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

[Statistikhengst]

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??

[MENTION=31178]MeBelle60[/MENTION] - this is open thread on an open forum, where any member can contribute. If that bothers you too much and you want your conversation with someone in particular to be private, then I suggest you get a room...

Thanks for not answering my question and the unsolicited lecture.

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

Well, that was already explained, you just need at least 2 brain cells to rub together to understand it. Care to try again?

Who am I? I am a member of USMB.
Who are you? Why, you are also a member of USMB.
What is this? This is an open thread on an open forum, where ALL members can give input.

Getting all pissed off just because a third party inputs on an open thread is, well, childish. But I never get in the way between a person and the fool he wants to be. Have at it. Enjoy.

If you think that is a lecture, well, fine.

Saith Yoda: "A fuck I give not."

Peace be unto you, oh unquiet soul.

 

[koshergrl]

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that NYC LIED about what Robertson said, and has consistently lied throughout his commentary on the subject.

He LIED when he said we do not have the right to voice our opinions (and our religion) without fearing repercussions from a mob, and he LIED when he said the leftist objection is to ROBERTSON'S statements, and he LIED about the statements that Robertson made.

When asked to link those FALSE statements, he LIED and said they could be found in the GQ article. They cannot, because he LIED about them.

Ultimately, the goal is to criminalize free speech, AND religion...and these loons will stop at nothing to achieve that goal.

Of course, being loons, they don't understand that once they achieve that goal, it is just a matter of time before they are the ones who are rounded up and/or attacked on the street. Because that is always the path that oppression takes. It starts out fine and dandy, with only one group being attacked...but it quickly becomes apparent that if you silence and target one group, you are just facilitating oppression and fascism. And NOBODY except the most ruthless criminals (and ultimately, even they fall) is safe then.

Trust me, NYC is not one of the most ruthless criminals. He's a limp wristed loser and he is going to be as mightily surprised at how this works out for him as he is bound to be surprised by how Obamacare works for him.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that NYC LIED about what Robertson said, and has consistently lied throughout his commentary on the subject.

He LIED when he said we do not have the right to voice our opinions (and our religion) without fearing repercussions from a mob, and he LIED when he said the leftist objection is to ROBERTSON'S statements, and he LIED about the statements that Robertson made.

When asked to link those FALSE statements, he LIED and said they could be found in the GQ article. They cannot, because he LIED about them.

Ultimately, the goal is to criminalize free speech, AND religion...and these loons will stop at nothing to achieve that goal.

Of course, being loons, they don't understand that once they achieve that goal, it is just a matter of time before they are the ones who are rounded up and/or attacked on the street. Because that is always the path that oppression takes. It starts out fine and dandy, with only one group being attacked...but it quickly becomes apparent that if you silence and target one group, you are just facilitating oppression and fascism. And NOBODY except the most ruthless criminals (and ultimately, even they fall) is safe then.

Trust me, NYC is not one of the most ruthless criminals. He's a limp wristed loser and he is going to be as mightily surprised at how this works out for him as he is bound to be surprised by how Obamacare works for him.

Listen carefully...

I linked you to the LA Times article. The LA Times article links to youtube. The video of Robertson saying what I quoted is in that video.

What more can I do.

If there is a SINGLE conservative reading this thread that will confirm to this poor woman that what I am saying is true,

would you please do so? She won't listen to anyone else, she's mentally retarded or something.

She might shut up if a conservative tells her why she's wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What the hell is with a piece of shit who claims we don't have a right to speak without being attacked by a mob?

The author of this thread used the term 'mob' to refer to people like the Christian group the American Family Association,

which regularly attacks people and businesses because they don't like what they say or do.

 

[Edgetho]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ePx61TkXKY&feature=player_embedded]Piers shown no mercy from Lee - YouTube[/ame]

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is accomplished by good people demanding it. .

That's funny.

Phil Robertson is a conservative Christian.

Conservative Christian groups are some of those with the most propensity to engage in actions such as boycotts and similar campaigns,

threatening the livelihood of individuals and the fortunes of businesses,

if they don't conform to the demands of those groups.

You should start your 'good people don't do this' campaign against them.

However they don't lie about companies and people in order to shut them down because they don't like the religion of the owners, and to *punish* them for daring to speak out about their religion.

That's a lefty fascist forte.

Oh, and:

You loons are eternally surprised that you're just an extremist minority...you're so used to being an oppressive minority that you've forgotten that you really constitute a TINY FRACTION of the population of the US. It makes me have a sad for you.

The American Family Association, a Christian special interest group, is currently pushing a boycott against Radioshack

for not using the word 'Christmas'.

That is correct. The mob at the AFA is trying to physically and materially harm Radioshack because they don't say a certain word.

Foxfyre thinks that should be illegal. Do you?

Conservative Group Calls For Boycott Of Radio Shack For Not Using ?Christmas? In Ads

 

[Statistikhengst]

That's funny.

Phil Robertson is a conservative Christian.

Conservative Christian groups are some of those with the most propensity to engage in actions such as boycotts and similar campaigns,

threatening the livelihood of individuals and the fortunes of businesses,

if they don't conform to the demands of those groups.

You should start your 'good people don't do this' campaign against them.

However they don't lie about companies and people in order to shut them down because they don't like the religion of the owners, and to *punish* them for daring to speak out about their religion.

That's a lefty fascist forte.

Oh, and:

You loons are eternally surprised that you're just an extremist minority...you're so used to being an oppressive minority that you've forgotten that you really constitute a TINY FRACTION of the population of the US. It makes me have a sad for you.

The American Family Association, a Christian special interest group, is currently pushing a boycott against Radioshack

for not using the word 'Christmas'.

That is correct. The mob at the AFA is trying to physically and materially harm Radioshack because they don't say a certain word.

Foxfyre thinks that should be illegal. Do you?

Conservative Group Calls For Boycott Of Radio Shack For Not Using ?Christmas? In Ads

B, B, B, B, bbbbbut that's different!! Christians are the "King's Kids"!! They can allow themselves to do anything they want, and they will be washed clean in the blood no matter what!!!!

Really, I heard a Christian say that to me once. Took a couple of minutes to pick my jaw up from the floor.

I have already taken exception with Foxfyre for constantly using the term "physical" harm. A boycott does not cause physical harm. That is just plain old bullshit.

 

[koshergrl]

That's funny.

Phil Robertson is a conservative Christian.

Conservative Christian groups are some of those with the most propensity to engage in actions such as boycotts and similar campaigns,

threatening the livelihood of individuals and the fortunes of businesses,

if they don't conform to the demands of those groups.

You should start your 'good people don't do this' campaign against them.

However they don't lie about companies and people in order to shut them down because they don't like the religion of the owners, and to *punish* them for daring to speak out about their religion.

That's a lefty fascist forte.

Oh, and:

You loons are eternally surprised that you're just an extremist minority...you're so used to being an oppressive minority that you've forgotten that you really constitute a TINY FRACTION of the population of the US. It makes me have a sad for you.

The American Family Association, a Christian special interest group, is currently pushing a boycott against Radioshack

for not using the word 'Christmas'.

That is correct. The mob at the AFA is trying to physically and materially harm Radioshack because they don't say a certain word.

Foxfyre thinks that should be illegal. Do you?

Conservative Group Calls For Boycott Of Radio Shack For Not Using ?Christmas? In Ads

Boycotting isn't attempting to cause "physical" harm, nutjob.

Vandalism is, however:

"
Gay rights advocates defaced and vandalized a San Antonio, TX Chick-fil-A restaurant with more than two dozen Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) posters and messages on Wednesday night.

Chick-fil-A workers saw the posters when they arrived to work on Thursday morning.
Some of the signs that were taped to the Chick-fil-A windows read, "Government can not dictate love," "Support love note hate," and "Your son is gay and everything will be okay."
Last summer, liberals targeted Chick-fil-A because Dan Cathy, the company's CEO, said he was opposed to gay marriage and donated to organizations that supported traditional marriage."

How dare they voice their Christian views! Stone them!

San Antonio Chick-fil-A Vandalized with Gay Marriage Signs

 

[koshergrl]

PS..you guys are going to fail every single time you try to criminalize Christianity.

Just sayin. You might want to choose another battle.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's funny.

Phil Robertson is a conservative Christian.

Conservative Christian groups are some of those with the most propensity to engage in actions such as boycotts and similar campaigns,

threatening the livelihood of individuals and the fortunes of businesses,

if they don't conform to the demands of those groups.

You should start your 'good people don't do this' campaign against them.

However they don't lie about companies and people in order to shut them down because they don't like the religion of the owners, and to *punish* them for daring to speak out about their religion.

That's a lefty fascist forte.

Oh, and:

You loons are eternally surprised that you're just an extremist minority...you're so used to being an oppressive minority that you've forgotten that you really constitute a TINY FRACTION of the population of the US. It makes me have a sad for you.

The American Family Association, a Christian special interest group, is currently pushing a boycott against Radioshack

for not using the word 'Christmas'.

That is correct. The mob at the AFA is trying to physically and materially harm Radioshack because they don't say a certain word.

Foxfyre thinks that should be illegal. Do you?

Conservative Group Calls For Boycott Of Radio Shack For Not Using ?Christmas? In Ads

Well slight correction. They are calling for a limited one-month boycott of Radio Shack. But yes, if they are lobbying outside their own memership to do this, even that should be illegal if there was some way to make it illegal without opening up a whole other can of worms that would be abused by unethical people or groups to prevent legitimate lobbying against bad ACTS, not just 'bad' opinions.

First, it is Radio Shack's business what words they use in their ads. If the AFA has a problem with the ads, it is perfectly within its right to inform Radio Shack that they have alerted their membership to not do business with Radio Shack and will instead give their business to organizations who celebrate Christmas during the Christmas season. But if they are trying to get everybody outside their own membership to boycott Radio Shack for nothing other than the words they use or something they say, then that is morally and ethically wrong. The article didn't specify the nature of the boycott.

And such a boycott would not be physically harming Radio Shack as firing Phil Robertson physically harms Phil Robertson. It could materially harm Radio Shack however. And to do that for nothing more than Radio Shack expressing its opinion, that is morally and ethically wrong.

Withhold your business because you don't like the attitude of somebody. Fine. No problem. Perfectly within your right to do and to inform the other that you are doing it.

Trying to get everybody else outside your organization or group to withhold their business just because you don't like the atttitude of somebody, not okay.

 

[Bfgrn]

However they don't lie about companies and people in order to shut them down because they don't like the religion of the owners, and to *punish* them for daring to speak out about their religion.

That's a lefty fascist forte.

Oh, and:

You loons are eternally surprised that you're just an extremist minority...you're so used to being an oppressive minority that you've forgotten that you really constitute a TINY FRACTION of the population of the US. It makes me have a sad for you.

The American Family Association, a Christian special interest group, is currently pushing a boycott against Radioshack

for not using the word 'Christmas'.

That is correct. The mob at the AFA is trying to physically and materially harm Radioshack because they don't say a certain word.

Foxfyre thinks that should be illegal. Do you?

Conservative Group Calls For Boycott Of Radio Shack For Not Using ?Christmas? In Ads

Well slight correction. They are calling for a limited one-month boycott of Radio Shack. But yes, if they are lobbying outside their own memership to do this, even that should be illegal if there was some way to make it illegal without opening up a whole other can of worms that would be abused by unethical people or groups to prevent legitimate lobbying against bad ACTS, not just 'bad' opinions.

First, it is Radio Shack's business what words they use in their ads. If the AFA has a problem with the ads, it is perfectly within its right to inform Radio Shack that they have alerted their membership to not do business with Radio Shack and will instead give their business to organizations who celebrate Christmas during the Christmas season. But if they are trying to get everybody outside their own membership to boycott Radio Shack for nothing other than the words they use or something they say, then that is morally and ethically wrong. The article didn't specify the nature of the boycott.

And such a boycott would not be physically harming Radio Shack as firing Phil Robertson physically harms Phil Robertson. It could materially harm Radio Shack however. And to do that for nothing more than Radio Shack expressing its opinion, that is morally and ethically wrong.

Withhold your business because you don't like the attitude of somebody. Fine. No problem. Perfectly within your right to do and to inform the other that you are doing it.

Trying to get everybody else outside your organization or group to withhold their business just because you don't like the atttitude of somebody, not okay.

If I compared your lifestyle to bestiality, said you "invent ways of doing evil", you are "full of murder, envy, strife, hatred." You are "insolent, arrogant, a God-hater." That you are heartless, faithless, senseless, and ruthless"

HOW would you take it? HOW would YOU label it if someone said that about you?

Perhaps YOU should reevaluate your position?

 

[OODA_Loop]

If I compared your lifestyle to bestiality, said you "invent ways of doing evil", you are "full of murder, envy, strife, hatred." You are "insolent, arrogant, a God-hater." That you are heartless, faithless, senseless, and ruthless"

HOW would you take it?

Lying down.

 

[Statistikhengst]

If I compared your lifestyle to bestiality, said you "invent ways of doing evil", you are "full of murder, envy, strife, hatred." You are "insolent, arrogant, a God-hater." That you are heartless, faithless, senseless, and ruthless"

HOW would you take it?

Lying down.

ok.......

 

[kaz]

But yes, if they are lobbying outside their own memership to do this, even that should be illegal if there was some way to make it illegal without opening up a whole other can of worms that would be abused by unethical people or groups to prevent legitimate lobbying against bad ACTS, not just 'bad' opinions.

If they say things they know to be untrue or show a flagrant disregard for the truth, then they can be sued for damages.

You don't seriously believe it should be illegal for someone to say things that are truthful or reasonably their opinion without factual inaccuracies do you?

I can see you personally believing they should not do that as a reasonable opinion. But how could you criminalize free speech just because you don't like what they said? And even more, how could you give government, who abuses any and all power given to them, the power to enforce that? And the courts, wow, what a massive basis for even more legislating from the bench you would have given them. You realize government would only use that power to bolster free liberal speech and further shut down the dissent of anyone who questions socialism.

 

[NYcarbineer]

However they don't lie about companies and people in order to shut them down because they don't like the religion of the owners, and to *punish* them for daring to speak out about their religion.

That's a lefty fascist forte.

Oh, and:

You loons are eternally surprised that you're just an extremist minority...you're so used to being an oppressive minority that you've forgotten that you really constitute a TINY FRACTION of the population of the US. It makes me have a sad for you.

The American Family Association, a Christian special interest group, is currently pushing a boycott against Radioshack

for not using the word 'Christmas'.

That is correct. The mob at the AFA is trying to physically and materially harm Radioshack because they don't say a certain word.

Foxfyre thinks that should be illegal. Do you?

Conservative Group Calls For Boycott Of Radio Shack For Not Using ?Christmas? In Ads

Boycotting isn't attempting to cause "physical" harm, nutjob.

Take that up with FF, it's her word.

 

[koshergrl]

The American Family Association, a Christian special interest group, is currently pushing a boycott against Radioshack

for not using the word 'Christmas'.

That is correct. The mob at the AFA is trying to physically and materially harm Radioshack because they don't say a certain word.

Foxfyre thinks that should be illegal. Do you?

Conservative Group Calls For Boycott Of Radio Shack For Not Using ?Christmas? In Ads

Well slight correction. They are calling for a limited one-month boycott of Radio Shack. But yes, if they are lobbying outside their own memership to do this, even that should be illegal if there was some way to make it illegal without opening up a whole other can of worms that would be abused by unethical people or groups to prevent legitimate lobbying against bad ACTS, not just 'bad' opinions.

First, it is Radio Shack's business what words they use in their ads. If the AFA has a problem with the ads, it is perfectly within its right to inform Radio Shack that they have alerted their membership to not do business with Radio Shack and will instead give their business to organizations who celebrate Christmas during the Christmas season. But if they are trying to get everybody outside their own membership to boycott Radio Shack for nothing other than the words they use or something they say, then that is morally and ethically wrong. The article didn't specify the nature of the boycott.

And such a boycott would not be physically harming Radio Shack as firing Phil Robertson physically harms Phil Robertson. It could materially harm Radio Shack however. And to do that for nothing more than Radio Shack expressing its opinion, that is morally and ethically wrong.

Withhold your business because you don't like the attitude of somebody. Fine. No problem. Perfectly within your right to do and to inform the other that you are doing it.

Trying to get everybody else outside your organization or group to withhold their business just because you don't like the atttitude of somebody, not okay.

If I compared your lifestyle to bestiality, said you "invent ways of doing evil", you are "full of murder, envy, strife, hatred." You are "insolent, arrogant, a God-hater." That you are heartless, faithless, senseless, and ruthless"

HOW would you take it? HOW would YOU label it if someone said that about you?

Perhaps YOU should reevaluate your position?

No, I don't think so.

Sexual immorality covers sexual immorality. Homosexuality, bestiality, and adultry rank as sexual immorality. Sorry.

Everybody is full of murder, envy, strife, hatred...and I think the fact that you get so ANGRY over the fact that people believe that actually proves they're right.

Your problem is with the Bible. Take it up with God.

 

[NYcarbineer]

For all of those who accused me of quoting Phil Robertson saying something he never said,

here is the video of him saying it:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiDjXf4AUIE]Part 3 Phil Robertson aka The Duck Commander - YouTube[/ame]

It's a segment of the same video that following the link I repeatedly posted would have taken you to.

Go to a minute or so in. I'm making it much easier for you than many of you deserve.

 

[koshergrl]

Ah..so you were lying.

You said he ranted against gays, by saying GAYS are this, and GAYS are that.

But he didn't.

As I said.


"
“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 truthless. They invent ways of doing evil.”

THEY are sinners. Gays included, cuz we all sin. It just happens that homos IDENTIFY themselves by the sin they commit. So they think everyone should dump the bible to save them from having to hear about it.


Read more: ?Duck Dynasty? star Phil Robertson anti-gay video emerges as A&E beefs up security amid threats - NY Daily News

 

[Plasmaball]

Phil has the right to his opinion, and the people reacting towards his opinion have the right to theirs. A&E also has the right to control their network they see fit. More over if said group shuns said opinion, then that is what the public decides. Not all opinions are equal, nor should they be. This is a general statement not about what Phil said.

The internet and the Fox news style ( they created the medium we have for good or ill ) format is why people think all opinions have equal weight and should have equal time to be stated. The internet created our bubbles we have today in our political factions. You see it here on the right more and you'd have to go to the DU in order to see it more with the left. Regardless both do it, and its even in this thread on page 1.

Their is no more tolerance of intolerance because their is no public shaming of said opinion. Said person can run back to their group that agrees with them. Their minds not changed not their voices drowned out, mocked and put out to be ignored as legit.

Intolerant opinions should be mocked and shunned. 1+1=2 not 47.

 

[Foxfyre]

If I compared your lifestyle to bestiality, said you "invent ways of doing evil", you are "full of murder, envy, strife, hatred." You are "insolent, arrogant, a God-hater." That you are heartless, faithless, senseless, and ruthless"

HOW would you take it?

Lying down.

No you wouldn't. You woulld lose all respect for his honesty and integrity. If you had been doing business with him, you would cease doing business with him.. If necessary you would issue an intelligent, well thought out rebuttal that would expose his error.

But if it was a group of people he so described that way, then yeah. You might quote him to be sure everybody knew what an idiot he was so others could make up their own minds whether it was worth dealing with. But you would quote his exact words, and not the edited amplified version that makes it look much different and much worse than what was actually said.