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

[TemplarKormac]

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

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

Good question.

Just ask those who keep calling Phil Robertson a bigot and a racist that question.

 

[JoeB131]

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

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

Good question.

Just ask those who keep calling Phil Robertson a bigot and a racist that question.

Because he said homophobic and racist things?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Speak of the devil.

 

[JoeB131]

Speak of the devil.

Did he say racist and homophobic things or not?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Speak of the devil.

Did he say racist and homophobic things or not?

While he could have been more tactful about how he said it, he didn't direct it at any specific group of people. So no he didn't say "racist or homophobic things." I frankly think you wanted him to. Therefore you will go to any length to make it appear so. You are a PC zealot.

Then again, how come you get the right to slander people of faith with utter impunity while bashing others for supposedly being racist homophobes? Isn't the hypocritical?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Hey, they were able to use special interest groups, coercion, demands, pressure to maintain the loopholes in the background checks,

take rest for Chrissakes.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Hey, they were able to use special interest groups, coercion, demands, pressure to maintain the loopholes in the background checks,

take rest for Chrissakes.

Mr. "I am nonpartisan" speaks.

 

[JoeB131]

Speak of the devil.

Did he say racist and homophobic things or not?

While he could have been more tactful about how he said it, he didn't direct it at any specific group of people. So no he didn't say "racist or homophobic things." I frankly think you wanted him to. Therefore you will go to any length to make it appear so. You are a PC zealot.

Then again, how come you get the right to slander people of faith with utter impunity while bashing others for supposedly being racist homophobes? Isn't the hypocritical?

Not at all.

Religion, unlike race and sexual orientation, is a lifestyle choice. Therefore, it's perfectly okay to mock it with impunity.

You choose to believe in 3000 year old superstitions without criticism, except for the parts that you ignore because they don't fit into your lifestyle.

And, yeah, your boy really did say racist and homophobic things. It wasn't a matter of "could he have phrased it better" when he said a vagina was preferable to a man's anus. (Because Jesus was big on the vulgarity.)

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, maybe just to freshen up this interminable conversation we should move to the thing Robertson said about marriage, i.e.,

that the best age for a girl to get married was 15 or 16, that if you marry one at 20 you're getting one that's too old.

lol, maybe the guy's not 100% crazy...

 

[Samson]

Well, maybe just to freshen up this interminable conversation we should move to the thing Robertson said about marriage, i.e.,

that the best age for a girl to get married was 15 or 16, that if you marry one at 20 you're getting one that's too old.

lol, maybe the guy's not 100% crazy...

The statement that marriage would be a sane option at any age is a little crazy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Hey, they were able to use special interest groups, coercion, demands, pressure to maintain the loopholes in the background checks,

take rest for Chrissakes.

Mr. "I am nonpartisan" speaks.

I said I made this thread non-partisan, which I did.

I am a partisan, by definition. This definition:

"a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person."

Notice the word 'or'? Notice the word 'cause'?

Do you claim you are not a partisan? Are there no causes you strongly support?

think about it

 

[hunarcy]

[
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.

FF, the Self Feeding Troll has assigned you a position and not matter what you say or don't say about it, he's going to keep attacking it until he can declare victory. The fact that you never held that position will mean NOTHING in his victory.

Just let him rant for a while and go on...it'll be your Christmas present to him.

 

[Samson]

Speak of the devil.

Did he say racist and homophobic things or not?

I don't know.

What's the quote?

 

[Montrovant]

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

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

Good question.

Just ask those who keep calling Phil Robertson a bigot and a racist that question.

No. I am directing that to anyone who is making this a left/right issue. Whether someone thinks what Robertson says was bigoted and racist has nothing to do with left/right.

I would not assume to know a person's political leanings based on whether they think Robertson sounded like a bigot in his comments.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, maybe just to freshen up this interminable conversation we should move to the thing Robertson said about marriage, i.e.,

that the best age for a girl to get married was 15 or 16, that if you marry one at 20 you're getting one that's too old.

lol, maybe the guy's not 100% crazy...

The statement that marriage would be a sane option at any age is a little crazy.

Well if you're likely to end up divorced in four years anyway, might as well get four hot ones.

 

[WillReadmore]

What is intolerable is ANY group who would presume to physically or materially punish or harm either Ellen Degeneres or Phil Robertson for no other reason than they express a personal opinion or because they are who they are.

I really do not believe there will EVER be a time when Robertson's comments will be (or should be) considered acceptable - even after same sex persons have equal rights and it isn't a serious political issue anymore.

For example, it's not acceptable for people in the public eye to express KKK ideals. If some entertainer or other person in the public eye does so, they can expect significant response.

People didn't appreciate Mel Gibson's unbelievably stupid remarks, either.

Robertson is just one more idiot in a long line of idiots who have seemed to think they can express any hate they want and it will somehow be seen as acceptable - when it is not.

 

[Samson]

Well, maybe just to freshen up this interminable conversation we should move to the thing Robertson said about marriage, i.e.,

that the best age for a girl to get married was 15 or 16, that if you marry one at 20 you're getting one that's too old.

lol, maybe the guy's not 100% crazy...

The statement that marriage would be a sane option at any age is a little crazy.

Well if you're likely to end up divorced in four years anyway, might as well get four hot ones.

Why would anyone need to get married to get four hot ones over a four year period?



Hell, its my weekly average.

 

[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.

FF, the Self Feeding Troll has assigned you a position and not matter what you say or don't say about it, he's going to keep attacking it until he can declare victory. The fact that you never held that position will mean NOTHING in his victory.

Just let him rant for a while and go on...it'll be your Christmas present to him.

Do you need to be reminded that it was FF who introduced illegality into the thread?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The statement that marriage would be a sane option at any age is a little crazy.

Well if you're likely to end up divorced in four years anyway, might as well get four hot ones.

Why would anyone need to get married to get four hot ones over a four year period?



Hell, its my weekly avarage.

That's actually a bit low as guy-on-internet claims go.

 

[hunarcy]

Robertson is just one more idiot in a long line of idiots who have seemed to think they can express any hate they want and it will somehow be seen as acceptable - when it is not.

I have to say that while you may have interpreted what he said as "hate", I think that interpretation is not in keeping with what he was actually saying about sin.