boycotts are unethical if they are just over 'words'.

I notice she didn't answer. I'm pretty sure why.

So? Do you expect someone to respond when you compare them to a mass murderer? You present all of these faux scenarios, ask her all these trap questions, but you never once try to take on her points as they are. You call her evil, a liar... you've called me a pussy...No way, Jose.

Your argument ceased to have any credence the moment you started spouting pejoratives at her.

 

[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?

you can CALL him whatever you feel like is appropriate - but you do not have the right, unless you are an intolerant bigot, to engage in persecuting the guy who just called you a word.
Big fucking deal. a word

You weren't very kind to the Tea Party in that moment. Tsk, tsk.
That is going to leave a mark. Ouch.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No. You're just wrong. If you're so tolerant, why are you spending so much time trying to admonish people to think and do as you do?

"You're just wrong" does not qualify as an argument. If you were so tolerant, why did you compare Fox to Hitler? Why do you begrudge PR the right to speak his mind?

My arguments in this thread stand on their own merits with or without your substanceless opinions of them.

If you could read and think you'd understand the argument I made using Hitler. Maybe you should reread it, focusing on what argument I'm making,

and then, if you disagre with that argument, refute it.

No, your arguments stand on contention. Nothing more. Actually, my opinions are more than opinions, carbine. I've debated theology, ethics, philosophy, and history with a good number of people here. I remember thumping you twice in this thread already.

I've refuted your argument many different ways, but you chose to ignore it and persisted in making your unwarranted claims about the author of this OP. You have been attacking her incessantly all day, not once have you debated her seriously. You've been indignant, uppity, and self-righteous.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"You're just wrong" does not qualify as an argument. If you were so tolerant, why did you compare Fox to Hitler? Why do you begrudge PR the right to speak his mind?

My arguments in this thread stand on their own merits with or without your substanceless opinions of them.

If you could read and think you'd understand the argument I made using Hitler. Maybe you should reread it, focusing on what argument I'm making,

and then, if you disagre with that argument, refute it.

No, your arguments stand on contention. Nothing more. Actually, my opinions are more than opinions, carbine. I've debated theology, ethics, philosophy, and history with a good number of people here. I remember thumping you twice in this thread already.

I've refuted your argument many different ways, but you chose to ignore it and persisted in making your unwarranted claims about the author of this OP. You have been attacking her incessantly all day, not once have you debated her seriously. You've been indignant, uppity, and self-righteous.

A say-so is not an argument.

Show how I compared FF to Hitler. Do it in detail, mr. debater.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

Is it not my right? Or is it not my right simply because I hit the nail on the head?

You see, my sword doesn't cut one way. Not all liberals take the time to explain anything to me, except for how much they hate my guts and want to string them up like Christmas lights because I disagree with them. I make examples of them if they do. Pogo for example is a liberal, so is Mertex and Noomi, they take the time to respectfully disagree with me. None of them call me names and get melodramatic like some others do. Other liberals make spectacles of themselves, spew self righteous invective and endless pejoratives in my direction instead of making an actual argument. That's a fact of life you will have to accept, Stat. I do the same to conservatives on this board, so don't go prejudging me for whom I associate, okay? (I remember you telling me that a day or so ago)

Did I ever say that is is not your right?

Answer: NO.

All I did was to take your statement and reformulate it from the other side. Why the umbrage? If it was so innocent when you formulated it, isn't my formulation just as innocent? Hmmm???

And just to be clear, I have never called you a name, or?

Oh and:

Other Conservative make spectacles of themselves, spew self righteous invective and endless pejoratives in my direction instead of making an actual argument. That's a fact of life you will have to accept, TK.


I hope the point is getting across.

The point is that you keep making generalizations and then it itches when I remind you of those generalizations.

the key point here is that I have done absolutely none of these things to you. Food for thought for you.

You're the one resorting to generalizations. Of both Christians and Conservatives. I'm reminding you the opposite is true. It itches when the last vestiges of your liberal world are thrown to the wind like chaff.

I have a right to "go there" if I please. So yes, you were dictating to me what my rights were.

 

[The T]

[
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.

No. You're just wrong. If you're so tolerant, why are you spending so much time trying to admonish people to think and do as you do?

"You're just wrong" does not qualify as an argument. If you were so tolerant, why did you compare Fox to Hitler? Why do you begrudge PR the right to speak his mind?

Carbonated just never gets it and he never will. HE will continue to be wrong and live in his world of assumptions. It's better to let dogs lie there and snarl...even when they're wrong TK.

 

[TemplarKormac]

My arguments in this thread stand on their own merits with or without your substanceless opinions of them.

If you could read and think you'd understand the argument I made using Hitler. Maybe you should reread it, focusing on what argument I'm making,

and then, if you disagre with that argument, refute it.

No, your arguments stand on contention. Nothing more. Actually, my opinions are more than opinions, carbine. I've debated theology, ethics, philosophy, and history with a good number of people here. I remember thumping you twice in this thread already.

I've refuted your argument many different ways, but you chose to ignore it and persisted in making your unwarranted claims about the author of this OP. You have been attacking her incessantly all day, not once have you debated her seriously. You've been indignant, uppity, and self-righteous.

A say-so is not an argument.

Show how I compared FF to Hitler. Do it in detail, mr. debater.

Excuse me, but haven't you been "saying so" all day?

"You pretend that words alone are harmless. Hitler was little more than a big talker before he eventually came to power and could 'act out' his words."

When you referred to Hitler as a "big talker" you meant Fox also. You accused her of being a big talker and of being a fraud. Hitler was inherently evil and megalomaniacal

You've crossed two lines today:

One, you've attacked a good woman today, who has not responded in kind to your childishness.

Two, you've compared her to a mass murderer, you've dubbed her "evil" and have been in no uncertain terms unapologetic and unremorseful. You don't like others calling you a liar, but you don't mind calling others liars. You don't like to have your image tarnished by anyone, yet you take to slandering others.

"Humility for thee, but not for me" in other words.

 

[The T]

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.

You set the bar exactly where it would be just beyond what Phil Robertson has done. I doubt that's coincidental.

You pretend that words alone are harmless. Hitler was little more than a big talker before he eventually came to power and could 'act out' his words.

Snarl away DAWG...Hitler? Really? Comparing Foxy to Hitler?

Good GOD man? Stay in your bed DAWG...sit. Good boy.

 

[candycorn]

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

welcome to crazy land

It's a very short trip from outlawing a worker's right to strike since it deprives the owner of income.