Tolerance: Allowing people to be who and what they are.

[Asclepias]

But the OP is not addressing one on one interrelationships. The OP is not suggesting that interpersonal violence--physical, emotional, psychological, verbal--is okay. I think that is where the tolerance issue gets so confused when some are unable to distinguish the difference between holding a belief or opinion and doing something to somebody else. For example there is a difference between believing the Bible condemns drunkenness, and trying to hurt or destroy somebody because he or she got drunk. There is a difference between believing that adultery is a sin and demanding that somebody be branded with a scarlett letter and stoned.

Holding a belief or opinion is NOT doing something to somebody else. We all should be able to hold our beliefs and opinions without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after us to hurt or destroy us.

You expressed an opinion that you think it is okay to strike somebody if they sufficiently offend you. I think you are very wrong about that as I believe anger and hitting are two very different things. You should not be allowed to strike another purely because that person offended you. But you should be allowed your opinion that you think punching him/her out would be okay.

I don't think there is much difference in one to one relationships and one to many relationships except you get to offend more people and influence more people in the one to many.

There is a difference between holding an opinion and doing something because of that opinion. There is a third element which is expressing that opinion and influencing or offending others. i have a problem with this element more than the others in our society because of this concept of free speech being actually free. Its not. It has consequences.

My opinion of striking someone is a personal issue I have to work on but indicative of just how much it angers me when someone talks down to a woman, berates a child, or uses a slur. Me hitting someone could have consequences. I understand and accept that. I dont think people who believe free speech is actually free understand it.

Free speech is a concept of allowing people to believe, think, and express their opinions without fear of retaliation from the federal government. The premise of the OP is NOT a free speech issue.

Tolerance is a concept of allowing people to believe, think, and express their opinions without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after them and try to hurt, ruin, and/or destroy them because they express an opinion somebody else disagrees with or doesn't like. It is not a constitutional or legal issue. It is a moral, ethical, and right and wrong issue. So long as they do not tread on the rights of others, it is allowing people to be who and what they are.

My purpose for this thread, for instance, is to do some consciousness raising. I am alarmed, saddened, and even frightened at the trend of some, both right and left, who would intentionally, and will malice and forethought, try to hurt and ruin people for no other reason than those people expressed an opinion not shared by or resented by somebody else. I have enough sense of history to know how dangerous this is to all our liberties as well as being immoral and shameful from an ethical perspective. I have no illusion that it will have much affect on anybody. But I hope it does.

Should I be forbidden to post this thread at USMB because it just might influence somebody's thinking?

If your concern is that expressed opinions might influence the thinking of somebody else, how do you presume to govern that? Who gets to decide who will be allowed to influence people with impunity and who will be punished for attempting to influence people? Who gets to choose whether the pro-traditional marriage or the pro same sex marriage people are the group allowed opportunity to influence others? Will the freedom of choice people or the pro-government mandated healthcare people be allowed a forum to express their views with impunity? Will the Ladies Temperance League be silenced while the Eat Drink and Be Merry people are allowed full license to promote the party spirit?

And is this just limited to people expressing their opinions? Or shall we start censoring the media, books, magazines, movies, television shows, music lyrics, and video games that also have power to influence?

In this case the slippery slope concept is very much a reality.

Thank you for bringing the distinction between free speech and tolerance back into focus. However, later in your post you do get back into free speech again. To me it just highlights the point that people need to self-regulate what they say. Morally and ethically you do not have a right to say what you want to without consequence. Words do damage and impede progress. If people think they have something earth shattering to say then they should do it in a forum where it can be challenged and dissected and spoken in a respectful manner. Getting up on national T.V. for example and saying that women get raped because of the way they dress without challenge or consequence is a cowardly act.

Should I be forbidden to post this thread at USMB because it just might influence somebody's thinking?

No. Personally I see nothing at all wrong with the intent of what you are saying. I just disagree.

If your concern is that expressed opinions might influence the thinking of somebody else, how do you presume to govern that?

I don't presume to govern it. I would hope that the person feeling the need to express themselves would do that. If not, public reaction will govern it in the form of boycotts, job loss, etc. I think that is fair, just, and part of natural law. What you are advocating is a departure from natural law and contrary to human nature.

 

[Foxfyre]

Because sometimes what people believe, and then say in public, harms others (bullying, bigotry, etc. et al.) going after such people is warranted and just. Wiccan Rede's a good standard to go by, "If it harms none, do as you will." But if you're hurting someone with what you're saying, expect to be hurt in return.

Define 'hurting someone'. There are laws against libel and slander that use manipulated facts or lies to impune somebody's reputation and/or that physically and/or materially damage somebody.

But let's say that a guy--maybe Phil Robertson--is asked a direct question by a magazine interviewer and honestly says that he believes homosexuality, among a whole lot of other things, is a sin.

Who exactly is he hurting?

And would he be 'hurting' somebody if he said that Christianity is a flawed religion that has done more harm than good? Would he be 'hurting' somebody if he said it is okay to deny white people work in order to make more room for minorities? Would he be 'hurting' somebody if he said the Bible teaches that the rich should sell what they have and give it all to the poor or the rich won't go to heaven? Would be be 'hurting' somebody if he said the Bible teaches that we are supposed to be our brother's keeper as a justification for higher taxes to expand welfare programs?

Is there an unalienable right to hear only what we want to hear? To not be offended? Who gets to determine who has the unalienable right to be affirmed and unoffended and who does not?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Because sometimes what people believe, and then say in public, harms others (bullying, bigotry, etc. et al.) going after such people is warranted and just. Wiccan Rede's a good standard to go by, "If it harms none, do as you will." But if you're hurting someone with what you're saying, expect to be hurt in return.

In which case it comes down to the definition of "hurt". In the instance of the OP Foxy is alleging that PR did not "hurt" anyone with his homophobic opinion. However from the perspective of GLAAD they obviously perceived his opinion to be "hurting" gays by egregiously lumping them in with terrorists. Does that justify GLAAD retaliating with their own intention to "hurt" PR? Do 2 wrongs make a right? At what point does the escalation cease?

Technically if GLAAD were to apply the standard stipulated above they should not have called for retributive "hurt". Equally so PR should have applied the standard and done some serious thinking before he made his "hurtful" comment. But that is an ideal situation. We are dealing with reality instead.

 

[Asclepias]

Because sometimes what people believe, and then say in public, harms others (bullying, bigotry, etc. et al.) going after such people is warranted and just. Wiccan Rede's a good standard to go by, "If it harms none, do as you will." But if you're hurting someone with what you're saying, expect to be hurt in return.

In which case it comes down to the definition of "hurt". In the instance of the OP Foxy is alleging that PR did not "hurt" anyone with his homophobic opinion. However from the perspective of GLAAD they obviously perceived his opinion to be "hurting" gays by egregiously lumping them in with terrorists. Does that justify GLAAD retaliating with their own intention to "hurt" PR? Do 2 wrongs make a right? At what point does the escalation cease?

Technically if GLAAD were to apply the standard stipulated above they should not have called for retributive "hurt". Equally so PR should have applied the standard and done some serious thinking before he made his "hurtful" comment. But that is an ideal situation. We are dealing with reality instead.

The problem I am having is that you cant make a stupid hurtful comment then pull the moral clause of "2 wrongs dont make a right" to protect yourself from backlash. it doesn't fit and is not realistic.

 

[Foxfyre]

Because sometimes what people believe, and then say in public, harms others (bullying, bigotry, etc. et al.) going after such people is warranted and just. Wiccan Rede's a good standard to go by, "If it harms none, do as you will." But if you're hurting someone with what you're saying, expect to be hurt in return.

In which case it comes down to the definition of "hurt". In the instance of the OP Foxy is alleging that PR did not "hurt" anyone with his homophobic opinion. However from the perspective of GLAAD they obviously perceived his opinion to be "hurting" gays by egregiously lumping them in with terrorists. Does that justify GLAAD retaliating with their own intention to "hurt" PR? Do 2 wrongs make a right? At what point does the escalation cease?

Technically if GLAAD were to apply the standard stipulated above they should not have called for retributive "hurt". Equally so PR should have applied the standard and done some serious thinking before he made his "hurtful" comment. But that is an ideal situation. We are dealing with reality instead.

But again, who did he 'hurt' by expressing what he believes the Bible says? Did he snatch food from the mouths of babes? Violate their women? Burn crosses on their lawn? Accuse them of vile acts? Urge anybody to harm a gay person in any way? Even if he hadn't modified his remarks with his statement that he includes himself among the sinners and that he loves his gay brothers and sisters, exactly who did he 'hurt'?

Just as there is a difference between anger and hitting, there is a difference between an 'offensive' opinion and verbal assault. And there is a huge difference between stating an honest opinion or belief and in the malicious and dishonest way in which GLAAD manipulated and mischaracterized his remarks to make them appear much worse than they were.

The only group that intended 'hurt' and harm was GLAAD. And in my opinion GLAAD was the entity that came out of this looking small, petty, hateful, intolerant, unethical, and vindictive. Phil Robertson at worst comes out of it as holding an indefensible opinion, but he didn't 'hurt' anybody.

Morally, ethically, and practically, a free people is allowed their beliefs and opinions as an unalienable right. And they have an unalienable right to associate with those of like mind and character should they choose to do that. They have no unalienable right to not be offended by the opinion of another. And it is that truth that we need to re-establish in our American culture.

 

[Mac1958]

Because sometimes what people believe, and then say in public, harms others (bullying, bigotry, etc. et al.) going after such people is warranted and just. Wiccan Rede's a good standard to go by, "If it harms none, do as you will." But if you're hurting someone with what you're saying, expect to be hurt in return.

In which case it comes down to the definition of "hurt". In the instance of the OP Foxy is alleging that PR did not "hurt" anyone with his homophobic opinion. However from the perspective of GLAAD they obviously perceived his opinion to be "hurting" gays by egregiously lumping them in with terrorists. Does that justify GLAAD retaliating with their own intention to "hurt" PR? Do 2 wrongs make a right? At what point does the escalation cease?

Technically if GLAAD were to apply the standard stipulated above they should not have called for retributive "hurt". Equally so PR should have applied the standard and done some serious thinking before he made his "hurtful" comment. But that is an ideal situation. We are dealing with reality instead.

But again, who did he 'hurt' by expressing what he believes the Bible says? Did he snatch food from the mouths of babes? Violate their women? Burn crosses on their lawn? Accuse them of vile acts? Urge anybody to harm a gay person in any way? Even if he hadn't modified his remarks with his statement that he includes himself among the sinners and that he loves his gay brothers and sisters, exactly who did he 'hurt'?

Just as there is a difference between anger and hitting, there is a difference between an 'offensive' opinion and verbal assault. And there is a huge difference between stating an honest opinion or belief and in the malicious and dishonest way in which GLAAD manipulated and mischaracterized his remarks to make them appear much worse than they were.

The only group that intended 'hurt' and harm was GLAAD. And in my opinion GLAAD was the entity that came out of this looking small, petty, hateful, intolerant, unethical, and vindictive. Phil Robertson at worst comes out of it as holding an indefensible opinion, but he didn't 'hurt' anybody.

Morally, ethically, and practically, a free people is allowed their beliefs and opinions as an unalienable right. And they have an unalienable right to associate with those of like mind and character should they choose to do that. They have no unalienable right to not be offended by the opinion of another. And it is that truth that we need to re-establish in our American culture.

Well, since we have a group of people who have appointed themselves judge, jury and executioner in terms what is acceptable, who is guilty and how punishment will be delivered, you and I don't have to bother ourselves with such reasonable points and issues.

Just be careful what you say. After all, this is America.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

In which case it comes down to the definition of "hurt". In the instance of the OP Foxy is alleging that PR did not "hurt" anyone with his homophobic opinion. However from the perspective of GLAAD they obviously perceived his opinion to be "hurting" gays by egregiously lumping them in with terrorists. Does that justify GLAAD retaliating with their own intention to "hurt" PR? Do 2 wrongs make a right? At what point does the escalation cease?

Technically if GLAAD were to apply the standard stipulated above they should not have called for retributive "hurt". Equally so PR should have applied the standard and done some serious thinking before he made his "hurtful" comment. But that is an ideal situation. We are dealing with reality instead.

But again, who did he 'hurt' by expressing what he believes the Bible says? Did he snatch food from the mouths of babes? Violate their women? Burn crosses on their lawn? Accuse them of vile acts? Urge anybody to harm a gay person in any way? Even if he hadn't modified his remarks with his statement that he includes himself among the sinners and that he loves his gay brothers and sisters, exactly who did he 'hurt'?

Just as there is a difference between anger and hitting, there is a difference between an 'offensive' opinion and verbal assault. And there is a huge difference between stating an honest opinion or belief and in the malicious and dishonest way in which GLAAD manipulated and mischaracterized his remarks to make them appear much worse than they were.

The only group that intended 'hurt' and harm was GLAAD. And in my opinion GLAAD was the entity that came out of this looking small, petty, hateful, intolerant, unethical, and vindictive. Phil Robertson at worst comes out of it as holding an indefensible opinion, but he didn't 'hurt' anybody.

Morally, ethically, and practically, a free people is allowed their beliefs and opinions as an unalienable right. And they have an unalienable right to associate with those of like mind and character should they choose to do that. They have no unalienable right to not be offended by the opinion of another. And it is that truth that we need to re-establish in our American culture.

Well, since we have a group of people who have appointed themselves judge, jury and executioner in terms what is acceptable, who is guilty and how punishment will be delivered, you and I don't have to bother ourselves with such reasonable points and issues.

Just be careful what you say. After all, this is America.

.

And therein is the very real material danger in political correctness above and beyond the moral and ethical implications. When one side sets itself up as the judge, jury, and executioner to control what people are allowed to express as beliefs or opinions, it is only one small additional step to making certain speech enforcibly illegal. And when that happens, the government can do anything to anybody with impunity.

I'm not suggesting anybody should agree with Phil Robertson or appreciate what he said or how he said it. I didn't appreciate what he said or how he said it actually. But unless he has the right to say it without having some angry mob, group, or organization coming after him to physically and/or materially hurt him, we have no rights at all. And the bullies of society will control it all. In which case, if you value your liberty and ability to think, speak, and hold opinions freely, you better pray that you're on the same side as the bullies.

 

[Statistikhengst]

But the OP is not addressing one on one interrelationships. The OP is not suggesting that interpersonal violence--physical, emotional, psychological, verbal--is okay. I think that is where the tolerance issue gets so confused when some are unable to distinguish the difference between holding a belief or opinion and doing something to somebody else. For example there is a difference between believing the Bible condemns drunkenness, and trying to hurt or destroy somebody because he or she got drunk. There is a difference between believing that adultery is a sin and demanding that somebody be branded with a scarlett letter and stoned.

Holding a belief or opinion is NOT doing something to somebody else. We all should be able to hold our beliefs and opinions without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after us to hurt or destroy us.

You expressed an opinion that you think it is okay to strike somebody if they sufficiently offend you. I think you are very wrong about that as I believe anger and hitting are two very different things. You should not be allowed to strike another purely because that person offended you. But you should be allowed your opinion that you think punching him/her out would be okay.

I don't think there is much difference in one to one relationships and one to many relationships except you get to offend more people and influence more people in the one to many.

There is a difference between holding an opinion and doing something because of that opinion. There is a third element which is expressing that opinion and influencing or offending others. i have a problem with this element more than the others in our society because of this concept of free speech being actually free. Its not. It has consequences.

My opinion of striking someone is a personal issue I have to work on but indicative of just how much it angers me when someone talks down to a woman, berates a child, or uses a slur. Me hitting someone could have consequences. I understand and accept that. I dont think people who believe free speech is actually free understand it.

Free speech is a concept of allowing people to believe, think, and express their opinions without fear of retaliation from the federal government. The premise of the OP is NOT a free speech issue.

Tolerance is a concept of allowing people to believe, think, and express their opinions without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after them and try to hurt, ruin, and/or destroy them because they express an opinion somebody else disagrees with or doesn't like. It is not a constitutional or legal issue. It is a moral, ethical, and right and wrong issue. So long as they do not tread on the rights of others, it is allowing people to be who and what they are.

My purpose for this thread, for instance, is to do some consciousness raising. I am alarmed, saddened, and even frightened at the trend of some, both right and left, who would intentionally, and will malice and forethought, try to hurt and ruin people for no other reason than those people expressed an opinion not shared by or resented by somebody else. I have enough sense of history to know how dangerous this is to all our liberties as well as being immoral and shameful from an ethical perspective. I have no illusion that it will have much affect on anybody. But I hope it does.

Should I be forbidden to post this thread at USMB because it just might influence somebody's thinking?

If your concern is that expressed opinions might influence the thinking of somebody else, how do you presume to govern that? Who gets to decide who will be allowed to influence people with impunity and who will be punished for attempting to influence people? Who gets to choose whether the pro-traditional marriage or the pro same sex marriage people are the group allowed opportunity to influence others? Will the freedom of choice people or the pro-government mandated healthcare people be allowed a forum to express their views with impunity? Will the Ladies Temperance League be silenced while the Eat Drink and Be Merry people are allowed full license to promote the party spirit?

And is this just limited to people expressing their opinions? Or shall we start censoring the media, books, magazines, movies, television shows, music lyrics, and video games that also have power to influence?

In this case the slippery slope concept is very much a reality.

Well, actually, also from State Government, when you get down to it...


So, how did we get from "free speech" to trying to influence people?

If someone says or does something so vulgar, so inhumane, so that I am compelled to respond, if for no other reason than to preserve my own sense of human decency, is that suddenly an attempt to influence?

I think not.

I do this that on the whole, the idea of this thread, here in the CDZ, is a pretty good idea. I also think you are doing good work of suggesting things to raise some consciousness about this.

But please remember, a good democracy is sometimes loud, sometimes raucous.

I am not sure that we are that much more of less "tolerant" (I really do dislike that word, it is so very lacking in so many ways...) than say, in 1800... for we are talking about a human condition here, namely, distrust of "the other".

 

[Derideo_Te]

Because sometimes what people believe, and then say in public, harms others (bullying, bigotry, etc. et al.) going after such people is warranted and just. Wiccan Rede's a good standard to go by, "If it harms none, do as you will." But if you're hurting someone with what you're saying, expect to be hurt in return.

In which case it comes down to the definition of "hurt". In the instance of the OP Foxy is alleging that PR did not "hurt" anyone with his homophobic opinion. However from the perspective of GLAAD they obviously perceived his opinion to be "hurting" gays by egregiously lumping them in with terrorists. Does that justify GLAAD retaliating with their own intention to "hurt" PR? Do 2 wrongs make a right? At what point does the escalation cease?

Technically if GLAAD were to apply the standard stipulated above they should not have called for retributive "hurt". Equally so PR should have applied the standard and done some serious thinking before he made his "hurtful" comment. But that is an ideal situation. We are dealing with reality instead.

The problem I am having is that you cant make a stupid hurtful comment then pull the moral clause of "2 wrongs dont make a right" to protect yourself from backlash. it doesn't fit and is not realistic.

I was only postulating. As MAC put it the idea of having a civil discourse to resolve differences is preferable. However that requires that both sides must be willing to do so. Those who hold their positions as a matter of religious conviction are not likely to be willing to have them questioned since that undermines their belief system.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Because sometimes what people believe, and then say in public, harms others (bullying, bigotry, etc. et al.) going after such people is warranted and just. Wiccan Rede's a good standard to go by, "If it harms none, do as you will." But if you're hurting someone with what you're saying, expect to be hurt in return.

In which case it comes down to the definition of "hurt". In the instance of the OP Foxy is alleging that PR did not "hurt" anyone with his homophobic opinion. However from the perspective of GLAAD they obviously perceived his opinion to be "hurting" gays by egregiously lumping them in with terrorists. Does that justify GLAAD retaliating with their own intention to "hurt" PR? Do 2 wrongs make a right? At what point does the escalation cease?

Technically if GLAAD were to apply the standard stipulated above they should not have called for retributive "hurt". Equally so PR should have applied the standard and done some serious thinking before he made his "hurtful" comment. But that is an ideal situation. We are dealing with reality instead.

But again, who did he 'hurt' by expressing what he believes the Bible says? Did he snatch food from the mouths of babes? Violate their women? Burn crosses on their lawn? Accuse them of vile acts? Urge anybody to harm a gay person in any way? Even if he hadn't modified his remarks with his statement that he includes himself among the sinners and that he loves his gay brothers and sisters, exactly who did he 'hurt'?

Just as there is a difference between anger and hitting, there is a difference between an 'offensive' opinion and verbal assault. And there is a huge difference between stating an honest opinion or belief and in the malicious and dishonest way in which GLAAD manipulated and mischaracterized his remarks to make them appear much worse than they were.

The only group that intended 'hurt' and harm was GLAAD. And in my opinion GLAAD was the entity that came out of this looking small, petty, hateful, intolerant, unethical, and vindictive. Phil Robertson at worst comes out of it as holding an indefensible opinion, but he didn't 'hurt' anybody.

Morally, ethically, and practically, a free people is allowed their beliefs and opinions as an unalienable right. And they have an unalienable right to associate with those of like mind and character should they choose to do that. They have no unalienable right to not be offended by the opinion of another. And it is that truth that we need to re-establish in our American culture.

With all due respect, Foxy, nowhere does the bible conflate homosexuality with terrorism. That was PR's bizarre spin on it and he doesn't get a pass by blaming it on the bible in my opinion.

 

[Foxfyre]

In which case it comes down to the definition of "hurt". In the instance of the OP Foxy is alleging that PR did not "hurt" anyone with his homophobic opinion. However from the perspective of GLAAD they obviously perceived his opinion to be "hurting" gays by egregiously lumping them in with terrorists. Does that justify GLAAD retaliating with their own intention to "hurt" PR? Do 2 wrongs make a right? At what point does the escalation cease?

Technically if GLAAD were to apply the standard stipulated above they should not have called for retributive "hurt". Equally so PR should have applied the standard and done some serious thinking before he made his "hurtful" comment. But that is an ideal situation. We are dealing with reality instead.

But again, who did he 'hurt' by expressing what he believes the Bible says? Did he snatch food from the mouths of babes? Violate their women? Burn crosses on their lawn? Accuse them of vile acts? Urge anybody to harm a gay person in any way? Even if he hadn't modified his remarks with his statement that he includes himself among the sinners and that he loves his gay brothers and sisters, exactly who did he 'hurt'?

Just as there is a difference between anger and hitting, there is a difference between an 'offensive' opinion and verbal assault. And there is a huge difference between stating an honest opinion or belief and in the malicious and dishonest way in which GLAAD manipulated and mischaracterized his remarks to make them appear much worse than they were.

The only group that intended 'hurt' and harm was GLAAD. And in my opinion GLAAD was the entity that came out of this looking small, petty, hateful, intolerant, unethical, and vindictive. Phil Robertson at worst comes out of it as holding an indefensible opinion, but he didn't 'hurt' anybody.

Morally, ethically, and practically, a free people is allowed their beliefs and opinions as an unalienable right. And they have an unalienable right to associate with those of like mind and character should they choose to do that. They have no unalienable right to not be offended by the opinion of another. And it is that truth that we need to re-establish in our American culture.

With all due respect, Foxy, nowhere does the bible conflate homosexuality with terrorism. That was PR's bizarre spin on it and he doesn't get a pass by blaming it on the bible in my opinion.

Nor did Phil Robertson conflate homosexuality with terrorism. That was GLAAD's dishonest and inexcusable spin they put on it. But even if he had, so do people equate people with strong religious beliefs as Nazis, terrorists, and worse. The issue is NOT that anybody is expected to agree with anybody. Nobody is expected to endorse or appreciate the point of view of anybody else or not comment on what others say. The point is not what anybody acts out against somebody else. The point is not that we not object or rebut what somebody else says. Nobody should be immune from criticism.

The issue is whether we should be able to hold the beliefs, opinions, convictions, perceptions, points of view that we hold, no matter how bizarre, wrong, intolerant, or stupid they are, without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after us to physically and/or materially hurt us.

 

[Asclepias]

In which case it comes down to the definition of "hurt". In the instance of the OP Foxy is alleging that PR did not "hurt" anyone with his homophobic opinion. However from the perspective of GLAAD they obviously perceived his opinion to be "hurting" gays by egregiously lumping them in with terrorists. Does that justify GLAAD retaliating with their own intention to "hurt" PR? Do 2 wrongs make a right? At what point does the escalation cease?

Technically if GLAAD were to apply the standard stipulated above they should not have called for retributive "hurt". Equally so PR should have applied the standard and done some serious thinking before he made his "hurtful" comment. But that is an ideal situation. We are dealing with reality instead.

The problem I am having is that you cant make a stupid hurtful comment then pull the moral clause of "2 wrongs dont make a right" to protect yourself from backlash. it doesn't fit and is not realistic.

I was only postulating. As MAC put it the idea of having a civil discourse to resolve differences is preferable. However that requires that both sides must be willing to do so. Those who hold their positions as a matter of religious conviction are not likely to be willing to have them questioned since that undermines their belief system.

Discussing issues are always the best option if both parties come to the table with an intent to learn. I find much of the time that is rarely the case. Especially on this board. People form opinions off of very limited information and think their conclusions are the gospel. Like you said they are resistant to having those conclusions changed as it exposes their belief systems

 

[Derideo_Te]

But again, who did he 'hurt' by expressing what he believes the Bible says? Did he snatch food from the mouths of babes? Violate their women? Burn crosses on their lawn? Accuse them of vile acts? Urge anybody to harm a gay person in any way? Even if he hadn't modified his remarks with his statement that he includes himself among the sinners and that he loves his gay brothers and sisters, exactly who did he 'hurt'?

Just as there is a difference between anger and hitting, there is a difference between an 'offensive' opinion and verbal assault. And there is a huge difference between stating an honest opinion or belief and in the malicious and dishonest way in which GLAAD manipulated and mischaracterized his remarks to make them appear much worse than they were.

The only group that intended 'hurt' and harm was GLAAD. And in my opinion GLAAD was the entity that came out of this looking small, petty, hateful, intolerant, unethical, and vindictive. Phil Robertson at worst comes out of it as holding an indefensible opinion, but he didn't 'hurt' anybody.

Morally, ethically, and practically, a free people is allowed their beliefs and opinions as an unalienable right. And they have an unalienable right to associate with those of like mind and character should they choose to do that. They have no unalienable right to not be offended by the opinion of another. And it is that truth that we need to re-establish in our American culture.

With all due respect, Foxy, nowhere does the bible conflate homosexuality with terrorism. That was PR's bizarre spin on it and he doesn't get a pass by blaming it on the bible in my opinion.

Nor did Phil Robertson conflate homosexuality with terrorism. That was GLAAD's dishonest and inexcusable spin they put on it. But even if he had, so do people equate people with strong religious beliefs as Nazis, terrorists, and worse. The issue is NOT that anybody is expected to agree with anybody. Nobody is expected to endorse or appreciate the point of view of anybody else or not comment on what others say. The point is not what anybody acts out against somebody else. The point is not that we object or rebut what somebody else says.

The issue is whether we should be able to hold the beliefs, opinions, convictions, perceptions, points of view that we hold, no matter how bizarre, wrong, intolerant, or stupid they are, without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after us to physically and/or materially hurt us.

Robertson's own words do the conflating;

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists," Robertson said. "We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?"

con•flate (kənˈfleɪt)

v.t. -flat•ed, -flat•ing.
to fuse into one entity; merge; combine.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

But again, who did he 'hurt' by expressing what he believes the Bible says? Did he snatch food from the mouths of babes? Violate their women? Burn crosses on their lawn? Accuse them of vile acts? Urge anybody to harm a gay person in any way? Even if he hadn't modified his remarks with his statement that he includes himself among the sinners and that he loves his gay brothers and sisters, exactly who did he 'hurt'?

Just as there is a difference between anger and hitting, there is a difference between an 'offensive' opinion and verbal assault. And there is a huge difference between stating an honest opinion or belief and in the malicious and dishonest way in which GLAAD manipulated and mischaracterized his remarks to make them appear much worse than they were.

The only group that intended 'hurt' and harm was GLAAD. And in my opinion GLAAD was the entity that came out of this looking small, petty, hateful, intolerant, unethical, and vindictive. Phil Robertson at worst comes out of it as holding an indefensible opinion, but he didn't 'hurt' anybody.

Morally, ethically, and practically, a free people is allowed their beliefs and opinions as an unalienable right. And they have an unalienable right to associate with those of like mind and character should they choose to do that. They have no unalienable right to not be offended by the opinion of another. And it is that truth that we need to re-establish in our American culture.

Well, since we have a group of people who have appointed themselves judge, jury and executioner in terms what is acceptable, who is guilty and how punishment will be delivered, you and I don't have to bother ourselves with such reasonable points and issues.

Just be careful what you say. After all, this is America.

.

And therein is the very real material danger in political correctness above and beyond the moral and ethical implications. When one side sets itself up as the judge, jury, and executioner to control what people are allowed to express as beliefs or opinions, it is only one small additional step to making certain speech enforcibly illegal. And when that happens, the government can do anything to anybody with impunity.

I'm not suggesting anybody should agree with Phil Robertson or appreciate what he said or how he said it. I didn't appreciate what he said or how he said it actually. But unless he has the right to say it without having some angry mob, group, or organization coming after him to physically and/or materially hurt him, we have no rights at all. And the bullies of society will control it all. In which case, if you value your liberty and ability to think, speak, and hold opinions freely, you better pray that you're on the same side as the bullies.

As a public figure/entertainer, Mr. Robertson is open to retaliation for anything and everything he, or anyone else might say. If you don't want that kind of vulnerability, don't be a reality star. But if you are on tv or otherwise in the public light, you can't expect the same kind of protections whether in-law, or in theory as someone at a neighborhood picnic.

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem I am having is that you cant make a stupid hurtful comment then pull the moral clause of "2 wrongs dont make a right" to protect yourself from backlash. it doesn't fit and is not realistic.

I was only postulating. As MAC put it the idea of having a civil discourse to resolve differences is preferable. However that requires that both sides must be willing to do so. Those who hold their positions as a matter of religious conviction are not likely to be willing to have them questioned since that undermines their belief system.

Discussing issues are always the best option if both parties come to the table with an intent to learn. I find much of the time that is rarely the case. Especially on this board. People form opinions off of very limited information and think their conclusions are the gospel. Like you said they are resistant to having those conclusions changed as it exposes their belief systems

But we can return to a culture in which people are allowed their belief systems so long as they don't demand that others adopt them. We can, as a group, become a small nucleus that might be able to grow and persuade others to make political correctness bullying so socially unacceptable that it becomes a distant memory.

 

[Asclepias]

I was only postulating. As MAC put it the idea of having a civil discourse to resolve differences is preferable. However that requires that both sides must be willing to do so. Those who hold their positions as a matter of religious conviction are not likely to be willing to have them questioned since that undermines their belief system.

Discussing issues are always the best option if both parties come to the table with an intent to learn. I find much of the time that is rarely the case. Especially on this board. People form opinions off of very limited information and think their conclusions are the gospel. Like you said they are resistant to having those conclusions changed as it exposes their belief systems

But we can return to a culture in which people are allowed their belief systems so long as they don't demand that others adopt them. We can, as a group, become a small nucleus that might be able to grow and persuade others to make political correctness bullying so socially unacceptable that it becomes a distant memory.

I dont have a problem with people having their own beliefs. I have a problem with them thinking they can say what they want to without consequences. I think its more important to teach people how to express their beliefs in a manner that is acceptable to those they may offend than try and correct PC. IMO, PC is a direct result of and reaction to people not having the ability to express their ideas without offending.

 

[Mac1958]

As MAC put it the idea of having a civil discourse to resolve differences is preferable. However that requires that both sides must be willing to do so.

I don't really agree with that.

If both "sides" wait for the other to suddenly become civil and mature, civil discourse will probably never occur, not in this toxic environment.

That's why I think it will take some brave folks to rise above it first, to be the adults in the room. And they could even look at it as a strategy - be civil, let the other guys look like the children, and essentially shame them until they get it, until they see that their behavior is making them look bad, and grow up.

I think that's the only way it can happen.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

As MAC put it the idea of having a civil discourse to resolve differences is preferable. However that requires that both sides must be willing to do so.

I don't really agree with that.

If both "sides" wait for the other to suddenly become civil and mature, civil discourse will probably never occur, not in this toxic environment.

That's why I think it will take some brave folks to rise above it first, to be the adults in the room. And they could even look at it as a strategy - be civil, let the other guys look like the children, and essentially shame them until they get it, until they see that their behavior is making them look bad, and grow up.

I think that's the only way it can happen.

.

Amen. Amen. Amen.

 

[Foxfyre]

With all due respect, Foxy, nowhere does the bible conflate homosexuality with terrorism. That was PR's bizarre spin on it and he doesn't get a pass by blaming it on the bible in my opinion.

Nor did Phil Robertson conflate homosexuality with terrorism. That was GLAAD's dishonest and inexcusable spin they put on it. But even if he had, so do people equate people with strong religious beliefs as Nazis, terrorists, and worse. The issue is NOT that anybody is expected to agree with anybody. Nobody is expected to endorse or appreciate the point of view of anybody else or not comment on what others say. The point is not what anybody acts out against somebody else. The point is not that we object or rebut what somebody else says.

The issue is whether we should be able to hold the beliefs, opinions, convictions, perceptions, points of view that we hold, no matter how bizarre, wrong, intolerant, or stupid they are, without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after us to physically and/or materially hurt us.

Robertson's own words do the conflating;

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists," Robertson said. "We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?"

con•flate (kənˈfleɪt)

v.t. -flat•ed, -flat•ing.
to fuse into one entity; merge; combine.

If I say I am going to the store to buy corn flakes, radishes, and tomato soup and ya'll can decide what you want for supper, is that conflating those things? What Robertson did was provide a list of things that he believes are sins. That is NOT conflating the things that he listed. And even if he did, how does that hurt you or anybody else in any way?

 

[Foxfyre]

Discussing issues are always the best option if both parties come to the table with an intent to learn. I find much of the time that is rarely the case. Especially on this board. People form opinions off of very limited information and think their conclusions are the gospel. Like you said they are resistant to having those conclusions changed as it exposes their belief systems

But we can return to a culture in which people are allowed their belief systems so long as they don't demand that others adopt them. We can, as a group, become a small nucleus that might be able to grow and persuade others to make political correctness bullying so socially unacceptable that it becomes a distant memory.

I dont have a problem with people having their own beliefs. I have a problem with them thinking they can say what they want to without consequences. I think its more important to teach people how to express their beliefs in a manner that is acceptable to those they may offend than try and correct PC. IMO, PC is a direct result of and reaction to people not having the ability to express their ideas without offending.

Really? Okay, then you have no problem that I DEMAND what words or opinions are acceptable for you to express about Christians? About Republicans? About conservatives? About AGW skeptics? About gospel or country music? About pro-traditional marriage advocates? About pro-lifers? And its okay with you if I physically and/or materially hurt you if you express any negative opinion about any of these folks or use any word that offends me ? Is that what you are saying?