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

[paperview]

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

You clipped off the words he said just before that. He was referring to gays and lesbians. Not unexpected of you.


But lets go it your way.

All sinners.

Everyone is

...full of murder

full of envy,

full of strife,

full of hatred

is insolent

is arrogant

is a God hater

is ruthless

is faithless

are heartless.

senseless.

ruthless.

and invent ways of doing evil.


Everyone.

Because everyone is a sinner.



You run with that.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Again what I would like to be illegal is immaterial. It is my own opinion. But even if there was some way to accomplish it without unintended negative consequences, it would not be criminalizing free speech though. It would be criminalizing organized efforts to harm somebody for no other reason than an opinon was exprssed.

I don't understand why that simple concept is so difficult for some to understand. If I DO something that causes harm to somebody, then certainly I deserve whatever legal pressure is applied to persuade me to stop doing that something.

But if I express an opinion that somebody else doesn't like, that should not be cause to hurt me physically and/or materially.

It does not matter what opinions I have expressed at other times or in other contexts. It does not matter how crappy and cruddy a person I might be. It does not matter how much a NYC or CC or bgfn might hate me. I should have the right to express a personal opinion without fear that some mob, group, or organization will hurt me physically and/or materially.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Again what I would like to be illegal is immaterial. It is my own opinion. But even if there was some way to accomplish it without unintended negative consequences, it would not be criminalizing free speech though. It would be criminalizing organized efforts to harm somebody for no other reason than an opinon was exprssed.

I don't understand why that simple concept is so difficult for some to understand. If I DO something that causes harm to somebody, then certainly I deserve whatever legal pressure is applied to persuade me to stop doing that something.

But if I express an opinion that somebody else doesn't like, that should not be cause to hurt me physically and/or materially.

It does not matter what opinions I have expressed at other times or in other contexts. It does not matter how crappy and cruddy a person I might be. It does not matter how much a NYC or CC or bgfn might hate me. I should have the right to express a personal opinion without fear that some mob, group, or organization will hurt me physically and/or materially.

You're not important enough for me to go out of my way to "hurt" you physically or mentally. You're a hypocritical sack of shit and that's my opinion. If that hurts you...too fucking bad.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Again what I would like to be illegal is immaterial. It is my own opinion. But even if there was some way to accomplish it without unintended negative consequences, it would not be criminalizing free speech though. It would be criminalizing organized efforts to harm somebody for no other reason than an opinon was exprssed.

I don't understand why that simple concept is so difficult for some to understand. If I DO something that causes harm to somebody, then certainly I deserve whatever legal pressure is applied to persuade me to stop doing that something.

But if I express an opinion that somebody else doesn't like, that should not be cause to hurt me physically and/or materially.

It does not matter what opinions I have expressed at other times or in other contexts. It does not matter how crappy and cruddy a person I might be. It does not matter how much a NYC or CC or bgfn might hate me. I should have the right to express a personal opinion without fear that some mob, group, or organization will hurt me physically and/or materially.

You're not important enough for me to go out of my way to "hurt" you physically or mentally. You're a hypocritical sack of shit and that's my opinion. If that hurts you...too fucking bad.

Thank you for your opinion.

How important would a person need to be in order for you to go out of your way to hurt him or her physically or materially? (Or mentally as you put it? Note: the cognitive reading dysfunction continues. )

 

[Plasmaball]

It does not matter what opinions I have expressed at other times or in other contexts. It does not matter how crappy and cruddy a person I might be. It does not matter how much a NYC or CC or bgfn might hate me. I should have the right to express a personal opinion without fear that some mob, group, or organization will hurt me physically and/or materially.

The bold part- You are correct
the underline part- you are dead wrong. The people have the right to boycott yours ass if you are a company. We do not have to do business with you. A simple no thanks is all that is needed. You express an unpopular opinion you should be shunned to the furthermost reaches of the planet. This is free market capitalism. Which is something your kind never really likes unless its your brand of boycott.

Now if you mean destroy your property, then that falls into physical.

 

[paperview]

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.

Again what I would like to be illegal is immaterial. It is my own opinion. But even if there was some way to accomplish it without unintended negative consequences, it would not be criminalizing free speech though. It would be criminalizing organized efforts to harm somebody for no other reason than an opinon was exprssed.

...

You want to criminalize boycotts?

Are you serious??

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

Again what I would like to be illegal is immaterial. It is my own opinion. But even if there was some way to accomplish it without unintended negative consequences, it would not be criminalizing free speech though. It would be criminalizing organized efforts to harm somebody for no other reason than an opinon was exprssed.

...

You want to criminalize boycotts?

Are you serious??

she isnt that bright, granted she tries her best to play intellectual.

edited because of cry babies. making boycotts illegal would be a free speech violation. I dont think this fully grasps her concept totally.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Again what I would like to be illegal is immaterial. It is my own opinion. But even if there was some way to accomplish it without unintended negative consequences, it would not be criminalizing free speech though. It would be criminalizing organized efforts to harm somebody for no other reason than an opinion was expressed.

...

You want to criminalize boycotts?

Are you serious??

She has no problem with boycotts that serve a productive purpose, those that benefit the greater good, not the individual need. Those that have only the intent of harming someone materially or otherwise should be, not "need to be," criminal. But yet again, you and your liberal friends continue to spread your cognitive dissonance and choose not to address the core of this thread. Her views on boycotts and the nature thereof are irrelevant.

Is it intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance?

 

[paperview]

Again what I would like to be illegal is immaterial. It is my own opinion. But even if there was some way to accomplish it without unintended negative consequences, it would not be criminalizing free speech though. It would be criminalizing organized efforts to harm somebody for no other reason than an opinion was expressed.

...

You want to criminalize boycotts?

Are you serious??

She has no problem with boycotts that serve a productive purpose, those that benefit the greater good, not the individual need. Those that have only the intent of harming someone materially or otherwise should be, not "need to be," criminal. But yet again, you and your liberal friends continue to spread your cognitive dissonance and choose not to address the core of this thread. Her views on boycotts and the nature thereof are irrelevant.

Is it intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance?

What, are you her appointed spokesman or something?

Who the hell decides who's 'greater good' is served?

 

[Plasmaball]

Again what I would like to be illegal is immaterial. It is my own opinion. But even if there was some way to accomplish it without unintended negative consequences, it would not be criminalizing free speech though. It would be criminalizing organized efforts to harm somebody for no other reason than an opinion was expressed.

...

You want to criminalize boycotts?

Are you serious??

She has no problem with boycotts that serve a productive purpose, those that benefit the greater good, not the individual need. Those that have only the intent of harming someone materially or otherwise should be, not "need to be," criminal. But yet again, you and your liberal friends continue to spread your cognitive dissonance and choose not to address the core of this thread. Her views on boycotts and the nature thereof are irrelevant.

Is it intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance?

productive boycotts are a stupid opinion. you boycott to boycott, whether it be one person or a million.

And her intolerance question has been answered. I did, nobody wants to quote it so shut up with your whining.

 

[Plasmaball]

You want to criminalize boycotts?

Are you serious??

She has no problem with boycotts that serve a productive purpose, those that benefit the greater good, not the individual need. Those that have only the intent of harming someone materially or otherwise should be, not "need to be," criminal. But yet again, you and your liberal friends continue to spread your cognitive dissonance and choose not to address the core of this thread. Her views on boycotts and the nature thereof are irrelevant.

Is it intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance?

What, are you her appointed spokesman or something?

Who the hell decides who's 'greater good' is served?

apparently these people who like to judge on people who are being intolerant.

 

[kaz]

You want to criminalize boycotts?

Are you serious??

She has no problem with boycotts that serve a productive purpose, those that benefit the greater good, not the individual need. Those that have only the intent of harming someone materially or otherwise should be, not "need to be," criminal. But yet again, you and your liberal friends continue to spread your cognitive dissonance and choose not to address the core of this thread. Her views on boycotts and the nature thereof are irrelevant.

Is it intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance?

What, are you her appointed spokesman or something?

Another liberal who doesn't understand what a "message board" is.

If you want to have a private conversation, you PM or go to a chat room.

This is a message board, which is a public discussion.

Who the hell decides who's 'greater good' is served?

That is however the key point. Should have stuck with that and not shown you took a wrong turn on the Internet and didn't realize it was a public discussion.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Again what I would like to be illegal is immaterial. It is my own opinion. But even if there was some way to accomplish it without unintended negative consequences, it would not be criminalizing free speech though. It would be criminalizing organized efforts to harm somebody for no other reason than an opinon was exprssed.

...

You want to criminalize boycotts?

Are you serious??

Ah yet another one with cognitive reading dysfunction. It seems to be contageious. I wonder if it is dangerous? Actually I think it might be when it comes to our individual liberties. Maybe we need to take up a collection for therapy for some of these folks?

Perhaps you don't see a difference between a boycott and what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson. I continue to be grateful to those who do a see a difference.

Do have a nice day.

 

[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.

Again what I would like to be illegal is immaterial. It is my own opinion. But even if there was some way to accomplish it without unintended negative consequences, it would not be criminalizing free speech though. It would be criminalizing organized efforts to harm somebody for no other reason than an opinon was exprssed.

I don't understand why that simple concept is so difficult for some to understand. If I DO something that causes harm to somebody, then certainly I deserve whatever legal pressure is applied to persuade me to stop doing that something.

But if I express an opinion that somebody else doesn't like, that should not be cause to hurt me physically and/or materially.

It does not matter what opinions I have expressed at other times or in other contexts. It does not matter how crappy and cruddy a person I might be. It does not matter how much a NYC or CC or bgfn might hate me. I should have the right to express a personal opinion without fear that some mob, group, or organization will hurt me physically and/or materially.

If they threaten you or harm you physically, that is already a crime. If they hurt you materially, that goes again to whether they are truthful or disregard the truth and if it's the latter that's a civil offense.

As long as someone is truthful, they want to boycott your business because they are liberal and you're not or they don't like your policies then it goes to whether people agree with them or not. If they say they just don't like you because, that's unpersuasive.

Freedom of speech means freedom from government, it doesn't mean freedom from the reactions of people who heard it. Again, as long as they don't commit another crime in the process.

 

[Plasmaball]

Again what I would like to be illegal is immaterial. It is my own opinion. But even if there was some way to accomplish it without unintended negative consequences, it would not be criminalizing free speech though. It would be criminalizing organized efforts to harm somebody for no other reason than an opinon was exprssed.

...

You want to criminalize boycotts?

Are you serious??

Ah yet another one with cognitive reading dysfunction. It seems to be contageious. I wonder if it is dangerous? Axtually I think it might be when it comes to our individual liberties. Maybe we need to take up a collection for therapy for some of these folks?

Perhaps you don't see a difference between a boycott and what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson. I continue to be grateful to those who do a see a difference.

Do have a nice day.

you mean Glaad voiced their opinion on Phil's opinion?

Oh noes.....where are your threads when an anti-abortion group does this? Or the NRA? You typically remain silent or declare these groups are allowed to have such opinions of dissent.

And thus we have come full circle of how you are nothing but a partisan hypocrite.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You want to criminalize boycotts?

Are you serious??

She has no problem with boycotts that serve a productive purpose, those that benefit the greater good, not the individual need. Those that have only the intent of harming someone materially or otherwise should be, not "need to be," criminal. But yet again, you and your liberal friends continue to spread your cognitive dissonance and choose not to address the core of this thread. Her views on boycotts and the nature thereof are irrelevant.

Is it intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance?

What, are you her appointed spokesman or something?

Who the hell decides who's 'greater good' is served?

I am her friend. So, I will take to defending her, just like any of my other friends.

As to your question: apparently GLAAD and A&E do. Anyone who hasn't the stomach for differential opinions do. Any special interest or advocacy group will have a stranglehold over what is deemed the "greater good."

What good were the actions of A&E and GLAAD if Phil Robertson was going to be reinstated anyways? Who or what did that benefit? Does that not show who or what is actually trying to dictate the "greater good"?

 

[kaz]

You're not important enough for me to go out of my way to "hurt" you physically or mentally. You're a hypocritical sack of shit and that's my opinion. If that hurts you...too fucking bad.

You mean as long as the criticizer is a liberal and not a Christian. But then liberals are by far the primary utilizers of attacking for politics. But you don't count that, because of course then it's justified...

 

[kaz]

Again what I would like to be illegal is immaterial. It is my own opinion. But even if there was some way to accomplish it without unintended negative consequences, it would not be criminalizing free speech though. It would be criminalizing organized efforts to harm somebody for no other reason than an opinon was exprssed.

...

You want to criminalize boycotts?

Are you serious??

Ah yet another one with cognitive reading dysfunction. It seems to be contageious. I wonder if it is dangerous? Axtually I think it might be when it comes to our individual liberties. Maybe we need to take up a collection for therapy for some of these folks?

Perhaps you don't see a difference between a boycott and what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson. I continue to be grateful to those who do a see a difference.

Do have a nice day.

I see a difference when we are in a conversation about disagreeing with what they did. I do not see a difference if we are talking about giving government the power to make that determination.

You may have noticed, I consider government to be the greatest threat.

 

[Plasmaball]

She has no problem with boycotts that serve a productive purpose, those that benefit the greater good, not the individual need. Those that have only the intent of harming someone materially or otherwise should be, not "need to be," criminal. But yet again, you and your liberal friends continue to spread your cognitive dissonance and choose not to address the core of this thread. Her views on boycotts and the nature thereof are irrelevant.

Is it intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance?

What, are you her appointed spokesman or something?

Who the hell decides who's 'greater good' is served?

I am her friend. So, I will take to defending her, just like any of my other friends.

As to your question: apparently GLAAD and A&E do. Anyone who hasn't the stomach for differential opinions do. Any special interest or advocacy group will have a stranglehold over what is deemed the "greater good."

What good were the actions of A&E and GLAAD if Phil Robertson was going to be reinstated anyways? Who or what did that benefit? Does that not show who or what is actually trying to dictate the "greater good"?

white knight alert...get your puke buckets ready on stand by!

 

[Foxfyre]

You want to criminalize boycotts?

Are you serious??

Ah yet another one with cognitive reading dysfunction. It seems to be contageious. I wonder if it is dangerous? Axtually I think it might be when it comes to our individual liberties. Maybe we need to take up a collection for therapy for some of these folks?

Perhaps you don't see a difference between a boycott and what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson. I continue to be grateful to those who do a see a difference.

Do have a nice day.

you mean Glaad voiced their opinion on Phil's opinion?

Oh noes.....where are your threads when an anti-abortion group does this? Or the NRA? You typically remain silent or declare these groups are allowed to have such opinions of dissent.

And thus we have come full circle of how you are nothing but a partisan hypocrite.

Why don't you read the thread and see what I've said about what and get back to me on that? Would that be asking too much? I really get tired of those who

a) Didn't read the OP and lack the ability to exercise common courtesy
b) Didn't read what another member said before verbally attacking and/or accusing him/her
c) Are just general partisan trolls to begin with who lack the intelligence to read what is there and/or the basic human ability to communicate in any other way than as an angry, petty, idiot.

Thank you so much for understanding.