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

[Foxfyre]

Did Robertson say it? Was it in his own words? Yes or no. Yes or no.

btw, why hunarcy acknowledge I was right and he was wrong, which means therefore you were wrong?

Are you calling him a liar too?

But to anyone who is capable of reading and understanding the OP, the point is not what he said or how he said it. Again--for the umpteenth time, I do not agree with his interpretation of the Bible or how he expressed it.

The point is whether he is entitled to his beliefs, right or wrong, left or right, Democrat or Republican, Christian or non Christian, or whatever without fear of some group, mob, or organization demanding that he be physically or materially punished.

The point is whether ANYBODY is entitled to his beliefs, right or wrong, left or right, Democrat or Republican, Christian or non Christian or whatever without fear of some group, mob, or organization demanding that he be physically or materially punished.

The issue here is not whether Phil Robertson, or anybody else, is right or wrong. The issue is whether he should be allowed to be so long as he is not infringing on anybody else's rights.

And yes, I have strongly resisted anybody, left or right, who tried to introduce something different from that particular issue.

The issue is not partisanship.
The issue is not who or what is a Christian.
The issue is not who is worthy of criticism.
The issue is not advocacy groups whether left or right.
The issue is not who has said objectionable things.
The issue is not actions that have a physical or material affect on others.
The issue is not whether somebody else has done it too.
The issue is not whether I or anybody else is partisan.

The issue is whether the ability to say what we believe should be an unalienable right. Should we approve and let it stand unopposed when GLAAD, or ANY other group, left or right, demands that a person be physically or materially punished purely for expressing a belief not shared by the group?

I think your question is misleading. How is anyone's right to believe anything taken away by an advocacy group trying to convince a television station not to air a show that person is part of? The first sentence about whether saying what you believe is an unalienable right is not the same as the second about groups making demands. The right to have and express an opinion is not the same as the right to express it in any format you want without consequences.

Arguing the ethics of advocacy groups trying to get someone fired is not the same as arguing whether we have a right to say what we believe.

I disagree. First GLAAD did not go after Duck Dynasty or A&E. They didn't go after GQ who published the article.

Phil Robertson's statement was made extemporaneously as an answer to a direct question from a GQ interviewer. It was his own opinion and no way suggested that anybody act on his opinion or that anybody should EVER act on such an opinion. He made a specific point that he wished no ill will on anybody including homosexuals. The interview had nothing to do with A&E or anything associated with A&E. And A&E knew he was giving the interview and consented to it. Phil Robertson was not suggesting policy or that anything should happen to anybody; he isn't running for public office; he isn't teaching what he believes to a class in a public forum. He simply stated what he personally believes.

GLAAD targeted Phil Robertson, and ONLY Phil Robertson, for no reason other than he expressed a personal opinion that they didn't like. And they demanded he be physically and materially punished for expressing that opinion.

Nobody in a free society should have the right not to be criticized. Nobody in a free society should have the right to not be offended. But when America no longer allows a person to express a personal opinion without fear that a mob or group or organization will demand that they be physically and/or materially punished for expressing that opinion, we have no rights.

There is a huge difference between advocacy promoting a cause, such as GLAAD does to promote gay rights or such as MILLION MOMS does to promote decency in media and seeking to harm somebody who is not in an advocacy role of any kind or holds any position of power and who is not calling for harm to anybody, but who simply expresses a personal opinion.

 

[The T]

But to anyone who is capable of reading and understanding the OP, the point is not what he said or how he said it. Again--for the umpteenth time, I do not agree with his interpretation of the Bible or how he expressed it.

The point is whether he is entitled to his beliefs, right or wrong, left or right, Democrat or Republican, Christian or non Christian, or whatever without fear of some group, mob, or organization demanding that he be physically or materially punished.

The point is whether ANYBODY is entitled to his beliefs, right or wrong, left or right, Democrat or Republican, Christian or non Christian or whatever without fear of some group, mob, or organization demanding that he be physically or materially punished.

The issue here is not whether Phil Robertson, or anybody else, is right or wrong. The issue is whether he should be allowed to be so long as he is not infringing on anybody else's rights.

And yes, I have strongly resisted anybody, left or right, who tried to introduce something different from that particular issue.

The issue is not partisanship.
The issue is not who or what is a Christian.
The issue is not who is worthy of criticism.
The issue is not advocacy groups whether left or right.
The issue is not who has said objectionable things.
The issue is not actions that have a physical or material affect on others.
The issue is not whether somebody else has done it too.
The issue is not whether I or anybody else is partisan.

The issue is whether the ability to say what we believe should be an unalienable right. Should we approve and let it stand unopposed when GLAAD, or ANY other group, left or right, demands that a person be physically or materially punished purely for expressing a belief not shared by the group?

I think your question is misleading. How is anyone's right to believe anything taken away by an advocacy group trying to convince a television station not to air a show that person is part of? The first sentence about whether saying what you believe is an unalienable right is not the same as the second about groups making demands. The right to have and express an opinion is not the same as the right to express it in any format you want without consequences.

Arguing the ethics of advocacy groups trying to get someone fired is not the same as arguing whether we have a right to say what we believe.

I disagree. First GLAAD did not go after the Duck Dynasty or A&E. They didn't go after GQ who published the article.

Phil Robertson's statement was made extemporaneously as an answer to a direct question from a GQ interviewer. It was his own opinion and no way suggested that anybody act on his opinion or that anybody should EVER act on such an opinion. He made a specific point that he wished no ill will on anybody including homosexuals. The interview had nothing to do with A&E or anything associated with A&E. And A&E knew he was giving the interview and consented to it. Phil Robertson was not suggesting policy or that anything should happen to anybody; he isn't running for public office; he isn't teaching what he believes to a class in a public forum. He simply stated what he personally believes.

GLAAD targeted Phil Robertson, and ONLY Phil Robertson, for no reason other than he expressed a personal opinion that they didn't like. And they demanded he be physically and materially punished for expressing that opinion.

Nobody in a free society has the right not to be criticized. Nobody in a free society has the right to not be offended. And when America no longer allows a person to express a personal opinion without fear that a mob or group or organization will demand that they be physically and/or materially punished for expressing that opinion, we have no rights.

People had better be careful of what they wish for...because they are NEXT.

 

[BDBoop]

And therefore it would follow that One Million Moms was wrong to go after Ellen's contract with JCPenney as well. Correct? No qualifiers, no excuses or explanations.

 

[ClosedCaption]

And therefore it would follow that One Million Moms was wrong to go after Ellen's contract with JCPenney as well. Correct? No qualifiers, no excuses or explanations.

Thats different. Watch.

They cant explain how it just is

 

[Mac1958]

and therefore it would follow that one million moms was wrong to go after ellen's contract with jcpenney as well. Correct? No qualifiers, no excuses or explanations.

Correct. Yes.

.

 

[The T]

and therefore it would follow that one million moms was wrong to go after ellen's contract with jcpenney as well. Correct? No qualifiers, no excuses or explanations.

Correct. Yes.

.

Yep. Just as wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

But to anyone who is capable of reading and understanding the OP, the point is not what he said or how he said it. Again--for the umpteenth time, I do not agree with his interpretation of the Bible or how he expressed it.

The point is whether he is entitled to his beliefs, right or wrong, left or right, Democrat or Republican, Christian or non Christian, or whatever without fear of some group, mob, or organization demanding that he be physically or materially punished.

The point is whether ANYBODY is entitled to his beliefs, right or wrong, left or right, Democrat or Republican, Christian or non Christian or whatever without fear of some group, mob, or organization demanding that he be physically or materially punished.

The issue here is not whether Phil Robertson, or anybody else, is right or wrong. The issue is whether he should be allowed to be so long as he is not infringing on anybody else's rights.

You are not entitled to be immune from public opinion, provided that the expression of that public opinion does not break some other law. Slander or libel for example.

Robertson has the right to try to convince people that homosexuals are evil. GLAAD has the same right to try to convince A&E that they should not give a television show to someone who does that.

Okay. So you are on the record that nobody is entitled to their opinion unless it is politically correct. We now live in a society that deems it proper to physically and/or materially punish those who don't think, believe, or speak what somebody else thinks they should be required to do. There is no more liberty in America to be who and what we are in peace unless we are among the well financed and powerful with sufficient clout? Is that what you are saying?

No, what I'm saying is what I said. I said

You are not entitled to be immune from public opinion, provided that the expression of that public opinion does not break some other law. Slander or libel for example.

If you disagree with that, then do so and make an argument as why I'm wrong. That's how debate works.

 

[BDBoop]

Okay, peeps. I'm stepping out. I hope everybody has a wonderful Christmas Eve. If you travel, travel safe.

xoxo

Boop

 

[NYcarbineer]

and therefore it would follow that one million moms was wrong to go after ellen's contract with jcpenney as well. Correct? No qualifiers, no excuses or explanations.

Correct. Yes.

.

Wrong? What was wrong and by what measure(s) was it wrong? Specifically

 

[JohnL.Burke]

So it goes, for which I am partially to blame, a topic dying from a thousand cuts. I would like to say a eulogy for my friend, the topic. He was a good topic. A substantial topic. The topic had never hurt anyone but its mere presence brought out the stupid in people. This topic, like all topics, eventually brought out comparisons to Hitler. This is of course the death nell of all topics. Hypocrisy , intolerance and arguments about Christianity all lead to the murder of this topic. I too am responsible for being to immature to let silly name calling go unchecked. We are all topic murderers! This topic should have been loved and nurtured by either the government or the parents (depending on rather your republican or democrat). Goodbye topic, you will be in my thoughts... and yes... in my heart. Let us bow our heads and pray.

R.I.P

No, it shall live to fight valiantly yet another day!!!

As a zombie? This topic has been mutilated, lobotomized, gutted, molested, misquoted and aborted in a prom dance toilet. NYcarbineer is now standing on its corpse while flinging his feces in a spider-monkey dominance dance while proclaiming that he is the most non-partisan spider-monkey on this site. The drums of irony beating hard in the snake infested thickets of the USMB jungle.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And therefore it would follow that One Million Moms was wrong to go after Ellen's contract with JCPenney as well. Correct? No qualifiers, no excuses or explanations.

Thats different. Watch.

They cant explain how it just is

I think we've painted them into a corner that doesn't allow much room for dancing.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Yes ma'am!

Oh, is this now the spanking thread?

Let's hope!

 

[BDBoop]

and therefore it would follow that one million moms was wrong to go after ellen's contract with jcpenney as well. Correct? No qualifiers, no excuses or explanations.

Correct. Yes.

.

Wrong? What was wrong and by what measure(s) was it wrong? Specifically

Dude?

 

[Mac1958]

and therefore it would follow that one million moms was wrong to go after ellen's contract with jcpenney as well. Correct? No qualifiers, no excuses or explanations.

Correct. Yes.

.

Wrong? What was wrong and by what measure(s) was it wrong? Specifically

"Wrong" is a subjective term. It was not illegal, it was not against their rights, it was not unconstitutional, no one's civil rights were being trampled. By my personal ethical standards, it was wrong.

Just wanted to clear away a few potential, predictable straw man responses there.

As I have made abundantly clear in a zillion posts on this topic, it is my humble opinion that the best and quickest way to solve differences and heal wounds is to (1) allow people to express their thoughts and opinions without fear of any retribution of any kind, and (2) using that as a springboard to honest, thoughtful communication in an effort to change minds & hearts and heal the wounds.

I also think that people who go through life finding ways to punish people for expressing themselves and intimidating them from expressing themselves are hypocritical, paranoid narcissists.

I don't think I can make it any more clear than that.
.

 

[Foxfyre]

You are not entitled to be immune from public opinion, provided that the expression of that public opinion does not break some other law. Slander or libel for example.

Robertson has the right to try to convince people that homosexuals are evil. GLAAD has the same right to try to convince A&E that they should not give a television show to someone who does that.

Okay. So you are on the record that nobody is entitled to their opinion unless it is politically correct. We now live in a society that deems it proper to physically and/or materially punish those who don't think, believe, or speak what somebody else thinks they should be required to do. There is no more liberty in America to be who and what we are in peace unless we are among the well financed and powerful with sufficient clout? Is that what you are saying?

No, what I'm saying is what I said. I said

You are not entitled to be immune from public opinion, provided that the expression of that public opinion does not break some other law. Slander or libel for example.

If you disagree with that, then do so and make an argument as why I'm wrong. That's how debate works.

I've been making the argument again and again and again. And again, the issue is not public opinion or expression of public opinion. This has nothing to do with what is or is not legal though it is my opinion that denying somebody their unalienable right to be who and what they are, so long as they infringe on nobody else's rights, should be illegal. It should be illegal to punish somebody for advocating for gays or abortion rights. It should be illegal to punish somebody for advocating for traditional marriage or the rights of the unborn. It should be illegal to punish somebody for stating they think Christians are evil people or teach evil concepts. And it should be illegal to punish a Phil Robertson simply because he holds a politically incorrect opinion.

But what I think should be illegal is my personal opinion. I have no power to enforce that opinion, other than with one vote, and I have no desire to punish anybody who does not agree with me.

I would have had zero problem with GLAAD or anybody else cxriticizing Robertson for what he said. That is certainly within their right to do. That certainly would be a proper thing for them to do.

My quarrel with GLAAD is that they were not content to express their disapproval of or disagreement with what he said. They instead went after him to physically and materially punish him for what he said. And THAT is what I see as morally and ethically wrong. It isn't illegal. But it should be.

 

[hunarcy]

[MENTION=21954]Sunshine[/MENTION] [MENTION=34298]Mac1958[/MENTION]

Someone should siggy that.

"I am the one person in this thread who did more to make it non-partisan than all the rest of you combined."

Admit it...you want to HAHAHA for several lines, don't you?

 

[hunarcy]

You are correct, I was mistaken, he was paraphrasing Romans I:26 - 32. As I acknowledge in a following post, I didn't know for sure what he was doing and neither did you. It turns out that it was a speech given at a "Wild Game Supper" at Berean Bible Church in Pennsylvania in Feb. 2010. He sprinkled in religious content, hunting stories and the story of his life into the speech.

As far as apologizing to you, I have nothing to apologize for as you have spent two days behaving as if you're the MR wing of the far Left.

Apologize for calling me a liar without bothering to take 1 minute to confirm whether or not your accusation had any merit.
btw, YOU cited the verse in Romans as proof I was lying, which must mean you never even read it.

But that aside, do you know the significance of why the verse was sampled, if you will, as opposed to simply being quoted by Phil Robertson, or possibly by whoever composed what he actually said?

Because Phil's rendition distorts the passage into a direct and specific attack on homosexuals, and that is in no way what those verses really are.

That implies intent. Intent to specifically disparage homosexuals.

You ARE a liar.

You had no idea he was paraphrasing ( which is the same as quoting, but in own words) until MeBelle and me schooled you and provided exact name and place and how to find the words on the internet - then you became all suddenly "educated".
the education was provided to you on page 13 and repeated on 14-15 of this thread. Until THEN you have had not a slightest idea it was a paraphrased quote from the Bible.

and the reason you had no idea is simple - you, personally, are a typical low information leftist voter and you based your knowledge on the LA times and Hufpost articles where the words of PR were given as his OWN. Being who you are you did not check the information YOURSELF because you believe every word of the lies those masters are telling you

So yes, you are a LIAR and a shameless one to demand an apology for calling you so when it is well deserved.

He's a "Self-Feeding Troll" and isn't really engaging in debate. He's just trying to disrupt the conversation.

 

[hunarcy]

you are a LIAR.

you had no idea the words are from the Bible ALTOGETHER until MeBelle and me schooled you on the subject - on the page 13, 14 and 15.

Keep believing every word you leftist media throw on you without checking - and you will come as an ignorant liar even more.


you can cut my quote as much as you want - because you a LIAR, it still doesn't change the reality that you KNOW you lost the argument, don't you?

Did Robertson say it? Was it in his own words? Yes or no. Yes or no.

btw, why hunarcy acknowledge I was right and he was wrong, which means therefore you were wrong?

Are you calling him a liar too?

just stop lying. he said it in a sermon.

and you thought those words were HIS OWN words as your leftard masters wanted you to believe.

and that is the problem here - you are a low information uneducated voter who can be brainwashed any way they want even when you look stupid.

so you did.

next time check you leftard "bibles" before believing every word they say.

How odd. I never said the Self-Feeding Troll was correct. I merely acknowledged that I was mistaken and identified where the remarks were made.

 

[hunarcy]

I disagree. First GLAAD did not go after Duck Dynasty or A&E. They didn't go after GQ who published the article.

Phil Robertson's statement was made extemporaneously as an answer to a direct question from a GQ interviewer. It was his own opinion and no way suggested that anybody act on his opinion or that anybody should EVER act on such an opinion. He made a specific point that he wished no ill will on anybody including homosexuals. The interview had nothing to do with A&E or anything associated with A&E. And A&E knew he was giving the interview and consented to it. Phil Robertson was not suggesting policy or that anything should happen to anybody; he isn't running for public office; he isn't teaching what he believes to a class in a public forum. He simply stated what he personally believes.

GLAAD targeted Phil Robertson, and ONLY Phil Robertson, for no reason other than he expressed a personal opinion that they didn't like. And they demanded he be physically and materially punished for expressing that opinion.

Nobody in a free society should have the right not to be criticized. Nobody in a free society should have the right to not be offended. But when America no longer allows a person to express a personal opinion without fear that a mob or group or organization will demand that they be physically and/or materially punished for expressing that opinion, we have no rights.

There is a huge difference between advocacy promoting a cause, such as GLAAD does to promote gay rights or such as MILLION MOMS does to promote decency in media and seeking to harm somebody who is not in an advocacy role of any kind or holds any position of power and who is not calling for harm to anybody, but who simply expresses a personal opinion.

You know, I don't even have a problem with GLAAD going after Robertson for his comments. After all, that is their self-decided mandate. However, to "research" him and try to put pressure on anyone who's ever used him as a spokesman seemingly to try to ensure that he never works again is the evidence of intolerance that no one on the Left is willing to acknowledge.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Correct. Yes.

.

Wrong? What was wrong and by what measure(s) was it wrong? Specifically

Dude?

Well am I to defend GLAAD and not defend the million Moms, simply because of their targets?