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

[JoeB131]

Demanding that someone be fired from a TV show because they said something you didn't like is an exercise in free speech. That happens to be a constitutionally protected right.

To make that illegal you'd have to amend the Constitution, which would never happen because it's an absurd, laughable idea, for starters.

Threatening an action for the same reason is also an exercise in free speech, unless the action threatened does itself violate some other law. Once again, amend the Constitution if you think you're going to make that one illegal.

Rallying thousands or millions or however many to support you in either of those demands is an exercise in freedom of assembly, also constitutionally protected.

So, since all of the above is irrefutable, Foxfyre,

all for the sake of protecting the bigot Phil Robertson, desires a massive trashing of the Bill of Rights.

Wrong again.

You cannot fire a person for their religious beliefs...particularly if you were aware of those beliefs when you hired them.

Where A&E went wrong was to OK the interview in the first place.

What dolts! Lolol!

Again, Robertson wasn't fired.

A&E just refuses to do business with them. WHich is perfectly within their rights to do so.

 

[Foxfyre]

So, four or five times I queried [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION] about a very specific point (which, gee, I thought that is what debate is about) and four or five times I was ignored. Guess the idea was not worthy of thought. Ok, we are done here. Merry Christmas to all.

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION] - I'm sorry Stat. I have not intended to slight anybody. I have been dodging a lot of posts that were off topic and I no doubt skipped over some that were pertinent in the process. And unless somebody directs a question specifically to me, I sometimes don't see any reason to add on when somebody else answers adequately. I try to stay with it, but it is a very busy time at our house and the thread is moving very fast and I almost certainly have not seen every single post and of course have not responded to every single post. And certainly the legitimate post amidst the occasional off topic food fights can be lost when I scroll over those food fights. So if I inadvertenty slighted you I apologize.

Was there a specific question or point you wanted addressed? I think I have read most of your comments, but could you kindly repost the gist of your point that I should address?

You constantly referred to the actions of GLAAD as "physically" harming Robertson.

Where is the physical harm? I see none at all.

Sunshine contended that the pressure, which probably cost him his job, would mean he can't eat anymore, and that would be physical harm. Seriously, no one believes that junk, really?

So, where is the "physical" harm? Where are the "physical" threats? I mean, are the glad people standing there like many Tea Partiers have, with placards that same "we came unarmed, this time"? Really?

I think you can see I have not tried to derail your thread, but it has been one mud-flinging insult from Righties after another. Not exactly a shining moment for them.

And btw, I even mentioned you with the @ every time I asked the question.

Most of the jist of what you wrote, I can live with, at least with the general principle, but I take strong exception to the "physical harm" part. Because those words make Robertson look like much more of a victim than he is.

-Stat

The physical harm is in him losing his spot on a television program he enjoyed doing. It was the intent and effect of removing him physically from a situation and it was particularly hateful because the situation has absolutely nothing to do with his 'offensive' comment or the context in which it was given. It also affects him materially by taking away a portion of his livelihood.

Likewise the MILLION MOMS were in effect encouraging physical harm to Ellen Degeneres by trying to get J C Penney to remove her from their ads. That was particularly disturbing to me because they didn't even object to the content of the ad. They were objecting to her sexual orientation. It would also affect her materially because she almost certainly is paid well to appear in those ads.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
The physical harm is in him losing his spot on a television program he enjoyed doing. It was the intent and effect of removing him physically from a situation. It also affects him materially by taking away a portion of his livelihood.

Likewise the MILLION MOMS were in effect encouraging physical harm to Ellen Degeneres by trying to get J C Penney to remove her from their ads. As well as attempting to damage her materially because she almost certainly is paid well to appear in those ads.

The public has the constitutional right to do that. If you want dismantle the Constitution and permit huge infringements on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly,

good luck with that.

Not everything that Americans have the right to do is going to make little you happy.

Go protest. Join the proposed boycott against A&E that the DD supporters have mounted.

Go call A&E and complain. Use the numbers that Sean Hannity is putting out on the air.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're a little slow on the draw there grannypants. Your pal hunarcy already admitted yesterday that you and he were both wrong.

Go nag him for awhile, lol.

Except HE did not.

You LIE again

You are absolutely correct. I never said MsBelle was wrong, I said I'd made a mistake about the circumstances and paraphrasing.

You should have stuck to being honest like you were for 30 seconds the other day.

You said she was wrong because you said you were wrong and she was making the same exact claim you were.

Let me break it down for you:

Hunarcy admits his claim was wrong.

MeBelle made the same exact claim.

therefore, Hunarcy has admitted that MeBelle was also wrong.

...go to school.

 

[Foxfyre]

[
The physical harm is in him losing his spot on a television program he enjoyed doing. It was the intent and effect of removing him physically from a situation. It also affects him materially by taking away a portion of his livelihood.

Likewise the MILLION MOMS were in effect encouraging physical harm to Ellen Degeneres by trying to get J C Penney to remove her from their ads. As well as attempting to damage her materially because she almost certainly is paid well to appear in those ads.

The public has the constitutional right to do that. If you want dismantle the Constitution and permit huge infringements on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly,

good luck with that.

Not everything that Americans have the right to do is going to make little you happy.

Go protest. Join the proposed boycott against A&E that the DD supporters have mounted.

Go call A&E and complain. Use the numbers that Sean Hannity is putting out on the air.

Once more we are not discussing what is legal or constitutional. We are not discussing what anybody can do. We are not even necessarily discussing what anybody should do.

And I HAVE registered my displeasure with A&E, thank you very much. I let them know that I appreciate the wholesomeness of a program like Duck Dynasty and I think we need to encourage a lot more of it, and in my opinion to suspend Phil Robertson for something he said that had absolutely nothing to do with A&E is morally wrong. I'm WITH the One Million Moms on their advocacy for more wholesome programming. I strongly OPPOSE One Million Moms, however, for attempting to harm Ellen Degeneres for absolutely no reason other than she is gay.

All freedom loving people should be demanding that all of us, so long as we are not treading on anybody else's rights, should be allowed to be who and what we are without fear that some mob, group, or organization will seek to punish or harm us physically or materially.

If we believe an Ellen DeGeneres has every right to be who and what she is and to express her personal opinions, then we have to believe a Phil Robertson has every right to be who and what she is and to express his personal opinions.

If it is wrong for One Million Moms to try to harm Ellen Degeneres for no offense other than she is who she is, then it is wrong for GLAAD to try to harm Phil Robertson for no offense other than he is who he is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
The physical harm is in him losing his spot on a television program he enjoyed doing. It was the intent and effect of removing him physically from a situation. It also affects him materially by taking away a portion of his livelihood.

Likewise the MILLION MOMS were in effect encouraging physical harm to Ellen Degeneres by trying to get J C Penney to remove her from their ads. As well as attempting to damage her materially because she almost certainly is paid well to appear in those ads.

The public has the constitutional right to do that. If you want dismantle the Constitution and permit huge infringements on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly,

good luck with that.

Not everything that Americans have the right to do is going to make little you happy.

Go protest. Join the proposed boycott against A&E that the DD supporters have mounted.

Go call A&E and complain. Use the numbers that Sean Hannity is putting out on the air.

Once more we are not discussing what is legal or constitutional. We are not discussing what anybody can do. We are not even necessarily discussing what anybody should do.

Oh we aren't? Do I need to dig up your quotes saying what should be illegal? lol, would you like your own testimony read back to you, Ms Foxfyre? lolol [/quote]

And I HAVE registered my displeasure with A&E, thank you very much.

You get to complain but GLAAD doesn't? Which standard of fairness does that fall under?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think the Examiner is where the Jeep is moving to China story came from if I recall correctly;

Chrysler announces deal to build Jeeps in China

And NO production is being moved. It's new production. The story was a lie.

 

[Mac1958]

[
The physical harm is in him losing his spot on a television program he enjoyed doing. It was the intent and effect of removing him physically from a situation. It also affects him materially by taking away a portion of his livelihood.

Likewise the MILLION MOMS were in effect encouraging physical harm to Ellen Degeneres by trying to get J C Penney to remove her from their ads. As well as attempting to damage her materially because she almost certainly is paid well to appear in those ads.

The public has the constitutional right to do that. If you want dismantle the Constitution and permit huge infringements on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly,

good luck with that.

Not everything that Americans have the right to do is going to make little you happy.

Go protest. Join the proposed boycott against A&E that the DD supporters have mounted.

Go call A&E and complain. Use the numbers that Sean Hannity is putting out on the air.

Once more we are not discussing what is legal or constitutional. We are not discussing what anybody can do. We are not even necessarily discussing what anybody should do.

And I HAVE registered my displeasure with A&E, thank you very much. I let them know that I appreciate the wholesomeness of a program like Duck Dynasty and I think we need to encourage a lot more of it, and in my opinion to suspend Phil Robertson for something he said that had absolutely nothing to do with A&E is morally wrong. I'm WITH the One Million Moms on their advocacy for more wholesome programming. I strongly OPPOSE One Million Moms, however, for attempting to harm Ellen Degeneres for absolutely no reason other than she is gay.

All freedom loving people should be demanding that all of us, so long as we are not treading on anybody else's rights, should be allowed to be who and what we are without fear that some mob, group, or organization will seek to punish or harm us physically or materially.

If we believe an Ellen DeGeneres has every right to be who and what she is and to express her personal opinions, then we have to believe a Phil Robertson has every right to be who and what she is and to express his personal opinions.

If it is wrong for One Million Moms to try to harm Ellen Degeneres for no offense other than she is who she is, then it is wrong for GLAAD to try to harm Phil Robertson for no offense other than he is who he is.

Bravo, thank you.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The public has the constitutional right to do that. If you want dismantle the Constitution and permit huge infringements on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly,

good luck with that.

Not everything that Americans have the right to do is going to make little you happy.

Go protest. Join the proposed boycott against A&E that the DD supporters have mounted.

Go call A&E and complain. Use the numbers that Sean Hannity is putting out on the air.

Once more we are not discussing what is legal or constitutional. We are not discussing what anybody can do. We are not even necessarily discussing what anybody should do.

And I HAVE registered my displeasure with A&E, thank you very much. I let them know that I appreciate the wholesomeness of a program like Duck Dynasty and I think we need to encourage a lot more of it, and in my opinion to suspend Phil Robertson for something he said that had absolutely nothing to do with A&E is morally wrong. I'm WITH the One Million Moms on their advocacy for more wholesome programming. I strongly OPPOSE One Million Moms, however, for attempting to harm Ellen Degeneres for absolutely no reason other than she is gay.

All freedom loving people should be demanding that all of us, so long as we are not treading on anybody else's rights, should be allowed to be who and what we are without fear that some mob, group, or organization will seek to punish or harm us physically or materially.

If we believe an Ellen DeGeneres has every right to be who and what she is and to express her personal opinions, then we have to believe a Phil Robertson has every right to be who and what she is and to express his personal opinions.

If it is wrong for One Million Moms to try to harm Ellen Degeneres for no offense other than she is who she is, then it is wrong for GLAAD to try to harm Phil Robertson for no offense other than he is who he is.

Bravo, thank you.

.

You do realize that FF wants to make what GLAAD did illegal don't you?

Are you applauding that idiocy?

 

[Mac1958]

Once more we are not discussing what is legal or constitutional. We are not discussing what anybody can do. We are not even necessarily discussing what anybody should do.

And I HAVE registered my displeasure with A&E, thank you very much. I let them know that I appreciate the wholesomeness of a program like Duck Dynasty and I think we need to encourage a lot more of it, and in my opinion to suspend Phil Robertson for something he said that had absolutely nothing to do with A&E is morally wrong. I'm WITH the One Million Moms on their advocacy for more wholesome programming. I strongly OPPOSE One Million Moms, however, for attempting to harm Ellen Degeneres for absolutely no reason other than she is gay.

All freedom loving people should be demanding that all of us, so long as we are not treading on anybody else's rights, should be allowed to be who and what we are without fear that some mob, group, or organization will seek to punish or harm us physically or materially.

If we believe an Ellen DeGeneres has every right to be who and what she is and to express her personal opinions, then we have to believe a Phil Robertson has every right to be who and what she is and to express his personal opinions.

If it is wrong for One Million Moms to try to harm Ellen Degeneres for no offense other than she is who she is, then it is wrong for GLAAD to try to harm Phil Robertson for no offense other than he is who he is.

Bravo, thank you.

.

You do realize that FF wants to make what GLAAD did illegal don't you?

Are you applauding that idiocy?

You really aren't getting this.

I don't support shutting down freedom of expression, period. Either through laws or through the culture. I don't care who is doing it.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

[
The physical harm is in him losing his spot on a television program he enjoyed doing. It was the intent and effect of removing him physically from a situation. It also affects him materially by taking away a portion of his livelihood.

Likewise the MILLION MOMS were in effect encouraging physical harm to Ellen Degeneres by trying to get J C Penney to remove her from their ads. As well as attempting to damage her materially because she almost certainly is paid well to appear in those ads.

The public has the constitutional right to do that. If you want dismantle the Constitution and permit huge infringements on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly,

good luck with that.

Not everything that Americans have the right to do is going to make little you happy.

Go protest. Join the proposed boycott against A&E that the DD supporters have mounted.

Go call A&E and complain. Use the numbers that Sean Hannity is putting out on the air.

Once more we are not discussing what is legal or constitutional. We are not discussing what anybody can do. We are not even necessarily discussing what anybody should do.

And I HAVE registered my displeasure with A&E, thank you very much. I let them know that I appreciate the wholesomeness of a program like Duck Dynasty and I think we need to encourage a lot more of it, and in my opinion to suspend Phil Robertson for something he said that had absolutely nothing to do with A&E is morally wrong. I'm WITH the One Million Moms on their advocacy for more wholesome programming. I strongly OPPOSE One Million Moms, however, for attempting to harm Ellen Degeneres for absolutely no reason other than she is gay.

All freedom loving people should be demanding that all of us, so long as we are not treading on anybody else's rights, should be allowed to be who and what we are without fear that some mob, group, or organization will seek to punish or harm us physically or materially.

If we believe an Ellen DeGeneres has every right to be who and what she is and to express her personal opinions, then we have to believe a Phil Robertson has every right to be who and what she is and to express his personal opinions.

If it is wrong for One Million Moms to try to harm Ellen Degeneres for no offense other than she is who she is, then it is wrong for GLAAD to try to harm Phil Robertson for no offense other than he is who he is.

We are so close on this now we can almost touch, Foxy.

The difference is what we believe constitutes freedom. While what OMM and GLAAD have advocated is most definitely wrong it is still their right to be wrong. We have an obligation to uphold their freedom to be wrong because if we don't then we lose our own freedom in that respect. This is why I won't condemn GLAAD anymore than I won't condemn PR. Both were wrong and both had every right to be wrong. If we try and stop them from being wrong then we become the censors and that is very wrong.

The freedom to be wrong extends up to the point where actual harm is incurred and it wasn't OMM that fired Ellen Degeneres and it won't be GLAAD that fires PR either (if that eventually occurs.) Those actions were and are out of the hands of those that are advocating for them. In essence you are condemning everyone who advocates that some action be taken must be censored. That would include everyone on USMB that has demanded that Obama be impeached. They have every right to advocate for that action no matter how wrong they happen to be when it comes down to the facts.

So yes, they are wrong and no, we cannot censor people for being wrong. Our own freedom is in jeopardy if we go down that path.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I think the Examiner is where the Jeep is moving to China story came from if I recall correctly;

Chrysler announces deal to build Jeeps in China

And NO production is being moved. It's new production. The story was a lie.

Starting production in China for China = Jeeps being made but not by Americans.

Those JEEP jobs are going to the Chinese.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're a little slow on the draw there grannypants. Your pal hunarcy already admitted yesterday that you and he were both wrong.

Go nag him for awhile, lol.

Except HE did not.

You LIE again

You are absolutely correct. I never said MsBelle was wrong, I said I'd made a mistake about the circumstances and paraphrasing.

Let's talk about your integrity:

In post 936 you said this to me:

"You are correct, I was mistaken..."

BUT, then, in post 1018, to Vox you say, about me:

"How odd. I never said the Self-Feeding Troll was correct..."

Keep this post in mind the next time you try to falsely accuse me of lying.


Links:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8348074-post1018.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8346228-post936.html

 

[BDBoop]

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION] - I'm sorry Stat. I have not intended to slight anybody. I have been dodging a lot of posts that were off topic and I no doubt skipped over some that were pertinent in the process. And unless somebody directs a question specifically to me, I sometimes don't see any reason to add on when somebody else answers adequately. I try to stay with it, but it is a very busy time at our house and the thread is moving very fast and I almost certainly have not seen every single post and of course have not responded to every single post. And certainly the legitimate post amidst the occasional off topic food fights can be lost when I scroll over those food fights. So if I inadvertenty slighted you I apologize.

Was there a specific question or point you wanted addressed? I think I have read most of your comments, but could you kindly repost the gist of your point that I should address?

You constantly referred to the actions of GLAAD as "physically" harming Robertson.

Where is the physical harm? I see none at all.

Sunshine contended that the pressure, which probably cost him his job, would mean he can't eat anymore, and that would be physical harm. Seriously, no one believes that junk, really?

So, where is the "physical" harm? Where are the "physical" threats? I mean, are the glad people standing there like many Tea Partiers have, with placards that same "we came unarmed, this time"? Really?

I think you can see I have not tried to derail your thread, but it has been one mud-flinging insult from Righties after another. Not exactly a shining moment for them.

And btw, I even mentioned you with the @ every time I asked the question.

Most of the jist of what you wrote, I can live with, at least with the general principle, but I take strong exception to the "physical harm" part. Because those words make Robertson look like much more of a victim than he is.

-Stat

The physical harm is in him losing his spot on a television program he enjoyed doing. It was the intent and effect of removing him physically from a situation and it was particularly hateful because the situation has absolutely nothing to do with his 'offensive' comment or the context in which it was given. It also affects him materially by taking away a portion of his livelihood.

Likewise the MILLION MOMS were in effect encouraging physical harm to Ellen Degeneres by trying to get J C Penney to remove her from their ads. That was particularly disturbing to me because they didn't even object to the content of the ad. They were objecting to her sexual orientation. It would also affect her materially because she almost certainly is paid well to appear in those ads.

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION] -behold, for you have an answer!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Chrysler announces deal to build Jeeps in China

And NO production is being moved. It's new production. The story was a lie.

Starting production in China for China = Jeeps being made but not by Americans.

Those JEEP jobs are going to the Chinese.

Oh, I should have known, your math skills are those of a 3 year old.

 

[Statistikhengst]

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION] - I'm sorry Stat. I have not intended to slight anybody. I have been dodging a lot of posts that were off topic and I no doubt skipped over some that were pertinent in the process. And unless somebody directs a question specifically to me, I sometimes don't see any reason to add on when somebody else answers adequately. I try to stay with it, but it is a very busy time at our house and the thread is moving very fast and I almost certainly have not seen every single post and of course have not responded to every single post. And certainly the legitimate post amidst the occasional off topic food fights can be lost when I scroll over those food fights. So if I inadvertenty slighted you I apologize.

Was there a specific question or point you wanted addressed? I think I have read most of your comments, but could you kindly repost the gist of your point that I should address?

You constantly referred to the actions of GLAAD as "physically" harming Robertson.

Where is the physical harm? I see none at all.

Sunshine contended that the pressure, which probably cost him his job, would mean he can't eat anymore, and that would be physical harm. Seriously, no one believes that junk, really?

So, where is the "physical" harm? Where are the "physical" threats? I mean, are the glad people standing there like many Tea Partiers have, with placards that same "we came unarmed, this time"? Really?

I think you can see I have not tried to derail your thread, but it has been one mud-flinging insult from Righties after another. Not exactly a shining moment for them.

And btw, I even mentioned you with the @ every time I asked the question.

Most of the jist of what you wrote, I can live with, at least with the general principle, but I take strong exception to the "physical harm" part. Because those words make Robertson look like much more of a victim than he is.

-Stat

The physical harm is in him losing his spot on a television program he enjoyed doing. It was the intent and effect of removing him physically from a situation and it was particularly hateful because the situation has absolutely nothing to do with his 'offensive' comment or the context in which it was given. It also affects him materially by taking away a portion of his livelihood.

Likewise the MILLION MOMS were in effect encouraging physical harm to Ellen Degeneres by trying to get J C Penney to remove her from their ads. That was particularly disturbing to me because they didn't even object to the content of the ad. They were objecting to her sexual orientation. It would also affect her materially because she almost certainly is paid well to appear in those ads.

Well, we will simply have to cordially agree to disagree, because for me, "physically" means "bodily" - and forgive me for being so blunt, but there is no way in Hell that being removed from a job causes bodily harm. Emotional harm? hmmmm, maybe. Psychological harm? Hmmmm, also maybe, totally depending on the context.

But physical? That really is a stretch, if you ask me. In both cases.

But like I said, we can always cordially agree to disagree. Maybe some haters out there could learn something from this moment, who knows...

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the Right genuinely opposes boycotts and other citizen actions against media outlets and individuals in the media,

let them prove it by calling on their own advocacy groups to stand down.

Can you name ONE conservative of any significance who's done that???

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bravo, thank you.

.

You do realize that FF wants to make what GLAAD did illegal don't you?

Are you applauding that idiocy?

You really aren't getting this.

I don't support shutting down freedom of expression, period. Either through laws or through the culture. I don't care who is doing it.

.

Our entire political system is built around the people's right to reward or punish certain people for what they say, or believe, or do.

Look at how much effort was put into trying to damage Obama's 2008 run for the presidency by associating him with the things the Reverend Wright said.

That was an attempt to sway public opinion against someone not even for what the someone said,

but just for what someone who knew him said.

Is that objectionable? Would FF want to make that illegal?

 

[Montrovant]

Why must this be a left/right, conservative/liberal thing?

Can't we just take the opinions of individual posters as exactly that?

 

[candycorn]

Demanding that someone be fired from a TV show because they said something you didn't like is an exercise in free speech. That happens to be a constitutionally protected right.

To make that illegal you'd have to amend the Constitution, which would never happen because it's an absurd, laughable idea, for starters.

Threatening an action for the same reason is also an exercise in free speech, unless the action threatened does itself violate some other law. Once again, amend the Constitution if you think you're going to make that one illegal.

Rallying thousands or millions or however many to support you in either of those demands is an exercise in freedom of assembly, also constitutionally protected.

So, since all of the above is irrefutable, Foxfyre,

all for the sake of protecting the bigot Phil Robertson, desires a massive trashing of the Bill of Rights.

Could you imagine big time sports if you are unable to call for a player or coach or GMs replacement? Some here simply cant handle free speech.