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

[BDBoop]

For me the object of a thread like this is to do some consciousness raising, but I don't require anybody to agree with me. All I expect from other members is that they treat each other with respect and allow them to be who they are. (The trolls refuse to do that which is why I wanted the reasonable people to put them on ignore.)

But if an opinion is offered, it is fair game to be challenged. I figure any opinion I hold is not worth having, if somebody can show how it is flawed. So far nobody has done that in this thread. I've been called a lot of unkind names and accused, mostly dishonestly, of a lot of things. But nobody has offered a reasoned rebuttal to the thesis of the thread.

The thesis once again is that everybody, even the prejudiced and bigoted and intolerant, is entitled to be who and what he or she is without fear that some mob or group or organization will punish them for nothing more than they are who they are and express an opinion of what they believe.

A mob, group or organization is simply several like-minded individuals.

On another note, I strongly believe you have yet to prove physical harm.

To lose one's job is to remove them physically from their means of income. And it harms them materially too because they lose that ncome. Did GLAAD demand that A&E fire Phil Robertson or not? I believe the evidence is that they did. And that is demanding physical and material harm to the targeted person. If the AFA was attempting to do physical and material harm to Ellen Degeneres by trying to force J C Penney to dump her from their ads. That was just as reprehensible and shouldn't be okay with any of us.

No. That is not physical harm.

None of the attempts you've made have come remotely close to proving physical harm. Physical harm is physical. If he suffered no damage to his physical person, then he was not physically harmed, full-stop and period.

 

[Luissa]

^Doesn't get it OR LIBERTY, The Constitution, The First Amendment OR the Founders.



Just Destroy it ALL.



NO SURPRISE.

What are you talking about, drunky?

I have freedom of speech too, which allows me to call out your bigotry and intolerance, and in this case your ignorance.

The fact you don't get that is more of a fuck you to the Constitution.

You have no concept of what liberty means, moron. Maybe switching to Jim Beam will help.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

its literally giving me a headache how these two dont get it. See how Fox continues her tripe?

I try to ignore Fox.

The others really have no idea what the first amendment protects or what it protects you from. But we are the stupid ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BDBoop]

The term "physical harm" as used in the Act and this part means any physical injury to the body, including an injury that caused, either temporarily or permanently, partial or total physical disability, incapacity or disfigurement. In no event shall physical harm include mental pain, anguish, or suffering, or fear of injury.

Physical Harm Law & Legal Definition

 

[Foxfyre]

I've tried. Nobody can hear me. Have you changed your beliefs one iota since the inception of this thread?

I don't do the definition of insanity. If I'm not heard, and I know I'm not not - then I stop trying.

For me the object of a thread like this is to do some consciousness raising, but I don't require anybody to agree with me. All I expect from other members is that they treat each other with respect and allow them to be who they are. (The trolls refuse to do that which is why I wanted the reasonable people to put them on ignore.)

But if an opinion is offered, it is fair game to be challenged. I figure any opinion I hold is not worth having, if somebody can show how it is flawed. So far nobody has done that in this thread. I've been called a lot of unkind names and accused, mostly dishonestly, of a lot of things. But nobody has offered a reasoned rebuttal to the thesis of the thread.

The thesis once again is that everybody, even the prejudiced and bigoted and intolerant, is entitled to be who and what he or she is without fear that some mob or group or organization will punish them for nothing more than they are who they are and express an opinion of what they believe.

Again you are using the word intolerant incorrectly. It is not ok for the bigots and prejudiced to be intolerant of others. While there's nothing wrong with disliking others, it's another thing entirely to intolerant, such as by restricting the civil rights of said others.

Why isn't it okay for bigots and the prejudiced to be intolerant of whomever they are intolerant of? Unless we have the right to be bigoted and prejudiced, we have no rights at all.

Now ACTING OUT that bigotry or prejudice such as GLAAD or the AFA did is quite something else again. That is a much different thing than simply expressing our opinions in a forum in which it is proper to express opinions.

 

[The T]

For me the object of a thread like this is to do some consciousness raising, but I don't require anybody to agree with me. All I expect from other members is that they treat each other with respect and allow them to be who they are. (The trolls refuse to do that which is why I wanted the reasonable people to put them on ignore.)

But if an opinion is offered, it is fair game to be challenged. I figure any opinion I hold is not worth having, if somebody can show how it is flawed. So far nobody has done that in this thread. I've been called a lot of unkind names and accused, mostly dishonestly, of a lot of things. But nobody has offered a reasoned rebuttal to the thesis of the thread.

The thesis once again is that everybody, even the prejudiced and bigoted and intolerant, is entitled to be who and what he or she is without fear that some mob or group or organization will punish them for nothing more than they are who they are and express an opinion of what they believe.

Again you are using the word intolerant incorrectly. It is not ok for the bigots and prejudiced to be intolerant of others. While there's nothing wrong with disliking others, it's another thing entirely to intolerant, such as by restricting the civil rights of said others.

Why isn't it okay for bigots and the prejudiced to be intolerant of whomever they are intolerant of? Unless we have the right to be bigoted and prejudiced, we have no rights at all.

Now ACTING OUT that bigotry or prejudice such as GLAAD or the AFA did is quite something else again. That is a much different thing than simply expressing our opinions in a forum in which it is proper to express opinions.

BEING that way is UP to the individual, and acting upon it as to infringe, nay, PUNISH another merely FOR their speech is where it all goes awry, and precisely what GLADD did through his employer (A&E whom capitulated under their MINORITY pressure), as their INTENT was to stifle such speech OPENLY and SHOW their intolerance.

 

[Bfgrn]

YOU should know. WHY are YOU asking me? YOU posted that crap knowing full well the content. So stop the crap game you're playing, DEAL?

Their political affiliation had ZERO to do with me posting that article. It didn't even cross my mind. FF seized on it and missed the point completely. You are just digging a deeper hole.

So WHY did YOU mention it?
Care to impart that bit of disingenuousness? CARE to explain the LIE you stated?

Didn't think so, HACK. GET out of my sight before I hurt you.

I posted the first few paragraphs of the article. It says "On July 11, 1804, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr met on the dueling grounds"..."Hamilton was a Federalist. Burr was a Republican"

NEITHER party exists today. That was 50 YEARS before the Republican party of today was founded... HOW can that be relevant?

 

[The T]

Their political affiliation had ZERO to do with me posting that article. It didn't even cross my mind. FF seized on it and missed the point completely. You are just digging a deeper hole.

So WHY did YOU mention it?
Care to impart that bit of disingenuousness? CARE to explain the LIE you stated?

Didn't think so, HACK. GET out of my sight before I hurt you.

I posted the first few paragraphs of the article. It says "On July 11, 1804, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr met on the dueling grounds"..."Hamilton was a Federalist. Burr was a Republican"

NEITHER party exists today. That was 50 YEARS before the Republican party of today was founded... HOW can that be relevant?

AND what IS your POINT, and WHY are YOU revisiting this crap?

WHO CARES but you?

ACCEPTENCE? TOLERANCE?

Jeeze...Get lost...Play in traffic...something...and NO I DO NOT TOLERATE *YOU* Hack.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again you are using the word intolerant incorrectly. It is not ok for the bigots and prejudiced to be intolerant of others. While there's nothing wrong with disliking others, it's another thing entirely to intolerant, such as by restricting the civil rights of said others.

Why isn't it okay for bigots and the prejudiced to be intolerant of whomever they are intolerant of? Unless we have the right to be bigoted and prejudiced, we have no rights at all.

Now ACTING OUT that bigotry or prejudice such as GLAAD or the AFA did is quite something else again. That is a much different thing than simply expressing our opinions in a forum in which it is proper to express opinions.

BEING that way is UP to the individual, and acting upon it as to infringe, nay, PUNISH another merely FOR their speech is where it all goes awry, and precisely what GLADD did through his employer (A&E whom capitulated under their MINORITY pressure), as their INTENT was to stifle such speech OPENLY and SHOW their intolerance.

Exactly. Phil Robertson stated a personal belief/opinion in answer to a direct question. I believe he had no intent other than to be honest about what he believed. He made it very clear that he wished no harm or ill will on anyone. Is he intolerant of homosexuality? Yes. He is intolerant of anything he considers to be a sin. That does not mean he loves the 'sinners' any less.

GLAAD intended to physically and materially harm Phil Robertson and they wished him no good will of any kind.

AFA intended to physically and materially harm Ellen Degeneres not for the content of the Penney's ad she appeared in--they had no problem with the content--but they went after her for no other reason than she is gay--she is who she is. They wished her no good will of any kind.

And that is the difference between intolerance expressed--somethng that should be tolerated by all of us--and intolerance acted out which is something none of us should be okay with.

 

[RKMBrown]

I think folks are confusing the issue when they use the word "intolerance" inappropriately in a sentence , such as when they really mean "dislike."

But isn't that the point of an intelligent discussion? Back and forth until everybody understands where the others are coming from whether or not they agree with anybody else? But you are right that we sometimes get stalled on a word as that word means something different to different people.

What seems obvious to me may not be obvious to somebody else and vice versa. So a reasoned discussion on a multi-faceted subject requires some inquiry, restating, regrouping, and finding ways to explain things. We don't all have to agree to benefit from the exercise.

So yes. It is important to know what we mean by intolerance. Those who think homosexuality is disgusting are likely to be intolerant of homosexuals just as there are people intolerant of anything Christian and some are intolerant of Christians. But as long as such people express their opinion but do not act on it, should they be entitled to their opinion? Is it somehow more evil to be repulsed by gay people than it is evil to be repulsed by Christians?

Probably all of us are intolerant of something. But as long as our intolerance does not infringe on the rights of others, should it not be our right to be intolerant?

Thank you. Yes, we get stalled on words and phrases like intolerance, change, affordable, living wage, etc.. Then the fights and flames start.

I personally have no interest in performing gay acts. However, I must admit to being a hypocrite in that I don't mind watching girls .. NVM off topic.

Disliking or being repulsed is one thing, being intolerant is another thing entirely. The act of being intolerant presupposes some willingness to take away someone's liberty to be as they are. Thus the only way you should be legally able to be intolerant is towards acts that are illegal, such as taking away someone's free speech or civil rights.

As to your statement, "as long as our intolerance does not infringe on the rights of others, should it not be our right to be intolerant?" My answer is the only way to be intolerant is to limit others. Your first statement attempts to redefine intolerance as tolerance, or perhaps "un-approving" or "repulsed." The correct way to make your statement would be:

As long as our disapproval does not infringe on the rights of others, it is our right to be repulsed so long as we are not intolerant of legal acts.

 

[Foxfyre]

So WHY did YOU mention it?
Care to impart that bit of disingenuousness? CARE to explain the LIE you stated?

Didn't think so, HACK. GET out of my sight before I hurt you.

I posted the first few paragraphs of the article. It says "On July 11, 1804, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr met on the dueling grounds"..."Hamilton was a Federalist. Burr was a Republican"

NEITHER party exists today. That was 50 YEARS before the Republican party of today was founded... HOW can that be relevant?

AND what IS your POINT, and WHY are YOU revisiting this crap?

WHO CARES but you?

Please put him on ignore. His purpose here is to derail the thread. Just don't respond to the off topic posts.

The thread topic is tolerance.

 

[The T]

Why isn't it okay for bigots and the prejudiced to be intolerant of whomever they are intolerant of? Unless we have the right to be bigoted and prejudiced, we have no rights at all.

Now ACTING OUT that bigotry or prejudice such as GLAAD or the AFA did is quite something else again. That is a much different thing than simply expressing our opinions in a forum in which it is proper to express opinions.

BEING that way is UP to the individual, and acting upon it as to infringe, nay, PUNISH another merely FOR their speech is where it all goes awry, and precisely what GLADD did through his employer (A&E whom capitulated under their MINORITY pressure), as their INTENT was to stifle such speech OPENLY and SHOW their intolerance.

Exactly. Phil Robertson stated a personal belief/opinion in answer to a direct question. I believe he had no intent other than to be honest about what he believed. He made it very clear that he wished no harm or ill will on anyone. Is he intolerant of homosexuality? Yes. He is intolerant of anything he considers to be a sin. That does not mean he loves the 'sinners' any less.

GLAAD intended to physically and materially harm Phil Robertson and they wished him no good will of any kind.

AFA intended to physically and materially harm Ellen Degeneres not for the content of the Penney's ad she appeared in--they had no problem with the content--but they went after her for no other reason than she is gay--she is who she is. They wished her no good will of any kind.

And that is the difference between intolerance expressed--somethng that should be tolerated by all of us--and intolerance acted out which is something none of us should be okay with.

It befuddles me hon WHY others don't see it. It's black and white...whoops! Did I just stumble over a SECULAR GREY area> ?

 

[Plasmaball]

What are you talking about, drunky?

I have freedom of speech too, which allows me to call out your bigotry and intolerance, and in this case your ignorance.

The fact you don't get that is more of a fuck you to the Constitution.

You have no concept of what liberty means, moron. Maybe switching to Jim Beam will help.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

its literally giving me a headache how these two dont get it. See how Fox continues her tripe?

I try to ignore Fox.

The others really have no idea what the first amendment protects or what it protects you from. But we are the stupid ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm still trying to figure out what glad did that was wrong. I asked, but she ignored it as well.i think I'll dub fox " a polite Stephanie"

 

[Foxfyre]

I think folks are confusing the issue when they use the word "intolerance" inappropriately in a sentence , such as when they really mean "dislike."

But isn't that the point of an intelligent discussion? Back and forth until everybody understands where the others are coming from whether or not they agree with anybody else? But you are right that we sometimes get stalled on a word as that word means something different to different people.

What seems obvious to me may not be obvious to somebody else and vice versa. So a reasoned discussion on a multi-faceted subject requires some inquiry, restating, regrouping, and finding ways to explain things. We don't all have to agree to benefit from the exercise.

So yes. It is important to know what we mean by intolerance. Those who think homosexuality is disgusting are likely to be intolerant of homosexuals just as there are people intolerant of anything Christian and some are intolerant of Christians. But as long as such people express their opinion but do not act on it, should they be entitled to their opinion? Is it somehow more evil to be repulsed by gay people than it is evil to be repulsed by Christians?

Probably all of us are intolerant of something. But as long as our intolerance does not infringe on the rights of others, should it not be our right to be intolerant?

Thank you. Yes, we get stalled on words and phrases like intolerance, change, affordable, living wage, etc.. Then the fights and flames start.

I personally have no interest in performing gay acts. However, I must admit to being a hypocrite in that I don't mind watching girls .. NVM off topic.

Disliking or being repulsed is one thing, being intolerant is another thing entirely. The act of being intolerant presupposes some willingness to take away someone's liberty to be as they are. Thus the only way you should be legally able to be intolerant is towards acts that are illegal, such as taking away someone's free speech or civil rights.

As to your statement, "as long as our intolerance does not infringe on the rights of others, should it not be our right to be intolerant?" My answer is the only way to be intolerant is to infringe on the rights of others. Your first statement attempts to redefine intolerance as tolerance, or perhaps "un-approving" or "repulsed." The correct way to make your statement would be:

As long as our disapproval not infringe on the rights of others, should it not be our right to be repulsed so long as we do not extend that to intolerance of their right to live as they see fit.

Again I am intolerant of those uncontrolled kids in my space. I am intolerant of people smoking in my air space. I am intolerant of people yakking on cell phones to the point I am unable to enjoy my space. And I am intolerant of just about everybody who gets in my face to tell me what I am supposed to believe, say, think, etc. about anything. But do I wish any harm on such people? I do not. Do I care what they do or smoke or say in their own space? Nope. Nor will I presume to interfere so long as they don't require me to participate.

So for purposes of my version of intolerance, it takes two forms.

That which is expressed--okay.
That which presumes to punish people for who they are or for their personally held opinions--not okay.

 

[Bfgrn]

For me the object of a thread like this is to do some consciousness raising, but I don't require anybody to agree with me. All I expect from other members is that they treat each other with respect and allow them to be who they are. (The trolls refuse to do that which is why I wanted the reasonable people to put them on ignore.)

But if an opinion is offered, it is fair game to be challenged. I figure any opinion I hold is not worth having, if somebody can show how it is flawed. So far nobody has done that in this thread. I've been called a lot of unkind names and accused, mostly dishonestly, of a lot of things. But nobody has offered a reasoned rebuttal to the thesis of the thread.

The thesis once again is that everybody, even the prejudiced and bigoted and intolerant, is entitled to be who and what he or she is without fear that some mob or group or organization will punish them for nothing more than they are who they are and express an opinion of what they believe.

Again you are using the word intolerant incorrectly. It is not ok for the bigots and prejudiced to be intolerant of others. While there's nothing wrong with disliking others, it's another thing entirely to intolerant, such as by restricting the civil rights of said others.

Why isn't it okay for bigots and the prejudiced to be intolerant of whomever they are intolerant of? Unless we have the right to be bigoted and prejudiced, we have no rights at all.

Now ACTING OUT that bigotry or prejudice such as GLAAD or the AFA did is quite something else again. That is a much different thing than simply expressing our opinions in a forum in which it is proper to express opinions.

Standing up for bigots...how right wing of you FF.

If ANYONE is ultimately harmed by this incident, the MOST likely victims will be gays. It will not be tied to what Phil Robertson spewed, and we will never know that some bigot or hate filled homophobe might be emboldened to act on Phil's ignorant rant.

Hate Violence Against LGBT Community Is On a Dangerous Rise

 

[RKMBrown]

Why isn't it okay for bigots and the prejudiced to be intolerant of whomever they are intolerant of? Unless we have the right to be bigoted and prejudiced, we have no rights at all.

Now ACTING OUT that bigotry or prejudice such as GLAAD or the AFA did is quite something else again. That is a much different thing than simply expressing our opinions in a forum in which it is proper to express opinions.

BEING that way is UP to the individual, and acting upon it as to infringe, nay, PUNISH another merely FOR their speech is where it all goes awry, and precisely what GLADD did through his employer (A&E whom capitulated under their MINORITY pressure), as their INTENT was to stifle such speech OPENLY and SHOW their intolerance.

Exactly. Phil Robertson stated a personal belief/opinion in answer to a direct question. I believe he had no intent other than to be honest about what he believed. He made it very clear that he wished no harm or ill will on anyone. Is he intolerant of homosexuality? Yes. He is intolerant of anything he considers to be a sin. That does not mean he loves the 'sinners' any less.

GLAAD intended to physically and materially harm Phil Robertson and they wished him no good will of any kind.

AFA intended to physically and materially harm Ellen Degeneres not for the content of the Penney's ad she appeared in--they had no problem with the content--but they went after her for no other reason than she is gay--she is who she is. They wished her no good will of any kind.

And that is the difference between intolerance expressed--somethng that should be tolerated by all of us--and intolerance acted out which is something none of us should be okay with.

I disagree. Phil most certainly was being tolerant of gays. More particularly he said it will be god that judges them.

IMO Phil is wrong about his view that god will see gay acts at sinful. IMO Phil is right, however, that we should show love and tolerance towards people.

 

[RKMBrown]

But isn't that the point of an intelligent discussion? Back and forth until everybody understands where the others are coming from whether or not they agree with anybody else? But you are right that we sometimes get stalled on a word as that word means something different to different people.

What seems obvious to me may not be obvious to somebody else and vice versa. So a reasoned discussion on a multi-faceted subject requires some inquiry, restating, regrouping, and finding ways to explain things. We don't all have to agree to benefit from the exercise.

So yes. It is important to know what we mean by intolerance. Those who think homosexuality is disgusting are likely to be intolerant of homosexuals just as there are people intolerant of anything Christian and some are intolerant of Christians. But as long as such people express their opinion but do not act on it, should they be entitled to their opinion? Is it somehow more evil to be repulsed by gay people than it is evil to be repulsed by Christians?

Probably all of us are intolerant of something. But as long as our intolerance does not infringe on the rights of others, should it not be our right to be intolerant?

Thank you. Yes, we get stalled on words and phrases like intolerance, change, affordable, living wage, etc.. Then the fights and flames start.

I personally have no interest in performing gay acts. However, I must admit to being a hypocrite in that I don't mind watching girls .. NVM off topic.

Disliking or being repulsed is one thing, being intolerant is another thing entirely. The act of being intolerant presupposes some willingness to take away someone's liberty to be as they are. Thus the only way you should be legally able to be intolerant is towards acts that are illegal, such as taking away someone's free speech or civil rights.

As to your statement, "as long as our intolerance does not infringe on the rights of others, should it not be our right to be intolerant?" My answer is the only way to be intolerant is to infringe on the rights of others. Your first statement attempts to redefine intolerance as tolerance, or perhaps "un-approving" or "repulsed." The correct way to make your statement would be:

As long as our disapproval not infringe on the rights of others, should it not be our right to be repulsed so long as we do not extend that to intolerance of their right to live as they see fit.

Again I am intolerant of those uncontrolled kids in my space. I am intolerant of people smoking in my air space. I am intolerant of people yakking on cell phones to the point I am unable to enjoy my space. And I am intolerant of just about everybody who gets in my face to tell me what I am supposed to believe, say, think, etc. about anything. But do I wish any harm on such people? I do not. Do I care what they do or smoke or say in their own space? Nope. Nor will I presume to interfere so long as they don't require me to participate.

So for purposes of my version of intolerance, it takes two forms.

That which is expressed--okay.
That which presumes to punish people for who they are or for their personally held opinions--not okay.

Sorry I was still editing that last sentence of mine. I finished with I believe you mean to say: As long as our disapproval does not infringe on the rights of others, it is our right to be repulsed so long as we are not intolerant of legal acts.

>> Again I am intolerant of those uncontrolled kids in my space. I am intolerant of people smoking in my air space. I am intolerant of people yakking on cell phones to the point I am unable to enjoy my space. And I am intolerant of just about everybody who gets in my face to tell me what I am supposed to believe, say, think, etc. about anything...

It's your space, not theirs. Thus your use of the term intolerance presumes it was somehow their space. However. because it was not their space, and you had certain rules that they do not adhere to, they were the ones being intolerant of your "space rules." Thus you are not in fact being intolerant at all. More to the point you are tolerating their use of your space but only if they adhere to your rules. That is not the same as intolerance. You are using a double negative here. Stop using the double negative and you are no longer being "intolerant." Correct?

This issue is similar to the reverse racism thing, where it's ok to be racist against white presumably to right prior wrongs. But it's wrong to be racist, period.

 

[BDBoop]

I'm invisible again, aren't I.

Good day.

 

[Foxfyre]

we have a classic example of those who are claiming intolerance towards them and also to be very tolerant themselves to be actually the most vile and militant intolerant bigots under the sun - LGBT and the left overall.

Be careful about the left and right analogy though because yes, GLAAD is very left. But the American Family Association is conservative right and they went after Ellen Degeneres not for anything she said or because the AFA had any problem with the content of an ad, but purely because Ellen is gay. If we are looking at this from a non hypocritical perspective, that deserves as much or more condemnation as what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson.

This is not a partisan issue or an ideological issue or an us vs them issue. This is good people demanding that we turn away from a culture of hurting people for no other reason than they are who and what they are and return to a culture where people are allowed to be who and what they are so long as they don't tread on the rights of others.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm invisible again, aren't I.

Good day.

No, but I was not willing to sidetrack the discussion by dragging in a legal issue. We can either discuss the issue or we can discuss the legal definition of a word. We already put the legal definition of words to bed many pages back. Did you comment when I was making the point that this is not an issue of law or legality? This is the ethics of a cultural phenomenon. So if I am not invisible when you don't respond to my argument, which you didn't, then you aren't invisible if i skim over a legal definition that I really think would muddy the waters here.

Nor did you answer my direct question to you awhile back which was, are you okay with what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson? If so, why? If not why?

 

[Plasmaball]

I'm invisible again, aren't I.

Good day.

No, but I was not willing to sidetrack the discussion by dragging in a legal issue. We can either discuss the issue or we can discuss the legal definition of a word. We already put the legal definition of words to bed many pages back. Did you comment when I was making the point that this is not an issue of law or legality? This is the ethics of a cultural phenomenon. So if I am not invisible when you don't respond to my argument, which you didn't, then you aren't invisible if you offer a legal definition that I really think would muddy the waters here.

yes because once you go into the legal arena your opinion falls apart. you want to remain in opinion so you have more of a leg to stand on.
god you are laughable