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

[Foxfyre]

I look at it like this:

I don't care who you are, what you do (within the bounds of law), what you stand for or how you stand for it. So long as you don't force that on me, my tolerance will be numbered as the stars in the sky. The Constitution gives you all the right in the world to believe what you want and do what you want (once again within the bounds of the law). That tolerance, however, goes away when you decide to tell me what I am, what I should do, what I stand for or how I stand for it, and threaten action against me because you yourself are intolerant of it. As long as you walk my fine line of tolerance, I'll walk yours. It's that simple.

Well you are more tolerant than I am TK, because if you make a statement that I disagree with on a message board, I will often tell you why I disagree with it. However, there are some, including you, at USMB who allow that, even welcome that, so long as I am addressing your opinion and not, as you explained, tellling YOU what YOU think, want, believe, who you are, or misrepresent what you say. That makes for great discussion and give and take.

And there are some who simply are incapable of addressing and rebutting the other person's opinion. They instead go after the person who expressed the opinion accusing him/her of all sorts of negative things while they rarely, if ever, address the opinion that provoked the attack. And if we push back on that, the food fight starts. Or, if they are unable to provoke a food fight, they get in a huff, snit, or whatever, put on their rubber pants, take their ball, and go home. And if a thread dissolves into nothing but a food fight, I can be just as frustrated and 'go home' myself.

On a message board no harm no foul. I can ignore those who accuse me of all manner of things including being a liar, being blindly partisan, being stupid, being whatever. I probably won't respect them much if they do that, but oh well. If I don't want my thoughts dictated by them, then I have to allow them their thoughts too. And if they want to make it personal, that is their right. I just don't have to participate.

In real life it gets more complicated. There when people attack others for their beliefs, it can have real life consequences. And at some point, as a society, as a culture, we have to be able to distinguish right from wrong in a material way when it comes to tolerance. Organizing in an effort to stop those who are hurting others in a physical or material way, yes. Organizing to punish somebody who expresses an opinon or uses a word we don't like? I can't justify that on any moral or ethical grounds.

 

[Foxfyre]

Evander Holyfield sparks anger with homophobic comments | Mail Online

Hmmm interesting. I wonder if GLAAD will go after Holyfield and Big Brother? If they are equal opportunity vigilantes they will. And, in my opinion, they would be just as wrong when they do that as they were to go after Phil Robertson. Big Brother, however, has its own guidelines and rules and what they enforce in the matter is their own business.

 

[R.D.]

Evander Holyfield sparks anger with homophobic comments | Mail Online

Hmmm interesting. I wonder if GLAAD will go after Holyfield and Big Brother? If they are equal opportunity vigilantes they will. And, in my opinion, they would be just as wrong when they do that as they were to go after Phil Robertson. Big Brother, however, has its own guidelines and rules and what they enforce in the matter is their own business.

We only know what they printed, but I call it pc overload and wrong. Being offended is now taking on the same importance of being physically assaulted. I get a little embarrassed for people who need constant saving from different points of view

'While Big Brother understands these are the views you hold, they aren’t the views that are held by a large section of society and expressing these views will be extremely offensive to many people. Do you understand why?'

 

[Mac1958]

Being offended is now taking on the same importance of being physically assaulted. I get a little embarrassed for people who need constant saving from different points of view.

Bravo.


.

 

[Foxfyre]

Evander Holyfield sparks anger with homophobic comments | Mail Online

Hmmm interesting. I wonder if GLAAD will go after Holyfield and Big Brother? If they are equal opportunity vigilantes they will. And, in my opinion, they would be just as wrong when they do that as they were to go after Phil Robertson. Big Brother, however, has its own guidelines and rules and what they enforce in the matter is their own business.

We only know what they printed, but I call it pc overload and wrong. Being offended is now taking on the same importance of being physically assaulted. I get a little embarrassed for people who need constant saving from different points of view

'While Big Brother understands these are the views you hold, they aren’t the views that are held by a large section of society and expressing these views will be extremely offensive to many people. Do you understand why?'

Still, I can accept Big Brother's desire to avoid controversies like that and a desire NOT to offend a large segment of the population. I don't have any problem with them issuing some reasonable rules of conduct. At the same time, one in the house last season was accused of making racist statements and Big Brother aired those comments. They dealt with it by putting out that typical disclaimer that the views of the house guests does not necessairly reflect those of Big Brother yadda yadda or however they word that. And it was fine.

But if GLAAD doesn't come after Holyfield with the same vengeance they went after Phil Robertson, they are huge hypocrites. And if they do, they are evil. Sorta boxes them in doesn't it.

 

[BDBoop]

Was society showing tolerance to the Dixie Chicks ten years ago? Is society showing intolerance to the Duck guy today?

Has society extended the olive branch of tolerance to Rush Limbaugh after his many gaffes? Does Ed Schultz bask in the glow of tolerance after his pronouncements?

Should outrageous claims about any person or group be tolerated, or merely excused as 'opinions'?

I'm not speaking in terms of litigation as speech is a protected right. But can the offended call for boycotts or public apologies?

Can the offended go too far? I guess it depends on the offense. Should the parents of a fallen hero be offended by the Westboro Baptist Church file suit to restrain Fred Phelps and his minions? Or does the Reverend Phelps have every right to voice his 'opinions'? Does the duck fellow have a right to voice his opinions, or does he have the right to offend?

Thank you.

 

[R.D.]

Still, I can accept Big Brother's desire to avoid controversies like that and a desire NOT to offend a large segment of the population. I don't have any problem with them issuing some reasonable rules of conduct. At the same time, one in the house last season was accused of making racist statements and Big Brother aired those comments. They dealt with it by putting out that typical disclaimer that the views of the house guests does not necessairly reflect those of Big Brother yadda yadda or however they word that. And it was fine.

But if GLAAD doesn't come after Holyfield with the same vengeance they went after Phil Robertson, they are huge hypocrites. And if they do, they are evil. Sorta boxes them in doesn't it.

I have to accept it, no way around it. But the compulsion to protect a segment of the population causes them to in fact be offensive to the other segment that don't see his views as offensive.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Was society showing tolerance to the Dixie Chicks ten years ago? Is society showing intolerance to the Duck guy today?

Has society extended the olive branch of tolerance to Rush Limbaugh after his many gaffes? Does Ed Schultz bask in the glow of tolerance after his pronouncements?

Should outrageous claims about any person or group be tolerated, or merely excused as 'opinions'?

I'm not speaking in terms of litigation as speech is a protected right. But can the offended call for boycotts or public apologies?

Can the offended go too far? I guess it depends on the offense. Should the parents of a fallen hero be offended by the Westboro Baptist Church file suit to restrain Fred Phelps and his minions? Or does the Reverend Phelps have every right to voice his 'opinions'? Does the duck fellow have a right to voice his opinions, or does he have the right to offend?

Of course they can.

And private society is at liberty to heed the call for a boycott or ignore it.

 

[Mac1958]

Still, I can accept Big Brother's desire to avoid controversies like that and a desire NOT to offend a large segment of the population. I don't have any problem with them issuing some reasonable rules of conduct. At the same time, one in the house last season was accused of making racist statements and Big Brother aired those comments. They dealt with it by putting out that typical disclaimer that the views of the house guests does not necessairly reflect those of Big Brother yadda yadda or however they word that. And it was fine.

But if GLAAD doesn't come after Holyfield with the same vengeance they went after Phil Robertson, they are huge hypocrites. And if they do, they are evil. Sorta boxes them in doesn't it.

I have to accept it, no way around it. But the compulsion to protect a segment of the population causes them to in fact be offensive to the other segment that don't see his views as offensive.

They're narcissists. If they're offended, that's all that matters, and someone must pay. They're above turning the other cheek.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

Still, I can accept Big Brother's desire to avoid controversies like that and a desire NOT to offend a large segment of the population. I don't have any problem with them issuing some reasonable rules of conduct. At the same time, one in the house last season was accused of making racist statements and Big Brother aired those comments. They dealt with it by putting out that typical disclaimer that the views of the house guests does not necessairly reflect those of Big Brother yadda yadda or however they word that. And it was fine.

But if GLAAD doesn't come after Holyfield with the same vengeance they went after Phil Robertson, they are huge hypocrites. And if they do, they are evil. Sorta boxes them in doesn't it.

I have to accept it, no way around it. But the compulsion to protect a segment of the population causes them to in fact be offensive to the other segment that don't see his views as offensive.

Of course it does. But as the now much maligned and speaker in that video that MOJO posted explained, that isn't an issue with the PC police. The view of the PC police is the righteous one, and it must be forced on all of society as a matter of virtue and justice. And any who would challenge their view must be silenced. So any who would agree with or defend Holyfield's right to his opinion must be suppressed by force or figurtively or literally destroyed. They don't matter because they are in the wrong, the bad guys, the evil ones.

But will they take on the left leaning Big Brother? Or an Evander Holyfield who is 'gasp' black and an idol for many of their membership? I would be really really amazed if they did. But if they don't, that would make them huge hypocrites and even more hateful for going after a Phil Robertson.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The thread topic is about allowing a person his her belief or opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will hurt him physically and/or materially for no other reason than he expressed it.

Yeah, threads do tend to get pushed entirely off the rails, we tend to let our minds wander a bit.

I think your question has been answered pretty clearly. There are obviously people in our society who have taken it upon themselves to do exactly what you're talking about. They feel that, based on their own code, they will use every legal means necessary to control the very words we use. Threats, intimidation and punishment are all perfectly legitimate means for them.

There are plenty of examples just on the various PC-related threads here. And now there is even a thread on which they have gathered to convince themselves that, since (in their minds) tolerance simply isn't going to happen, they may as well proudly run with intolerance. Then they all pat themselves on the back for reaching this foregone conclusion and continue on.

This behavior - leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking - uses our own cherished freedoms against us.

Seems to me that it takes a very cynical mix of narcissism and paranoia to think this way.

.

Incorrect.

No one is ‘leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking,’ as ‘freedom of speech’ is a legal term in the context of the relationship between the speaker and his government.

The issue here has nothing to do with ‘freedom of speech,’ ‘leveraged’ or otherwise, as no one is seeking to use the power and authority of the state to preempt speech.

In a free and democratic society citizens are at liberty to speak out as they please. Private society in general will determine what is or is not appropriate speech. This is why there is no such thing as ‘political correctness,’ as speech or actions considered inappropriate are determined so by private society as a whole, not one particular group.

Everyone is at liberty to say or do what he wishes (assuming it doesn’t violate the law, of course), and there is nothing stopping anyone from saying and doing whatever he wishes. And everyone is at liberty to object to speech he perceives to be inappropriate, to denounce that speech, to call for boycotts, petition sponsors, or start a campaign to remove the speaker from the venue in which he expresses his opinions.

Private society as a whole will evaluate the merits of the issue and the two conflicting views and make a determination as to what is appropriate or not.

That some might fear this process is perhaps understandable, but it’s infinitely preferable to government or the courts becoming involved and making the determination of what is appropriate or not.

In fact, this process should be celebrated and encouraged, as it demonstrates the ability of a free and democratic society to govern itself with regard to creating and expressing mores and values that form the foundation of that free and democratic society.

 

[Foxfyre]

The thread topic is about allowing a person his her belief or opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will hurt him physically and/or materially for no other reason than he expressed it.

Yeah, threads do tend to get pushed entirely off the rails, we tend to let our minds wander a bit.

I think your question has been answered pretty clearly. There are obviously people in our society who have taken it upon themselves to do exactly what you're talking about. They feel that, based on their own code, they will use every legal means necessary to control the very words we use. Threats, intimidation and punishment are all perfectly legitimate means for them.

There are plenty of examples just on the various PC-related threads here. And now there is even a thread on which they have gathered to convince themselves that, since (in their minds) tolerance simply isn't going to happen, they may as well proudly run with intolerance. Then they all pat themselves on the back for reaching this foregone conclusion and continue on.

This behavior - leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking - uses our own cherished freedoms against us.

Seems to me that it takes a very cynical mix of narcissism and paranoia to think this way.

.

Incorrect.

No one is ‘leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking,’ as ‘freedom of speech’ is a legal term in the context of the relationship between the speaker and his government.

The issue here has nothing to do with ‘freedom of speech,’ ‘leveraged’ or otherwise, as no one is seeking to use the power and authority of the state to preempt speech.

In a free and democratic society citizens are at liberty to speak out as they please. Private society in general will determine what is or is not appropriate speech. This is why there is no such thing as ‘political correctness,’ as speech or actions considered inappropriate are determined so by private society as a whole, not one particular group.

Everyone is at liberty to say or do what he wishes (assuming it doesn’t violate the law, of course), and there is nothing stopping anyone from saying and doing whatever he wishes. And everyone is at liberty to object to speech he perceives to be inappropriate, to denounce that speech, to call for boycotts, petition sponsors, or start a campaign to remove the speaker from the venue in which he expresses his opinions.

Private society as a whole will evaluate the merits of the issue and the two conflicting views and make a determination as to what is appropriate or not.

That some might fear this process is perhaps understandable, but it’s infinitely preferable to government or the courts becoming involved and making the determination of what is appropriate or not.

In fact, this process should be celebrated and encouraged, as it demonstrates the ability of a free and democratic society to govern itself with regard to creating and expressing mores and values that form the foundation of that free and democratic society.

And some of us see how destructive, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people personally and/or materially for no offense worse than expressing an unpopular opinion or belief or for using a word that some in society have decided is taboo. And some of us have adopted a cause to try to help others see how destructivve, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people that way, and one by one change hearts, minds, and ultimately the culture to one that is far more tolerant and values liberty than what we have now.

To make that long story short, I hope to do what I can to change the culture and make attacking people for their beliefs so socially unacceptable, people will choose not to do that.

 

[Montrovant]

Yeah, threads do tend to get pushed entirely off the rails, we tend to let our minds wander a bit.

I think your question has been answered pretty clearly. There are obviously people in our society who have taken it upon themselves to do exactly what you're talking about. They feel that, based on their own code, they will use every legal means necessary to control the very words we use. Threats, intimidation and punishment are all perfectly legitimate means for them.

There are plenty of examples just on the various PC-related threads here. And now there is even a thread on which they have gathered to convince themselves that, since (in their minds) tolerance simply isn't going to happen, they may as well proudly run with intolerance. Then they all pat themselves on the back for reaching this foregone conclusion and continue on.

This behavior - leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking - uses our own cherished freedoms against us.

Seems to me that it takes a very cynical mix of narcissism and paranoia to think this way.

.

Incorrect.

No one is ‘leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking,’ as ‘freedom of speech’ is a legal term in the context of the relationship between the speaker and his government.

The issue here has nothing to do with ‘freedom of speech,’ ‘leveraged’ or otherwise, as no one is seeking to use the power and authority of the state to preempt speech.

In a free and democratic society citizens are at liberty to speak out as they please. Private society in general will determine what is or is not appropriate speech. This is why there is no such thing as ‘political correctness,’ as speech or actions considered inappropriate are determined so by private society as a whole, not one particular group.

Everyone is at liberty to say or do what he wishes (assuming it doesn’t violate the law, of course), and there is nothing stopping anyone from saying and doing whatever he wishes. And everyone is at liberty to object to speech he perceives to be inappropriate, to denounce that speech, to call for boycotts, petition sponsors, or start a campaign to remove the speaker from the venue in which he expresses his opinions.

Private society as a whole will evaluate the merits of the issue and the two conflicting views and make a determination as to what is appropriate or not.

That some might fear this process is perhaps understandable, but it’s infinitely preferable to government or the courts becoming involved and making the determination of what is appropriate or not.

In fact, this process should be celebrated and encouraged, as it demonstrates the ability of a free and democratic society to govern itself with regard to creating and expressing mores and values that form the foundation of that free and democratic society.

And some of us see how destructive, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people personally and/or materially for no offense worse than expressing an unpopular opinion or belief or for using a word that some in society have decided is taboo. And some of us have adopted a cause to try to help others see how destructivve, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people that way, and one by one change hearts, minds, and ultimately the culture to one that is far more tolerant and values liberty than what we have now.

To make that long story short, I hope to do what I can to change the culture and make attacking people for their beliefs so socially unacceptable, people will choose not to do that.

What makes it unAmerican? I hate that expression, as it's almost always extremely vague and based on seemingly nothing.

Is attacking someone for their opinion something Americans don't do? Clearly not. Is it something Americans didn't do in the past? I would again say clearly not. So how is it unAmerican? Unethical or destructive, sure. But not, I think, unAmerican.

 

[Foxfyre]

Incorrect.

No one is ‘leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking,’ as ‘freedom of speech’ is a legal term in the context of the relationship between the speaker and his government.

The issue here has nothing to do with ‘freedom of speech,’ ‘leveraged’ or otherwise, as no one is seeking to use the power and authority of the state to preempt speech.

In a free and democratic society citizens are at liberty to speak out as they please. Private society in general will determine what is or is not appropriate speech. This is why there is no such thing as ‘political correctness,’ as speech or actions considered inappropriate are determined so by private society as a whole, not one particular group.

Everyone is at liberty to say or do what he wishes (assuming it doesn’t violate the law, of course), and there is nothing stopping anyone from saying and doing whatever he wishes. And everyone is at liberty to object to speech he perceives to be inappropriate, to denounce that speech, to call for boycotts, petition sponsors, or start a campaign to remove the speaker from the venue in which he expresses his opinions.

Private society as a whole will evaluate the merits of the issue and the two conflicting views and make a determination as to what is appropriate or not.

That some might fear this process is perhaps understandable, but it’s infinitely preferable to government or the courts becoming involved and making the determination of what is appropriate or not.

In fact, this process should be celebrated and encouraged, as it demonstrates the ability of a free and democratic society to govern itself with regard to creating and expressing mores and values that form the foundation of that free and democratic society.

And some of us see how destructive, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people personally and/or materially for no offense worse than expressing an unpopular opinion or belief or for using a word that some in society have decided is taboo. And some of us have adopted a cause to try to help others see how destructivve, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people that way, and one by one change hearts, minds, and ultimately the culture to one that is far more tolerant and values liberty than what we have now.

To make that long story short, I hope to do what I can to change the culture and make attacking people for their beliefs so socially unacceptable, people will choose not to do that.

What makes it unAmerican? I hate that expression, as it's almost always extremely vague and based on seemingly nothing.

Is attacking someone for their opinion something Americans don't do? Clearly not. Is it something Americans didn't do in the past? I would again say clearly not. So how is it unAmerican? Unethical or destructive, sure. But not, I think, unAmerican.

The Founders intended that we Americans would not live under the oppression of a Pope, Monarch, or dictator who would specify what Americans were required to believe and/or practice or profess to avoid the Inquisition or worse. The Founders intended that Americans understand that liberty allows people to be who and what they are.

Therefore, those who now would presume to dictate to others what they must be, what they must believe, what they must profess, what they are and are not allowed to speak are, in my opinion, unAmerican.

 

[Gracie]

I must be unamerican then, cuz if I could give some oppression and cause harm to someones livelihood, I would. Certain people are not people at all and if I could silence their "rights", I would in a heart beat.

Which means they could do the same to me since I refuse to kowtow to THEIR beliefs which ARE evil, disgusting and can hurt society even more than it already is.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yeah, threads do tend to get pushed entirely off the rails, we tend to let our minds wander a bit.

I think your question has been answered pretty clearly. There are obviously people in our society who have taken it upon themselves to do exactly what you're talking about. They feel that, based on their own code, they will use every legal means necessary to control the very words we use. Threats, intimidation and punishment are all perfectly legitimate means for them.

There are plenty of examples just on the various PC-related threads here. And now there is even a thread on which they have gathered to convince themselves that, since (in their minds) tolerance simply isn't going to happen, they may as well proudly run with intolerance. Then they all pat themselves on the back for reaching this foregone conclusion and continue on.

This behavior - leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking - uses our own cherished freedoms against us.

Seems to me that it takes a very cynical mix of narcissism and paranoia to think this way.

.

Incorrect.

No one is ‘leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking,’ as ‘freedom of speech’ is a legal term in the context of the relationship between the speaker and his government.

The issue here has nothing to do with ‘freedom of speech,’ ‘leveraged’ or otherwise, as no one is seeking to use the power and authority of the state to preempt speech.

In a free and democratic society citizens are at liberty to speak out as they please. Private society in general will determine what is or is not appropriate speech. This is why there is no such thing as ‘political correctness,’ as speech or actions considered inappropriate are determined so by private society as a whole, not one particular group.

Everyone is at liberty to say or do what he wishes (assuming it doesn’t violate the law, of course), and there is nothing stopping anyone from saying and doing whatever he wishes. And everyone is at liberty to object to speech he perceives to be inappropriate, to denounce that speech, to call for boycotts, petition sponsors, or start a campaign to remove the speaker from the venue in which he expresses his opinions.

Private society as a whole will evaluate the merits of the issue and the two conflicting views and make a determination as to what is appropriate or not.

That some might fear this process is perhaps understandable, but it’s infinitely preferable to government or the courts becoming involved and making the determination of what is appropriate or not.

In fact, this process should be celebrated and encouraged, as it demonstrates the ability of a free and democratic society to govern itself with regard to creating and expressing mores and values that form the foundation of that free and democratic society.

And some of us see how destructive, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people personally and/or materially for no offense worse than expressing an unpopular opinion or belief or for using a word that some in society have decided is taboo. And some of us have adopted a cause to try to help others see how destructivve, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people that way, and one by one change hearts, minds, and ultimately the culture to one that is far more tolerant and values liberty than what we have now.

To make that long story short, I hope to do what I can to change the culture and make attacking people for their beliefs so socially unacceptable, people will choose not to do that.

So freedom of speech is "destructive, unethical, and unAmerican"?

 

[Foxfyre]

I must be unamerican then, cuz if I could give some oppression and cause harm to someones livelihood, I would. Certain people are not people at all and if I could silence their "rights", I would in a heart beat.

Which means they could do the same to me since I refuse to kowtow to THEIR beliefs which ARE evil, disgusting and can hurt society even more than it already is.

But is it worth it for bullies on each side to beat up on those they don't like from the other side until it is only the biggest baddest bully still standing? Each side thinks the other is reprehensible. So who can be trusted with making up the list of who will be deemed acceptable and who will not? What will be deemed acceptable and what will not?

Why is a Phil Robertson who believes the Bible classifies homosexuality as a sin more reprehensible than an Evander Holyfield who says homosexuality is a choice, is not normal, and can be 'fixed' and those who have it should fix it? Do either of them really hurt anybody with their opinions that the huge majority of people do not share?

If I believe your stated opinion about somebody might mislead some sweet young thing, does that give me license to silence you if I can? To punish you if you speak?

Where does this kind of thing stop? Who gets to be the judge and jury? And who is authorized to determine who will be acceptable and who is not? Who is allowed to speak their opinions and who isn't?

Mind you we are not talking about anybody's actions here. We are talking about what people believe and who they are only.

 

[Gracie]

Maybe I am a simpleton, so I will keep it as simple and brief as possible.
Anyone who threatens the life or morals of common..note I said common..."decency" (and your miles may vary according to what is deemed "decent"), deserves to be silenced.

And for good measure, here is what I believe is called a strawman in these parts:
If you could kill hilter or pol pot or stalin or (insert name here)....knowing what they did but you could stop it by silencing them forever BEFORE they did what they did....would you? I would.

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe I am a simpleton, so I will keep it as simple and brief as possible.
Anyone who threatens the life or morals of common..note I said common..."decency" (and your miles may vary according to what is deemed "decent"), deserves to be silenced.

And for good measure, here is what I believe is called a strawman in these parts:
If you could kill hilter or pol pot or stalin or (insert name here)....knowing what they did but you could stop it by silencing them forever BEFORE they did what they did....would you? I would.

Are you seriously saying that the opinions expressed by Phil Robertson and Evander Holyfield could possibly make them a Polpot or Hitler or Stalin? What criteria do you use to determine that somebody's opinion is dangerous?

Again I am not speaking of what people DO to other people. I am not speaking of what people say they INTEND TO DO to other people. I am speaking of people who express an opinion or conviction that others don't like but who violate the rights of others in no way.

 

[Gracie]

Maybe I am a simpleton, so I will keep it as simple and brief as possible.
Anyone who threatens the life or morals of common..note I said common..."decency" (and your miles may vary according to what is deemed "decent"), deserves to be silenced.

And for good measure, here is what I believe is called a strawman in these parts:
If you could kill hilter or pol pot or stalin or (insert name here)....knowing what they did but you could stop it by silencing them forever BEFORE they did what they did....would you? I would.

Are you seriously saying that the opinions expressed by Phil Robertson and Evander Holyfield could possibly make them a Polpot or Hitler or Stalin? What criteria do you use to determine that somebody's opinion is dangerous?

Again I am not speaking of what people DO to other people. I am not speaking of what people say they INTEND TO DO to other people. I am speaking of people who express an opinion or conviction that others don't like but who violate the rights of others in no way.

No. I am not saying Robertson saying what he said has anything to do with polpot or stalin or hitler. Maybe I am not getting what you are trying to convey. I thought it was letting people be as they are. well, that is not possible sometimes. Sometimes, people have to be silenced. Or stopped. Hitler expressed an opinion and acted on it. I don't think it is in the generic possibilities of humans to accept anything they don't agree with, without it not becoming rights of others. Violence or violate, whatever you want to call it. Only one person could possibly do that and he was crucified..and also judged...and his rights were violated because He was not agreed with in what he taught. It's all connected because it is in our genetic makeup.