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

[Procrustes Stretched]

Somehow dainty missed all the yammering about how Robertson's quote of Scripture was "hate speech".

hate speech?


you need to step outside the echo chamber

Well it is strung all throughout the threads on this topic here...

But that's okay, as always, I can support my comment, using real world information, as well:

"
The Pennsylvania minister defrocked for officiating his son’s gay wedding slammed the “Duck Dynasty” star Friday for spouting “hate speech.”
“What gives people like Phil (Robertson) the right to speak interpretations of the Bible in that way? Has he been to seminary? Does he have a degree?” said Rev. Frank Schaefer, 51.
“It’s one thing to talk theology, to speak philosophically — but to stand on a soapbox and blurt hateful speech — it upsets me.”


Read more: Defrocked pastor: 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson spouts harmful 'hate speech' - NY Daily News

anecdotal: a single individual represents what exactly?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Phil Robertson said this:


"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."

But he doesn't just 'say' that, he preaches that belief. And no conservative on this board will acknowledge that the above is quite simply, hate speech, by the most basic measure of what hate speech is.

And just for clarity of what PR is saying in the above, let me accentuate what he is saying by a precise paraphrase that only replaces some pronouns with who they refer to:


Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Gays are full of murder, envy, strife, hatred.

Gays are insolent, arrogant God haters.

Gays are heartless.

Gays are faithless.

Gays are senseless.

Gays are ruthless.

Gays invent ways of doing evil.

...so there. That is what Phil Robertson believes and preaches. Not one conservative on this forum calls that hate speech.

That is what is wrong with Phil Robertson and that is what is wrong with modern day American conservatism.

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

You are a LYING POS, you quoted him completely out of context.

Really? Then put what he said into the context that proves he didn't say and mean what the above says and means.

I guess that 'context' won't be showing up any time soon. lol

 

[koshergrl]

You can't prove a negative, you idiot. He never said anything like that. Why don't you PROVE that he SAID that..and then PROVE that he MEANT that. Support your own stupidity, it's not our job to disprove drivel that you can't support in the first place.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Somehow dainty missed all the yammering about how Robertson's quote of Scripture was "hate speech".

hate speech?


you need to step outside the echo chamber

You can find Robertson's actual words in quoted in one of the quotes in post 1433. They are taken from one of his 'sermons' made in 2010.

I added my own translation, for clarity, which follows precisely the language he used.

None of the conservatives on this board have said that qualifies as hate speech. I didn't bother to suggest they substitute the word conservative for gay, or for 'they' in the original, and then tell us how they like it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can't prove a negative, you idiot. He never said anything like that. Why don't you PROVE that he SAID that..and then PROVE that he MEANT that. Support your own stupidity, it's not our job to disprove drivel that you can't support in the first place.

Follow the link.

 

[hunarcy]

No. What I'm saying is that there are more than one interpretations of the bible, plus not everybody believes the bible in the first place.

So, Robertson isn't shielded just because he quotes the bible.

However, he shouldn't be persecuted because of his religious beliefs. If he works to actually injure someone else, that's different. But, just saying he believes one group are sinners while others are not is not a reason to blacklist him and work to ensure he never serves as a spokesman again.

You don't see anyone trying to ensure that Martin Bashir never works again.

 

[bendog]

No. What I'm saying is that there are more than one interpretations of the bible, plus not everybody believes the bible in the first place.

So, Robertson isn't shielded just because he quotes the bible.

However, he shouldn't be persecuted because of his religious beliefs. If he works to actually injure someone else, that's different. But, just saying he believes one group are sinners while others are not is not a reason to blacklist him and work to ensure he never serves as a spokesman again.

You don't see anyone trying to ensure that Martin Bashir never works again.

ummm, I might could be persuaded to send an email.

 

[koshergrl]

You can't prove a negative, you idiot. He never said anything like that. Why don't you PROVE that he SAID that..and then PROVE that he MEANT that. Support your own stupidity, it's not our job to disprove drivel that you can't support in the first place.

Follow the link.

I've seen the words, and provided links to his actual words, and followed that link.

There's nothing like what YOU printed and claimed HE said.

So you provide the quote, and the link to where he said those things. Thank you.

 

[hunarcy]

In fact, these states usually deny that same sex couples are married even if they ARE married by other states - thus breaking their Article IV constitutional duty.

The Defense of Marriage Act said that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex. The Supreme Court stuck down part of DOMA, but let that part of the law stand. Until that is decided differently, the States are not breaking their Article IV duties. However, I do not understand how such a situation can be allowed to stand. I assume it will have to be looked at in the future.

 

[bendog]

In fact, these states usually deny that same sex couples are married even if they ARE married by other states - thus breaking their Article IV constitutional duty.

The Defense of Marriage Act said that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex. The Supreme Court stuck down part of DOMA, but let that part of the law stand. Until that is decided differently, the States are not breaking their Article IV duties. However, I do not understand how such a situation can be allowed to stand. I assume it will have to be looked at in the future.

I think it'll be sort of like divorce. At first there were the Nevada divorces, where husband and wife obtained residency status after a brief time requirement, and in effect got a no fault. Then, liberal states loosened divorce restrictions. Then chaos insued, with conservative states having to make some sense out of spouse and child support. And eventually, the states worked it out with uniform enforcement laws.

edit: and one of the things Phil was talking about is moral standards like a man providing for his family have been unhinged, and society is not better off. I think that's true. But, a lot of men like to abuse their families, and not offer much support in any event. Phil would say these men need to find Jesus. prolly so, but do the famalies have to put up with it along the way? He's not a bad guy, but there's a reason he's living in the woods with a bunch of frigging ducks for christ's sake. (-:

 

[hunarcy]

You have said, on multiple occasions, that in your opinion it should be illegal to materially or physically harm someone just for a stated opinion. To make something illegal requires legislation. Therefore, you have, in fact, said something about legislation.

If you want to be insulting and rude, fine. Understand that you are doing so based on a lie, though. I read and understood your OP. You simply have made other comments in this thread, I have commented upon them, I have explained that I am discussing those comments. Perhaps if YOU could read and understand that, it might be possible to have a comprehensive discussion with you. Oh well.

Do you see how contemptuous that sounds?

Sure, she said she wishes some things were illegal, but she never specifically called for legislation. It was more of an expression of frustration than demand that government get involved. It was only some of the low browed trolls that seized upon that phrase to create an issue to use to distract that created this non-controversy. Perhaps if you wouldn't have come in and adopted the "make it illegal" argument that she never actually made, you wouldn't have gotten caught up in her ire.

 

[hunarcy]

No. What I'm saying is that there are more than one interpretations of the bible, plus not everybody believes the bible in the first place.

So, Robertson isn't shielded just because he quotes the bible.

However, he shouldn't be persecuted because of his religious beliefs. If he works to actually injure someone else, that's different. But, just saying he believes one group are sinners while others are not is not a reason to blacklist him and work to ensure he never serves as a spokesman again.

You don't see anyone trying to ensure that Martin Bashir never works again.

ummm, I might could be persuaded to send an email.

Well, please don't. He said what he said, corrective action was taken and it's over. When he gets another job, maybe he'll do better. If not, he'll get fired again. After all, Dan Rather hasn't dummied up any more fake letter.

 

[bendog]

yeah, I never saw any call to arms and legislation. And, it is frustrating to see people try and hurt Phil for what he said, but the funny thing is they sorely underestimated this man's personal integrity. He's gonna take the jaw bone of an ass and do some smacking. LOL

 

[bendog]

However, he shouldn't be persecuted because of his religious beliefs. If he works to actually injure someone else, that's different. But, just saying he believes one group are sinners while others are not is not a reason to blacklist him and work to ensure he never serves as a spokesman again.

You don't see anyone trying to ensure that Martin Bashir never works again.

ummm, I might could be persuaded to send an email.

Well, please don't. He said what he said, corrective action was taken and it's over. When he gets another job, maybe he'll do better. If not, he'll get fired again. After all, Dan Rather hasn't dummied up any more fake letter.

yeah, I mean, I pretty much 86ed msnbc after they began posing Al Sharpton as a mainstream commentator. Fox is a joke as well.

 

[hunarcy]

In fact, these states usually deny that same sex couples are married even if they ARE married by other states - thus breaking their Article IV constitutional duty.

The Defense of Marriage Act said that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex. The Supreme Court stuck down part of DOMA, but let that part of the law stand. Until that is decided differently, the States are not breaking their Article IV duties. However, I do not understand how such a situation can be allowed to stand. I assume it will have to be looked at in the future.

I think it'll be sort of like divorce. At first there were the Nevada divorces, where husband and wife obtained residency status after a brief time requirement, and in effect got a no fault. Then, liberal states loosened divorce restrictions. Then chaos insued, with conservative states having to make some sense out of spouse and child support. And eventually, the states worked it out with uniform enforcement laws.

edit: and one of the things Phil was talking about is moral standards like a man providing for his family have been unhinged, and society is not better off. I think that's true. But, a lot of men like to abuse their families, and not offer much support in any event. Phil would say these men need to find Jesus. prolly so, but do the famalies have to put up with it along the way? He's not a bad guy, but there's a reason he's living in the woods with a bunch of frigging ducks for christ's sake. (-:

Very true. And, he's probably the sort of guy that wouldn't tolerate a man abusing his family and would step in to straighten things out. He wouldn't understand that being an issue.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Somehow dainty missed all the yammering about how Robertson's quote of Scripture was "hate speech".

hate speech?


you need to step outside the echo chamber

Well it is strung all throughout the threads on this topic here...

But that's okay, as always, I can support my comment, using real world information, as well:

"
The Pennsylvania minister defrocked for officiating his son’s gay wedding slammed the “Duck Dynasty” star Friday for spouting “hate speech.”
“What gives people like Phil (Robertson) the right to speak interpretations of the Bible in that way? Has he been to seminary? Does he have a degree?” said Rev. Frank Schaefer, 51.
“It’s one thing to talk theology, to speak philosophically — but to stand on a soapbox and blurt hateful speech — it upsets me.”


Read more: Defrocked pastor: 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson spouts harmful 'hate speech' - NY Daily News

The irony of your post is that you evince no objection to the fact that the Reverend Schaefer lost his job for not being a sufficiently 'correct' Methodist minister.

 

[hunarcy]

yeah, I never saw any call to arms and legislation. And, it is frustrating to see people try and hurt Phil for what he said, but the funny thing is they sorely underestimated this man's personal integrity. He's gonna take the jaw bone of an ass and do some smacking. LOL

LOL! Perhaps so. He certainly is not going to let them dictate his beliefs. I did like that there are two types of merchandizing, Duck Dynasty (licensed by A&E) and Duck Commander (licensed by the Robertson family). I saw a lot of people buying Duck Commander stuff and the Duck Dynasty was sitting on the shelves.

He snookered those city folks. LOL!

 

[Montrovant]

You have said, on multiple occasions, that in your opinion it should be illegal to materially or physically harm someone just for a stated opinion. To make something illegal requires legislation. Therefore, you have, in fact, said something about legislation.

If you want to be insulting and rude, fine. Understand that you are doing so based on a lie, though. I read and understood your OP. You simply have made other comments in this thread, I have commented upon them, I have explained that I am discussing those comments. Perhaps if YOU could read and understand that, it might be possible to have a comprehensive discussion with you. Oh well.

Do you see how contemptuous that sounds?

Sure, she said she wishes some things were illegal, but she never specifically called for legislation. It was more of an expression of frustration than demand that government get involved. It was only some of the low browed trolls that seized upon that phrase to create an issue to use to distract that created this non-controversy. Perhaps if you wouldn't have come in and adopted the "make it illegal" argument that she never actually made, you wouldn't have gotten caught up in her ire.

Perhaps if she hadn't said she thinks it should be illegal in the first place, I wouldn't have felt compelled to reply to that comment.

And expression of frustration? To repeatedly say that you think something should be illegal, even arguing about why you think it should be? And has Foxfyre said she doesn't actually think it should be illegal, that she was merely frustrated? I think I'll let her tell me if she didn't actually mean what she said.

Saying something should be illegal is saying there should be legislation making it illegal. That may not be the point of the OP, but it's something she has said on multiple occasions now.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Somehow dainty missed all the yammering about how Robertson's quote of Scripture was "hate speech".

hate speech?


you need to step outside the echo chamber

You can find Robertson's actual words in quoted in one of the quotes in post 1433. They are taken from one of his 'sermons' made in 2010.

I added my own translation, for clarity, which follows precisely the language he used.

None of the conservatives on this board have said that qualifies as hate speech. I didn't bother to suggest they substitute the word conservative for gay, or for 'they' in the original, and then tell us how they like it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No. What I'm saying is that there are more than one interpretations of the bible, plus not everybody believes the bible in the first place.

So, Robertson isn't shielded just because he quotes the bible.

However, he shouldn't be persecuted because of his religious beliefs. If he works to actually injure someone else, that's different. But, just saying he believes one group are sinners while others are not is not a reason to blacklist him and work to ensure he never serves as a spokesman again.

You don't see anyone trying to ensure that Martin Bashir never works again.

lol.

Stop The Sexist Martin Bashir | Truth Revolt

btw, this is a recently formed conservative pressure group whose primary goal is to attack liberals in the media for what they say.

We'll see how many GLAAD condemners we get to condemn TruthRevolt. I'm guessing somewheres around none.