Pasta firm Barilla boycotted over 'classic family' remarks

[TemplarKormac]

I don't buy Barilla because I think it's shitty pasta. Couldn't care less about the owner's politics.

The OP is pretty funny though. "Free Speech" works both ways.

So, if free speech works both ways, then how come I will be called a bigot when I express a negative opinion about homosexuals, but will be extolled if I put them on a pedestal? As I see it free speech does not work both ways. It is nothing but a double standard a far as people like you are concerned. It is only free speech if is in support or acceptance.

Saying "negative things" about homosexuals = free speech.

Calling you a bigot for it = free speech.

It's not that complicated.

Using your free speech to limit someone else's free speech + Condoning one form of speech over another form of speech = Censorship, which is not free speech.

It's not that complicated. Do the math, Doc.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So, if free speech works both ways, then how come I will be called a bigot when I express a negative opinion about homosexuals, but will be extolled if I put them on a pedestal? As I see it free speech does not work both ways. It is nothing but a double standard a far as people like you are concerned. It is only free speech if is in support or acceptance.

Saying "negative things" about homosexuals = free speech.

Calling you a bigot for it = free speech.

It's not that complicated.

Using your free speech to limit someone else's free speech + Condoning one form of speech over another form of speech = Censorship, which is not free speech.

It's not that complicated. Do the math, Doc.

Calling you a "bigot" is not "limiting" your speech - It's just responding to it - and disagreeing with you isn't the same as "censorship".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Freedom of speech isn't "freedom from the consequences of your speech".

One of the "consequences" of saying "negative things" about homosexuals is that people will think you're a bigot.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Saying "negative things" about homosexuals = free speech.

Calling you a bigot for it = free speech.

It's not that complicated.

Using your free speech to limit someone else's free speech + Condoning one form of speech over another form of speech = Censorship, which is not free speech.

It's not that complicated. Do the math, Doc.

Calling you a "bigot" is not "limiting" your speech - It's just responding to it - and disagreeing with you isn't the same as "censorship".

Actually Doc, you missed the point entirely. It isn't just calling me a bigot, it's boycotting me, coercing me. Using your speech to garner submission. A liberal's reaction to a negative opinion of homosexuality is terse and rigid, whereas a liberals reaction to a positive opinion of homosexuality is warm and accepting.

Were you even reading what I wrote? Or are you moving the goalpost?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Freedom of speech isn't "freedom from the consequences of your speech".

One of the "consequences" of saying "negative things" about homosexuals is that people will think you're a bigot.

That's it right there, you seem to think that there should be consequences for speech that you find aren't compatible with your worldview.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Using your free speech to limit someone else's free speech + Condoning one form of speech over another form of speech = Censorship, which is not free speech.

It's not that complicated. Do the math, Doc.

Calling you a "bigot" is not "limiting" your speech - It's just responding to it - and disagreeing with you isn't the same as "censorship".

Actually Doc, you missed the point entirely. It isn't just calling me a bigot, it's boycotting me, coercing me. Using your speech to garner submission. A liberal's reaction to a negative opinion of homosexuality is terse and rigid, whereas a liberals reaction to a positive opinion of homosexuality is warm and accepting.

Were you even reading what I wrote? Or are you moving the goalpost?

None of that has anything to do with "free speech".

Of course "liberals" condone speech they agree with, and oppose speech they disagree with. Everyone does that - that's what it means to have an opinion on something. It's no different than the way "conservatives" react to "free speech" about abortion.

"Freedom of speech" doesn't come into play until someone tries to legislate speech.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Freedom of speech isn't "freedom from the consequences of your speech".

One of the "consequences" of saying "negative things" about homosexuals is that people will think you're a bigot.

That's it right there, you seem to think that there should be consequences for speech that you find aren't compatible with your worldview.

No. It has nothing to do with what I think "should be". It's about the way things are.

If I walk up to the angry drunk who lives in my building and tell him "fuck you", his reaction to that would be the "consequence" of my free speech. That's just the way it goes.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Calling you a "bigot" is not "limiting" your speech - It's just responding to it - and disagreeing with you isn't the same as "censorship".

Actually Doc, you missed the point entirely. It isn't just calling me a bigot, it's boycotting me, coercing me. Using your speech to garner submission. A liberal's reaction to a negative opinion of homosexuality is terse and rigid, whereas a liberals reaction to a positive opinion of homosexuality is warm and accepting.

Were you even reading what I wrote? Or are you moving the goalpost?

None of that has anything to do with "free speech".

Of course "liberals" condone speech they agree with, and oppose speech they disagree with. Everyone does that - that's what it means to have an opinion on something. It's no different than the way "conservatives" react to "free speech" about abortion.

"Freedom of speech" doesn't come into play until someone tries to legislate speech.

So, um, why are you moving the goalposts? I didn't say anything about legislating speech. I did however mention how liberals try to force their opinion and speech on those they disagree with. It's on another completely different level than just agreeing and disagreeing. This is taking action, using speech to spur a reprisal. So what you're doing now amount to nothing buy making excuses and obfuscating. You never intended to address my point, did you? It speaks to the liberals closed mind on diverse opinion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Freedom of speech isn't "freedom from the consequences of your speech".

One of the "consequences" of saying "negative things" about homosexuals is that people will think you're a bigot.

That's it right there, you seem to think that there should be consequences for speech that you find aren't compatible with your worldview.

No. It has nothing to do with what I think "should be". It's about the way things are.

If I walk up to the angry drunk who lives in my building and tell him "fuck you", his reaction to that would be the "consequence" of my free speech. That's just the way it goes.

Your analogy is flawed. The way it goes is that you learn to tolerate others opinions, just like the whole of liberalism demands of others. If you actually walked up to a drunk and said "fuck you," I wouldn't call that free speech, I'd call that stupidity.

 

[BDBoop]

I won't care who makes it or what their lean is if they ever come up with a good, tasty, reasonably-priced wheat-free pasta.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Actually Doc, you missed the point entirely. It isn't just calling me a bigot, it's boycotting me, coercing me. Using your speech to garner submission. A liberal's reaction to a negative opinion of homosexuality is terse and rigid, whereas a liberals reaction to a positive opinion of homosexuality is warm and accepting.

Were you even reading what I wrote? Or are you moving the goalpost?

None of that has anything to do with "free speech".

Of course "liberals" condone speech they agree with, and oppose speech they disagree with. Everyone does that - that's what it means to have an opinion on something. It's no different than the way "conservatives" react to "free speech" about abortion.

"Freedom of speech" doesn't come into play until someone tries to legislate speech.

So, um, why are you moving the goalposts? I didn't say anything about legislating speech. I did however mention how liberals try to force their opinion and speech on those they disagree with. It's on another completely different level than just agreeing and disagreeing. This is taking action, using speech to spur a reprisal. So what you're doing now amount to nothing buy making excuses and obfuscating. You never intended to address my point, did you? It speaks to the liberals closed mind on diverse opinion.

I'm not moving any goalposts. Look back on our conversation, you'll see the only part of your OP that I addressed at all is your ridiculous claims about "free speech".

I didn't address your asinine claims about how this behavior is determined by political persuasion at all.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That's it right there, you seem to think that there should be consequences for speech that you find aren't compatible with your worldview.

No. It has nothing to do with what I think "should be". It's about the way things are.

If I walk up to the angry drunk who lives in my building and tell him "fuck you", his reaction to that would be the "consequence" of my free speech. That's just the way it goes.

Your analogy is flawed. The way it goes is that you learn to tolerate others opinions, just like the whole of liberalism demands of others. If you actually walked up to a drunk and said "fuck you," I wouldn't call that free speech, I'd call that stupidity.

Adding random value judgements doesn't change the validity of my analogy. Stupid or not, "free speech" is "free speech".

You seem to be making the argument that "liberals" should be "tolerant" of your intolerance. Do you really not see the inherent contradiction there?

 

[TemplarKormac]

None of that has anything to do with "free speech".

Of course "liberals" condone speech they agree with, and oppose speech they disagree with. Everyone does that - that's what it means to have an opinion on something. It's no different than the way "conservatives" react to "free speech" about abortion.

"Freedom of speech" doesn't come into play until someone tries to legislate speech.

So, um, why are you moving the goalposts? I didn't say anything about legislating speech. I did however mention how liberals try to force their opinion and speech on those they disagree with. It's on another completely different level than just agreeing and disagreeing. This is taking action, using speech to spur a reprisal. So what you're doing now amount to nothing buy making excuses and obfuscating. You never intended to address my point, did you? It speaks to the liberals closed mind on diverse opinion.

I'm not moving any goalposts. Look back on our conversation, you'll see the only part of your OP that I addressed at all is your ridiculous claims about "free speech".

I didn't address your asinine claims about how this behavior is determined by political persuasion at all.

So, free speech is ridiculous now? You won't address my claim, or is it because you can't? So, Barilla must always cast a positive light on homosexuality at all times, eh? Oh, boycott them if they ever dare stray off the beaten path. So, what was so asinine? Is stating a reality now asinine to you? Or is that your fear of differing opinion speaking for you?

You and C_Clayton_James are nearly identical. You can do nothing but insult your opponents, or issue forth anecdotes instead of arguments. You avoid the point entirely, just to sate your false outrage. I would wager that if Barilla had come out supporting gays, I wouldn't have posted this thread, and you would have said how honorable and upstanding they are for standing up for "equality."

Sigh. This argument would go on all night if I let it. But it won't. Speak your peace, Doc, because this is my final response to you on this subject.

 

[BDBoop]

So, um, why are you moving the goalposts? I didn't say anything about legislating speech. I did however mention how liberals try to force their opinion and speech on those they disagree with. It's on another completely different level than just agreeing and disagreeing. This is taking action, using speech to spur a reprisal. So what you're doing now amount to nothing buy making excuses and obfuscating. You never intended to address my point, did you? It speaks to the liberals closed mind on diverse opinion.

I'm not moving any goalposts. Look back on our conversation, you'll see the only part of your OP that I addressed at all is your ridiculous claims about "free speech".

I didn't address your asinine claims about how this behavior is determined by political persuasion at all.

So, free speech is ridiculous now? You won't address my claim, or is it because you can't? So, Barilla must always cast a positive light on homosexuality at all times, eh? Oh, boycott them if they ever dare stray off the beaten path. So, what was so asinine? Is stating a reality now asinine to you? Or is that your fear of differing opinion speaking for you?

You can C_Clayton_James are nearly identical. You can do nothing but insult your opponents, or issue forth anecdotes instead of arguments. You avoid the point entirely, just to sate your false outrage. I would wager that if Barilla had come out supporting gays, I wouldn't have posted this thread, and you would have said how honorable and upstanding they are for standing up for "equality."

Sigh. This argument would go on all night if I let it. But it won't. Speak your peace, Doc, because this is my final response to you on this subject.

Piece.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm not moving any goalposts. Look back on our conversation, you'll see the only part of your OP that I addressed at all is your ridiculous claims about "free speech".

I didn't address your asinine claims about how this behavior is determined by political persuasion at all.

So, free speech is ridiculous now? You won't address my claim, or is it because you can't? So, Barilla must always cast a positive light on homosexuality at all times, eh? Oh, boycott them if they ever dare stray off the beaten path. So, what was so asinine? Is stating a reality now asinine to you? Or is that your fear of differing opinion speaking for you?

You can C_Clayton_James are nearly identical. You can do nothing but insult your opponents, or issue forth anecdotes instead of arguments. You avoid the point entirely, just to sate your false outrage. I would wager that if Barilla had come out supporting gays, I wouldn't have posted this thread, and you would have said how honorable and upstanding they are for standing up for "equality."

Sigh. This argument would go on all night if I let it. But it won't. Speak your peace, Doc, because this is my final response to you on this subject.

Piece.

Wtf? Whatever. Is this what liberals do when they have nothing constructive to say?

 

[BDBoop]

So, free speech is ridiculous now? You won't address my claim, or is it because you can't? So, Barilla must always cast a positive light on homosexuality at all times, eh? Oh, boycott them if they ever dare stray off the beaten path. So, what was so asinine? Is stating a reality now asinine to you? Or is that your fear of differing opinion speaking for you?

You can C_Clayton_James are nearly identical. You can do nothing but insult your opponents, or issue forth anecdotes instead of arguments. You avoid the point entirely, just to sate your false outrage. I would wager that if Barilla had come out supporting gays, I wouldn't have posted this thread, and you would have said how honorable and upstanding they are for standing up for "equality."

Sigh. This argument would go on all night if I let it. But it won't. Speak your peace, Doc, because this is my final response to you on this subject.

Piece.

Wtf? Whatever. Is this what liberals do when they have nothing constructive to say?

No ... it's what grammar nazis say when they're bored.

 

[Unkotare]

Look I've been playing along, laying out rope. Why don't you show us where I personally accused you of whatever you think I accused you of?

All you've been doing is dancing and avoiding because you know you can't support your accusation and you lack the character to admit you were wrong and apologize.

You said, in a post directly responding to me:

I'm not sure all you fag haters have quite understood the number one rule of fag haterdom...

If you're going to bother trolling, at least put a little effort into it. As it is, you're just being a douchebag and making an ass of yourself, sock.

So when I said "all you fag haters..." why did you immediately include yourself in that group?

I didn't, YOU did. That is where your fundamental dishonesty manifested in an offensively false accusation. Now apologize or forever brand yourself a low-life POS.

 

[TemplarKormac]

By the way, either way is grammatically acceptable. Perhaps you are familiar with Language Log?

Language Log: Another peace <-> piece shift

 

[TemplarKormac]

Piece.

Wtf? Whatever. Is this what liberals do when they have nothing constructive to say?

No ... it's what grammar nazis say when they're bored.

Can't say much there...

 

[syrenn]

I love Barilla pasta......

i could care less how they want to market it.....