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

[Montrovant]

And wham!! Now hunarcy and Montrovant are allied in this and I am the odd 'man' out. LOL. (I really do love you guys.)

I honestly don't approve of organized boycotts for no other reason than we don't like somebody or disapprove of their opinion about something. That is something that I would like to be made socially unacceptable in our culture and something seen as what only the lowest of the lowlifes do. I see it as morally and ethically wrong to try to punish people for who and what they are when they are harming nobody else. I can choose not to patronize those who offend me and if enough people also choose to do that, well, that's life. But I won't go out of my way to organize punishment for somebody in that way. I see that as wrong.

Organized boycotts for the purpose of protesting bad ACTS, however, I have no problem with.

There is a fine distinction between those two things.

I must disagree with you here. Boycotts are a perfectly valid expression of disagreement. They aren't born of intolerance.

Let me give two examples.

In one case, we have people who want Phil off the air PERIOD , doesn't matter that they are able to change the channel and not see or hear hm. That's not good enough, they want him SILENCED.

On the other hand, we have people who encouraged a boycott of the Rose Bowl, but in no way suggested the RB should be shut down over a gay wedding

The latter says "I'm tolerant , but won't be part of" while the former says "I want this silenced"

First I need to qualify my immediately preceding post to assure hunarcy and Montrovant--and you too Billy--that I do not see any of you as lowlifes when you disagree with me on this.

But you see, I see both those things as morally and ethically wrong though the Phil Robertson thing is worse because it specifically targets an individual to be personally and materially hurt.

But there is a difference between personally choosing not to attend a gay wedding at the Rose Bowl and trying to get everybody to choose that. How does that gay wedding hurt anybody? If the Rose Bowl chooses to host it, how does that harm me or you or anybody else in any way? Do you--the rhetorical you--oppose gay marriage? Okay that is your right so long as you don't harrass or interfere with those who don't oppose it. It is your right not to participate.

But it should be morally and ethically wrong to try to spoil somebody else's activity purely because you don't want to participate in it.

What if the people trying to stop the Rose Bowl or prevent the gay wedding at the Rose Bowl honestly think it does hurt for it to happen? That it encourages poor morals, gives a bad message to our children, or something along those lines?

There are so many different ways people see things, I find it hard to assume that anyone is just trying to hurt a person with a boycott or demand for firing or anything of the like. They may honestly believe they are preventing or righting a wrong, or doing something for the good of the country, however wrong I find their reasoning.

 

[BillyZane]

I must disagree with you here. Boycotts are a perfectly valid expression of disagreement. They aren't born of intolerance.

Let me give two examples.

In one case, we have people who want Phil off the air PERIOD , doesn't matter that they are able to change the channel and not see or hear hm. That's not good enough, they want him SILENCED.

On the other hand, we have people who encouraged a boycott of the Rose Bowl, but in no way suggested the RB should be shut down over a gay wedding

The latter says "I'm tolerant , but won't be part of" while the former says "I want this silenced"

First I need to qualify my immediately preceding post to assure hunarcy and Montrovant--and you too Billy--that I do not see any of you as lowlifes when you disagree with me on this.

But you see, I see both those things as morally and ethically wrong though the Phil Robertson thing is worse because it specifically targets an individual to be personally and materially hurt.

But there is a difference between personally choosing not to attend a gay wedding at the Rose Bowl and trying to get everybody to choose that. How does that gay wedding hurt anybody? If the Rose Bowl chooses to host it, how does that harm me or you or anybody else in any way? Do you--the rhetorical you--oppose gay marriage? Okay that is your right so long as you don't harrass or interfere with those who don't oppose it. It is your right not to participate.

But it should be morally and ethically wrong to try to spoil somebody else's activity purely because you don't want to participate in it.

What if the people trying to stop the Rose Bowl or prevent the gay wedding at the Rose Bowl honestly think it does hurt for it to happen? That it encourages poor morals, gives a bad message to our children, or something along those lines?

There are so many different ways people see things, I find it hard to assume that anyone is just trying to hurt a person with a boycott or demand for firing or anything of the like. They may honestly believe they are preventing or righting a wrong, or doing something for the good of the country, however wrong I find their reasoning.

I go further and suggest that their goals are irrelevant. Encouraging a boycott isn't causing harm to a person or entity. Oh, sure if the boycott grew large enough it could possibly cause financial harm, but the reality is we are much too diverse a people for a boycott to ever be that successful.

You could boycott a company because the owner is a pedophile and there would be people who support the guy and continue doing business with him rendering the boycott s little more than a symbolic gesture. Which all boycotts ultimately are. Now true, a company could decide hey we are alienating our customers and change their stance, but is that harming them?I say no

 

[R.D.]

First I need to qualify my immediately preceding post to assure hunarcy and Montrovant--and you too Billy--that I do not see any of you as lowlifes when you disagree with me on this.

But you see, I see both those things as morally and ethically wrong though the Phil Robertson thing is worse because it specifically targets an individual to be personally and materially hurt.

But there is a difference between personally choosing not to attend a gay wedding at the Rose Bowl and trying to get everybody to choose that. How does that gay wedding hurt anybody? If the Rose Bowl chooses to host it, how does that harm me or you or anybody else in any way? Do you--the rhetorical you--oppose gay marriage? Okay that is your right so long as you don't harrass or interfere with those who don't oppose it. It is your right not to participate.

But it should be morally and ethically wrong to try to spoil somebody else's activity purely because you don't want to participate in it.

I think the Rose Bowl is a bigger issue than just not wanting to participate. Those backing a boycott are in effect asking not to be forced to participate.

 

[BillyZane]

First I need to qualify my immediately preceding post to assure hunarcy and Montrovant--and you too Billy--that I do not see any of you as lowlifes when you disagree with me on this.

But you see, I see both those things as morally and ethically wrong though the Phil Robertson thing is worse because it specifically targets an individual to be personally and materially hurt.

But there is a difference between personally choosing not to attend a gay wedding at the Rose Bowl and trying to get everybody to choose that. How does that gay wedding hurt anybody? If the Rose Bowl chooses to host it, how does that harm me or you or anybody else in any way? Do you--the rhetorical you--oppose gay marriage? Okay that is your right so long as you don't harrass or interfere with those who don't oppose it. It is your right not to participate.

But it should be morally and ethically wrong to try to spoil somebody else's activity purely because you don't want to participate in it.

I think the Rose Bowl is a bigger issue than just not wanting to participate. Those backing a boycott are in effect asking not to be forced to participate.

Actually not. Because watching the Rose Bowl does not constitutes participating in the gay wedding. It merely constitutes WATCHING a gay wedding.

So, all those who boycotted were doing was refusing to watch.

Again, that harms no one.

 

[R.D.]

First I need to qualify my immediately preceding post to assure hunarcy and Montrovant--and you too Billy--that I do not see any of you as lowlifes when you disagree with me on this.

But you see, I see both those things as morally and ethically wrong though the Phil Robertson thing is worse because it specifically targets an individual to be personally and materially hurt.

But there is a difference between personally choosing not to attend a gay wedding at the Rose Bowl and trying to get everybody to choose that. How does that gay wedding hurt anybody? If the Rose Bowl chooses to host it, how does that harm me or you or anybody else in any way? Do you--the rhetorical you--oppose gay marriage? Okay that is your right so long as you don't harrass or interfere with those who don't oppose it. It is your right not to participate.

But it should be morally and ethically wrong to try to spoil somebody else's activity purely because you don't want to participate in it.

I think the Rose Bowl is a bigger issue than just not wanting to participate. Those backing a boycott are in effect asking not to be forced to participate.

Actually not. Because watching the Rose Bowl does not constitutes participating in the gay wedding. It merely constitutes WATCHING a gay wedding.

So, all those who boycotted were doing was refusing to watch.

Again, that harms no one.

Define harms.

Watching is participating. The only way I can participate in the RB is to watch.

The very reason they are airing a wedding in this venue is the very reason many would boycott it. It's all a push and pull game.

 

[BillyZane]

I think the Rose Bowl is a bigger issue than just not wanting to participate. Those backing a boycott are in effect asking not to be forced to participate.

Actually not. Because watching the Rose Bowl does not constitutes participating in the gay wedding. It merely constitutes WATCHING a gay wedding.

So, all those who boycotted were doing was refusing to watch.

Again, that harms no one.

Define harms.

Watching is participating. The only way I can participate in the RB is to watch.

The very reason they are airing a wedding in this venue is the very reason many would boycott it. It's all a push and pull game.

You are no more participating in the Rose Bowl parade when you watch it, then you are participating in the Rose Bowl game when you watch it. Or do you put a jersey on and call your favorite team "us" when viewing?

LOL The Rose Bowl parade is pretty much open to anyone participating. Watching is NOT participating.

 

[Bfgrn]

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"?

A flaw:

Speech itself isn't destructive. Acting on that speech is what can be deemed or seen as destructive. To intimidate someone for their speech by using your speech and actions resulting therein, is itself unethical and un-American.

You mean like Sean Hannity giving out the numbers on the air of Nancy Dubuc, the CEO of A&E Networks and A&E Chairwoman Abbe Raven, who received death threats?

 

[R.D.]

Actually not. Because watching the Rose Bowl does not constitutes participating in the gay wedding. It merely constitutes WATCHING a gay wedding.

So, all those who boycotted were doing was refusing to watch.

Again, that harms no one.

Define harms.

Watching is participating. The only way I can participate in the RB is to watch.

The very reason they are airing a wedding in this venue is the very reason many would boycott it. It's all a push and pull game.

You are no more participating in the Rose Bowl parade when you watch it, then you are participating in the Rose Bowl game when you watch it. Or do you put a jersey on and call your favorite team "us" when viewing?

LOL The Rose Bowl parade is pretty much open to anyone participating. Watching is NOT participating.

You put in the qualifier so which is it?

We won't agree. These events are for viewership, without viewer participation they would cease to exist.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

A flaw:

Speech itself isn't destructive. Acting on that speech is what can be deemed or seen as destructive. To intimidate someone for their speech by using your speech and actions resulting therein, is itself unethical and un-American.

You mean like Sean Hannity giving out the numbers on the air of Nancy Dubuc, the CEO of A&E Networks and A&E Chairwoman Abbe Raven, who received death threats?

Since when did a phone call kill anyone? What about the Obamacare lady he helped after she was fired for talking to him on the phone? Does that seem like intolerance to you? And when did he give out Nancy Dubuc's personal phone number? Did he say 'go make death threats to her'? Of course not, he like anyone else in their right minds wouldn't endorse such behavior.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I must disagree with you here. Boycotts are a perfectly valid expression of disagreement. They aren't born of intolerance.

Let me give two examples.

In one case, we have people who want Phil off the air PERIOD , doesn't matter that they are able to change the channel and not see or hear hm. That's not good enough, they want him SILENCED.

On the other hand, we have people who encouraged a boycott of the Rose Bowl, but in no way suggested the RB should be shut down over a gay wedding

The latter says "I'm tolerant , but won't be part of" while the former says "I want this silenced"

First I need to qualify my immediately preceding post to assure hunarcy and Montrovant--and you too Billy--that I do not see any of you as lowlifes when you disagree with me on this.

But you see, I see both those things as morally and ethically wrong though the Phil Robertson thing is worse because it specifically targets an individual to be personally and materially hurt.

But there is a difference between personally choosing not to attend a gay wedding at the Rose Bowl and trying to get everybody to choose that. How does that gay wedding hurt anybody? If the Rose Bowl chooses to host it, how does that harm me or you or anybody else in any way? Do you--the rhetorical you--oppose gay marriage? Okay that is your right so long as you don't harrass or interfere with those who don't oppose it. It is your right not to participate.

But it should be morally and ethically wrong to try to spoil somebody else's activity purely because you don't want to participate in it.

What if the people trying to stop the Rose Bowl or prevent the gay wedding at the Rose Bowl honestly think it does hurt for it to happen? That it encourages poor morals, gives a bad message to our children, or something along those lines?

There are so many different ways people see things, I find it hard to assume that anyone is just trying to hurt a person with a boycott or demand for firing or anything of the like. They may honestly believe they are preventing or righting a wrong, or doing something for the good of the country, however wrong I find their reasoning.

And with good reason, because no one is trying ‘hurt’ anyone.

 

[Bfgrn]

A flaw:

Speech itself isn't destructive. Acting on that speech is what can be deemed or seen as destructive. To intimidate someone for their speech by using your speech and actions resulting therein, is itself unethical and un-American.

You mean like Sean Hannity giving out the numbers on the air of Nancy Dubuc, the CEO of A&E Networks and A&E Chairwoman Abbe Raven, who received death threats?

Since when did a phone call kill anyone? What about the Obamacare lady he helped after she was fired for talking to him on the phone? Does that seem like intolerance to you? And when did he give out Nancy Dubuc's personal phone number? Did he say 'go make death threats to her'? Of course not, he like anyone else in their right minds wouldn't endorse such behavior.

NEVER any culpability from you folks on the right. You folks preach 'personal responsibility' and practice total 'victim-hood', blaming EVERYONE but yourselves. How can any group of people be so blind?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You mean like Sean Hannity giving out the numbers on the air of Nancy Dubuc, the CEO of A&E Networks and A&E Chairwoman Abbe Raven, who received death threats?

Since when did a phone call kill anyone? What about the Obamacare lady he helped after she was fired for talking to him on the phone? Does that seem like intolerance to you? And when did he give out Nancy Dubuc's personal phone number? Did he say 'go make death threats to her'? Of course not, he like anyone else in their right minds wouldn't endorse such behavior.

NEVER any culpability from you folks on the right. You folks preach 'personal responsibility' and practice total 'victim-hood', blaming EVERYONE but yourselves. How can any group of people be so blind?

Sure, but you never proved to me or anyone else that Hannity ever provided Nancy Dubuc's number on air or anywhere. So, blaming him for the folks who made death threats on her is garbage. You might wish to leave now, we have no need for you to pollute this area with your invective.

When you learn to refrain from lying about people to make your case, then you can lecture the rest of us on personal responsibility, are we clear? It appears my friend, you might be wallowing in victimhood.

 

[Bfgrn]

Since when did a phone call kill anyone? What about the Obamacare lady he helped after she was fired for talking to him on the phone? Does that seem like intolerance to you? And when did he give out Nancy Dubuc's personal phone number? Did he say 'go make death threats to her'? Of course not, he like anyone else in their right minds wouldn't endorse such behavior.

NEVER any culpability from you folks on the right. You folks preach 'personal responsibility' and practice total 'victim-hood', blaming EVERYONE but yourselves. How can any group of people be so blind?

Sure, but you never proved to me or anyone else that Hannity ever provided Nancy Dubuc's number on air or anywhere. So, blaming him for the folks who made death threats on her is garbage. You might wish to leave now, we have no need for you to pollute this area with your invective.

When you learn to refrain from lying about people to make your case, then you can lecture the rest of us on personal responsibility, are we clear? It appears my friend, you might be wallowing in victimhood.

Sean Hannity is so upset at the suspension of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson that he encouraged his radio audience on Thursday to call executives at A&E and even supplied some phone numbers -- multiple times.

Speaking of Robertson's religious objections to homosexuality, Hannity said: "A&E knows how he feels about this. Why did they put him with a GQ guy in the first place? How stupid are they? By the way, the number to -- the CEO at A&E is Abbe Raven -- if you wanna give her your opinion about this, or Nancy Dubuc is [phone number redacted]. The general number at A&E is [redacted]."

NOW what smart ***?

 

[TemplarKormac]

NEVER any culpability from you folks on the right. You folks preach 'personal responsibility' and practice total 'victim-hood', blaming EVERYONE but yourselves. How can any group of people be so blind?

Sure, but you never proved to me or anyone else that Hannity ever provided Nancy Dubuc's number on air or anywhere. So, blaming him for the folks who made death threats on her is garbage. You might wish to leave now, we have no need for you to pollute this area with your invective.

When you learn to refrain from lying about people to make your case, then you can lecture the rest of us on personal responsibility, are we clear? It appears my friend, you might be wallowing in victimhood.

Sean Hannity is so upset at the suspension of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson that he encouraged his radio audience on Thursday to call executives at A&E and even supplied some phone numbers -- multiple times.

Speaking of Robertson's religious objections to homosexuality, Hannity said: "A&E knows how he feels about this. Why did they put him with a GQ guy in the first place? How stupid are they? By the way, the number to -- the CEO at A&E is Abbe Raven -- if you wanna give her your opinion about this, or Nancy Dubuc is [phone number redacted]. The general number at A&E is [redacted]."

NOW what smart ***?

Are you saying people aren't allowed to call the company and address Dubuc in her professional capacity? And here we thought that you guys were tolerant. The viewers have every right to their opinions, they don't have the right to make death threats. It is utterly partisan for you to pin the blame on Hannity.

Perhaps you weren't reading your own article, since you missed this part:

"There are plenty of gay-themed programs on television," Hannity said later, using The L Word as an example. "I don't know any conservatives that are demanding that these shows be taken off the air."

He then gave out the two A&E phone numbers again, adding: "I'm not telling people what to say. Be polite. I always urge that. But call them and tell them what you think."

Once again, you're full of it. Now if you would so kindly stop trying to derail a thread in the CDZ, that would be great.

 

[Bfgrn]

Sure, but you never proved to me or anyone else that Hannity ever provided Nancy Dubuc's number on air or anywhere. So, blaming him for the folks who made death threats on her is garbage. You might wish to leave now, we have no need for you to pollute this area with your invective.

When you learn to refrain from lying about people to make your case, then you can lecture the rest of us on personal responsibility, are we clear? It appears my friend, you might be wallowing in victimhood.

Sean Hannity is so upset at the suspension of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson that he encouraged his radio audience on Thursday to call executives at A&E and even supplied some phone numbers -- multiple times.

Speaking of Robertson's religious objections to homosexuality, Hannity said: "A&E knows how he feels about this. Why did they put him with a GQ guy in the first place? How stupid are they? By the way, the number to -- the CEO at A&E is Abbe Raven -- if you wanna give her your opinion about this, or Nancy Dubuc is [phone number redacted]. The general number at A&E is [redacted]."

NOW what smart ***?

Are you saying people aren't allowed to call the company and address Dubuc in her professional capacity? And here we thought that you guys were tolerant. The viewers have every right to their opinions, they don't have the right to make death threats. It is utterly partisan for you to pin the blame on Hannity.

Perhaps you weren't reading your own article, since you missed this part:

"There are plenty of gay-themed programs on television," Hannity said later, using The L Word as an example. "I don't know any conservatives that are demanding that these shows be taken off the air."

He then gave out the two A&E phone numbers again, adding: "I'm not telling people what to say. Be polite. I always urge that. But call them and tell them what you think."

Once again, you're full of it. Now if you would so kindly stop trying to derail a thread in the CDZ, that would be great.

People are completely allowed to "call the company and address Dubuc in her professional capacity." But only through PUBLIC and professional channels. A&E's corporate phone number is public domain and is the PROPER channel to air complaints. Hannity was WAY out of bounds giving out those people's PERSONAL phone numbers. That is an infringement of privacy and Hannity was wrong giving out those phone numbers.

I fully expected excuses and obfuscation once I proved you were wrong. You could have saved yourself this embarrassment if you had researched this before your condescending reply.

 

[Foxfyre]

A person's direct line at A&E or anywhere else is not like giving out a personal phone number. Those are not 'private' numbers. It is no different than any activist group, left or right, giving out the direct line to somebody in state or local government or any corporation and that is done all the time. Giving out an unlisted private phone number to somebody's home WOULD BE a violation of privacy. I'm sure nobody did that in the Duck Dynasty flap.

How could suggesting folks call somebody to express their opinions somehow be more sinister than staging a boycott or protest or picket of somebody to express opinions? It seems like most of you think that boycott or protest is the "American Way". Seems to me suggesting phone calls or e-mails or snail mail is a much less contentious and a much more civil way to express public opinion than trying to hurt a business with a boycott. Most especially when the activist suggesting it is not handing out talking points for people to say and urges them to be polite and respectful.

I have been reading most of the thread--it moves pretty fast now and then and I'm sure I miss posts and I apologize for that--and I have been thinking about what some of you are saying. About that boycott that most of you--left and right--seem to think is okay to organize and doesn't really hurt anybody anyway. . . .if you don't think it accomplishes anything why do it? For what purpose?

 

[Katzndogz]

NEVER any culpability from you folks on the right. You folks preach 'personal responsibility' and practice total 'victim-hood', blaming EVERYONE but yourselves. How can any group of people be so blind?

Sure, but you never proved to me or anyone else that Hannity ever provided Nancy Dubuc's number on air or anywhere. So, blaming him for the folks who made death threats on her is garbage. You might wish to leave now, we have no need for you to pollute this area with your invective.

When you learn to refrain from lying about people to make your case, then you can lecture the rest of us on personal responsibility, are we clear? It appears my friend, you might be wallowing in victimhood.

Sean Hannity is so upset at the suspension of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson that he encouraged his radio audience on Thursday to call executives at A&E and even supplied some phone numbers -- multiple times.

Speaking of Robertson's religious objections to homosexuality, Hannity said: "A&E knows how he feels about this. Why did they put him with a GQ guy in the first place? How stupid are they? By the way, the number to -- the CEO at A&E is Abbe Raven -- if you wanna give her your opinion about this, or Nancy Dubuc is [phone number redacted]. The general number at A&E is [redacted]."

NOW what smart ***?

The corporate phone numbers of A&E is a matter of public record. It's not like Hannity hired busloads of protesters to go to private homes and protest like liberals do.

 

[Foxfyre]

First I need to qualify my immediately preceding post to assure hunarcy and Montrovant--and you too Billy--that I do not see any of you as lowlifes when you disagree with me on this.

But you see, I see both those things as morally and ethically wrong though the Phil Robertson thing is worse because it specifically targets an individual to be personally and materially hurt.

But there is a difference between personally choosing not to attend a gay wedding at the Rose Bowl and trying to get everybody to choose that. How does that gay wedding hurt anybody? If the Rose Bowl chooses to host it, how does that harm me or you or anybody else in any way? Do you--the rhetorical you--oppose gay marriage? Okay that is your right so long as you don't harrass or interfere with those who don't oppose it. It is your right not to participate.

But it should be morally and ethically wrong to try to spoil somebody else's activity purely because you don't want to participate in it.

What if the people trying to stop the Rose Bowl or prevent the gay wedding at the Rose Bowl honestly think it does hurt for it to happen? That it encourages poor morals, gives a bad message to our children, or something along those lines?

There are so many different ways people see things, I find it hard to assume that anyone is just trying to hurt a person with a boycott or demand for firing or anything of the like. They may honestly believe they are preventing or righting a wrong, or doing something for the good of the country, however wrong I find their reasoning.

And with good reason, because no one is trying ‘hurt’ anyone.

I'm sorry, but when you are trying to get somebody fired, you ARE trying to hurt them physically (removing them from something they may love doing) and materially (trying to take away their livelihod.) What good is a boycott if the intent is not to force somebody to do something you want them to do?

And of course those doing it feel righteous and virtuous when they do it because it is for the 'common good' yes? It is the right thing to do to silence a Phil Robertson and his opinions about homosexuality. He must be made an example yes of what people must not be allowed to be. What people must not be allowed to say. At least not in a public forum. He must be destroyed to save the nation's virtue.

The problem comes and that nobody--left or right--seems to want to address is who should be given authority to dictate what people must be or not be? What people are not allowed to say?

 

[Montrovant]

What if the people trying to stop the Rose Bowl or prevent the gay wedding at the Rose Bowl honestly think it does hurt for it to happen? That it encourages poor morals, gives a bad message to our children, or something along those lines?

There are so many different ways people see things, I find it hard to assume that anyone is just trying to hurt a person with a boycott or demand for firing or anything of the like. They may honestly believe they are preventing or righting a wrong, or doing something for the good of the country, however wrong I find their reasoning.

And with good reason, because no one is trying ‘hurt’ anyone.

I'm sorry, but when you are trying to get somebody fired, you ARE trying to hurt them physically (removing them from something they may love doing) and materially (trying to take away their livelihod.) What good is a boycott if the intent is not to force somebody to do something you want them to do?

And of course those doing it feel righteous and virtuous when they do it because it is for the 'common good' yes? It is the right thing to do to silence a Phil Robertson and his opinions about homosexuality. He must be made an example yes of what people must not be allowed to be. What people must not be allowed to say. At least not in a public forum. He must be destroyed to save the nation's virtue.

The problem comes and that nobody--left or right--seems to want to address is who should be given authority to dictate what people must be or not be? What people are not allowed to say?

I think you miss my point. You can try to have someone's opinion removed from the air without the intent of seeing them hurt. However, the one may not be possible with the other.

A person might be totally happy if Phil Robertson were to become a behind-the-scenes employee at A&E but feel he shouldn't have his own reality show to publicly promote whatever message they don't like of his. Trying to have his show cancelled would not be with the intent of harming him, only with the intent of removing that message.

A boycott is entirely about trying to get someone or a company to do what you want. I've never said anything differently. They can be effective. That doesn't mean the intent behind them has to be hurting someone, even though in almost every instance someone will be hurt if they work.

I think the 'who gets to decide' question has been addressed. The answer is each individual. Each person decides what they think is right and wrong, and society as a whole will either make rules that follow the general consensus or, as is often the case, will make social standards outside of the law that follow the consensus. This is, as I understand it, the very thing you hope to see.

If you can convince enough people that Phil Robertson's message(s) are unacceptable, he and others who say similar things will have a very hard time finding employment which allows them to publicly promote such things. As you've said, it's not a legal argument. It's just about what things society in general finds acceptable.

 

[Foxfyre]

And with good reason, because no one is trying ‘hurt’ anyone.

I'm sorry, but when you are trying to get somebody fired, you ARE trying to hurt them physically (removing them from something they may love doing) and materially (trying to take away their livelihod.) What good is a boycott if the intent is not to force somebody to do something you want them to do?

And of course those doing it feel righteous and virtuous when they do it because it is for the 'common good' yes? It is the right thing to do to silence a Phil Robertson and his opinions about homosexuality. He must be made an example yes of what people must not be allowed to be. What people must not be allowed to say. At least not in a public forum. He must be destroyed to save the nation's virtue.

The problem comes and that nobody--left or right--seems to want to address is who should be given authority to dictate what people must be or not be? What people are not allowed to say?

I think you miss my point. You can try to have someone's opinion removed from the air without the intent of seeing them hurt. However, the one may not be possible with the other.

A person might be totally happy if Phil Robertson were to become a behind-the-scenes employee at A&E but feel he shouldn't have his own reality show to publicly promote whatever message they don't like of his. Trying to have his show cancelled would not be with the intent of harming him, only with the intent of removing that message.

A boycott is entirely about trying to get someone or a company to do what you want. I've never said anything differently. They can be effective. That doesn't mean the intent behind them has to be hurting someone, even though in almost every instance someone will be hurt if they work.

I think the 'who gets to decide' question has been addressed. The answer is each individual. Each person decides what they think is right and wrong, and society as a whole will either make rules that follow the general consensus or, as is often the case, will make social standards outside of the law that follow the consensus. This is, as I understand it, the very thing you hope to see.

If you can convince enough people that Phil Robertson's message(s) are unacceptable, he and others who say similar things will have a very hard time finding employment which allows them to publicly promote such things. As you've said, it's not a legal argument. It's just about what things society in general finds acceptable.

Nobody had an objection about Phil Robertson's message on Duck Dynasty. I don't watch much Duck Dynasty, but from what little I have seen, it has nothing to do with politics or any socioeconomic issues out there. It is a light hearted and funny series of glimpses into a family living their light hearted and funny lives.

His relationship with A&E was not an issue. He gave an interview to GQ magazine, totally unrelated to A&E, who asked him his opinion, and then published an edited version of that opinion. So if somebody objects to the opinion, why is GQ, who made the comments public, not the villain in this scenario? Why go to A&E and demand that A&E fire Phil Robertson if the purpose is not to hurt Phil Robertson as much as possible? Obviously GLAAD's problem is with Phil Robertson and not because 'defamatory' material was put out there. If they were really offended by the comments, they would have gone after GQ who published them.

In my opinion, we show tolerance and are much more noble as a people if we choose what we approve of, what inspires us, what helps us make better choices and/or be better people rather than trying to punish those who are different from us or who don't share our opinions.