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

[Care4all]

Let's see...trying to take the Dixie Chicks livelyhood away is okay, bashing to no end Michelle Obama is okay, bashing Barbara Streisand is okay, bashing John Kerry is okay and Teresa Heinz is okay, and Obama is okay, and Hillary when first lady is okay and Alec Baldwin is okay and the guy fired on Msnbc martin bashir is okay, And trying to take Michael Moore's livelihood away is okay.....and bashing the Reverend Wright and trying to take his livelihood away for his different opinion is all okay....

The list goes on and on and on and on, on both sides of the aisle, yet this Robertson thing surprises you all and makes you want to draw up "what is Fair" rules all of a sudden?

Sure it's a great discussion, yet won't change a thing....

Sadly, in this internet world where everyone has an opinion and can express their opinion anonymously in writing, I don't see the bashing and lies and trying to take someone's livelihood away because you differ with them.... ever changing...we crossed the tipping point and unfortunately there is no going back....unless a miracle from God.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Actually it is. You combined the things you are buying into a shopping list. PR combined homosexuality into a list of other despicable things. In essence he said that there is no difference whatsoever between the terrorists who murdered 3000 innocent people on 9/11 and the gay couple who live next door. How would you feel if someone lumped you in with mass murderers? You would have every right to be be offended and call out the person who did that to you irrespective of their belief that their "bible" was telling them that retired ladies in NM are plotting to fly planes into tall buildings using radishes and soup cans.

Well I respectfully say you are dead wrong with your opinion there sir, but I will fight to the death your right to hold it. And yes, I would be offended if somebody accused me of being a mass murderer. But would I be offended if I was included in a list of people they hate that included a generic term mass murderers? Not in the least. I think I am bright enough to understand that a list is not conflation unless it is specifically intended to do that. I do not have any more right to be loved, appreciated, or understood than GLAAD has a right to be appreciated and honored by Phil Robertson.

This has nothing to do with being "appreciated and honored". It has everything to do with being denigrated. As a public figure PR chose to openly disparage a group of ordinary people who had never done him any harm whatsoever. His excuse for doing so merely brings dishonor upon the God you worship. Jesus would not cast the first stone at PR but he would admonish him to "sin no more" thereby making it as clear as daylight that what PR has done is wrong in the eyes of the Lord. (Jesus never condemned homosexuality by calling it a "sin".)

So what PR did was bring dishonor on you and every other upstanding Christian who respects the life of all of the people on this earth irrespective of their gender, creed, race or sexual orientation. His intolerance taints you all because he did this in the name of your God. No one is expecting you to judge him but defending his intolerance means that you are tacitly condoning his intolerance. Is that what all Christians should do? Uphold the intolerance of bigots and homophobes? Does that slippery slope mean defending the molestation of choirboys next? Where is the line here?

Either PR is an intolerant bigot who has to deal with the consequences of his own words or he is some poor addled fool who doesn't know what he said and should not be allowed out in public without adult supervision. Of course he is the former and GLAAD had every right to hold him accountable for his despicable denigration of innocent people who have never done him any harm.

But what matters now is where you stand. Do you continue to defend his intolerance and bigotry and rail against GLAAD? Or do you look inside yourself and ask if it is right to be defending someone who believes such unchristian thoughts and brings dishonor and shame upon your religion and your beliefs?

Peace
DT

 

[Statistikhengst]

Actually it is. You combined the things you are buying into a shopping list. PR combined homosexuality into a list of other despicable things. In essence he said that there is no difference whatsoever between the terrorists who murdered 3000 innocent people on 9/11 and the gay couple who live next door. How would you feel if someone lumped you in with mass murderers? You would have every right to be be offended and call out the person who did that to you irrespective of their belief that their "bible" was telling them that retired ladies in NM are plotting to fly planes into tall buildings using radishes and soup cans.

Well I respectfully say you are dead wrong with your opinion there sir, but I will fight to the death your right to hold it. And yes, I would be offended if somebody accused me of being a mass murderer. But would I be offended if I was included in a list of people they hate that included a generic term mass murderers? Not in the least. I think I am bright enough to understand that a list is not conflation unless it is specifically intended to do that. I do not have any more right to be loved, appreciated, or understood than GLAAD has a right to be appreciated and honored by Phil Robertson.

This has nothing to do with being "appreciated and honored". It has everything to do with being denigrated. As a public figure PR chose to openly disparage a group of ordinary people who had never done him any harm whatsoever. His excuse for doing so merely brings dishonor upon the God you worship. Jesus would not cast the first stone at PR but he would admonish him to "sin no more" thereby making it as clear as daylight that what PR has done is wrong in the eyes of the Lord. (Jesus never condemned homosexuality by calling it a "sin".)

So what PR did was bring dishonor on you and every other upstanding Christian who respects the life of all of the people on this earth irrespective of their gender, creed, race or sexual orientation. His intolerance taints you all because he did this in the name of your God. No one is expecting you to judge him but defending his intolerance means that you are tacitly condoning his intolerance. Is that what all Christians should do? Uphold the intolerance of bigots and homophobes? Does that slippery slope mean defending the molestation of choirboys next? Where is the line here?

Either PR is an intolerant bigot who has to deal with the consequences of his own words or he is some poor addled fool who doesn't know what he said and should not be allowed out in public without adult supervision. Of course he is the former and GLAAD had every right to hold him accountable for his despicable denigration of innocent people who have never done him any harm.

But what matters now is where you stand. Do you continue to defend his intolerance and bigotry and rail against GLAAD? Or do you look inside yourself and ask if it is right to be defending someone who believes such unchristian thoughts and brings dishonor and shame upon your religion and your beliefs?

Peace
DT

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's see...trying to take the Dixie Chicks livelyhood away is okay, bashing to no end Michelle Obama is okay, bashing Barbara Streisand is okay, bashing John Kerry is okay and Teresa Heinz is okay, and Obama is okay, and Hillary when first lady is okay and Alec Baldwin is okay and the guy fired on Msnbc martin bashir is okay, And trying to take Michael Moore's livelihood away is okay.....and bashing the Reverend Wright and trying to take his livelihood away for his different opinion is all okay....

The list goes on and on and on and on, on both sides of the aisle, yet this Robertson thing surprises you all and makes you want to draw up "what is Fair" rules all of a sudden?

Sure it's a great discussion, yet won't change a thing....

Sadly, in this internet world where everyone has an opinion and can express their opinion anonymously in writing, I don't see the bashing and lies and trying to take someone's livelihood away because you differ with them.... ever changing...we crossed the tipping point and unfortunately there is no going back....unless a miracle from God.

If anybody can find any place where I have approved ANYBODY intentionally going after somebody to physically or materially hurt them purely for expressing an opinion somebody didn't like, please post it. I have done my damndest to find examples on all sides of the political spectrum because this is not a partisan issue.

Otherwise, equating crticism of people as no different than intentionally physically and/or materially hurting them for no other reason than you don't like them or they express an opinon somebody doesn't like is the very attitude I am objecting to in this thread. It is that really destructive concept that anger and hitting are the same thing that brought us to this sorry state.

But I am the eternal optimist. We got to this sorry state by a slow creep, step by step, and I refuse to believe that good people cannot turn it around and swing that pendulum back the other way. All we need is the will to do it.

 

[Montrovant]

My purpose here is not to focus on any particular incident though we all are using known incidents as illustration. My purpose is to raise consciousness beween honest differences of opinion, objection, being able to express our opinion about what is and is not acceptable, without acting out to physically or materially hurt others. To express our opinions, positive or negative, was seen as an unalienable right by the Founders. To act out to violate the rights of others was not.

I was one of several who were instrumental in founding and developing the Domestic Violence Association of Central Kansas and my (different) agency was doing some intensive work to deal with and combat domestic violence well before we founded DVACK. One thing my agency did was to sponsor self help groups for domestic violence abusers. Many of the abusers had grown up to equate anger and hitting as inseparable. Whether via parents or siblings or others, anger was always expressed by striking out. But when we taught them that anger and hitting are separate things--that feeling anger is okay but hitting to express it is not--that had honestly never occurred to them. It was by no means effective with all, but more than once we would see a lightbulb go on. Such people who understand that can be rehabilitated and can be trusted to not be repeat offenders.

And I am hoping that we have more American citizens who can understand that disagreeing with, even objecting to and/or condemning the expressed opinions and beliefs of others is a separate thing from striking out to hurt others physically and/or materially. You can morally and ethically do one without doing the other. And in a free society, I believe freedom loving people will do one without doing the other.

I know what you've said you want this to be about. I pointed out an area where the issue can become clouded : when a person's livelihood and expressed opinion are inseparably linked. I am curious if your opinion is at all different in such a situation. I'm also curious how you feel about 'going after' a politician because of their opinions, as that is also a murky point.

And I also would like to know if you think there can be a distinction between striking out to hurt others and trying to keep their opinions from being broadcast or supported publicly.

 

[Foxfyre]

My purpose here is not to focus on any particular incident though we all are using known incidents as illustration. My purpose is to raise consciousness beween honest differences of opinion, objection, being able to express our opinion about what is and is not acceptable, without acting out to physically or materially hurt others. To express our opinions, positive or negative, was seen as an unalienable right by the Founders. To act out to violate the rights of others was not.

I was one of several who were instrumental in founding and developing the Domestic Violence Association of Central Kansas and my (different) agency was doing some intensive work to deal with and combat domestic violence well before we founded DVACK. One thing my agency did was to sponsor self help groups for domestic violence abusers. Many of the abusers had grown up to equate anger and hitting as inseparable. Whether via parents or siblings or others, anger was always expressed by striking out. But when we taught them that anger and hitting are separate things--that feeling anger is okay but hitting to express it is not--that had honestly never occurred to them. It was by no means effective with all, but more than once we would see a lightbulb go on. Such people who understand that can be rehabilitated and can be trusted to not be repeat offenders.

And I am hoping that we have more American citizens who can understand that disagreeing with, even objecting to and/or condemning the expressed opinions and beliefs of others is a separate thing from striking out to hurt others physically and/or materially. You can morally and ethically do one without doing the other. And in a free society, I believe freedom loving people will do one without doing the other.

I know what you've said you want this to be about. I pointed out an area where the issue can become clouded : when a person's livelihood and expressed opinion are inseparably linked. I am curious if your opinion is at all different in such a situation. I'm also curious how you feel about 'going after' a politician because of their opinions, as that is also a murky point.

And I also would like to know if you think there can be a distinction between striking out to hurt others and trying to keep their opinions from being broadcast or supported publicly.

We should all push back on those who do harm to others and/or encourage harm be done to others purely because of who or what those others are. That is an iron clad principle and is a very different thing than physically and/or materially hurting somebody for nothing more than expressing an unpopular opinion.

I myself have participated in active boycotts against corporations that I believed were engaged in practices that were hurting people. Nestle was one such corporation back in the 70's and the boycott was effective and persuaded Nestle to stop the indefensible marketing practices we objected to. Once Nestle stopped, we all resumed buying Nestle products.

But lets say the CEO of Nestle made a negative comment about Republicans, Christians, conservatives, New Mexicans, or whatever. Is that justification to organize a boycott of Nestle products? Not to me. To me to try to hurt them for nothing more than expressing an opinion is morally and ethically wrong.

To go after a politician and attempt to materially and/or physically hurt him/her purely because he/she expresses an opinion I don't share is also morally and ethically wrong. To campaign for and use my vote to replace a politician with somebody who I believe will represent me/us more ethically, honestly, and competently is perfectly moral and ethical.

 

[emilynghiem]

The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.

This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.

I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.

I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.

That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not. There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.

We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share. And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.

I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.

What do you think?

Hi Foxfyre:
I was thinking along similar lines, in particular, for members of political parties to be tolerant and inclusive of different views and beliefs, similar to religious freedom and equal protection of the laws from discrimination.

I thought of drafting a petition or resolution for members of parties to list their affiliations
and the views they have which they ask to be included and not excluded; and which views they themselves agree to recognize and not exclude or discriminate against as invalid.

Then I could list the issues I see as most divisive currently:

* judging people by their views of Christianity, Atheism, or Islam
* judging people by their views of homosexuality and either for or against gay marriage
* judging or penalizing people for their views of health care, and either for or against state rights vs. federal govt authority (recognizing these differences as RELIGIOUS and not discriminating or penalizing people for believing in free choice of health care options)

I think it would challenge people to recognize which biases they have against the views of others, in relation to the biases they disagree being imposed on them.

So just filling out the list of which issues apply to them might be educational and raise awareness of how polarized we have become, dividing and judging people for views as if these are "right" or "wrong" instead of including and respecting them equally under law.

I find people don't even realize when they are imposing a prejudice because they have already assumed the other person or party's viewpoint is "wrong." So sad.

I started off just wanting to acknowledge that imposing the ACA by laws violates and excludes people's rights who believe that health care choices belong to the people or the states, and that passing and enforcing such a policy amounts to "establishing a national religion" without the consent of the public, citizens and taxpayers affected by the policies.

by the same token, this need to include and not discriminate against people for their views applies to policies either for or against gay marriage, as well as unresolved religious conflicts over abortion restrictions, drug legalization, immigration policies and citizenship requirements, the death penalty and other issues that invoke religious beliefs.

I think we overlook how much of the problems with political differences are from religious beliefs that are fundamental and not subject to government regulation and decisions.

So if we could agree to respect these differences under Constitutional laws of inclusion and equal protection and representation, maybe we could start the dialogue from there, and seek solutions that people can agree on despite areas where we disagree religiously. And just limit govt policies to those solutions and avoid making decisions that impose on people's beliefs. Which govt is never supposed to be abused to do in the first place! Duh!

 

[Asclepias]

To go after a politician and attempt to materially and/or physically hurt him/her purely because he/she expresses an opinion I don't share is also morally and ethically wrong. To campaign for and use my vote to replace a politician with somebody who I believe will represent me/us more ethically, honestly, and competently is perfectly moral and ethical.

Who says you are correct in feeling that it is morally and ethically wrong? Who makes that determination?

 

[Foxfyre]

To go after a politician and attempt to materially and/or physically hurt him/her purely because he/she expresses an opinion I don't share is also morally and ethically wrong. To campaign for and use my vote to replace a politician with somebody who I believe will represent me/us more ethically, honestly, and competently is perfectly moral and ethical.

Who says you are correct in feeling that it is morally and ethically wrong? Who makes that determination?

I do. And it is my opinion that you should be able to agree or disagree with my opinion about that without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after you and physically and/or materially punish you for disagreeing with my point of view.

This is the whole problem with any of us thinking anger justifies hitting somebody if the other person is 'wrong', Who gets to set the standard for what is right and what is wrong? Are you on the left willing for conservatives to be the authority of what will and will not be physically and/or materially punishable? Are you on the right willing for liberals to set the standards for what can and cannot be physically and/or materially punished?

Or is it the moral and ethical position to allow everybody their opinion or belief or point of view so long as they do not require others to share it?

 

[Asclepias]

To go after a politician and attempt to materially and/or physically hurt him/her purely because he/she expresses an opinion I don't share is also morally and ethically wrong. To campaign for and use my vote to replace a politician with somebody who I believe will represent me/us more ethically, honestly, and competently is perfectly moral and ethical.

Who says you are correct in feeling that it is morally and ethically wrong? Who makes that determination?

I do. And it is my opinion that you should be able to agree or disagree with my opinion about that without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after you and physically and/or materially punish you for disagreeing with my point of view.

This is the whole problem with any of us thinking anger justifies hitting somebody if the other person is 'wrong', Who gets to set the standard for what is right and what is wrong? Are you on the left willing for conservatives to be the authority of what will and will not be physically and/or materially punishable? Are you on the right willing for liberals to set the standards for what can and cannot be physically and/or materially punished?

Or is it the moral and ethical position to allow everybody their opinion or belief or point of view so long as they do not require others to share it?

That goes back to my point that it should be a self regulating process and if that fails then the group has to regulate you. If your opinion is not the opinion of the group why do you think anyone is going to let your expression go unpunished just because you feel something they don't agree with? Thats not how it works in reality. If you are trying to make a new reality then you need everyones buy in eventually correct?

 

[Foxfyre]

Who says you are correct in feeling that it is morally and ethically wrong? Who makes that determination?

I do. And it is my opinion that you should be able to agree or disagree with my opinion about that without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after you and physically and/or materially punish you for disagreeing with my point of view.

This is the whole problem with any of us thinking anger justifies hitting somebody if the other person is 'wrong', Who gets to set the standard for what is right and what is wrong? Are you on the left willing for conservatives to be the authority of what will and will not be physically and/or materially punishable? Are you on the right willing for liberals to set the standards for what can and cannot be physically and/or materially punished?

Or is it the moral and ethical position to allow everybody their opinion or belief or point of view so long as they do not require others to share it?

That goes back to my point that it should be a self regulating process and if that fails then the group has to regulate you. If your opinion is not the opinion of the group why do you think anyone is going to let your expression go unpunished just because you feel something they don't agree with? Thats not how it works in reality. If you are trying to make a new reality then you need everyones buy in eventually correct?

I've already stated my opinion about that. Your opinions should be regulated by nobody but you. My opinions should be regulated by nobody but me. I may voluntarily sign on to certain rules or expectations in order to participate in a particular occupation or group or venue, but conformity to those rules is then between me and that entity and should involve nobody else.

Disagreement does not justify hitting.
Anger does not justify hitting.
Being offended or having our feelings hurt does not justify hitting.

Within the boundaries of common courtesy and decency, it is okay to state our opinion about what somebody else said. But it is not okay to hit them. It is not okay to organize a campaign that will hurt them physically and/or materially for no reason other than they are who they are and/or expressed an opinion we don't like.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Okay, that makes sense, and it opens up a couple of things:

When you say that you can "completely reject an idea that he espouses", which makes sense too, what exactly do you mean by "reject"? Would that include supporting that person being punished in some way, such as losing their job?

Also, if someone advocates breaking the law, "chopping off someone's head", that's clearly a different thing. But what if a guy being interviewed on TV says he doesn't like Obama simply because of the color of his skin? Should anything happen to that person, and if so, what would you like to see?

.

You mistake boycotts for something nefarious?

That's how freedom of speech works.

There will be supporters of said boycotts, and there will be detractors.

Expressing what you want to happen as a result of someone being disagreeable is not the same as the company pulling the trigger. The actual firing (and subsequent rehiring) is on the shoulders of the corporation period, and not on the boycotters.

Boycotting is a way to shun what you find distasteful because you don't want your children in a world where it is promoted. Free speech is being able to express that in any way you see fit, within the law. That is a right.

Perhaps you could actually answer my questions.

What would you like to see happen to the guy who talked on TV about Obama's skin color?

.

What someone would ‘like’ to see happen is irrelevant.

But there are things that might happen, however, each as appropriate as the other in the context of private society.

For example: nothing might happen.

Or those who find the interviewee’s statement offensive might seek equal time on the program to express their opposition. Or those offended might call for the interviewee to be disallowed to appear on the program again. Or those offended might call for a boycott of the interviewee’s program, if he has one; and call the interviewee’s sponsors to demand they withdraw support. If the interviewee owns a business, private citizens may call for a boycott of that business, or demand others not do business with him.

It is also possible private society might evaluate the merits of a boycott and refuse to participate; and sponsors likewise are at liberty to do the same and continue financial support of the interviewee’s program.

Again, assuming no one violates the law, all of the above and more are perfectly appropriate in the context of a private, free, and democratic society.

Consequently, it’s naïve and unrealistic to expect everyone to behave when offended as you would like them to – you’ll never be able to make a free and democratic society neat and tidy and clean and perfect; you are of course at liberty to try, provided you don’t seek the authority of the state to compel compliance.

 

[Asclepias]

I do. And it is my opinion that you should be able to agree or disagree with my opinion about that without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after you and physically and/or materially punish you for disagreeing with my point of view.

This is the whole problem with any of us thinking anger justifies hitting somebody if the other person is 'wrong', Who gets to set the standard for what is right and what is wrong? Are you on the left willing for conservatives to be the authority of what will and will not be physically and/or materially punishable? Are you on the right willing for liberals to set the standards for what can and cannot be physically and/or materially punished?

Or is it the moral and ethical position to allow everybody their opinion or belief or point of view so long as they do not require others to share it?

That goes back to my point that it should be a self regulating process and if that fails then the group has to regulate you. If your opinion is not the opinion of the group why do you think anyone is going to let your expression go unpunished just because you feel something they don't agree with? Thats not how it works in reality. If you are trying to make a new reality then you need everyones buy in eventually correct?

I've already stated my opinion about that. Your opinions should be regulated by nobody but you. My opinions should be regulated by nobody but me. I may voluntarily sign on to certain rules or expectations in order to participate in a particular occupation or group or venue, but conformity to those rules is then between me and that entity and should involve nobody else.

Disagreement does not justify hitting.
Anger does not justify hitting.
Being offended or having our feelings hurt does not justify hitting.

Within the boundaries of common courtesy and decency, it is okay to state our opinion about what somebody else said. But it is not okay to hit them. It is not okay to organize a campaign that will hurt them physically and/or materially for no reason other than they are who they are and/or expressed an opinion we don't like.

I wasn't specifically talking about hitting someone but lets take a look at your scenario. What if I feel hitting is justified? What makes you more correct than me?

 

[Foxfyre]

That goes back to my point that it should be a self regulating process and if that fails then the group has to regulate you. If your opinion is not the opinion of the group why do you think anyone is going to let your expression go unpunished just because you feel something they don't agree with? Thats not how it works in reality. If you are trying to make a new reality then you need everyones buy in eventually correct?

I've already stated my opinion about that. Your opinions should be regulated by nobody but you. My opinions should be regulated by nobody but me. I may voluntarily sign on to certain rules or expectations in order to participate in a particular occupation or group or venue, but conformity to those rules is then between me and that entity and should involve nobody else.

Disagreement does not justify hitting.
Anger does not justify hitting.
Being offended or having our feelings hurt does not justify hitting.

Within the boundaries of common courtesy and decency, it is okay to state our opinion about what somebody else said. But it is not okay to hit them. It is not okay to organize a campaign that will hurt them physically and/or materially for no reason other than they are who they are and/or expressed an opinion we don't like.

I wasn't specifically talking about hitting someone but lets take a look at your scenario. What if I feel hitting is justified? What makes you more correct than me?

If you have been reading my posts, you know that 'hitting' is the term I'm using for anything that physically or materially hurts somebody else. And I see my opinion as more defensible than yours because if we become a society that settles all differences of opinion by hitting, the biggest bully will be able to force everybody else to conform to what the bully wants. And it is a near certainty, based on history over thousands of years, that such a bully will be one that pretty much nobody but the bully's toadies will want to be the dominant bully. And none of us will have any rights other than what the bully wants to allow.

 

[Asclepias]

I've already stated my opinion about that. Your opinions should be regulated by nobody but you. My opinions should be regulated by nobody but me. I may voluntarily sign on to certain rules or expectations in order to participate in a particular occupation or group or venue, but conformity to those rules is then between me and that entity and should involve nobody else.

Disagreement does not justify hitting.
Anger does not justify hitting.
Being offended or having our feelings hurt does not justify hitting.

Within the boundaries of common courtesy and decency, it is okay to state our opinion about what somebody else said. But it is not okay to hit them. It is not okay to organize a campaign that will hurt them physically and/or materially for no reason other than they are who they are and/or expressed an opinion we don't like.

I wasn't specifically talking about hitting someone but lets take a look at your scenario. What if I feel hitting is justified? What makes you more correct than me?

If you have been reading my posts, you know that 'hitting' is the term I'm using for anything that physically or materially hurts somebody else. And I see my opinion as more defensible than yours because if we become a society that settles all differences of opinion by hitting, the biggest bully will be able to force everybody else to conform to what the bully wants. And it is a near certainty, based on history over thousands of years, that such a bully will be one that pretty much nobody but the bully's toadies will want to be the dominant bully. And none of us will have any rights other than what the bully wants to allow.

I understand your point but I dont feel that is an answer. Who determines if bullies should rule or not? Where does this directive come from?

 

[Mac1958]

.

Intolerance is always "okay" when "my" side does it.

.

 

[hunarcy]

Robertson's own words do the conflating;

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.

Actually it is. You combined the things you are buying into a shopping list. PR combined homosexuality into a list of other despicable things. In essence he said that there is no difference whatsoever between the terrorists who murdered 3000 innocent people on 9/11 and the gay couple who live next door. How would you feel if someone lumped you in with mass murderers? You would have every right to be be offended and call out the person who did that to you irrespective of their belief that their "bible" was telling them that retired ladies in NM are plotting to fly planes into tall buildings using radishes and soup cans.

His religious beliefs (as far as I can tell, he's a member of the Church of Christ) teach him that there is no difference in sins, that all are equally offensive to God. So, while man may differentiate and attach degrees of "badness", he believes that is wrong. YOU react according to how you "feel" and you certainly don't have to agree with that interpretation, but he has a right to believe what his church teaches.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wasn't specifically talking about hitting someone but lets take a look at your scenario. What if I feel hitting is justified? What makes you more correct than me?

If you have been reading my posts, you know that 'hitting' is the term I'm using for anything that physically or materially hurts somebody else. And I see my opinion as more defensible than yours because if we become a society that settles all differences of opinion by hitting, the biggest bully will be able to force everybody else to conform to what the bully wants. And it is a near certainty, based on history over thousands of years, that such a bully will be one that pretty much nobody but the bully's toadies will want to be the dominant bully. And none of us will have any rights other than what the bully wants to allow.

I understand your point but I dont feel that is an answer. Who determines if bullies should rule or not? Where does this directive come from?

My hope is that it will come from a free people governing themselves and establishing a societal norm of liberty and freedom to be who and what we are without fear that the bully will beat us up if we are who and what we are.

 

[Montrovant]

My purpose here is not to focus on any particular incident though we all are using known incidents as illustration. My purpose is to raise consciousness beween honest differences of opinion, objection, being able to express our opinion about what is and is not acceptable, without acting out to physically or materially hurt others. To express our opinions, positive or negative, was seen as an unalienable right by the Founders. To act out to violate the rights of others was not.

I was one of several who were instrumental in founding and developing the Domestic Violence Association of Central Kansas and my (different) agency was doing some intensive work to deal with and combat domestic violence well before we founded DVACK. One thing my agency did was to sponsor self help groups for domestic violence abusers. Many of the abusers had grown up to equate anger and hitting as inseparable. Whether via parents or siblings or others, anger was always expressed by striking out. But when we taught them that anger and hitting are separate things--that feeling anger is okay but hitting to express it is not--that had honestly never occurred to them. It was by no means effective with all, but more than once we would see a lightbulb go on. Such people who understand that can be rehabilitated and can be trusted to not be repeat offenders.

And I am hoping that we have more American citizens who can understand that disagreeing with, even objecting to and/or condemning the expressed opinions and beliefs of others is a separate thing from striking out to hurt others physically and/or materially. You can morally and ethically do one without doing the other. And in a free society, I believe freedom loving people will do one without doing the other.

I know what you've said you want this to be about. I pointed out an area where the issue can become clouded : when a person's livelihood and expressed opinion are inseparably linked. I am curious if your opinion is at all different in such a situation. I'm also curious how you feel about 'going after' a politician because of their opinions, as that is also a murky point.

And I also would like to know if you think there can be a distinction between striking out to hurt others and trying to keep their opinions from being broadcast or supported publicly.

We should all push back on those who do harm to others and/or encourage harm be done to others purely because of who or what those others are. That is an iron clad principle and is a very different thing than physically and/or materially hurting somebody for nothing more than expressing an unpopular opinion.

I myself have participated in active boycotts against corporations that I believed were engaged in practices that were hurting people. Nestle was one such corporation back in the 70's and the boycott was effective and persuaded Nestle to stop the indefensible marketing practices we objected to. Once Nestle stopped, we all resumed buying Nestle products.

But lets say the CEO of Nestle made a negative comment about Republicans, Christians, conservatives, New Mexicans, or whatever. Is that justification to organize a boycott of Nestle products? Not to me. To me to try to hurt them for nothing more than expressing an opinion is morally and ethically wrong.

To go after a politician and attempt to materially and/or physically hurt him/her purely because he/she expresses an opinion I don't share is also morally and ethically wrong. To campaign for and use my vote to replace a politician with somebody who I believe will represent me/us more ethically, honestly, and competently is perfectly moral and ethical.

Let me give a hypothetical example.

Let's say I find Alex Jones's radio show offensive. I think he is rude and insensitive to victims of various incidents, I think he's promoting a culture in which people's privacy is meaningless, I think he's promoting a mentality where people are unwilling to accept that sometimes bad things just happen. I decide that I want to try and get his radio show cancelled so his messages are no longer promoted on the air. If I organize a boycott, am I attempting to hurt him, or am I just trying to promote my own programming choices?

Now let's say I don't like the television show Supernatural. I think it promotes a godless life, it idealizes witchcraft and sin. I organize a boycott to get it cancelled and replaced with a better program. Am I attempting to hurt the cast and crew, or am I simply expressing my opinion on the station's programming?

Is the intent of an attempt to get a person fired or program cancelled or product shelved the important factor, or is it the end result that matters?

If it is the intent, can you see how it would be possible to hurt someone without that being the goal?

Thanks for answering the politician question.

 

[Plasmaball]

This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.

Yes it did.

I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.

you cant have one without the other, and we know why this doesnt want to be brought up. It then goes into the realm of Legal and illegal, and this the argument falls apart rather fast.

I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.

Impossible, Cause and affect and unless you never say anything your words will affect other people.

That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not. There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share

Welcome to the world of 24 hour news and the internets. This has already been explained to you so we can move.

I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.

Nope...dead wrong.

What do you think?

I think it shows a lack of understanding of how the world works.