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

[Foxfyre]

we have!

No, you haven't. You've made a lot of statements about legalities and First Amendment and used a lot of non sequitur and diversionary tactics and personal aspersions re me or other unrelated persons. You've accused me of wanting to do a lot of stuff that you can't show in my posts that I want to do.

But not one of you has provided a rationale for why a person should be denied the ability to express his/her opinion without fear. The closest anybody has come to such a rationale is the theory that somebody might act on the opinion somebody expresses. But nobody on the left would respond when it was pointed out that anybody might act on ANY opinion whether or not it was an opinion that you guys would consider okay. And if we could not express ANY opinion for fear somebody might act it out negatively, nobody could express any opinion on anything ever.

I provided a list of possible opposing opinions for consideration of what would be okay to express and what would not. Nobody commented on them except Asclepias who said he shouldn't be expected to answer those. Nor would he or anybody else agree on who should be given authority to designate which of those examples would be okay to express and what could be ethically physically and/or materially punished.

So nobody has rebutted the OP as written and intended. Lots of accusations, mischaracterizations, downright falsehoods about what the OP says, assumptions, and derogatory comments about it, but not a single straight up intellectually honest rationale rebuttal.

You literally said you would make the actions of Glaad criminal aka illegal. YOU said this. I didnt make this up. You are being dishonest. Im done with you. Enjoy talking to yourself. I made my own thread.

You are being dishonest when you do not provide the exact statement IN CONTEXT complete with the qualifiers that accompany it. But you are done? Really? Honest? For sure? (There is a God.) Good luck with your thread.

 

[Plasmaball]

No, you haven't. You've made a lot of statements about legalities and First Amendment and used a lot of non sequitur and diversionary tactics and personal aspersions re me or other unrelated persons. You've accused me of wanting to do a lot of stuff that you can't show in my posts that I want to do.

But not one of you has provided a rationale for why a person should be denied the ability to express his/her opinion without fear. The closest anybody has come to such a rationale is the theory that somebody might act on the opinion somebody expresses. But nobody on the left would respond when it was pointed out that anybody might act on ANY opinion whether or not it was an opinion that you guys would consider okay. And if we could not express ANY opinion for fear somebody might act it out negatively, nobody could express any opinion on anything ever.

I provided a list of possible opposing opinions for consideration of what would be okay to express and what would not. Nobody commented on them except Asclepias who said he shouldn't be expected to answer those. Nor would he or anybody else agree on who should be given authority to designate which of those examples would be okay to express and what could be ethically physically and/or materially punished.

So nobody has rebutted the OP as written and intended. Lots of accusations, mischaracterizations, downright falsehoods about what the OP says, assumptions, and derogatory comments about it, but not a single straight up intellectually honest rationale rebuttal.

You literally said you would make the actions of Glaad criminal aka illegal. YOU said this. I didnt make this up. You are being dishonest. Im done with you. Enjoy talking to yourself. I made my own thread.

You are being dishonest when you do not provide the exact statement IN CONTEXT complete with the qualifiers that accompany it. But you are done? Really? Honest? For sure? (There is a God.) Good luck with your thread.

its been given...BFGN posted it with a link to your post. You said it, you are dishonest. Or to use your tactic. Go look for yourself. Im not going to support someone who is lazy.

 

[BDBoop]

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.

Minute and second marker, thanks much.

 

[Montrovant]

Ask the mods anything you wish. I did not ask the mods to review or close the thread.

You obviously are not reading the thread or you would have seen several times now that I clearly said I did watch the video and all of the video. And you were not paying attention if you think I reprimanded only liberals for introducing content that was off topic. One of my frustrations with you is that you aren't reading what is written and keep asking the same questions that have been asked and answered.

I would be crazy wow happy if any of you would quote the OP accurately and as written, and provide a good argument for why you disagree with it. When any of you do, you will find I am maybe the most tolerant of opinions I don't agree with as anybody on this board. But if you expect me to be tolerant of inadvertent or deliberate attempts to change the subject or derail the thread, yep I can be pretty damn intolerant.

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 think this topic is based almost entirely on opinion rather than fact, so any rebuttal is merely another opinion. As such, whether that rebuttal is a good argument or not is subjective.

Anyway : I think that this country is probably more tolerant than it has been for almost it's entire history. More people are free to be who and what they are than at nearly any other time. Minorities, women, people of varying religious and political beliefs...all have been suppressed through our history either by government or by societal norms. Today they are more free to express themselves than at just about any other time.

Perhaps there is less tolerance now than in the decade or two before. That's harder to argue. But in general? No, tolerance is not at any kind of low ebb in the United States.

I also think that the glut of communication methods, combined with a constantly increasing population, makes this seem more of an issue than it is. I think people likely did the same things that have been discussed to go after others for their opinions in the past, but often people would not find out about it because there weren't nearly as many ways for that information to be spread.

I think that saying this intolerance (a premise I already disagree with) may lead to a loss of all of our rights and liberties is hyperbole. I have not seen anyone who's rights or liberties have been curtailed in any incidents used as examples. If societal norms or ethics change, that is not a lost liberty. The right to do something does not equate to anyone's acceptance of it, or the right to do it in any format. If I had seen an example of any rights actually being lost I might change my mind.

The urge to silence or hurt someone who says things that offend us is not a new one. People have attempted to do so throughout human history I'd imagine. In fact, it seems to me that the avenues considered acceptable to do just that have become more and more limited as time has gone on; we do not have duels, we do not allow fighting the way it used to be, etc. I think that those changes were good ones and indicate how society has become more tolerant of expression of opinion.

I think that political correctness can go overboard, certainly. There have been numerous examples, like suspending children for making a gun with their fingers or drawing a picture of a gun, or racial epithets being acceptable when certain people use them but not others, etc. There are plenty of concepts of political correctness I disagree with.

I am fine with the idea of changing societal norms so that trying to get someone fired because of their opinions is somewhat of a taboo. I wouldn't take that kind of action unless there were fairly extreme circumstances involved. However, at least when it's done in the form of a boycott, I think it is a perfectly reasonable action and just another expression of opinion. It is when it turns into frivolous lawsuits or threats of blackmail that I think it becomes dangerous.

I am curious what reason, other than another person's opinion, there might be for someone to give a neg rep? I don't use them, but this site is all about the exchange of opinions. Why else would someone give a neg?

 

[BDBoop]

Ask the mods anything you wish. I did not ask the mods to review or close the thread.

You obviously are not reading the thread or you would have seen several times now that I clearly said I did watch the video and all of the video. And you were not paying attention if you think I reprimanded only liberals for introducing content that was off topic. One of my frustrations with you is that you aren't reading what is written and keep asking the same questions that have been asked and answered.

I would be crazy wow happy if any of you would quote the OP accurately and as written, and provide a good argument for why you disagree with it. When any of you do, you will find I am maybe the most tolerant of opinions I don't agree with as anybody on this board. But if you expect me to be tolerant of inadvertent or deliberate attempts to change the subject or derail the thread, yep I can be pretty damn intolerant.

I gotta say, you appear to be excellent at attacking people, even in the CDZ, but when it comes to responding with facts, you do seem to be a little slow on the uptake. Is that a tactic of yours, or what?

RE: facts -

Since you watched all of the video, gotta minute and second marker for me to back up your argument vis-a-vis the video? This is now the SEVENTH time I have asked you. Come on, don't be so intellectually lazy. You challenged libs to quote from the video, and I did that, three times. Your turn. Or are you saying that you are not in a position to present some evidence?

Why is it that you can say almost any negative thing about me and it is not a personal attack but if I object not to you, but to what you have said, that IS a personal attack? Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can. Nobody has done that I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it. All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.

Other than what is relative to this thread topic, I am not interested in discussing the video here.

And I have no clue what you are asking about the minute and second marker. I didn't pick out any phrases from the video to comment on and I sure as hell didn't time any of it. I did find myself agreeing with some of his comments, thinking some stuff merited additional research, and I didn't agree with him on some points though I would have to listen to it again to jog my memory about exactly what. I really choose not to do that because I don't think it is something important to do.

The minute and second marker is on the bottom of the video. Look at left end, it says zero. The right end says the full time of the video, and the horizontal bar between will show the time as it plays along.

That's all Stat is asking - that you give his request as much respect as he gave yours.

 

[Mertex]

Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can. Nobody has done that I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it. All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.

That is not a true statement. I have done that, twice, I believe. He claimed that Liberals hated America and thought that it deserved 9/11. He didn't provide any facts/links to some liberal saying that, and yet I posted a link and an excerpt of what Pat Robertson said - he was the one that in essence blamed 9/11 on Americans.....in other words Americans deserved 9/11, and Pat Robertson is a Republican/conservative. If you don't believe that is refuting, then you are changing the definition of it, because what the dude on the video blamed Liberals of saying/doing is on record that a Republican/conservative actually said it.

How can you offer any proof that "he can't read a Liberal's mind"? It is common sense to know that you can't put all liberals in a box and say they think the same way...no more than you can say that about conservatives. Do you really believe there is a statistic or reference out there to back him up on that?

And, the fact is that you didn't even respond to my posts where I did that.....maybe you are the one that didn't have a comeback?

 

[Montrovant]

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

You say you 'reminded' people that we are tolerant of people and not inanimate objects. You go on to call ideas inanimate objects. Ideas are NOT objects, and tolerance is NOT confined to people by any definition I'm aware of. In fact, in looking up the definition of tolerance, multiple sources use tolerance of ideas in at least one of the definitions. Objects, on the other hand, are specifically material things.

Whatever the validity of your other points, you are quite wrong with this.

Wordplay, only wordplay. But if you wanna play, ok:

ideas are inanimate. There is no law that says an object must have a physical form. Go check it out.

You claimed that Foxfyre was incorrectly using tolerance and intolerance, but having looked at multiple sources for definitions of those words, I did not see that they are defined as only being about people.

You used a very common phrase in 'inanimate object'. That phrase is not, that I can ever recall, used to describe a non-material thing. Yes, perhaps you can say that an idea is an inanimate object if you use the right definitions of those two words. That is certainly not, I would argue, the meaning of the phrase, however.

 

[tinydancer]

Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can. Nobody has done that I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it. All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.

That is not a true statement. I have done that, twice, I believe. He claimed that Liberals hated America and thought that it deserved 9/11. He didn't provide any facts/links to some liberal saying that, and yet I posted a link and an excerpt of what Pat Robertson said - he was the one that in essence blamed 9/11 on Americans.....in other words Americans deserved 9/11, and Pat Robertson is a Republican/conservative. If you don't believe that is refuting, then you are changing the definition of it, because what the dude on the video blamed Liberals of saying/doing is on record that a Republican/conservative actually said it.

How can you offer any proof that "he can't read a Liberal's mind"? It is common sense to know that you can't put all liberals in a box and say they think the same way...no more than you can say that about conservatives. Do you really believe there is a statistic or reference out there to back him up on that?

And, the fact is that you didn't even respond to my posts where I did that.....maybe you are the one that didn't have a comeback?

I'll take you on any given day.

You obviously missed one of my fave guys statements. You know that old Ward Churchill?I can give you so many more.

But here is Ward's and by the way I helped get this fake Indian fired. So if you want to dance let me know the time and place.

I rejoice daily that this XXXXXX has no voice as a member of a first nation.

Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ward Churchill, former ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, wrote an essay in September 2001 titled Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens about the September 11, 2001 attacks, in which he argued that American foreign policies provoked the attacks. He described what he called the "technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire" in the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns," i.e. as those who banally conduct their duties in the service of evil.

Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Plasmaball]

Ask the mods anything you wish. I did not ask the mods to review or close the thread.

You obviously are not reading the thread or you would have seen several times now that I clearly said I did watch the video and all of the video. And you were not paying attention if you think I reprimanded only liberals for introducing content that was off topic. One of my frustrations with you is that you aren't reading what is written and keep asking the same questions that have been asked and answered.

I would be crazy wow happy if any of you would quote the OP accurately and as written, and provide a good argument for why you disagree with it. When any of you do, you will find I am maybe the most tolerant of opinions I don't agree with as anybody on this board. But if you expect me to be tolerant of inadvertent or deliberate attempts to change the subject or derail the thread, yep I can be pretty damn intolerant.

I gotta say, you appear to be excellent at attacking people, even in the CDZ, but when it comes to responding with facts, you do seem to be a little slow on the uptake. Is that a tactic of yours, or what?

RE: facts -

Since you watched all of the video, gotta minute and second marker for me to back up your argument vis-a-vis the video? This is now the SEVENTH time I have asked you. Come on, don't be so intellectually lazy. You challenged libs to quote from the video, and I did that, three times. Your turn. Or are you saying that you are not in a position to present some evidence?

Why is it that you can say almost any negative thing about me and it is not a personal attack but if I object not to you, but to what you have said, that IS a personal attack? Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can. Nobody has done that I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it. All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.

Other than what is relative to this thread topic, I am not interested in discussing the video here.

And I have no clue what you are asking about the minute and second marker. I didn't pick out any phrases from the video to comment on and I sure as hell didn't time any of it. I did find myself agreeing with some of his comments, thinking some stuff merited additional research, and I didn't agree with him on some points though I would have to listen to it again to jog my memory about exactly what. I really choose not to do that because I don't think it is something important to do.

Really you had no trouble in talking about it right up until Stat asked you to back your shit up. now all of a sudden it doesnt have anything to do with the OP and thus you wont do it?

This has to be a giant joke on everyone right?

 

[tinydancer]

Dude was a complete fake.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can. Nobody has done that I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it. All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.

That is not a true statement. I have done that, twice, I believe. He claimed that Liberals hated America and thought that it deserved 9/11. He didn't provide any facts/links to some liberal saying that, and yet I posted a link and an excerpt of what Pat Robertson said - he was the one that in essence blamed 9/11 on Americans.....in other words Americans deserved 9/11, and Pat Robertson is a Republican/conservative. If you don't believe that is refuting, then you are changing the definition of it, because what the dude on the video blamed Liberals of saying/doing is on record that a Republican/conservative actually said it.

How can you offer any proof that "he can't read a Liberal's mind"? It is common sense to know that you can't put all liberals in a box and say they think the same way...no more than you can say that about conservatives. Do you really believe there is a statistic or reference out there to back him up on that?

And, the fact is that you didn't even respond to my posts where I did that.....maybe you are the one that didn't have a comeback?

His comments on 9/11 have nothig to do with the thread topic and even if they did, he did provide a rationale for why he used that analogy. Agree or disagree with him, I have no problem with that. I actually have no opinion about the accuracy of that statement pro or con. I did understand the analogy as he used it. But I did not want to derail this thread into yet another shopworn thread on 9/11 nor did the Robertson video that you characterized as not 'Christian love' have anything to do with the thread topic.

Nor does it matter whether somebody is able to read a liberal's mind. The guy was invited to give a lecture on a particular topic and he gave that lecture. Agree or disagree with him at will, but I have said and I say again that I now wish MOJO had not posted the Heritage Foundation video in this thread. It did have some pertinent material appropriate for this discussion, but all it accomplished was to divert the attention of a lot of members who wanted then to talk about the video and not the thread topic.

I'm trying to keep the focus on the thread topic which has nothing to do with the video or Pat Robertson or any of a dozen other topics some have tried to introduce into the thread.

Now I didn't watch the Robertson video but if it includes an EXAMPLE of organizing or encouraging people to physically or materially hurt somebody because of who he/she is or an opinion he/she expressed, then it is pertinent. Did he do that in that video?

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can. Nobody has done that I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it. All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.

That is not a true statement. I have done that, twice, I believe. He claimed that Liberals hated America and thought that it deserved 9/11. He didn't provide any facts/links to some liberal saying that, and yet I posted a link and an excerpt of what Pat Robertson said - he was the one that in essence blamed 9/11 on Americans.....in other words Americans deserved 9/11, and Pat Robertson is a Republican/conservative. If you don't believe that is refuting, then you are changing the definition of it, because what the dude on the video blamed Liberals of saying/doing is on record that a Republican/conservative actually said it.

How can you offer any proof that "he can't read a Liberal's mind"? It is common sense to know that you can't put all liberals in a box and say they think the same way...no more than you can say that about conservatives. Do you really believe there is a statistic or reference out there to back him up on that?

And, the fact is that you didn't even respond to my posts where I did that.....maybe you are the one that didn't have a comeback?

I'll take you on any given day.

You obviously missed one of my fave guys statements. You know that old Ward Churchill?I can give you so many more.

But here is Ward's and by the way I helped get this fake Indian fired. So if you want to dance let me know the time and place.

I rejoice daily that this XXXXXX has no voice as a member of a first nation.

Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ward Churchill, former ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, wrote an essay in September 2001 titled Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens about the September 11, 2001 attacks, in which he argued that American foreign policies provoked the attacks. He described what he called the "technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire" in the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns," i.e. as those who banally conduct their duties in the service of evil.

Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This one is a good example to use in analysis of the OP.

Churchill's remarks were widely condemned by some and widely commended by others. The entity that did most of the conciousness raising was Bill O'Reilly on the O'Reilly Factor who gave a matter-of-fact report on the controversy and then provided an e-mail address if any of his viewers wanted to express their opinions to the university. He did not, as I recall, encourage them to complain. He just provided an e-mail address for comments.

So far as I know there was no angry mob, group, or organization demanding Churchill's head on a platter, but that e-mail address provided by O'Reilly could put it in a gray area. O'Reilly had to know that most e-mails his viewers would send would be critical of Churchill. So does that violate my personal ethical requirement that people be allowed their opinion without fear of the angry mob etc. . . ? Maybe. Maybe not. I'm thinking about it.

Churchill said he got some death threats, and if that is true, then that is reprehensible and indefensible no matter what he said. The university did respond to a barrage of negative e-mails and fired Churchill. He filed a wrongful firing lawsuit against the University that he won but he was awarded only one dollar in damages and the university was not required to rehire him. The Colorado Supreme Court also refused to require the university to rehire him.

I can't fault the university for an ethical or business decision any more than I faulted A&E for a business decision re Phil Robertson.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Ask the mods anything you wish. I did not ask the mods to review or close the thread.

You obviously are not reading the thread or you would have seen several times now that I clearly said I did watch the video and all of the video. And you were not paying attention if you think I reprimanded only liberals for introducing content that was off topic. One of my frustrations with you is that you aren't reading what is written and keep asking the same questions that have been asked and answered.

I would be crazy wow happy if any of you would quote the OP accurately and as written, and provide a good argument for why you disagree with it. When any of you do, you will find I am maybe the most tolerant of opinions I don't agree with as anybody on this board. But if you expect me to be tolerant of inadvertent or deliberate attempts to change the subject or derail the thread, yep I can be pretty damn intolerant.

I gotta say, you appear to be excellent at attacking people, even in the CDZ, but when it comes to responding with facts, you do seem to be a little slow on the uptake. Is that a tactic of yours, or what?

RE: facts -

Since you watched all of the video, gotta minute and second marker for me to back up your argument vis-a-vis the video? This is now the SEVENTH time I have asked you. Come on, don't be so intellectually lazy. You challenged libs to quote from the video, and I did that, three times. Your turn. Or are you saying that you are not in a position to present some evidence?

Why is it that you can say almost any negative thing about me and it is not a personal attack but if I object not to you, but to what you have said, that IS a personal attack? Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can. Nobody has done that I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it. All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.

Other than what is relative to this thread topic, I am not interested in discussing the video here.

And I have no clue what you are asking about the minute and second marker. I didn't pick out any phrases from the video to comment on and I sure as hell didn't time any of it. I did find myself agreeing with some of his comments, thinking some stuff merited additional research, and I didn't agree with him on some points though I would have to listen to it again to jog my memory about exactly what. I really choose not to do that because I don't think it is something important to do.

Oh, that's easy: you watch the video and notice the minute and second marker at the bottom left hand corner of the youtube video. So, you don't have to time it yourself, the work has already been done for you by youtube!!!

You wanted people to discuss the video, which you praised to high heaven, you wanted libs to provide quotes and evidence, but now YOU don't want to discuss the video?

Hmmmm...ok...

Well, you certainly don't have to do anything. Just like I don't have to believe you when you say you watched it. Free country.

But it sure sounds like you are trumpeting this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fgDxAASI_c]"Retreat" - YouTube[/ame]

But that's ok with me as well... it's a nice tune, and we all trumpet it now and again.




Oh, and BTW, I have never written anything negative about you as a person, ever. I have mentioned parts of your behaviour, things that are documented here right on this thread. I never told you that it must be the water you are drinking, nor did I question your comprehension abilities, as you have done with me and with others. Just to note.

 

[BDBoop]

I gotta say, you appear to be excellent at attacking people, even in the CDZ, but when it comes to responding with facts, you do seem to be a little slow on the uptake. Is that a tactic of yours, or what?

RE: facts -

Since you watched all of the video, gotta minute and second marker for me to back up your argument vis-a-vis the video? This is now the SEVENTH time I have asked you. Come on, don't be so intellectually lazy. You challenged libs to quote from the video, and I did that, three times. Your turn. Or are you saying that you are not in a position to present some evidence?

Why is it that you can say almost any negative thing about me and it is not a personal attack but if I object not to you, but to what you have said, that IS a personal attack? Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can. Nobody has done that I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it. All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.

Other than what is relative to this thread topic, I am not interested in discussing the video here.

And I have no clue what you are asking about the minute and second marker. I didn't pick out any phrases from the video to comment on and I sure as hell didn't time any of it. I did find myself agreeing with some of his comments, thinking some stuff merited additional research, and I didn't agree with him on some points though I would have to listen to it again to jog my memory about exactly what. I really choose not to do that because I don't think it is something important to do.

Oh, that's easy: you watch the video and notice the minute and second marker at the bottom left hand corner of the youtube video. So, you don't have to time it yourself, the work has already been done for you by youtube!!!

You wanted people to discuss the video, which you praised to high heaven, you wanted libs to provide quotes and evidence, but now YOU don't want to discuss the video?

Hmmmm...ok...

Well, you certainly don't have to do anything. Just like I don't have to believe you when you say you watched it. Free country.

But it sure sounds like you are trumpeting this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fgDxAASI_c]"Retreat" - YouTube[/ame]

But that's ok with me as well... it's a nice tune, and we all trumpet it now and again.




Oh, and BTW, I have never written anything negative about you as a person, ever. I have mentioned parts of your behaviour, things that are documented here right on this thread. I never told you that it must be the water you are drinking, nor did I question your comprehension abilities, as you have done with me and with others. Just to note.

Duly noted.

The trumpet is a nice touch.

 

[Statistikhengst]

No, you haven't. You've made a lot of statements about legalities and First Amendment and used a lot of non sequitur and diversionary tactics and personal aspersions re me or other unrelated persons. You've accused me of wanting to do a lot of stuff that you can't show in my posts that I want to do.

But not one of you has provided a rationale for why a person should be denied the ability to express his/her opinion without fear. The closest anybody has come to such a rationale is the theory that somebody might act on the opinion somebody expresses. But nobody on the left would respond when it was pointed out that anybody might act on ANY opinion whether or not it was an opinion that you guys would consider okay. And if we could not express ANY opinion for fear somebody might act it out negatively, nobody could express any opinion on anything ever.

I provided a list of possible opposing opinions for consideration of what would be okay to express and what would not. Nobody commented on them except Asclepias who said he shouldn't be expected to answer those. Nor would he or anybody else agree on who should be given authority to designate which of those examples would be okay to express and what could be ethically physically and/or materially punished.

So nobody has rebutted the OP as written and intended. Lots of accusations, mischaracterizations, downright falsehoods about what the OP says, assumptions, and derogatory comments about it, but not a single straight up intellectually honest rationale rebuttal.

You literally said you would make the actions of Glaad criminal aka illegal. YOU said this. I didnt make this up. You are being dishonest. Im done with you. Enjoy talking to yourself. I made my own thread.

You are being dishonest when you do not provide the exact statement IN CONTEXT complete with the qualifiers that accompany it. But you are done? Really? Honest? For sure? (There is a God.) Good luck with your thread.

Well, looky, looky, here is the exact quote:

Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction which, in my opinion, was an evil act.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can. Nobody has done that I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it. All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.

That is not a true statement. I have done that, twice, I believe. He claimed that Liberals hated America and thought that it deserved 9/11. He didn't provide any facts/links to some liberal saying that, and yet I posted a link and an excerpt of what Pat Robertson said - he was the one that in essence blamed 9/11 on Americans.....in other words Americans deserved 9/11, and Pat Robertson is a Republican/conservative. If you don't believe that is refuting, then you are changing the definition of it, because what the dude on the video blamed Liberals of saying/doing is on record that a Republican/conservative actually said it.

How can you offer any proof that "he can't read a Liberal's mind"? It is common sense to know that you can't put all liberals in a box and say they think the same way...no more than you can say that about conservatives. Do you really believe there is a statistic or reference out there to back him up on that?

And, the fact is that you didn't even respond to my posts where I did that.....maybe you are the one that didn't have a comeback?

I'll take you on any given day.

You obviously missed one of my fave guys statements. You know that old Ward Churchill?I can give you so many more.

But here is Ward's and by the way I helped get this fake Indian fired. So if you want to dance let me know the time and place.

I rejoice daily that this XXXXX has no voice as a member of a first nation.

Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ward Churchill, former ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, wrote an essay in September 2001 titled Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens about the September 11, 2001 attacks, in which he argued that American foreign policies provoked the attacks. He described what he called the "technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire" in the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns," i.e. as those who banally conduct their duties in the service of evil.

Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ward Churchill is not a Liberal - he is an anarchist, probably closer to the Ron Pauls in life than the George Soros' in life:

Ward Churchill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

His use of anti-semitism is also very reminiscent of Ron Paul, btw.

You language is also not appropriate for the CDZ, but of course, FoxFyre did not mention this to you, because you are a Conservative. Had a Liberal written what you wrote, FF would be all over that person like a bee on honey!!!

 

[R.D.]

I made a very strong point in the last thread and this one that this was not a liberal or conservative issue and used illustrations from both camps. I have repeated those examples from both camps more than once. I have reprimanded those who have tried to make it a liberal or conservative issue. So once again you have misquoted me and mischaracterized what I have posted. And yeah, I'll call you on it every single time.

As I will usually be consistent on focusing on the thread topic and resist all those who try to divert from that topic. If you see my not dealing with off topic subjects and insistance that we focus on the thread topic as intolerance, well that's your right to do.

I also neither called for the other thread to be closed or even reviewed. So again you have stated a falsehood about what I have done.

An apology or at least an acknowledgment of that would be seen as a grown up honorable thing to do. Alas, I no longer hope for such apology or acknowledgment from anybody on the left.

But why don't you guys start your own thread where you won't be bound to this thread topic and can bring in all the stuff you would rather talk about?

first bolded: guaranteed, I am going to ask the mods about this.

second bolded: if it ends up I was in error, I will apologize immediate. But then again, you absolutely ruined any spirit of cooperation with the last bolded sentence or yours. Hey, we are in the CDZ, remember?

Why even have people contribute to a thread if all you are really interested in hearing confirmation of what you want to hear?

Oh, and gotta minute and second marker for me? Did you even watch the video?

This is now the SIXTH time I have asked you. Fascinating. You talk about people needing to be grown up. Perhaps you can also be grown up enough to answer two very simple, easy to answer questions.

And in closing, you only reprimanded Liberals, not Conservatives. I was there. I saw it with my own eyes.

Ask the mods anything you wish. I did not ask the mods to review or close the thread.

You obviously are not reading the thread or you would have seen several times now that I clearly said I did watch the video and all of the video. And you were not paying attention if you think I reprimanded only liberals for introducing content that was off topic. One of my frustrations with you is that you aren't reading what is written and keep asking the same questions that have been asked and answered.

I would be crazy wow happy if any of you would quote the OP accurately and as written, and provide a good argument for why you disagree with it. When any of you do, you will find I am maybe the most tolerant of opinions I don't agree with as anybody on this board. But if you expect me to be tolerant of inadvertent or deliberate attempts to change the subject or derail the thread, yep I can be pretty damn intolerant.

You definately are. They are now just toying with you I suspect. Proving you right while trying to get you to trip up. Silly, isn't it?

 

[Statistikhengst]

i gotta say, you appear to be excellent at attacking people, even in the cdz, but when it comes to responding with facts, you do seem to be a little slow on the uptake. Is that a tactic of yours, or what?

Re: Facts -

since you watched all of the video, gotta minute and second marker for me to back up your argument vis-a-vis the video? This is now the seventh time i have asked you. Come on, don't be so intellectually lazy. You challenged libs to quote from the video, and i did that, three times. Your turn. Or are you saying that you are not in a position to present some evidence?

why is it that you can say almost any negative thing about me and it is not a personal attack but if i object not to you, but to what you have said, that is a personal attack? Yes i have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can. Nobody has done that i don't believe--if somebody did i missed it. All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.

Other than what is relative to this thread topic, i am not interested in discussing the video here.

And i have no clue what you are asking about the minute and second marker. I didn't pick out any phrases from the video to comment on and i sure as hell didn't time any of it. I did find myself agreeing with some of his comments, thinking some stuff merited additional research, and i didn't agree with him on some points though i would have to listen to it again to jog my memory about exactly what. I really choose not to do that because i don't think it is something important to do.

really you had no trouble in talking about it right up until stat asked you to back your shit up. Now all of a sudden it doesnt have anything to do with the op and thus you wont do it?

This has to be a giant joke on everyone right?

 

[Foxfyre]

I gotta say, you appear to be excellent at attacking people, even in the CDZ, but when it comes to responding with facts, you do seem to be a little slow on the uptake. Is that a tactic of yours, or what?

RE: facts -

Since you watched all of the video, gotta minute and second marker for me to back up your argument vis-a-vis the video? This is now the SEVENTH time I have asked you. Come on, don't be so intellectually lazy. You challenged libs to quote from the video, and I did that, three times. Your turn. Or are you saying that you are not in a position to present some evidence?

Why is it that you can say almost any negative thing about me and it is not a personal attack but if I object not to you, but to what you have said, that IS a personal attack? Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can. Nobody has done that I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it. All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.

Other than what is relative to this thread topic, I am not interested in discussing the video here.

And I have no clue what you are asking about the minute and second marker. I didn't pick out any phrases from the video to comment on and I sure as hell didn't time any of it. I did find myself agreeing with some of his comments, thinking some stuff merited additional research, and I didn't agree with him on some points though I would have to listen to it again to jog my memory about exactly what. I really choose not to do that because I don't think it is something important to do.

Oh, that's easy: you watch the video and notice the minute and second marker at the bottom left hand corner of the youtube video. So, you don't have to time it yourself, the work has already been done for you by youtube!!!

You wanted people to discuss the video, which you praised to high heaven, you wanted libs to provide quotes and evidence, but now YOU don't want to discuss the video?

Hmmmm...ok...

Well, you certainly don't have to do anything. Just like I don't have to believe you when you say you watched it. Free country.

But it sure sounds like you are trumpeting this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fgDxAASI_c]"Retreat" - YouTube[/ame]

But that's ok with me as well... it's a nice tune, and we all trumpet it now and again.




Oh, and BTW, I have never written anything negative about you as a person, ever. I have mentioned parts of your behaviour, things that are documented here right on this thread. I never told you that it must be the water you are drinking, nor did I question your comprehension abilities, as you have done with me and with others. Just to note.

When you infer that I'm a liar, that's pretty negative. And if you associate yourself with my frustration with the diversionary tactics, derails, and other efforts to divert from the OP as being personally insulting to you, then I should have the same right to believe all the uncomplimentary comments you guys make about conservatives are personal insults too, yes? As well as the glad hands you and others are regularly giving those who are personally insulting me or others. And when you deliberately mischaracterize what I have said, I will take that very personally every single time.

And if I 'praised that video to high heaven' as you characterize it, I sure would like to see the post where I did that. I did think it provided some excellent commentary on the reasons behind the current environment of the politics of personal destruction as that pertains to the OP and said so, and yes, that would be fair game for discussion whether or not I or anybody else agree with that commentary.

The fact that I didn't note the time on the video, well I'm very sorry I didn't do that. It did not occur to me that it would be important to anybody. What difference does it make? It wouldn't prove that I listened to it. But while we're on that particular line of inquisition, I will now ask you to PROVE that you've read and understood everything I've written in this thread in its full context and as intended. Fair?

Oh and how are you coming along with the mods to get evidence I asked that the other thread be closed? You haven't attacked me personally you say? That comes very damn close.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can. Nobody has done that I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it. All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.

That is not a true statement. I have done that, twice, I believe. He claimed that Liberals hated America and thought that it deserved 9/11. He didn't provide any facts/links to some liberal saying that, and yet I posted a link and an excerpt of what Pat Robertson said - he was the one that in essence blamed 9/11 on Americans.....in other words Americans deserved 9/11, and Pat Robertson is a Republican/conservative. If you don't believe that is refuting, then you are changing the definition of it, because what the dude on the video blamed Liberals of saying/doing is on record that a Republican/conservative actually said it.

How can you offer any proof that "he can't read a Liberal's mind"? It is common sense to know that you can't put all liberals in a box and say they think the same way...no more than you can say that about conservatives. Do you really believe there is a statistic or reference out there to back him up on that?

And, the fact is that you didn't even respond to my posts where I did that.....maybe you are the one that didn't have a comeback?

Yes, that is exactly what I quoted as well, and even gave minute and second marker on the video.

Apparently, anything he said is not relevant to this thread, but the video is still just really, really cool and we should all learn to be tolerant from it!!!!