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

[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.

Here is the video of that "vomit" exchange:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgRcDx22oE4]Gay Couples Make Pat Robertson Vomit | The Rubin Report - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mac1958]

.

Hey, I think it's clear that we all agree that, on this issue, there are two types of people at the macro level:

There are some people who are open to all opinions and want those opinions to be heard even if we disagree with them, who are not afraid of the public airing of opposing views, who would never think to intimidate or punish people for legal speech, and humbly look at freedom of expression as an opportunity to communicate in an open forum and fix problems.

And for other people, well, not so much. If you say something they don't like, they're coming after you.

See, we can all agree on something!



.

 

[Statistikhengst]

And Foxfyre, here is some more Christian love from Pat Robertson (1:09)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNhRjIqoBio]Pat Robertson calling a guy a "homo" - YouTube[/ame]


Yes, very tolerant, indeed.


Care to try again? This one may not be quite working out as you thought....

 

[Foxfyre]

And Foxfyre, here is some more Christian love from Pat Robertson (1:09)

Pat Robertson calling a guy a "homo" - YouTube


Yes, very tolerant, indeed.


Care to try again? This one may not be quite working out as you thought....

This thread is not about Christian love. This thread is about a person being allowed his/her beliefs and opinions without fear that an angry mob, group, or organization will come after him/her to hurt him/her physically and/or materially.

Would you like to try again?

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

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? 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?

OMG, after all this criticism of the Left from you of their "intolerance", you WANT us to be intolerant of a group, just because YOU think the group is evil?

Really?


I graciously accept your concession for all of this.

Thank you.

 

[Foxfyre]

.

Hey, I think it's clear that we all agree that, on this issue, there are two types of people at the macro level:

There are some people who are open to all opinions and want those opinions to be heard even if we disagree with them, who are not afraid of the public airing of opposing views, who would never think to intimidate or punish people for legal speech, and humbly look at freedom of expression as an opportunity to communicate in an open forum and fix problems.

And for other people, well, not so much. If you say something they don't like, they're coming after you.

See, we can all agree on something!



.

Well, some of us agree on that. LOL.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

I think you are wrong here DT. Social mores change all the time. That there are any socially unacceptable words, phrases, ideas, etc. would mean that someone's rights are being infringed upon, per your reasoning here. But that is silly. Society does not have to accept any opinions or ideas. There are plenty that society should not. What it does have to do, at least in our society, is ALLOW those things, however unpalatable. So you can denigrate or condemn anyone's expressed ideas, individually or as a group. As long as you don't prevent anyone from expressing their own thoughts (and I do not believe that the Phil Robertson situation applies, as he is still free to express his opinions when he chooses) there is no infringing upon anyone's rights.

What Foxfyre has said she wants to do, in changing societal norms regarding how people feel about situations such as we have been discussing, is actually the same as those very situations in a lot of ways, just on a larger scale. Society in general has every right to express an opinion. It is only when it gets into the legal that issues of rights infringement are valid.

So in this particular case, Foxfyre is merely trying to change the opinion of society but not the rules or laws of the country. Just as society has moved to a place where racism is generally considered wrong, but it is still allowed for anyone to be a racist, there is nothing wrong with society thinking going after someone for expressing an opinion is wrong, so long as people are still allowed to do so.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Oh, sorry folks, wrong Robertson.

Just so many bigoted Robertsons out there....

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

wow....you literally live in a different reality.

 

[Statistikhengst]

And Foxfyre, here is some more Christian love from Pat Robertson (1:09)

Pat Robertson calling a guy a "homo" - YouTube


Yes, very tolerant, indeed.


Care to try again? This one may not be quite working out as you thought....

This thread is not about Christian love. This thread is about a person being allowed his/her beliefs and opinions without fear that an angry mob, group, or organization will come after him/her to hurt him/her physically and/or materially.

Would you like to try again?

Depends on whether you are going to continue to dodge or not.

BTW, got a minute marker for me for that video that you are so praising?

Tell me, did you even watch the video, even 10 minutes of it?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

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? 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?

OMG, after all this criticism of the Left from you of their "intolerance", you WANT us to be intolerant of a group, just because YOU think the group is evil?

Really?


I graciously accept your concession for all of this.

Thank you.

I swear it is in the water that you guys drink that make you absolutely incapable of reading a statement as it is written. I at no time have suggested, hinted, inferred, or implied that anybody should be intolerant of GLAAD any more than I suggested, hinted, inferred, implied that GLAAD should be illegal.

I did say we should be intolerant of that kind of ACTION from GLAAD or anybody else. That is an entirely different thing than being intolerant of GLAAD.

Can you at least be intellectually honest about that?

 

[Statistikhengst]

.

Hey, I think it's clear that we all agree that, on this issue, there are two types of people at the macro level:

There are some people who are open to all opinions and want those opinions to be heard even if we disagree with them, who are not afraid of the public airing of opposing views, who would never think to intimidate or punish people for legal speech, and humbly look at freedom of expression as an opportunity to communicate in an open forum and fix problems.

And for other people, well, not so much. If you say something they don't like, they're coming after you.

See, we can all agree on something!



.

I think you summed that up pretty nicely.

But of course, Foxfyre thinks that if someone does not agree with her every word, then they're coming after her!!!


And I once again bring forth the idea that tolerance is not good enough. We should be talking about acceptance, not tolerance.

Instead, Foxfyre is talking about evil, but then turns around and tells me that this thread has nothing to do with Christian love.

Ok...

 

[Foxfyre]

And Foxfyre, here is some more Christian love from Pat Robertson (1:09)

Pat Robertson calling a guy a "homo" - YouTube


Yes, very tolerant, indeed.


Care to try again? This one may not be quite working out as you thought....

This thread is not about Christian love. This thread is about a person being allowed his/her beliefs and opinions without fear that an angry mob, group, or organization will come after him/her to hurt him/her physically and/or materially.

Would you like to try again?

Depends on whether you are going to continue to dodge or not.

BTW, got a minute marker for me for that video that you are so praising?

Tell me, did you even watch the video, even 10 minutes of it?

I will continue to object every time one of you misquotes me or mischaracterizes what I have said. I watched every minute of that video to be sure of what the content was and to determine that there are elements in it that are pertinent to this thread, whether or not I or anybody else agrees with those elements. I will continue to insist that members posting in this thread focus on the thread topic and will continue to resist every time you or anybody else tries to divert the attention from the thread topic.

And if that is your definition of 'dodge' then yeah, you can pretty well count on it.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

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? 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?

OMG, after all this criticism of the Left from you of their "intolerance", you WANT us to be intolerant of a group, just because YOU think the group is evil?

Really?


I graciously accept your concession for all of this.

Thank you.

I swear it is in the water that you guys drink that make you absolutely incapable of reading a statement as it is written. I at no time have suggested, hinted, inferred, or implied that anybody should be intolerant of GLAAD any more than I suggested, hinted, inferred, implied that GLAAD should be illegal.

I did say we should be intolerant of that kind of ACTION from GLAAD or anybody else. That is an entirely different thing than being intolerant of GLAAD.

Can you at least be intellectually honest about that?

You cannot be tolerant or intolerant of inanimate ojects, like ideas. You are tolerant or intolerant of ANIMATE objects, such as PEOPLE. An idea is not a person, as you already made clear. Time for you to eat some of your own crow, now.

You can reject an idea or accept an idea.

You do understand the difference, right?

What you are trying to say is that we should all reject GLAAD's actions, because YOU think that GLAAD did was evil.

What you are trying to do is to curb the 1st Amendment. I cannot support such fascist policies.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

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? 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?

OMG, after all this criticism of the Left from you of their "intolerance", you WANT us to be intolerant of a group, just because YOU think the group is evil?

Really?


I graciously accept your concession for all of this.

Thank you.

I swear it is in the water that you guys drink that make you absolutely incapable of reading a statement as it is written. I at no time have suggested, hinted, inferred, or implied that anybody should be intolerant of GLAAD any more than I suggested, hinted, inferred, implied that GLAAD should be illegal.

I did say we should be intolerant of that kind of ACTION from GLAAD or anybody else. That is an entirely different thing than being intolerant of GLAAD.

Can you at least be intellectually honest about that?

nobody claimed you did this. Stop arguing something that didnt happen. You said their actions should be CRIMINAL. The very fact that you would support the actions to be criminal is being intolerant of groups like Glaad.

Just ow many times do you need this explained to you till you understand this very simple logic.

Why are you asking people to be honest abut something when you really have done none of that in this very thread?

 

[Foxfyre]

OMG, after all this criticism of the Left from you of their "intolerance", you WANT us to be intolerant of a group, just because YOU think the group is evil?

Really?


I graciously accept your concession for all of this.

Thank you.

I swear it is in the water that you guys drink that make you absolutely incapable of reading a statement as it is written. I at no time have suggested, hinted, inferred, or implied that anybody should be intolerant of GLAAD any more than I suggested, hinted, inferred, implied that GLAAD should be illegal.

I did say we should be intolerant of that kind of ACTION from GLAAD or anybody else. That is an entirely different thing than being intolerant of GLAAD.

Can you at least be intellectually honest about that?

You cannot be tolerant or intolerant of inanimate ojects, like ideas. You are tolerant or intolerant of ANIMATE objects, such as PEOPLE. An idea is not a person, as you already made clear. Time for you to eat some of your own crow, now.

You can reject an idea or accept an idea.

You do understand the difference, right?

What you are trying to say is that we should all reject GLAAD's actions, because YOU think that GLAAD did was evil.

What you are trying to do is to curb the 1st Amendment. I cannot support such fascist policies.

This is not a First Amendment issue.
This is not a constitutional issue at all.
This is not a legal issue.
This IS a moral and ethical issue.

We should all oppose GLAAD's actions because they are immoral and unethical. We should all reject GLAAD's actions because they deny a person's unalienable right to be who and what he is. We should all oppose GLAAD's actions because suppression of human beliefs and thoughts is detrimental to a free society and puts the biggest, baddest, most funded bullies in charge of what people are required to be and believe to avoid being physically and/or materially punished. And if you support that, you better hope that it is YOUR bully who is the biggest, baddest, and best funded.

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

Would you advocate tolerance for David Duke when he expresses his opinion on Blacks? If he is intolerant, as Robertson was, should American society simply accept his opinion and tolerate it? Where do opinions stop being simply opinions and begin an advocacy of intolerance?

How much intolerance should we tolerate?

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

GLAAD's response was a REACTION to PR's intolerant ACTION.

Expecting me to be intolerant of a reaction to intolerance is nonsensical. It is also a betrayal of GLAAD's rights to express their opinion. In essence you are asking me to betray their rights and by doing so, my own rights.

If that is what you expect from me then I need a sound logical basis for giving up my own rights. Please provide me with the reason why I would be willing to surrender my rights to react to intolerance and bigotry?

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

Would you advocate tolerance for David Duke when he expresses his opinion on Blacks? If he is intolerant, as Robertson was, should American society simply accept his opinion and tolerate it? Where do opinions stop being simply opinions and begin an advocacy of intolerance?

How much intolerance should we tolerate?

Tolerance for his right to believe whatever he believes about blacks? Absolutely however reprehensible to me that is, and his views are mostly reprehensible to me. But if I want to be allowed my opinion about blacks--which is the polar opposite of what David Duke has preached--then I have to allow him his opinion. What I don't have to allow is if he acts out his opinions and is hurting/harming people. But just holding an opinion? Yes. He should be allowed to hold even an intolerant, disgusting, bigoted, prejudiced opinion without fear that some angry mob will come after him.

For who among us is wise enough to dictate to any of us what any of us must think, believe, be without fear of some angry mob, group, or organization will come after us to hurt us? Do you trust me to make up such a list of what is acceptable to think, believe, speak? I sure as hell don't trust any of you, even those I love the most, to make up such a list for me.

 

[Mac1958]

ould you advocate tolerance for David Duke when he expresses his opinion on Blacks?

Yes, in terms of letting him speak, absolutely.

Duke a racist cockroach, and I'm more than happy to shine the light on him, nice and bright. I want everyone to see the cockroaches so that open communication will demonstrate what cockroaches these people truly are.

When I use the term "racist", I mean it literally. I don't use it as a political weapon to intimidate and shut people down.

.