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

[Foxfyre]

Where she said what glaad did should be illegal..

Please quote the OP and show where I said any such thing. And if you cannot do that, I will expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something I did not say.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-13.html#post8401365

Originally Posted by Foxfyre
I think was GLAAD did was evil. It SHOULD be criminal.

criminal would mean illegal...I owe you nothing.

That statement was not in the OP. And even if it was, saying what somebody does should be illegal is not the same thing as saying that somebody should be illegal.

So I still expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something I did not say in the OP.

I will expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something about GLAAD that I did not say.

And I fully realize I probably won't get what I expect.

And could we please now focus on the topic?

 

[Mertex]

What this mouthpiece for a think tank is doing is using specious logic. It's that apparant.

He claims to know the Liberal mind, but he dances around the truth to espouse his company's message of intolerance.

Do you want to know what this Liberal thinks? I think that injustice, repression, oppression, greed and larceny are the results of Conservative ideology and Conservatives are blind to them. Conservatives are willing to be left in the dark by those results in order to rationalize the gains that come to individuals ruthless enough to champion results that benefit themselves while screwing the other. And it's the intolerance of the other that allows them the latitude of ignorance and blindness to the results of their ideology.

One of the first things he mentions is that Libs hate America and feel that America deserved 9/11. He fails to mention that Pat Robertson (who the last time I checked was a conservative) went on the air and declared that 9/11 happened due to the lack of faith in America.....the separation of church and state. So, in essence, a conservative is on record as saying that "America got what it deserved" but somehow, this mind reader is claiming that it's libs that feel that way.....so, yes, it is totally specious.


Yesterday, on the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist bombings, televangelist Pat Robertson spent some time on his 700 Club TV show explaining to viewers why the attacks took place. And the reason did not have to do with Al Qaeda or the failures of US intelligence or Islamic jihadism per se. Nope. It was something far more sinister: separation of church and state. Yes, according to Robertson, lack of faith was the problem." Pat Robertson blames 9/11 attacks on separation of church and state - Los Angeles atheism | Examiner.com

 

[Plasmaball]

Please quote the OP and show where I said any such thing. And if you cannot do that, I will expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something I did not say.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-13.html#post8401365

Originally Posted by Foxfyre
I think was GLAAD did was evil. It SHOULD be criminal.

criminal would mean illegal...I owe you nothing.

That statement was not in the OP. And even if it was, saying what somebody does should be illegal is not the same thing as saying that somebody should be illegal.

So I still expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something I did not say in the OP.

I will expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something about GLAAD that I did not say.

And I fully realize I probably won't get what I expect.

And could we please now focus on the topic?

i knew you would spin it. You said criminal thus in order to be a criminal you would have to do something illegal. You hide behind your "OP" literally defense all you like. I dont care about your OP, you said it in this thread, your hand is in the cookie jar and you've been caught. Either you can own up to it, OR the consequences will be the consequences.

Oh wait where you just not stating that the left doesnt like consequences?

He was explicit that liberals are not consequence oriented or they would be more sensitive to the consequences of what they do. They are not.

oh you did, perhaps a little more practice what you preach may be in order?

Originally Posted by Foxfyre
I think was GLAAD did was evil. It SHOULD be criminal.

are these your words or not Fox?

You dont get it do you? Saying something should be criminal is part of the overall topic you created. You can't pick and choose what people talk about. Thats not how debates work, there is a natural flow to things, and debates venture off into other areas off the main topic.

Anyways You want to make an action that is "freedom" and make it a criminal offense. You literally want to ( what you claim) an intolerant action, and fix it by being intolerable to the point of jail. You literally don't see it? you are doing everything you are arguing against yet worse.

 

[Mertex]

You are or should be entitled to your opinion about his conservatism or conservatism in general as he is entitled to his opinion. What makes his argument so compelling is that so far nobody has been able to refute it with anything other than it is partisan and he sucks because he is explaining what creates the intolerance of liberals. But so far nobody has been able to take any statement in his lecture and show how it is incorrect. It may all be incorrect, but so far nobody has tried to rebut it.

What do you mean nobody has refuted his comments. He claims to know how the Liberal mind thinks, and if he is not a Liberal, how can he possibly claim to know how they think? He claims that Libs hate America and claimed they thought America deserved 9/11 - yet a conservative, Pat Robertson, got on TV and said the very same thing he is claiming the left is saying.

Is he suggesting that liberals be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed or harmed in any way? No he is not. He is expressing his reasoned opinion about liberals.

He is lying when he says that Liberals think America deserved 9/11. Would you not find his comments offensive if he said all conservatives believed America deserved 9/11, because Pat Robertson, who is a conservative said so?

His whole talk is partisan, intended to be partisan and intended to demonize Liberals, how could that possibly be reasoned, unless you agree with all he said.

 

[Bfgrn]

Several points were made in the OP. To which are you referring?

.

Where she said what glaad did should be illegal..

Please quote the OP and show where I said any such thing. And if you cannot do that, I will expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something I did not say.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8337654-post373.html

I think was GLAAD did was evil. It SHOULD be criminal.

 

[Nosmo King]

As to the question of tolerance, please explain why Liberals are seen as intolerant. I ask because history shows the opposite.

Which political ideology provided the resistance to social change? When child labor was the burning issue, was it the monied Conservative class rallying to rid child labor from society? Were the defenders of discrimination like,Lester Maddox, George Wallace, Strom,Thurmond and Sheriff Bull Connor all tree hugging Birkenstock wearing Liberals? Are Feminists greeted warmly at CPAC conventions? How seriously are environmentalists taken at Tea Party rallies? Where's the plank in the GOP platform advocating marriage equality?

Tolerance, thy name is not Conservatism. Why then are Conservatives lecturing and concerned with the issue of tolerance when they have yet to show any themselves?

 

[Foxfyre]

As to the question of tolerance, please explain why Liberals are seen as intolerant. I ask because history shows the opposite.

Which political ideology provided the resistance to social change? When child labor was the burning issue, was it the monied Conservative class rallying to rid child labor from society? Were the defenders of discrimination like,Lester Maddox, George Wallace, Strom,Thurmond and Sheriff Bull Connor all tree hugging Birkenstock wearing Liberals? Are Feminists greeted warmly at CPAC conventions? How seriously are environmentalists taken at Tea Party rallies? Where's the plank in the GOP platform advocating marriage equality?

Tolerance, thy name is not Conservatism. Why then are Conservatives lecturing and concerned with the issue of tolerance when they have yet to show any themselves?

Again this thread is not about liberals and conservatives and the OP did not frame the question or concept in partisan terms in any way. GLAAD was despicable, in my opinion, when it went after Phil Robertson because they don't like what he believes the Bible says. The American Family Association was despicable, in my opinion, when they tried to get Ellen Degeneres fired from J.C. Penney's advertising because Ellen Is Gay.

So I don't CARE whether it is liberals or conservatives who are being intolerant of people's opinions. It doesn't matter. I'm sure that there is a video by some intellectual explaining how conservatives try to suppress differences of opinion too and if somebody finds one, they can post that as an example to illustrate the OP. I am a fully equal opportunity critic when it comes to this issue.

And the issue is not about social action, social change, or which group promoted what.

Once again the focus of the OP is the concept that no person should be physically or materially attacked with intent to hurt that person for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion that somebody didn't like.

 

[Foxfyre]

You are or should be entitled to your opinion about his conservatism or conservatism in general as he is entitled to his opinion. What makes his argument so compelling is that so far nobody has been able to refute it with anything other than it is partisan and he sucks because he is explaining what creates the intolerance of liberals. But so far nobody has been able to take any statement in his lecture and show how it is incorrect. It may all be incorrect, but so far nobody has tried to rebut it.

What do you mean nobody has refuted his comments. He claims to know how the Liberal mind thinks, and if he is not a Liberal, how can he possibly claim to know how they think? He claims that Libs hate America and claimed they thought America deserved 9/11 - yet a conservative, Pat Robertson, got on TV and said the very same thing he is claiming the left is saying.

Is he suggesting that liberals be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed or harmed in any way? No he is not. He is expressing his reasoned opinion about liberals.

He is lying when he says that Liberals think America deserved 9/11. Would you not find his comments offensive if he said all conservatives believed America deserved 9/11, because Pat Robertson, who is a conservative said so?

His whole talk is partisan, intended to be partisan and intended to demonize Liberals, how could that possibly be reasoned, unless you agree with all he said.

Disagreeing with him is not the same thing as refuting him. Holding the opinion that he is lying in the analogies he used is not refuting him. He made no pretense that his focus in his lecture was to describe how liberals think and why liberals do what they do. Agree with him or disagree with him. I don't care. I am sorry the video got posted in this thread because so many are now unable to focus on anything else. Mojo did start a thread re the video in Politics I think and would welcome commentary about it there.

The only reason that video was pertinent to this thread topic was that he did explain why liberals try to suppress opinions that don't fit the liberal agenda. But again, I wish it hadn't been posted in this thread because of the inability of some to now focus on what the thread topic is.

This thread is intended to focus on suppressing unpopular opinions by angry mobs, groups, or organizations--liberal or conservative--who attempt to physically or materially hurt people who express opinions the mobs, groups, or organizations don't like. In my opinion that is evil, and should not be acceptable to freedom loving people no matter what label they wear in their political ideologies.

 

[Asclepias]

You are or should be entitled to your opinion about his conservatism or conservatism in general as he is entitled to his opinion. What makes his argument so compelling is that so far nobody has been able to refute it with anything other than it is partisan and he sucks because he is explaining what creates the intolerance of liberals. But so far nobody has been able to take any statement in his lecture and show how it is incorrect. It may all be incorrect, but so far nobody has tried to rebut it.

What do you mean nobody has refuted his comments. He claims to know how the Liberal mind thinks, and if he is not a Liberal, how can he possibly claim to know how they think? He claims that Libs hate America and claimed they thought America deserved 9/11 - yet a conservative, Pat Robertson, got on TV and said the very same thing he is claiming the left is saying.

Is he suggesting that liberals be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed or harmed in any way? No he is not. He is expressing his reasoned opinion about liberals.

He is lying when he says that Liberals think America deserved 9/11. Would you not find his comments offensive if he said all conservatives believed America deserved 9/11, because Pat Robertson, who is a conservative said so?

His whole talk is partisan, intended to be partisan and intended to demonize Liberals, how could that possibly be reasoned, unless you agree with all he said.

Disagreeing with him is not the same thing as refuting him. Holding the opinion that he is lying in the analogies he used is not refuting him. He made no pretense that his focus in his lecture was to describe how liberals think and why liberals do what they do. Agree with him or disagree with him. I don't care. I am sorry the video got posted in this thread because so many are now unable to focus on anything else. Mojo did start a thread re the video in Politics I think and would welcome commentary about it there.

The only reason that video was pertinent to this thread topic was that he did explain why liberals try to suppress opinions that don't fit the liberal agenda. But again, I wish it hadn't been posted in this thread because of the inability of some to now focus on what the thread topic is.

This thread is intended to focus on suppressing unpopular opinions by angry mobs, groups, or organizations--liberal or conservative--who attempt to physically or materially hurt people who express opinions the mobs, groups, or organizations don't like. In my opinion that is evil, and should not be acceptable to freedom loving people no matter what label they wear in their political ideologies.

As long as they are not violating someones first amendment rights why is it evil? They are only voicing their opinions that the person should be financially ruined.

 

[Nosmo King]

As to the question of tolerance, please explain why Liberals are seen as intolerant. I ask because history shows the opposite.

Which political ideology provided the resistance to social change? When child labor was the burning issue, was it the monied Conservative class rallying to rid child labor from society? Were the defenders of discrimination like,Lester Maddox, George Wallace, Strom,Thurmond and Sheriff Bull Connor all tree hugging Birkenstock wearing Liberals? Are Feminists greeted warmly at CPAC conventions? How seriously are environmentalists taken at Tea Party rallies? Where's the plank in the GOP platform advocating marriage equality?

Tolerance, thy name is not Conservatism. Why then are Conservatives lecturing and concerned with the issue of tolerance when they have yet to show any themselves?

Again this thread is not about liberals and conservatives and the OP did not frame the question or concept in partisan terms in any way. GLAAD was despicable, in my opinion, when it went after Phil Robertson because they don't like what he believes the Bible says. The American Family Association was despicable, in my opinion, when they tried to get Ellen Degeneres fired from J.C. Penney's advertising because Ellen Is Gay.

So I don't CARE whether it is liberals or conservatives who are being intolerant of people's opinions. It doesn't matter. I'm sure that there is a video by some intellectual explaining how conservatives try to suppress differences of opinion too and if somebody finds one, they can post that as an example to illustrate the OP. I am a fully equal opportunity critic when it comes to this issue.

And the issue is not about social action, social change, or which group promoted what.

Once again the focus of the OP is the concept that no person should be physically or materially attacked with intent to hurt that person for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion that somebody didn't like.

I'm lucky because I've never watched 'reality' television shows. It was not until this Robertson fellow displayed irrational intolerance that I ever saw or knew of him. His intolerance cannot be rationalized due to some warped mis interpretation of scripture. In fact, I find it disgusting that someone would hide behind the skirts of scripture to justify his intolerance.

He defamed an entire group of our fellow citizens and deserved to be called out for it. The world should not be such a tough place for the other. Humans should use tolerance when dealing with others.

Now tolerance is not the same as acceptance. You can tolerate a homosexual and his or her lifestyle without acceptance. All most oppressed people would happily receive tolerance, live and let live. Acceptance must come to an individual in his own time and manner.

So many of the intolerant are not what society considers the most worldly and sophisticated. Isolation within one' sown social class makes knowledge and experience hard to come by. The tolerant, by contrast, have had experiences outside their own group that reveals one great truth of life. Namely everyone has their own characteristics and no one should make the ham handed snap judgements that show intolerance. He without sin shall cast the first stone. Imagine scripture showing the way to tolerance and not cover for ignorance, fear and suspicion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You are or should be entitled to your opinion about his conservatism or conservatism in general as he is entitled to his opinion. What makes his argument so compelling is that so far nobody has been able to refute it with anything other than it is partisan and he sucks because he is explaining what creates the intolerance of liberals. But so far nobody has been able to take any statement in his lecture and show how it is incorrect. It may all be incorrect, but so far nobody has tried to rebut it.

What do you mean nobody has refuted his comments. He claims to know how the Liberal mind thinks, and if he is not a Liberal, how can he possibly claim to know how they think? He claims that Libs hate America and claimed they thought America deserved 9/11 - yet a conservative, Pat Robertson, got on TV and said the very same thing he is claiming the left is saying.

Is he suggesting that liberals be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed or harmed in any way? No he is not. He is expressing his reasoned opinion about liberals.

He is lying when he says that Liberals think America deserved 9/11. Would you not find his comments offensive if he said all conservatives believed America deserved 9/11, because Pat Robertson, who is a conservative said so?

His whole talk is partisan, intended to be partisan and intended to demonize Liberals, how could that possibly be reasoned, unless you agree with all he said.

Which clearly illustrates that this individual is completely ignorant of what liberals believe.

Particularly when one considers the fact that there are no greater advocates of America than liberals, and where the greatest act of patriotism is to question the acts of one’s government when warranted.

 

[Meathead]

I'm lucky because I've never watched 'reality' television shows. It was not until this Robertson fellow displayed irrational intolerance that I ever saw or knew of him. His intolerance cannot be rationalized due to some warped mis interpretation of scripture. In fact, I find it disgusting that someone would hide behind the skirts of scripture to justify his intolerance.

He defamed an entire group of our fellow citizens and deserved to be called out for it. The world should not be such a tough place for the other. Humans should use tolerance when dealing with others.

Now tolerance is not the same as acceptance. You can tolerate a homosexual and his or her lifestyle without acceptance. All most oppressed people would happily receive tolerance, live and let live. Acceptance must come to an individual in his own time and manner.

So many of the intolerant are not what society considers the most worldly and sophisticated. Isolation within one' sown social class makes knowledge and experience hard to come by. The tolerant, by contrast, have had experiences outside their own group that reveals one great truth of life. Namely everyone has their own characteristics and no one should make the ham handed snap judgements that show intolerance. He without sin shall cast the first stone. Imagine scripture showing the way to tolerance and not cover for ignorance, fear and suspicion.

Tolerance is not the same as acceptance, but I fail to see how Robertson was intolerant while his critics were not. "Ignorance, fear and suspicion" cannot be the default fault (sorry) assigned by those who feel offended. Please, no platitudes about great truths and so on.

 

[BDBoop]

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?

I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.

The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.

Here is a link to it.

Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.

Really.

It's THAT good!

Yup. This video? On the first page. It was That Good, you thanked him for posting it.

Brilliant it was, yeah? I've seen that in both threads, now. Cons can attack libs to make their 'point,' but if libs do the same they are OT, and you either refuse to answer, call them out for being OT, or generally both.

Which is why I stopped contributing to the last thread, and barely contributed to this one and oh, P.S.: Plasmaball is correct about what you said in the OP.

 

[Mac1958]

Please quote the OP and show where I said any such thing. And if you cannot do that, I will expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something I did not say.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-13.html#post8401365

Originally Posted by Foxfyre
I think was GLAAD did was evil. It SHOULD be criminal.

criminal would mean illegal...I owe you nothing.

That statement was not in the OP. And even if it was, saying what somebody does should be illegal is not the same thing as saying that somebody should be illegal.

So I still expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something I did not say in the OP.

I will expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something about GLAAD that I did not say.

And I fully realize I probably won't get what I expect.

And could we please now focus on the topic?

[MENTION=24916]Plasmaball[/MENTION], if you want my opinion on something, I'll be happy to provide it.

Perhaps you could ask it in a way that is straightforward and honest, without misrepresenting what I or someone else said. How in the world was I supposed to know you were referring to GLAAD when it wasn't even mentioned in the OP? If you're going to dishonestly use Foxfyre to make a point -- that appears to be what you're trying to do -- I'm not interested in playing along.

The intellectual dishonesty here just doesn't stop.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.

The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.

Here is a link to it.

Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.

Really.

It's THAT good!

Yup. This video? On the first page. It was That Good, you thanked him for posting it.

Brilliant it was, yeah? I've seen that in both threads, now. Cons can attack libs to make their 'point,' but if libs do the same they are OT, and you either refuse to answer, call them out for being OT, or generally both.

Which is why I stopped contributing to the last thread, and barely contributed to this one and oh, P.S.: Plasmaball is correct about what you said in the OP.

And the reading dyfsfunction goes on.

You know folks, I don't CARE that you can't seem to read and comprehend what is written. I can't help it that you refuse to see any comments or disclaimers or qualifiers that accompany what others write. I can't help it if you are incapable of seeing and understanding what the topic of a thread is, and I can't help it if you feel the need to band together to try to derail threads or whatever your intent might be. But GLAAD was not mentioned in the OP and I have never said anywhere or anyplace that GLAAD should be illegal. That's a fact.

If you are so intolerant that you simply cannot allow others their point of view when it is expressed civilly and in a reasoned fashion, then please find a thread that reflects what you want to see and what you want to talk about.

In a way that is what this thread is about. The kind of tolerance that allows others their beliefs, opinions, and convictions without feeling a need to attack, demonize, accuse, misrepresent or hurt them because those opinions are expressed. Maybe a good place to start would be to address the OP honestly in what it says and comment on THAT instead of attacking the people who express opinions you don't agree with.

 

[BDBoop]

That was absolutely nauseating.

I'm going to go lie down now.

 

[Bfgrn]

I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.

The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.

Here is a link to it.

Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.

Really.

It's THAT good!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIboXTpF6t4

Yup. This video? On the first page. It was That Good, you thanked him for posting it.

Brilliant it was, yeah? I've seen that in both threads, now. Cons can attack libs to make their 'point,' but if libs do the same they are OT, and you either refuse to answer, call them out for being OT, or generally both.

Which is why I stopped contributing to the last thread, and barely contributed to this one and oh, P.S.: Plasmaball is correct about what you said in the OP.

And the reading dyfsfunction goes on.

You know folks, I don't CARE that you can't seem to read and comprehend what is written. I can't help it that you refuse to see any comments or disclaimers or qualifiers that accompany what others write. I can't help it if you are incapable of seeing and understanding what the topic of a thread is, and I can't help it if you feel the need to band together to try to derail threads or whatever your intent might be. But GLAAD was not mentioned in the OP and I have never said anywhere or anyplace that GLAAD should be illegal. That's a fact.

If you are so intolerant that you simply cannot allow others their point of view when it is expressed civilly and in a reasoned fashion, then please find a thread that reflects what you want to see and what you want to talk about.

In a way that is what this thread is about. The kind of tolerance that allows others their beliefs, opinions, and convictions without feeling a need to attack, demonize, accuse, misrepresent or hurt them because those opinions are expressed. Maybe a good place to start would be to address the OP honestly in what it says and comment on THAT instead of attacking the people who express opinions you don't agree with.

You are right, you never said anywhere or anyplace that GLAAD should be illegal. You said "I think was GLAAD did was evil. It SHOULD be criminal"

 

[GreenBean]

What this mouthpiece for a think tank is doing is using specious logic. It's that apparant.

He claims to know the Liberal mind, but he dances around the truth to espouse his company's message of intolerance.

Do you want to know what this Liberal thinks? I think that injustice, repression, oppression, greed and larceny are the results of Conservative ideology and Conservatives are blind to them. Conservatives are willing to be left in the dark by those results in order to rationalize the gains that come to individuals ruthless enough to champion results that benefit themselves while screwing the other. And it's the intolerance of the other that allows them the latitude of ignorance and blindness to the results of their ideology.

One of the first things he mentions is that Libs hate America and feel that America deserved 9/11. He fails to mention that Pat Robertson (who the last time I checked was a conservative) went on the air and declared that 9/11 happened due to the lack of faith in America.....the separation of church and state. So, in essence, a conservative is on record as saying that "America got what it deserved" but somehow, this mind reader is claiming that it's libs that feel that way.....so, yes, it is totally specious.


Yesterday, on the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist bombings, televangelist Pat Robertson spent some time on his 700 Club TV show explaining to viewers why the attacks took place. And the reason did not have to do with Al Qaeda or the failures of US intelligence or Islamic jihadism per se. Nope. It was something far more sinister: separation of church and state. Yes, according to Robertson, lack of faith was the problem." Pat Robertson blames 9/11 attacks on separation of church and state - Los Angeles atheism | Examiner.com

Pat Robertson is a Religious Lunatic and does not represent the Conservative movement in this country ! The same as Al Sharpton is a racist lunatic and does not represent African Americans.

 

[BDBoop]

What this mouthpiece for a think tank is doing is using specious logic. It's that apparant.

He claims to know the Liberal mind, but he dances around the truth to espouse his company's message of intolerance.

Do you want to know what this Liberal thinks? I think that injustice, repression, oppression, greed and larceny are the results of Conservative ideology and Conservatives are blind to them. Conservatives are willing to be left in the dark by those results in order to rationalize the gains that come to individuals ruthless enough to champion results that benefit themselves while screwing the other. And it's the intolerance of the other that allows them the latitude of ignorance and blindness to the results of their ideology.

You are or should be entitled to your opinion about his conservatism or conservatism in general as he is entitled to his opinion. What makes his argument so compelling is that so far nobody has been able to refute it with anything other than it is partisan and he sucks because he is explaining what creates the intolerance of liberals. But so far nobody has been able to take any statement in his lecture and show how it is incorrect. It may all be incorrect, but so far nobody has tried to rebut it.

Is he suggesting that liberals be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed or harmed in any way? No he is not. He is expressing his reasoned opinion about liberals.

Are you suggesting that he or other conservatives be ostracized, punished, disciplined, outlawed, or harmed in anyway? No you were not. I think you're wrong because if I include myself in your characterization I know you are dead wrong about me. But do you have the right to your opinion about me or other conservatives without fear that you will be punished by some mob, group, or organization? Yes, in my opinion you have that moral and ethical right. And nobody should presume the moral and ethical right to take that away from you.

The bolded: I am tired right now from a long work week that went into the weekend, but I will DEFINITELY get back with you on this tomorrow. Definitely.

Ready?

 

[Foxfyre]

Yup. This video? On the first page. It was That Good, you thanked him for posting it.

Brilliant it was, yeah? I've seen that in both threads, now. Cons can attack libs to make their 'point,' but if libs do the same they are OT, and you either refuse to answer, call them out for being OT, or generally both.

Which is why I stopped contributing to the last thread, and barely contributed to this one and oh, P.S.: Plasmaball is correct about what you said in the OP.

And the reading dyfsfunction goes on.

You know folks, I don't CARE that you can't seem to read and comprehend what is written. I can't help it that you refuse to see any comments or disclaimers or qualifiers that accompany what others write. I can't help it if you are incapable of seeing and understanding what the topic of a thread is, and I can't help it if you feel the need to band together to try to derail threads or whatever your intent might be. But GLAAD was not mentioned in the OP and I have never said anywhere or anyplace that GLAAD should be illegal. That's a fact.

If you are so intolerant that you simply cannot allow others their point of view when it is expressed civilly and in a reasoned fashion, then please find a thread that reflects what you want to see and what you want to talk about.

In a way that is what this thread is about. The kind of tolerance that allows others their beliefs, opinions, and convictions without feeling a need to attack, demonize, accuse, misrepresent or hurt them because those opinions are expressed. Maybe a good place to start would be to address the OP honestly in what it says and comment on THAT instead of attacking the people who express opinions you don't agree with.

You are right, you never said anywhere or anyplace that GLAAD should be illegal. You said "I think was GLAAD did was evil. It SHOULD be criminal"

Yes I did say what GLAAD did should be criminal. But that was not in the OP though Plasmaball and BDBoop both continue to insist it was. And that is not the same thing as saying that GLAAD should be illegal.

I also qualified that conviction several times now in the previous thread and in this one that I see no way to make that kind of reprehensible behavior criminal without unintended consequences so we need to change the culture of personal political destruction that currently exists.

I don't ask that you guys agree with me. But I will object when somebody tries to change the topic and when somebody accuses me of saying something that I did not say.