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

[Kosh]

And once again this thread proves that the far left is intolerant of anyone that is not far left.

 

[MeBelle]

As you point out, I nearly quoted the guy.

I'm not sure how that becomes hyperbolic.

You took it out of context and put your own spin on his exact words.
He did not claim homosexuality was the root of all evil for cripes sake.
He said he loves everyone regardless of what he feels their shortcomings are.

Dude! You just contradicted yourself! What you're talking about ^^ is not what you're talking about here:

Oh, well heaven's sakes, of course he would NEVER do that!!!

I mean, he only lumped homosexuality in with bestiality and terrorism, starting with homosexuality. No, why of course he meant nothing by that.

And if I say that when you start with Christians, then it's just a short jump over to pedophiles and cannabals and mass murderers and stalkers and people who only bathe every two years, you would of course not be offended in the slightest to see the word "Christians" lumped in with all those other groups, right? Because it is free speech, right? And it's the same methodology Mr. Ducky Duck used. And gee, why should we ever use logic to connect the dots in what a person is saying, right?

Dear Lord, get over it.

I already said that I support his right to say whatever his little heart desires. But that doesn't make it any less informed, any less stupid or any less repugnant.

And it is fun as hell to watch many Righties here try to jump through as many hoops as possible and twist themselves into pretzels to justify what he said. Good God, there is no need to justify it. The man has the right to say it, just as I have the right to laugh or scorn at him for it. Only, may laughing and scorn, Righties love to call intolerance. They are like screaming babies when it comes to this stuff.

Geez....

Let's see...This tidbit of conversation was not between you and I.

Hope you feel better after your rant.

Who the hell do you think you are to dump your contrived BS on me?

[MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION] ?? Really? You thanked this attack on me??

 

[BDBoop]

You took it out of context and put your own spin on his exact words.
He did not claim homosexuality was the root of all evil for cripes sake.
He said he loves everyone regardless of what he feels their shortcomings are.

Dude! You just contradicted yourself! What you're talking about ^^ is not what you're talking about here:

Oh, well heaven's sakes, of course he would NEVER do that!!!

I mean, he only lumped homosexuality in with bestiality and terrorism, starting with homosexuality. No, why of course he meant nothing by that.

And if I say that when you start with Christians, then it's just a short jump over to pedophiles and cannabals and mass murderers and stalkers and people who only bathe every two years, you would of course not be offended in the slightest to see the word "Christians" lumped in with all those other groups, right? Because it is free speech, right? And it's the same methodology Mr. Ducky Duck used. And gee, why should we ever use logic to connect the dots in what a person is saying, right?

Dear Lord, get over it.

I already said that I support his right to say whatever his little heart desires. But that doesn't make it any less informed, any less stupid or any less repugnant.

And it is fun as hell to watch many Righties here try to jump through as many hoops as possible and twist themselves into pretzels to justify what he said. Good God, there is no need to justify it. The man has the right to say it, just as I have the right to laugh or scorn at him for it. Only, may laughing and scorn, Righties love to call intolerance. They are like screaming babies when it comes to this stuff.

Geez....

Let's see...This tidbit of conversation was not between you and I.

Hope you feel better after your rant.

Who the hell do you think you are to dump your contrived BS on me?

[MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION] ?? Really? You thanked this attack on me??

I didn't see an attack on you. I agreed with what I did see.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.

It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.

It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..

. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.

For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.

Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?

NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.

Motherwolf here. Are you people for real? You are talking about trivial crap when you have DHS vehicles placed in your states, chemtrails poisoning you, GMO's sterilizing you, Military personel ready to fire on you for no reason, and this is all you can talk about. You deserve what you will get in the next two years. Just look MRAPS in you state, chemtrails data, LITMUS test, loss of social security, Medicare, Medicade, food stamps, Veterans care, retirements, increase of millions of illegal aliens given amnesty and welfare. Get you faces out of the propaganda on the Television and newspapers. There are no terrorists acts that are not backed up by our government in order to establish NATIONAL EVERGENCY to suspend the Constitution.

It is against the rules to hijack a thread. I suggest that you (1) read the rules and (2) start your own thread. Have a nice day.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The funny thing of course is that if Duck Dynasty dad were a muslim then we wouldn't have to hear from the permanently aggrieved left wing class about the evils of the Koran and how important it is to limit free speech. This is why political correctness is corrosive. Political correctness allows religious bigotry as long as the religion is christianity. Just as political correctness allows free speech as long as it's the right kind of speech.

Islam is probably even more intolerant of homosexuality that Christianity. In the scenario you postulate they would both be on the same side against GLAAD.

 

[midcan5]

Tolerating intolerance only leads to intolerance, tolerating intolerance encourages intolerance. Calling intolerance intolerance is the only honest reaction to intolerance. Robertson's intolerance is wrong, his racist nonsense just plain stupid for a man who is around my age. Pretending intolerance is only an act of partisans excuses evil, and while Robertson is not evil, the sort of characterizations he engages in are the foundations of evil. Check history sometime.

Teaching Intolerance

The New Religious Intolerance | Boston Review

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/hate-speech-and-free-speech-part-two/


"We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." Karl Popper
.

 

[Bfgrn]

The funny thing of course is that if Duck Dynasty dad were a muslim then we wouldn't have to hear from the permanently aggrieved left wing class about the evils of the Koran and how important it is to limit free speech. This is why political correctness is corrosive. Political correctness allows religious bigotry as long as the religion is christianity. Just as political correctness allows free speech as long as it's the right kind of speech.

Irony so thick. The TRUTH of the matter is if Phil Robertson were a Muslim, the right would be calling for him to be either arrested or deported.

You folks are retards.

Let's see if we can deconstruct what you just said, shall we?
Your perception of irony is based on your view that the right would want to arrest or deport a Muslim for explaining that homosexuality is a sin.
I'm going to assume your post was more of a knee jerk reaction than an actual thought process.
Now we have your last sentence. "You folks are Retards". LOL! Again, this last sentence seems to be a continuation of the original knee jerk reaction so I'll just laugh at the ineptitude of your "argument", which is becoming a pattern by the way.

Yea, I was wrong. I forgot that Islam is an ultra-conservative culture. A true model for you folks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tolerating intolerance only leads to intolerance, tolerating intolerance encourages intolerance. Calling intolerance intolerance is the only honest reaction to intolerance. Robertson's intolerance is wrong, his racist nonsense just plain stupid for a man who is around my age. Pretending intolerance is only an act of partisans excuses evil, and while Robertson is not evil, the sort of characterizations he engages in are the foundations of evil. Check history sometime.

Teaching Intolerance

The New Religious Intolerance | Boston Review

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/hate-speech-and-free-speech-part-two/


"We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." Karl Popper
.

What the author of this thread attempted was to grossly pervert the idea of tolerance in such a way as to make it appear that you cannot be a sincere believer in tolerance if your tolerance has exceptions,

the main one, in the OP's case, was not being tolerant of intolerance. It sounds in a way like some sort of parody.

And all that was done to concoct a way of insulating Phil Robertson from criticism.

 

[JoeB131]

[

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.

No, but it ain't much of a life.

But that's awesome, though. I think it would be great if funditards all refrained from sex and didn't reproduce.

Because, honestly, that's what the Bible says to do.

Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. -- 1 Corinthians 7:27

But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none. -- 1 Corinthians 7:29


In short, the Bible doesn't want you to get married, really.


Oh, wait, but that's not a rule you people actually follow.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I refuse to "understand" what he was saying - at least to the extent that I don't care what he may have been trying to say or whatever else he was thinking. I only care about his words and what they mean in American English.

And that makes you intolerant person who ends up banning books and blacklisting people who you don't agree with politically.

So now you're requiring us to watch Duck Dynasty, as well as buy any books that come out of it.

This gets better every minute.

 

[candycorn]

This is a stupid assed question to entertain.

And yet it's provided over 1200 posts of entertainment.

I am most definitely entertained.

Boop and carb won about 400 posts ago when Foxy admitted she was posting this horse shit to support this dudes bigotry.

 

[BobPlumb]

And yet it's provided over 1200 posts of entertainment.

I am most definitely entertained.

Boop and carb won about 400 posts ago when Foxy admitted she was posting this horse shit to support this dudes bigotry.

Do you actually like candy corn? I mean the candy that is made to look like corn?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Attaching your hatespeech to a religious book does not secure it any special status that requires others to,

by silence or inaction, tacitly agree with you.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Attaching your hatespeech to a religious book does not secure it any special status that requires others to,

by silence or inaction, tacitly agree with you.

Hatespeech.

Talk about gay.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And yet it's provided over 1200 posts of entertainment.

I am most definitely entertained.

Boop and carb won about 400 posts ago when Foxy admitted she was posting this horse shit to support this dudes bigotry.

Not to mention when she called for making what GLAAD did illegal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Attaching your hatespeech to a religious book does not secure it any special status that requires others to,

by silence or inaction, tacitly agree with you.

Hatespeech.

Talk about gay.

I am not surprised you don't consider this hateful:


"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

 

[OODA_Loop]

Attaching your hatespeech to a religious book does not secure it any special status that requires others to,

by silence or inaction, tacitly agree with you.

Hatespeech.

Talk about gay.

I am not surprised you don't consider this hateful:


"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."

Sounds like an opinion to me.

Doesn't name specific individuals or call for any specific action.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

My mother refused to ever watch Roseanne Barr on television again after her trashing of the national anthem.

Losing audience is a physical harm to a professional actor.

Foxfyre wants to make that illegal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hatespeech.

Talk about gay.

I am not surprised you don't consider this hateful:


"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."

Sounds like an opinion to me.

Doesn't name specific individuals or call for any specific action.

What do you think hatespeech is?

 

[OODA_Loop]

I am not surprised you don't consider this hateful:


"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."

Sounds like an opinion to me.

Doesn't name specific individuals or call for any specific action.

What do you think hatespeech is?

Conveying a tangible threat or call to violence and/or taking specific action of the same type based on race, creed, religion or gender.