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

[Plasmaball]

[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.

.

there was no lie. You are making things up...

 

[Statistikhengst]

Yo, this is the CDZ..... chill some.

 

[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!

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.

The video is of a lecture of a person giving what he believes is an informed opinion/observation/conclusion and his topic is the M.O. of liberals in our modern society. Right or wrong he provides a reasoned rationale for each point he presents and that is all that is required in order for it to be a scholarly lecture. I have not mentioned the video in any context other than that. I thanked the member who posted it because the video DOES, among other things, provide a rationale for why liberals are so often compelled or motivated to suppress opinion and also to condemn and/or physically and materially attack those who express an opinion the liberals do not agree with. I was also clear that I did not agree with every point the speaker made and encouraged anybody to present a comparable presentation re conservatives related to suppression of speech and/or opinion.

Now then. Who has been more focused on the topic of suppression of speech and opinion in this thread and who has been more focused on condemning the video or accusing me or somebody else who has expressed an opinion they don't agree with? Conservatives? or Liberals?

I am sorry that I 'nauseate' some because I insist on us staying on topic and I object to being accused of things I didn't say or having what I did say mischaracterized. But if you think I won't object to being accused of something I didn't say or having what I do say misquoted or mischaracterized, prepare to be nauseated a lot if you do that. I don't ask that anybody agree with me. But I do require that I be quoted accurately.

But the topic remains an important one at least to me. We all are entitled to our beliefs, convictions, ideas, principles, perceptions, and opinions. You are. I am. Everybody else posting here is. The guy in that video is.

But we are not entitled to force others to think and believes as we do or else. We are not entitled to be dishonest about what other individuals believe or express as their opinions. And we absolutely should not be entitled to form angry mobs, groups, or organizations who would try to hurt somebody for no other reason than that somebody expressed an opinion we don't like.

 

[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

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.

The video is of a lecture of a person giving what he believes is an informed opinion/observation/conclusion and his topic is the M.O. of liberals in our modern society. Right or wrong he provides a reasoned rationale for each point he presents and that is all that is required in order for it to be a scholarly lecture. I have not mentioned the video in any context other than that. I thanked the member who posted it because the video DOES, among other things, provide a rationale for why liberals are so often compelled or motivated to suppress opinion and also to condemn and/or physically and materially attack those who express an opinion the liberals do not agree with. I was also clear that I did not agree with every point the speaker made and encouraged anybody to present a comparable presentation re conservatives related to suppression of speech and/or opinion.

Now then. Who has been more focused on the topic of suppression of speech and opinion in this thread and who has been more focused on condemning the video or accusing me or somebody else who has expressed an opinion they don't agree with? Conservatives? or Liberals?

I am sorry that I 'nauseate' some because I insist on us staying on topic and I object to being accused of things I didn't say or having what I did say mischaracterized. But if you think I won't object to being accused of something I didn't say or having what I do say misquoted or mischaracterized, prepare to be nauseated a lot if you do that. I don't ask that anybody agree with me. But I do require that I be quoted accurately.

But the topic remains an important one at least to me. We all are entitled to our beliefs, convictions, ideas, principles, perceptions, and opinions. You are. I am. Everybody else posting here is. The guy in that video is.

But we are not entitled to force others to think and believes as we do or else. We are not entitled to be dishonest about what other individuals believe or express as their opinions. And we absolutely should not be entitled to form angry mobs, groups, or organizations who would try to hurt somebody for no other reason than that somebody expressed an opinion we don't like.

What you are proposing is a repeal of the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

 

[Mac1958]

.

People choose to intimidate and threaten and shout people down when that person says something that "offends" them. They certainly have the right to behave that way -- I repeat, they certainly have the right to behave that way -- but they don't have to, they're not obligated to. They could instead look at it as an opportunity, and try to engage the "offending" person in honest, civil, public communication.

Obviously intimidation and threats are easier. They also feed the ego.

.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

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.

The video is of a lecture of a person giving what he believes is an informed opinion/observation/conclusion and his topic is the M.O. of liberals in our modern society. Right or wrong he provides a reasoned rationale for each point he presents and that is all that is required in order for it to be a scholarly lecture. I have not mentioned the video in any context other than that. I thanked the member who posted it because the video DOES, among other things, provide a rationale for why liberals are so often compelled or motivated to suppress opinion and also to condemn and/or physically and materially attack those who express an opinion the liberals do not agree with. I was also clear that I did not agree with every point the speaker made and encouraged anybody to present a comparable presentation re conservatives related to suppression of speech and/or opinion.

Now then. Who has been more focused on the topic of suppression of speech and opinion in this thread and who has been more focused on condemning the video or accusing me or somebody else who has expressed an opinion they don't agree with? Conservatives? or Liberals?

I am sorry that I 'nauseate' some because I insist on us staying on topic and I object to being accused of things I didn't say or having what I did say mischaracterized. But if you think I won't object to being accused of something I didn't say or having what I do say misquoted or mischaracterized, prepare to be nauseated a lot if you do that. I don't ask that anybody agree with me. But I do require that I be quoted accurately.

But the topic remains an important one at least to me. We all are entitled to our beliefs, convictions, ideas, principles, perceptions, and opinions. You are. I am. Everybody else posting here is. The guy in that video is.

But we are not entitled to force others to think and believes as we do or else. We are not entitled to be dishonest about what other individuals believe or express as their opinions. And we absolutely should not be entitled to form angry mobs, groups, or organizations who would try to hurt somebody for no other reason than that somebody expressed an opinion we don't like.

No, he did not.

He issued one opinion after another without even one single scrap of evidence or data. Not even once. Therefore, there is no way in the world he could have provided any rationale at all, much less "reasoned".

I absolutely fight for his right to say anything he wants, but don't try to make us believe that this is somehow reasonable or tolerant.

Within just a few short moments he was already equating Liberalism with EVIL.

And that is supposed to be tolerance?

I also note that you have not supplied even one single quote of the video proving that he provided some facts or evidence. You challenged Liberals to show evidence against him. I did just that. Not one statement, not even one statement of his, is backed up by empirical data. Not even one. Pretty sad.

What you are doing is trying to set up a strawman argument: you are asking Liberals to provide evidence against this man's facts, when in reality, he has provided none!!

Think about it.

 

[Foxfyre]

2:51:



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.

The video is of a lecture of a person giving what he believes is an informed opinion/observation/conclusion and his topic is the M.O. of liberals in our modern society. Right or wrong he provides a reasoned rationale for each point he presents and that is all that is required in order for it to be a scholarly lecture. I have not mentioned the video in any context other than that. I thanked the member who posted it because the video DOES, among other things, provide a rationale for why liberals are so often compelled or motivated to suppress opinion and also to condemn and/or physically and materially attack those who express an opinion the liberals do not agree with. I was also clear that I did not agree with every point the speaker made and encouraged anybody to present a comparable presentation re conservatives related to suppression of speech and/or opinion.

Now then. Who has been more focused on the topic of suppression of speech and opinion in this thread and who has been more focused on condemning the video or accusing me or somebody else who has expressed an opinion they don't agree with? Conservatives? or Liberals?

I am sorry that I 'nauseate' some because I insist on us staying on topic and I object to being accused of things I didn't say or having what I did say mischaracterized. But if you think I won't object to being accused of something I didn't say or having what I do say misquoted or mischaracterized, prepare to be nauseated a lot if you do that. I don't ask that anybody agree with me. But I do require that I be quoted accurately.

But the topic remains an important one at least to me. We all are entitled to our beliefs, convictions, ideas, principles, perceptions, and opinions. You are. I am. Everybody else posting here is. The guy in that video is.

But we are not entitled to force others to think and believes as we do or else. We are not entitled to be dishonest about what other individuals believe or express as their opinions. And we absolutely should not be entitled to form angry mobs, groups, or organizations who would try to hurt somebody for no other reason than that somebody expressed an opinion we don't like.

What you are proposing is a repeal of the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

Not at all. I have already been very specific that this is not a free speech or constitutional or legal issue. This is a moral and ethical issue--what we should expect from a free, tolerant, and civilized society.

Once more: Being angry/telling somebody off and punching them out for nothing more than expressing an opinion are separate things. Punching somebody out is socially unacceptable in a civilized society.

Being angry/telling somebody off and going after them to physically and/or materially hurt them for nothing more than expressing an opinion are separate things. And that should be just as socially unacceptable in a civilized society.

I am not looking to change the law. I am looking to change US. To reverse the current trend of trying to destroy people we don't agree with. To restore tolerance for differences of opinions; different beliefs. To make it a very socially unacceptable thing to try to suppress the ideas, concepts, perceptions, and beliefs of others and make people afraid to express what they think and believe for fear of physical and/or material retaliation.

The truly tolerant don't have to appreciate or agree with me or you or anybody else, including the guy in that video. None have to stand still and not act when people are being physically and/or materially harmed. But the truly tolerant will appreciate the right of people to what they believe without fear that some angry mob etc. coming after them to hurt them. The truly tolerant will condemn that mob etc. and make that kind of action socially unacceptable.

 

[Plasmaball]

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

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.

The video is of a lecture of a person giving what he believes is an informed opinion/observation/conclusion and his topic is the M.O. of liberals in our modern society. Right or wrong he provides a reasoned rationale for each point he presents and that is all that is required in order for it to be a scholarly lecture. I have not mentioned the video in any context other than that. I thanked the member who posted it because the video DOES, among other things, provide a rationale for why liberals are so often compelled or motivated to suppress opinion and also to condemn and/or physically and materially attack those who express an opinion the liberals do not agree with. I was also clear that I did not agree with every point the speaker made and encouraged anybody to present a comparable presentation re conservatives related to suppression of speech and/or opinion.

Now then. Who has been more focused on the topic of suppression of speech and opinion in this thread and who has been more focused on condemning the video or accusing me or somebody else who has expressed an opinion they don't agree with? Conservatives? or Liberals?

I am sorry that I 'nauseate' some because I insist on us staying on topic and I object to being accused of things I didn't say or having what I did say mischaracterized. But if you think I won't object to being accused of something I didn't say or having what I do say misquoted or mischaracterized, prepare to be nauseated a lot if you do that. I don't ask that anybody agree with me. But I do require that I be quoted accurately.

But the topic remains an important one at least to me. We all are entitled to our beliefs, convictions, ideas, principles, perceptions, and opinions. You are. I am. Everybody else posting here is. The guy in that video is.

But we are not entitled to force others to think and believes as we do or else. We are not entitled to be dishonest about what other individuals believe or express as their opinions. And we absolutely should not be entitled to form angry mobs, groups, or organizations who would try to hurt somebody for no other reason than that somebody expressed an opinion we don't like.

 

[Statistikhengst]

.

People choose to intimidate and threaten and shout people down when that person says something that "offends" them. They certainly have the right to behave that way -- I repeat, they certainly have the right to behave that way -- but they don't have to, they're not obligated to. They could instead look at it as an opportunity, and try to engage the "offending" person in honest, civil, public communication.

Obviously intimidation and threats are easier. They also feed the ego.

.

I haven't shouted him or anyone one else here down. I have pointed out more than once that that man in the video - that FoxFyre praises as being a great example of tolerance - is anything but tolerant. FoxFyre then concludes that that man provided a reasonable rationale for what he said, but he did not at all. That is impossible, as he provided not one single fact. Not once. Rationale requires facts, and that automatically means data, hard and fast data. So, he can speak all he wants for I care, but no one is going to convince me that his words are tolerant. They are not.

Were I to call you "evil", would you consider that tolerant? I bet not.

He patently labeled Liberals as being in league with "evil". That is every bit as intolerant.

Hint: when a speech is laced with emotionalism and is lacking in facts, you can be pretty darned sure that it is biased and probably not very tolerant.

 

[Mac1958]

.

People choose to intimidate and threaten and shout people down when that person says something that "offends" them. They certainly have the right to behave that way -- I repeat, they certainly have the right to behave that way -- but they don't have to, they're not obligated to. They could instead look at it as an opportunity, and try to engage the "offending" person in honest, civil, public communication.

Obviously intimidation and threats are easier. They also feed the ego.

.

I haven't shouted him or anyone one else here down. I have pointed out more than once that that man in the video - that FoxFyre praises as being a great example of tolerance - is anything but tolerant. FoxFyre then concludes that that man provided a reasonable rationale for what he said, but he did not at all. That is impossible, as he provided not one single fact. Not once. Rationale requires facts, and that automatically means data, hard and fast data. So, he can speak all he wants for I care, but no one is going to convince me that his words are tolerant. They are not.

Were I to call you "evil", would you consider that tolerant? I bet not.

He patently labeled Liberals as being in league with "evil". That is every bit as intolerant.

Hint: when a speech is laced with emotionalism and is lacking in facts, you can be pretty darned sure that it is biased and probably not very tolerant.

You'll never, ever see me claim that either end of the political spectrum is tolerant.

.

 

[Statistikhengst]

BTW, Foxfyre, you also wrote this:

"...because the video DOES, among other things, provide a rationale for why liberals are so often compelled or motivated to suppress opinion and also to condemn and/or physically and materially attack those who express an opinion the liberals do not agree with."

Ok, exactly WHERE in the video did he say that, and exactly what facts did he bring to back up his argument? Exactly WHERE was this rationale? Did you watch the entire video? I did.

You only need to give me a minute and second marker, I will do the rest.

Proceed, FoxFyre, proceed...

 

[Statistikhengst]

.

People choose to intimidate and threaten and shout people down when that person says something that "offends" them. They certainly have the right to behave that way -- I repeat, they certainly have the right to behave that way -- but they don't have to, they're not obligated to. They could instead look at it as an opportunity, and try to engage the "offending" person in honest, civil, public communication.

Obviously intimidation and threats are easier. They also feed the ego.

.

I haven't shouted him or anyone one else here down. I have pointed out more than once that that man in the video - that FoxFyre praises as being a great example of tolerance - is anything but tolerant. FoxFyre then concludes that that man provided a reasonable rationale for what he said, but he did not at all. That is impossible, as he provided not one single fact. Not once. Rationale requires facts, and that automatically means data, hard and fast data. So, he can speak all he wants for I care, but no one is going to convince me that his words are tolerant. They are not.

Were I to call you "evil", would you consider that tolerant? I bet not.

He patently labeled Liberals as being in league with "evil". That is every bit as intolerant.

Hint: when a speech is laced with emotionalism and is lacking in facts, you can be pretty darned sure that it is biased and probably not very tolerant.

You'll never, ever see me claim that either end of the political spectrum is tolerant.

.

Good to know.

And you will never find me claiming that tolerance is good enough. Tolerance, as a word, has too many negative connotations. We should not be tolerating people, we should be accepting them.

And there is no reason to tolerate or not tolerate ideas. Either we accept or reject an idea, or we don't have enough information enough to make a decision.

 

[Plasmaball]

The video is of a lecture of a person giving what he believes is an informed opinion/observation/conclusion and his topic is the M.O. of liberals in our modern society. Right or wrong he provides a reasoned rationale for each point he presents and that is all that is required in order for it to be a scholarly lecture. I have not mentioned the video in any context other than that. I thanked the member who posted it because the video DOES, among other things, provide a rationale for why liberals are so often compelled or motivated to suppress opinion and also to condemn and/or physically and materially attack those who express an opinion the liberals do not agree with. I was also clear that I did not agree with every point the speaker made and encouraged anybody to present a comparable presentation re conservatives related to suppression of speech and/or opinion.

Now then. Who has been more focused on the topic of suppression of speech and opinion in this thread and who has been more focused on condemning the video or accusing me or somebody else who has expressed an opinion they don't agree with? Conservatives? or Liberals?

I am sorry that I 'nauseate' some because I insist on us staying on topic and I object to being accused of things I didn't say or having what I did say mischaracterized. But if you think I won't object to being accused of something I didn't say or having what I do say misquoted or mischaracterized, prepare to be nauseated a lot if you do that. I don't ask that anybody agree with me. But I do require that I be quoted accurately.

But the topic remains an important one at least to me. We all are entitled to our beliefs, convictions, ideas, principles, perceptions, and opinions. You are. I am. Everybody else posting here is. The guy in that video is.

But we are not entitled to force others to think and believes as we do or else. We are not entitled to be dishonest about what other individuals believe or express as their opinions. And we absolutely should not be entitled to form angry mobs, groups, or organizations who would try to hurt somebody for no other reason than that somebody expressed an opinion we don't like.

What you are proposing is a repeal of the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

Not at all. I have already been very specific that this is not a free speech or constitutional or legal issue. This is a moral and ethical issue--what we should expect from a free, tolerant, and civilized society.

Once more: Being angry/telling somebody off and punching them out for nothing more than expressing an opinion are separate things. Punching somebody out is socially unacceptable in a civilized society.

Being angry/telling somebody off and going after them to physically and/or materially hurt them for nothing more than expressing an opinion are separate things. And that should be just as socially unacceptable in a civilized society.

I am not looking to change the law. I am looking to change US. To reverse the current trend of trying to destroy people we don't agree with. To restore tolerance for differences of opinions; different beliefs. To make it a very socially unacceptable thing to try to suppress the ideas, concepts, perceptions, and beliefs of others and make people afraid to express what they think and believe for fear of physical and/or material retaliation.

The truly tolerant don't have to appreciate or agree with me or you or anybody else, including the guy in that video. None have to stand still and not act when people are being physically and/or materially harmed. But the truly tolerant will appreciate the right of people to what they believe without fear that some angry mob etc. coming after them to hurt them. The truly tolerant will condemn that mob etc. and make that kind of action socially unacceptable.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

What did Robertson say that shows tolerance?

 

[Derideo_Te]

The video is of a lecture of a person giving what he believes is an informed opinion/observation/conclusion and his topic is the M.O. of liberals in our modern society. Right or wrong he provides a reasoned rationale for each point he presents and that is all that is required in order for it to be a scholarly lecture. I have not mentioned the video in any context other than that. I thanked the member who posted it because the video DOES, among other things, provide a rationale for why liberals are so often compelled or motivated to suppress opinion and also to condemn and/or physically and materially attack those who express an opinion the liberals do not agree with. I was also clear that I did not agree with every point the speaker made and encouraged anybody to present a comparable presentation re conservatives related to suppression of speech and/or opinion.

Now then. Who has been more focused on the topic of suppression of speech and opinion in this thread and who has been more focused on condemning the video or accusing me or somebody else who has expressed an opinion they don't agree with? Conservatives? or Liberals?

I am sorry that I 'nauseate' some because I insist on us staying on topic and I object to being accused of things I didn't say or having what I did say mischaracterized. But if you think I won't object to being accused of something I didn't say or having what I do say misquoted or mischaracterized, prepare to be nauseated a lot if you do that. I don't ask that anybody agree with me. But I do require that I be quoted accurately.

But the topic remains an important one at least to me. We all are entitled to our beliefs, convictions, ideas, principles, perceptions, and opinions. You are. I am. Everybody else posting here is. The guy in that video is.

But we are not entitled to force others to think and believes as we do or else. We are not entitled to be dishonest about what other individuals believe or express as their opinions. And we absolutely should not be entitled to form angry mobs, groups, or organizations who would try to hurt somebody for no other reason than that somebody expressed an opinion we don't like.

What you are proposing is a repeal of the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

Not at all. I have already been very specific that this is not a free speech or constitutional or legal issue. This is a moral and ethical issue--what we should expect from a free, tolerant, and civilized society.

Once more: Being angry/telling somebody off and punching them out for nothing more than expressing an opinion are separate things. Punching somebody out is socially unacceptable in a civilized society.

Being angry/telling somebody off and going after them to physically and/or materially hurt them for nothing more than expressing an opinion are separate things. And that should be just as socially unacceptable in a civilized society.

I am not looking to change the law. I am looking to change US. To reverse the current trend of trying to destroy people we don't agree with. To restore tolerance for differences of opinions; different beliefs. To make it a very socially unacceptable thing to try to suppress the ideas, concepts, perceptions, and beliefs of others and make people afraid to express what they think and believe for fear of physical and/or material retaliation.

The truly tolerant don't have to appreciate or agree with me or you or anybody else, including the guy in that video. None have to stand still and not act when people are being physically and/or materially harmed. But the truly tolerant will appreciate the right of people to what they believe without fear that some angry mob etc. coming after them to hurt them. The truly tolerant will condemn that mob etc. and make that kind of action socially unacceptable.

If you recall at the outset I pointed out that I was tolerant of PR's ill considered opinion and GLAAD's reaction. The only difference in where we stand is that you want me to become intolerant of GLAAD's reaction.

If I do that I am infringing on GLAAD's rights. It doesn't matter if it is done legally or morally it is equally wrong for me to do so.

If GLAAD hadn't reacted then the odds are it would have been someone else and that someone could just as easily have been myself. When I see someone espousing bigotry and intolerance I will stand up to them because I have an obligation to defend the rights of others when they are infringed. Yes, PR, does have a right to his opinion but he doesn't have a right to not be held accountable for his opinion.

Rights come with RESPONSIBILITIES. My responsibility towards your right to express your opinion on this matter is to defend your right to have your say. Your responsibility is to defend my right to have my say. Neither of us has to agree with what the other says. But both of us have a RESPONSIBILITY to defend the right of each to have their say no matter how much we disagree with what is said.

So in order to "change us" into the society that you want you would have to infringe upon my rights. I won't let you do that for the simple reason that if you were to succeed you would infringe upon your own rights. Now you might be happy to surrender that aspect of your rights but you don't get to impose your will on the rest of us just as we can't impose our will on you. Our INDIVIDUAL rights are sacred and we each have that RESPONSIBILITY towards each other to uphold them.

To do any less is to fail to do our duty to each other.

 

[Plasmaball]

bigotry should never be tolerated and the OP would like to see such things tolerated under the umbrella of Freedom of opinion. Thats not how life works. Opinions are not all created equal. Some must be put in their place as not cool. This was the case back in the old thread, back on the first page of this simple thread, and this thread never should have gone beyond 10 posts max.

on another note i noticed something was ignored again because they where proven wrong again...shocking

 

[Statistikhengst]

BTW, Foxfyre, you also wrote this:

"...because the video DOES, among other things, provide a rationale for why liberals are so often compelled or motivated to suppress opinion and also to condemn and/or physically and materially attack those who express an opinion the liberals do not agree with."

Ok, exactly WHERE in the video did he say that, and exactly what facts did he bring to back up his argument? Exactly WHERE was this rationale? Did you watch the entire video? I did.

You only need to give me a minute and second marker, I will do the rest.

Proceed, FoxFyre, proceed...

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], you can feel free to give me the minute and second markers any time, now.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

What did Robertson say that shows tolerance?

He wished well those who are angriest with him. He expressed his love for them and everybody else. He allows them to be who and what they are without harrassment or interference from him. He does not demand that they believe as he does. And he makes no effort to harm or punish anybody. You don't get much more tolerant than that.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

What did Robertson say that shows tolerance?

He wished well those who are angriest with him. He expressed his love for them and everybody else. He allows them to be who and what they are without harrassment or interference from him. He does not demand that they believe as he does. And he makes no effort to harm or punish anybody. You don't get much more tolerant than that.

Oh, really?

Hmmmm...

'Vomit,' and 5 Other Things Pat Robertson Has Said About Gays | TIME.com

A Vomit button for photos of gays — that’s what televangelist Pat Robertson now wants to see on Facebook. His statement, made today on his popular television program The 700 Club, is just the latest in his decades-long anti-gay tirade, and should come as no shock from the man who thinks wife beating should be legal and who thinks a man can divorce his wife if she gets too sick . Today’s program also included his interpretation of an ancient Old Testament passage that the land will vomit out gays because homosexuality is an abomination to God.

Oh, yes, I see what you mean. That is just totally tolerant. Great example of Christian love. I am impressed.

Would you like to see some more examples?

 

[Foxfyre]

What you are proposing is a repeal of the 1st Amendment.

Not at all. I have already been very specific that this is not a free speech or constitutional or legal issue. This is a moral and ethical issue--what we should expect from a free, tolerant, and civilized society.

Once more: Being angry/telling somebody off and punching them out for nothing more than expressing an opinion are separate things. Punching somebody out is socially unacceptable in a civilized society.

Being angry/telling somebody off and going after them to physically and/or materially hurt them for nothing more than expressing an opinion are separate things. And that should be just as socially unacceptable in a civilized society.

I am not looking to change the law. I am looking to change US. To reverse the current trend of trying to destroy people we don't agree with. To restore tolerance for differences of opinions; different beliefs. To make it a very socially unacceptable thing to try to suppress the ideas, concepts, perceptions, and beliefs of others and make people afraid to express what they think and believe for fear of physical and/or material retaliation.

The truly tolerant don't have to appreciate or agree with me or you or anybody else, including the guy in that video. None have to stand still and not act when people are being physically and/or materially harmed. But the truly tolerant will appreciate the right of people to what they believe without fear that some angry mob etc. coming after them to hurt them. The truly tolerant will condemn that mob etc. and make that kind of action socially unacceptable.

If you recall at the outset I pointed out that I was tolerant of PR's ill considered opinion and GLAAD's reaction. The only difference in where we stand is that you want me to become intolerant of GLAAD's reaction.

If I do that I am infringing on GLAAD's rights. It doesn't matter if it is done legally or morally it is equally wrong for me to do so.

If GLAAD hadn't reacted then the odds are it would have been someone else and that someone could just as easily have been myself. When I see someone espousing bigotry and intolerance I will stand up to them because I have an obligation to defend the rights of others when they are infringed. Yes, PR, does have a right to his opinion but he doesn't have a right to not be held accountable for his opinion.

Rights come with RESPONSIBILITIES. My responsibility towards your right to express your opinion on this matter is to defend your right to have your say. Your responsibility is to defend my right to have my say. Neither of us has to agree with what the other says. But both of us have a RESPONSIBILITY to defend the right of each to have their say no matter how much we disagree with what is said.

So in order to "change us" into the society that you want you would have to infringe upon my rights. I won't let you do that for the simple reason that if you were to succeed you would infringe upon your own rights. Now you might be happy to surrender that aspect of your rights but you don't get to impose your will on the rest of us just as we can't impose our will on you. Our INDIVIDUAL rights are sacred and we each have that RESPONSIBILITY towards each other to uphold them.

To do any less is to fail to do our duty to each other.

Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction which, in my opinion, was an evil act. I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like. I want everybody to make such hatefulness socially unacceptable. I fully realize I will probably not get what I want, but I am so convinced of the rightness of my position on this, I'm willing to try as well as put myself in the position of being accused of all sorts of hateful and stupid stuff by some on this thread. Accuse away. Ridicule, excoriate, blame, denigrate, demonize to your/their heart's content. That won't hurt me in the least. Just don't presume to think it is okay to suppress my opinion--to come after me to physically and/or materially hurt/damage/ruin me because you don't like my opinions.

Where is the requirement for GLAAD to be tolerant of Phil Robertson's beliefs? Would he be ethical and within his rights to organize a mob and go after members of GLAAD for the purpose of hurting them physically and/or materially because they don't like his religious beliefs? Or would that be considered hateful and intolerable? Most of us would say so. In fact, I'm pretty sure HE would say so.

So how is it any less hateful for GLAAD to go after Phil Robertson (or anybody else) for no other reason than he believes the Bible says something they don't agree with?