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

[Samson]

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.

Alec Baldwin...

Kobe Bryant...


Tracy Morgan.....

Here's what Robertson said,

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there,” he said. “Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

Still, “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job,” he added. “We just love ‘em, give ‘em the good news about Jesus, whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ‘em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

 

[Samson]

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.

I like to remain somewhere within the realm of reality.

 

[hunarcy]

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.

Alec Baldwin...

Kobe Bryant...


Tracy Morgan.....

Here's what Robertson said,

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there,” he said. “Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

Still, “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job,” he added. “We just love ‘em, give ‘em the good news about Jesus, whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ‘em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

Yes, he was talking about sin, not specifically about homosexuality.

 

[RKMBrown]

Speak of the devil.

Did he say racist and homophobic things or not?

No he did not. Are you retarded?

 

[deltex1]

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.

Easy for you...you have your goats in a pen...

 

[WillReadmore]

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.

Alec Baldwin...

Kobe Bryant...


Tracy Morgan.....

Here's what Robertson said,

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there,” he said. “Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

Still, “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job,” he added. “We just love ‘em, give ‘em the good news about Jesus, whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ‘em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

Yes, he was talking about sin, not specifically about homosexuality.

He labeled homosexuality to be not just sin, but a source of sin, and he equated it with drunkenness and terrorism. Plus, your cut wasn't all he said.

I'm not sure what your point is here, but I don't think there is any way to downplay what he said in any significant way.

 

[RKMBrown]

Alec Baldwin...

Kobe Bryant...


Tracy Morgan.....

Here's what Robertson said,

Yes, he was talking about sin, not specifically about homosexuality.

He labeled homosexuality to be not just sin, but a source of sin, and he equated it with drunkenness and terrorism. Plus, your cut wasn't all he said.

I'm not sure what your point is here, but I don't think there is any way to downplay what he said in any significant way.

What's your point? Do you deny the bible says homosexual acts are a sin?

 

[MeBelle]

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...

Phil was physically removed from the show by being banned.

Was it physical harm, was he harmed physically? No.

 

[JoeB131]

[

What's your point? Do you deny the bible says homosexual acts are a sin?

The bible says eating shrimp is a sin.

The bible says eating pork is a sin.

The bible says that working on a Sunday is a sin.

and so on....

The bible says that you should stone your daughter if she is not a virgin on her wedding night.

There's a whole lot of stuff inthe bible that you ignore because they are barabaric or they just don't work in your life.

But man, that Gay stuff, God was all over that.

 

[MeBelle]

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?

So?

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 criticizing 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.

 

[Vox]

Speak of the devil.

Did he say racist and homophobic things or not?

No, he DID NOT.

 

[Vox]

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.)

sexual preference in the vast majority of cases is also a lifestyle choice.

sex altogether is lifestyle choice. you won't die if you abstain from sex.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Alec Baldwin...

Kobe Bryant...


Tracy Morgan.....

Here's what Robertson said,

Yes, he was talking about sin, not specifically about homosexuality.

He labeled homosexuality to be not just sin, but a source of sin, and he equated it with drunkenness and terrorism. Plus, your cut wasn't all he said.

I'm not sure what your point is here, but I don't think there is any way to downplay what he said in any significant way.

That’s because he has no ‘point.’

Otherwise you’re correct – the statements had nothing to do with accepted tenets of Christianity, and consequently religion is not being ‘attacked.'

 

[MeBelle]

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.

Nope! That's not what was typed, it's how you interpret what was typed.

You are still splitting hairs.

How about you reconcile your claim about Robertson with his own words from 2010:


"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

I would have hoped that, after your poor performance yesterday, you'd come in a bit more prepared today. But, you aren't.

Those aren't Phil Robertson's own words. He was reading a passage from the Bible, specifically Romans 1:26-32. Anything else?

Hardly.

Romans I:26 - 32 says this:

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Robertson was not reading from a Bible, no other version btw either.

If you acknowledge you were wrong and apologize to me for your assholedness, I'll tell you why it matter.

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.

 

[MeBelle]

Yes, he was talking about sin, not specifically about homosexuality.

He labeled homosexuality to be not just sin, but a source of sin, and he equated it with drunkenness and terrorism. Plus, your cut wasn't all he said.

I'm not sure what your point is here, but I don't think there is any way to downplay what he said in any significant way.

That’s because he has no ‘point.’

Otherwise you’re correct – the statements had nothing to do with accepted tenets of Christianity, and consequently religion is not being ‘attacked.'

Please enlighten the board on what the accepted tenets of Christianity are.
TIA!

 

[MeBelle]

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

You did not make this thread non-partisan.

Splitting hairs.

You did turn this into a left vs right issue which was not the intent of the OP.

 

[MeBelle]

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...

What was the age of consent 50 years ago in LA?

 

[hunarcy]

He labeled homosexuality to be not just sin, but a source of sin, and he equated it with drunkenness and terrorism. Plus, your cut wasn't all he said.

I'm not sure what your point is here, but I don't think there is any way to downplay what he said in any significant way.

Where did he claim it was a source of sin? And, are you claiming that there are "degrees" of sinning? Or, are you just so intolerant of the religious teachings that you can't understand what he was saying?

 

[hunarcy]

That’s because he has no ‘point.’

Otherwise you’re correct – the statements had nothing to do with accepted tenets of Christianity, and consequently religion is not being ‘attacked.'

Just because you're not intelligent enough to follow along with the conversation doesn't mean there's not a point. It just means you're not smart enough to participate. Therefore, you won't be given another chance to join.

Bye now.

 

[MeBelle]

You have, on multiple occasions, mentioned that you think it should be illegal for someone to boycott based on someone's opinions. I disagree with that. Should I simply not bring it up? Do you want me to make a separate thread, is it too off topic? I have simply been replying to what you have freely stated in the thread.

My take on the illegal comment is should it be illegal to harm someone financially because of a difference of opinion.

How would you define 'harm someone financially'?

I'm not being flippant, I think it's an important and difficult question. Am I harming someone financially if I stop doing business with them? Am I harming someone financially if I put out a competitive product? Am I harming someone financially if I tell my friends they should stop using a company's service?

I realize we're not quite on point with the OP, so if you don't want to get into a discussion about this I don't mind.

When someone's livelihood is taken from them because they are voicing an opinion.

Am I harming someone financially if I put out a competitive product?

It may take sales away if your product is superior. It will also make the competition step it up or fail.

Am I harming someone financially if I tell my friends they should stop using a company's service? Am I harming someone financially if I stop doing business with them?

If a company's service is poor quality I would say no.
If you no longer need the service I would say no also.
Customers come and go.
That's what marketers are for.

I realize we're not quite on point with the OP,

I know... Hope FF doesn't get too irritated with us.