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

[Derideo_Te]

No such thing. You're hard core need to ignore a simple fact is awe inspiring.

You don't get to play by your own set of rules.

Failure to substantiate your allegation when called upon to do so is a de facto concession of your position.

But I did twice. You just disagree. Which is fine by me, you seem to have trouble tolerating a difference of opinion

Nope, not even once.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Just checking, we are in the CDZ, right??


Because I am seeing a lot of this:

 

[Statistikhengst]

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?

Well, I watched it, and now I wished I hadn't wasted my time. That's 48 minutes of my life that I will never get back. Sigh.

False statements and assumptions about Liberals without even one single real statistic. He was just speaking to the people in his bubble, which has hardly anything to do with tolerance.

Of course, I cherish his right to do this.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

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.

Something that ludicrous only deserves ridicule. He is unworthy of a point by point rebuttal. What is scary is that so many take everything he says at face value without question. Where are the critical thinking skills in his audience? That he was preaching to the converted and gullible simply means that PT Barnum was right.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Pat Robertson is a Southern Baptist Minister, a registered Republican and a former Republican Presidential candidate from 1988. He is the son of a Senator and founder of the Trinity Broadcasting Network, which has the largest TV following of any Christian programming out there.

He is considered a MAJOR voice for Conservative Christianity in the USA. Republican candidates seek his endorsements come election time.

So, it may be your opinon that he is a religious lunatic, as you put it, but he IS a Conservative, by his own description and his own deeds.

 

[BDBoop]

Just checking, we are in the CDZ, right??


Because I am seeing a lot of this:

Sam and Dean! I LOVE Sam and Dean!!

 

[Statistikhengst]

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!

As I said, I listened to the entire thing this morning before I went off to my workout. I listened while cleaning. It was most entertaining.


Evan Sayet claims to be a former Liberal Jew from NY. I assume he is still Jewish.

1:20

"I would hear my friends say how evil and horrible and racist and imperialistic and oppresive America is"

That is an opinion, not based in fact. He also did no list the names of any of those "friends". Not one of my friends, either Conservative or Liberal, has ever said this kind of stuff.

1:26

"And then came 911, and I grabbed them (Liberals) by the collar and said, let's help her (America) and they said, no, she deserves it"

Again, he is telling a story, not issuing fact. No evidence to back up his claim.

@Foxfyre - he does this for all 48 minutes. And you call this reasonable?

The man is speaking for the Heritage Foundation, an extreme Right-Wing think tank. He is preaching to the choir.

What he says practically the entire time is actually nothing but intolerance, intolerance, intolerance.

Use of "stories" and ad hominem attacks on a general group of people does not make reasoned analysis.

Had he said something like:

"polling from 8 different organizations shows consistently that 42% of self-identified Liberals think that the USA is imperialistic"

Then I would at least be able to say that he is making a point based on fact.

But there is no such polling information, nor is the chit-chat from a group of whom he claims to be "friends" evidence.

Or would you also consider it just totally tolerant of me were I to write that after 911, when I spoke to my Conservative friends, they all said "good, time to nuke the islamic world, cuz we want oil, oil, oil" - how do you think your Conservative friends would react to it?

So, now, I have given you far more time than either you or Mr. Sayet deserve here.

If this is what you truly think passes for honest discourse, then I feel sorry for you.

It is not.

If people want to excercise criticism of Liberals (and they SHOULD, criticism is necessary for growth), then it should be based in fact and reasoning, and not in ad hominem partisan posturing.

BTW, Evan Sayet is a stand-up comedian who decided he could make more money by writing books that appeal to Conservatives. For what he is saying, he is making $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ !!!


And now, time to turn the screws on YOU. Show me just one single quote from Evan Sayet where he made a statement and backed it up with documented facts. Just one. Good luck to you. Let me know if you strike gold.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Just checking, we are in the CDZ, right??


Because I am seeing a lot of this:

Sam and Dean! I LOVE Sam and Dean!!

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Who accused you of claiming that the organization GLAAD should be illegal?

Here's what Plasmaball said (which I think sparked this argument) :

Where she said what glaad did should be illegal..

He clearly said what GLAAD did, not the organization itself.

Not sure if that was a typo on your part.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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




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.

.

Excuse me for butting in here [MENTION=24916]Plasmaball[/MENTION] and [MENTION=34298]Mac1958[/MENTION] but both of you make some really good points so I don't really understand the bickering.

Each of you accuses the other of doing things that I am simply not observing myself. Granted I probably don't know the history between you too but I suspect that is more the reason for the sniping than what either of you are actually posting.

On the merits your arguments are reasoned and logical. Together I suspect that you would be formidable when it came to presenting a case that you both supported.

So I am not asking you to kiss and make up but it is somewhat distracting to have this going on while we are having what is probably one of the best debates I have encountered thus far in the USMB.

Thanks for letting me butt in and I will now butt myself back out and you can resume your regularly scheduled program.

Peace
DT

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Why should GLAAD be illegal?

 

[Statistikhengst]

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!

2:12

"I've gotta assume that just about everybody in this room thinks that the Democrats are wrong on just about every issue. Well, here to propose to you, it's just just about every issue, it's quite literally every issue. It's not just wrong, it's as wrong as wrong can be. It is 180 degrees from right and it is diametrically opposed to that which is good, right and successful."

That is not a statement of fact. It is an opinion, a very intolerant one, for he does not even give a long list of issues.


And this is supposed to be reasonable discourse? This is supposed to be tolerance?

 

[Montrovant]

When I say that I would like to make physical or material attacks on the beliefs of people illegal but see no way to do that, how does that in any way muddy the waters? It is nothing more than an observation and suggests no action.

How is it NOT oppression when a bigger, stronger, well funded bully can impose physical and/or material damage on an American citizen purely because that citizen expresses an opinion that the bully doesn't like? How does that not make the bully an oppressive force? How does that in any way muddy the waters in a discussion of intolerance?

I have been clear that this is not a constitutional issue of rights, but rather a moral and ethical principle of what SHOULD BE. So long as a person is requiring no participation or contribution from anybody else, and is not violating any agreement he/she made with anybody else, that person should be able to be whoever or whatever he/she is and express whatever belief he holds without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will try to hurt him/her phyically and/or materially.

1) Because when you say you'd like to see it be illegal, whether you can see a way to do it or not, it seems to me to indicate a desire to legislate a suppression of speech. I know you've said you can't think of a way to make a law like that which would not curtail someone's freedom of speech; have you considered the possibility that it is because such a law does nothing except curtail free speech? That, outside of already illegal actions, attempts to get someone fired through advertisement or boycott or public discussion or public screams of rage are all expressions of speech?

2) My problem is that you do not differentiate any kind of degree. I don't really like using the word oppression for minor issues like what we are mostly discussing here. It invites comparisons to far more terrible forms of oppression like slavery, child labor, sex trafficking, etc. I suppose it is a semantics issue, but I wouldn't say that Phil Robertson, to use the most prominent example, was oppressed. He was inconvenienced, maybe hurt financially, but not oppressed.

3) Yes, you have said this is not a legal issue or one of constitutional rights....but then you continue to talk about people having unalienable rights taken away. That phrase is one that is generally used in regards to legal and constitutional matters rather than purely moral ones.

So again, I take no issue with the idea you'd like to change American cultural norms. I just think some of the ways you have presented your points go beyond that into the realm of the legal or constitutional, and I think you make a bit of a mountain out of a mole hill with the entire issue.

1. You are distorting what I said. I said I would like it to be illegal but I cannot word a law that would not have unintended negative consequences and therefore do not see that is feasible to have a law prohibiting actions like GLAADs or others who try to suppress opinion by phyical or material bullying tactics. Therefore I see it as a matter of doing what I can to change the culture and make such tactics socially unacceptable.

2. I have been consistent that going after people and trying to hurt them physically and/or materially for no offense other than they expressed an opinion that bullies don't like is a form of oppression. When you say 'a form of oppression', and clearly define what oppression is involved, a question of degree is unneccessary. Nobody should have to fear an angry mob, group, or organization coming after them to physically and/or materially hurt them purely for expressing an opinion.

3. Taking away a person's unalienable right to be who and what he or she so long as s/he requires contribution or participation from no other is valid at all times because such rights predated the Constitution so far as those who wrote, signed, and ratified the Constitution were concerned.

And I can't help what you think. I'm sure those who have been attacked by groups who intended to hurt them physically and/or materially didn't think it a molehill. But I'll fight to the death your right to think and express it.

1) I'm not sure how I distorted. You said you think it should be illegal, but you cannot think of a way to word such a law without unintended consequences. I'm saying that perhaps the reason you cannot think of such a wording is because the unintended consequences are an inherent part of such a law. That, in fact, such a law would by it's nature be a suppression of free speech.

2) Like I said, it maybe just semantics, but when you use the term oppression, it draws comparisons to much worse situations IMO.

3) You're basically saying that any discussion of constitutional rights is not really about constitutional rights because the framers described those rights as universal. The phrase 'unalienable rights' is one that I think is generally associated with the constitution. Whether those rights predate the constitution isn't my point. My point is that when you use that phrase you are implying a constitutional issue. I don't think I've ever seen or heard that phrase used when it wasn't in reference to the law or constitution.

I'm not trying to make any claims about your intent, rather I'm trying to explain how your presentation can skew the meaning of your posts, at least IMO.

Oh, and if you told the people who have been attacked that the attacks upon them are indicative of the imminent destruction of our country or something like that, it's quite possible they would see it as making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Why should GLAAD be illegal?

Asc, you give JoeB a run as the stupidest poster on this site.

This is the CDZ.

Reported.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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!

2:51:

"and the modern Liberal will invariable side with evil over good, with wrong over right, and the behaviours that lead to failure over those that lead to success"

Statement of opinion, not statement of fact. An opinion that links an ideology with evilness. And this is supposed to be an example of tolerance? Really?

No facts brought to back up the statement of opinion. Of course, for an opinion, you don't need to bring up facts, but then one should be honest enough to just say it is an opinion, a very biased one, and not based in honest debate, dialogue or TOLERANCE.
[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], I don't think you could have picked a worst example of a video to claim that this is Right-Wing tolerance of the Left. Personally, I would have been embarressed down to my toes had I written such a thing.

Care to find another video, one that actually shows tolerance?

Where I come from, that is called "putting your money where you mouth is".

I would very much welcome you doing that.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Why should GLAAD be illegal?

Asc, you give JoeB a run as the stupidest poster on this site.

This is CDZ and I should report you. I made a mistake. You caught me. Hurray for you.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

i never said that you said glad should be illegal, just what they did is criminal. Which would be illegal. You are literally arguing against something i never said. Which i'll just assume you did on purpose for reasons i suspect.

I love it when you guys just create an argument out of thin air.

furthermore this isnt changing the damn subject either. This is going deeper into the overall topic that you created. You stated it should be illegal as to what Glaad did. Well thats a very strong statement to make, and should be challenged immediately. Why? because what you stated is extremely dangerous, and very much so against the principle of America and freedom of speech. Sadly you do not see you are doing what you are complaining about. By making it illegal you would be punishing people Physically and monetary wise. Something you are very much against when it comes to people like Phil.

it literally makes you point about Phil and Ellen moot. You have no argument in my opinion anymore, because you are exactly what you are complaining about.

 

[Plasmaball]

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




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.

.

i dont care about you and your opinion anymore. You have already lost all respect i had for you, so your opinion is now irrelevant. This is the last post i will be responding to you in this thread.

You are wrong, you've been wrong this whole time, you've been given numerous answers to your questions, and you still decided to play games.
The CDZ isnt the place for you.

Bolded part-irony.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

.

i dont care about you and your opinion anymore. You have already lost all respect i had for you, so your opinion is now irrelevant. This is the last post i will be responding to you in this thread.

You are wrong, you've been wrong this whole time, you've been given numerous answers to your questions, and you still decided to play games.
The CDZ isnt the place for you.

Bolded part-irony.

Well, when caught in a lie, I guess one does what one can.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Telling how the true intent of the OP has become clear in the last few pages of this thread, as that intent was not to ‘explore “tolerance,”’ but to yet again regurgitate the same tired lies that liberals are ‘enemies’ of free speech and free expression, ‘intolerant’ of others, and seek to only ‘shut down’ the opposition.

Needless to say, nothing could be further from the truth.