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

[Montrovant]

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.

I think that an interview is looked at differently than employing someone in their own reality show. I have never watched DD so I don't know what kinds of things are said on the show. However there is certainly a difference between what may have been an unpaid interview and long term employment as a reality tv star.

Rightly or wrongly, the members of GLAAD may have felt that A&E, by employing Robertson in that capacity, were implying an agreement with his publicly spoken messages. GQ, on the other hand, merely interviewed him one time. If a reporter interviews Kim Jong Un, no one is likely to consider them to be supporting his regime. Dennis Rodman travels to North Korea and spends some time with Kim Jong Un, and plans on possibly bringing other former NBA players to the country, and there are people who think he is supporting or helping Kim Jong Un.

I think there is just a degree of separation given by default to an interview that doesn't apply to most other kinds of interaction.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I think that an interview is looked at differently than employing someone in their own reality show. I have never watched DD so I don't know what kinds of things are said on the show. However there is certainly a difference between what may have been an unpaid interview and long term employment as a reality tv star.

Rightly or wrongly, the members of GLAAD may have felt that A&E, by employing Robertson in that capacity, were implying an agreement with his publicly spoken messages. GQ, on the other hand, merely interviewed him one time. If a reporter interviews Kim Jong Un, no one is likely to consider them to be supporting his regime. Dennis Rodman travels to North Korea and spends some time with Kim Jong Un, and plans on possibly bringing other former NBA players to the country, and there are people who think he is supporting or helping Kim Jong Un.

I think there is just a degree of separation given by default to an interview that doesn't apply to most other kinds of interaction.

And you don't see a problem with trying to hurt Phil Robertson personally purely because he gave his honest opinion in an GQ interview? Is that okay?

Is sure isn't okay with me and I'm making my best argument for why it shouldn't be okay with anybody.

Was it okay for American Family Association to try to get Ellen Degeneres fired from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason than Ellen Degeneres is gay?

That isn't okay with me either and I'm making my best argument for why it shouldn't be okay with anybody.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder what ya'll think about this fairly short ZO lecture that has now gone viral. Does he give anybody some food for thought on this whole concept of tolerance? Who is demonstrating it. And who isn't?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-u_uT3YS-Uk]Mellisa Harris Perry's Panel Shows Bigotry, Not the Robertsons - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Montrovant]

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.

I think that an interview is looked at differently than employing someone in their own reality show. I have never watched DD so I don't know what kinds of things are said on the show. However there is certainly a difference between what may have been an unpaid interview and long term employment as a reality tv star.

Rightly or wrongly, the members of GLAAD may have felt that A&E, by employing Robertson in that capacity, were implying an agreement with his publicly spoken messages. GQ, on the other hand, merely interviewed him one time. If a reporter interviews Kim Jong Un, no one is likely to consider them to be supporting his regime. Dennis Rodman travels to North Korea and spends some time with Kim Jong Un, and plans on possibly bringing other former NBA players to the country, and there are people who think he is supporting or helping Kim Jong Un.

I think there is just a degree of separation given by default to an interview that doesn't apply to most other kinds of interaction.

And you don't see a problem with trying to hurt Phil Robertson personally purely because he gave his honest opinion in an GQ interview? Is that okay?

Is sure isn't okay with me and I'm making my best argument for why it shouldn't be okay with anybody.

Was it okay for American Family Association to try to get Ellen Degeneres fired from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason than Ellen Degeneres is gay?

That isn't okay with me either and I'm making my best argument for why it shouldn't be okay with anybody.

I think it depends on just what opinion it is that he gave. If he had said it is ok to gas Jews like Hitler, I would probably be fine with groups trying to get him fired. If he said we should kill all infidels against Allah, I would probably be fine with groups trying to get him fired.

I'm a bit more on the fence with Phil Robertson. I think he came across as a bit of an ass. I'm not particularly upset that GLAAD tried to get him fired. I think they overreacted, but I don't see it as evil the way you do.

I think that some opinions are vile enough and promote a mindset potentially dangerous enough that I'd rather not see them on the air. I personally just avoid whatever programs might show them, but if others feel like going further, I tend to brush it off. It has to remain legal of course, but if it is just an expression of group dislike, I see it as little different than trying to get a show cancelled because you think it sucks.

Now when someone tries to get Joe the pharmacist fired because they heard he is privately a racist, that's a different argument.

I think that trying to get a message out of the public eye is usually silly but valid, I suppose.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think that an interview is looked at differently than employing someone in their own reality show. I have never watched DD so I don't know what kinds of things are said on the show. However there is certainly a difference between what may have been an unpaid interview and long term employment as a reality tv star.

Rightly or wrongly, the members of GLAAD may have felt that A&E, by employing Robertson in that capacity, were implying an agreement with his publicly spoken messages. GQ, on the other hand, merely interviewed him one time. If a reporter interviews Kim Jong Un, no one is likely to consider them to be supporting his regime. Dennis Rodman travels to North Korea and spends some time with Kim Jong Un, and plans on possibly bringing other former NBA players to the country, and there are people who think he is supporting or helping Kim Jong Un.

I think there is just a degree of separation given by default to an interview that doesn't apply to most other kinds of interaction.

And you don't see a problem with trying to hurt Phil Robertson personally purely because he gave his honest opinion in an GQ interview? Is that okay?

Is sure isn't okay with me and I'm making my best argument for why it shouldn't be okay with anybody.

Was it okay for American Family Association to try to get Ellen Degeneres fired from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason than Ellen Degeneres is gay?

That isn't okay with me either and I'm making my best argument for why it shouldn't be okay with anybody.

I think it depends on just what opinion it is that he gave. If he had said it is ok to gas Jews like Hitler, I would probably be fine with groups trying to get him fired. If he said we should kill all infidels against Allah, I would probably be fine with groups trying to get him fired.

I'm a bit more on the fence with Phil Robertson. I think he came across as a bit of an ass. I'm not particularly upset that GLAAD tried to get him fired. I think they overreacted, but I don't see it as evil the way you do.

I think that some opinions are vile enough and promote a mindset potentially dangerous enough that I'd rather not see them on the air. I personally just avoid whatever programs might show them, but if others feel like going further, I tend to brush it off. It has to remain legal of course, but if it is just an expression of group dislike, I see it as little different than trying to get a show cancelled because you think it sucks.

Now when someone tries to get Joe the pharmacist fired because they heard he is privately a racist, that's a different argument.

I think that trying to get a message out of the public eye is usually silly but valid, I suppose.

I don't require you to see it as evil as I do. And I have appreciated your contribution to this thread. But why would somebody care if a show sucked? Why not just not tune it out or just not attend? If enough people feel as you do, and there are terrible reviews, then the show closes. If enough people want to attend or watch the show, then it continues. Doesn't hurt me one way or the other.

But I do see it as evil for attacking somebody - ANYBODY - and trying to hurt them for no other reason than they express an opinion I don't share. I may loathe the person--I WOULD loathe the person--who says Jews should be gassed and such a comment would get a very harsh piece of my mind, but unless he proposes that be made the policy or acts it out himself, my ethics require tht I have to allow him that opinion. I do not and should not have the right to strike him or actively seek to hurt him for expressing that opinion. Another person may think I am just as loathesome because I think Barack Obama is a terrible president or because I think the federal government should get out of ALL welfare programs or because I think a loving traditional marriage is the best situation for raising kids, whether they are straight or gay. But any of us can strongly object to opinions we disagree with or see as abhorrent. And we should also have that right.

But telling somebody off is not the same thing as striking them.

Rebutting or objecting to what somebody says is not the same thing as organizing to hurt or destroy them.

In all cases people should be able to say what they think about a really abhorrent opinion and we all should be able to rebut the public figure who we see as really wrong. But it should be socially unacceptable to organize to hurt such public figure for nothing more than a wrong opinion. That is what I want and hope for in our culture.

Words can sometimes hurt if they are from people I respect. Otherwise, how can they hurt me? Folks keep sending me examples of what the numbnuts are saying about me on other threads since I moved this topic to the CDZ. They apparently can't stand not being allowed to get to me here. I'm being accused of some interesting things and being called a lot of unattractive names. But how can that hurt me? It won't make my enemies any more enemy and my friends won't believe them. If they should garner enough support to make my experience here sufficiently unpleasant, I simply find another board to play on.

Words expressed as activism and urging action can and should sometimes be actively attacked. Words expressed purely as opinion in a proper forum should be allowed no matter how reprehensible we think they are. But if they're going to force such words on us, we definitely should be able to rebut them.

 

[Montrovant]

And you don't see a problem with trying to hurt Phil Robertson personally purely because he gave his honest opinion in an GQ interview? Is that okay?

Is sure isn't okay with me and I'm making my best argument for why it shouldn't be okay with anybody.

Was it okay for American Family Association to try to get Ellen Degeneres fired from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason than Ellen Degeneres is gay?

That isn't okay with me either and I'm making my best argument for why it shouldn't be okay with anybody.

I think it depends on just what opinion it is that he gave. If he had said it is ok to gas Jews like Hitler, I would probably be fine with groups trying to get him fired. If he said we should kill all infidels against Allah, I would probably be fine with groups trying to get him fired.

I'm a bit more on the fence with Phil Robertson. I think he came across as a bit of an ass. I'm not particularly upset that GLAAD tried to get him fired. I think they overreacted, but I don't see it as evil the way you do.

I think that some opinions are vile enough and promote a mindset potentially dangerous enough that I'd rather not see them on the air. I personally just avoid whatever programs might show them, but if others feel like going further, I tend to brush it off. It has to remain legal of course, but if it is just an expression of group dislike, I see it as little different than trying to get a show cancelled because you think it sucks.

Now when someone tries to get Joe the pharmacist fired because they heard he is privately a racist, that's a different argument.

I think that trying to get a message out of the public eye is usually silly but valid, I suppose.

I don't require you to see it as evil as I do. And I have appreciated your contribution to this thread. But why would somebody care if a show sucked? Why not just not tune it out or just not attend? If enough people feel as you do, and there are terrible reviews, then the show closes. If enough people want to attend or watch the show, then it continues. Doesn't hurt me one way or the other.

But I do see it as evil for attacking somebody - ANYBODY - and trying to hurt them for no other reason than they express an opinion I don't share. I may loathe the person--I WOULD loathe the person--who says Jews should be gassed and such a comment would get a very harsh piece of my mind, but unless he proposes that be made the policy or acts it out himself, my ethics require tht I have to allow him that opinion. I do not and should not have the right to strike him or actively seek to hurt him for expressing that opinion. Another person may think I am just as loathesome because I think Barack Obama is a terrible president or because I think the federal government should get out of ALL welfare programs or because I think a loving traditional marriage is the best situation for raising kids, whether they are straight or gay. But any of us can strongly object to opinions we disagree with or see as abhorrent. And we should also have that right.

But telling somebody off is not the same thing as striking them.

Rebutting or objecting to what somebody says is not the same thing as organizing to hurt or destroy them.

In all cases people should be able to say what they think about a really abhorrent opinion and we all should be able to rebut the public figure who we see as really wrong. But it should be socially unacceptable to organize to hurt such public figure for nothing more than a wrong opinion. That is what I want and hope for in our culture.

Words can sometimes hurt if they are from people I respect. Otherwise, how can they hurt me? Folks keep sending me examples of what the numbnuts are saying about me on other threads since I moved this topic to the CDZ. They apparently can't stand not being allowed to get to me here. I'm being accused of some interesting things and being called a lot of unattractive names. But how can that hurt me? It won't make my enemies any more enemy and my friends won't believe them. If they should garner enough support to make my experience here sufficiently unpleasant, I simply find another board to play on.

Words expressed as activism and urging action can and should sometimes be actively attacked. Words expressed purely as opinion in a proper forum should be allowed no matter how reprehensible we think they are. But if they're going to force such words on us, we definitely should be able to rebut them.

As to why people care if a show just sucks, the reason is twofold. One part is that a crappy show is taking a spot that might be used by a good show. The other is just a matter of principle; that show sucks and doesn't deserve to be on!

Organizing in an attempt to get someone off the air is not preventing them from expressing their opinion. As long as you aren't doing that and aren't engaging in activities like extortion or blackmail that are illegal, 'going after' someone is basically expressing an opinion in an organized fashion. And as I've said, the intent does not have to be to hurt the person(s) involved. It can be simply to have whatever venue they are using to voice their opinions removed.

Why would someone want to do this? Because there are opinions and beliefs that you don't want to see spread. Because when an opinion is not fought against it can be seen as a tacit acceptance of or support for that opinion. Because when someone with those kinds of opinions (whatever they may be) is held up as an admirable celebrity, it sends a bad message.

There is also a distinction between my accepting someone trying to do such things as ethical and my wanting them to succeed. I don't particularly want Phil Robertson fired. I don't care enough to want him fired. So I have no desire to see GLAAD successful in any campaign to have him removed. I can, however, see the possibility that at least some of GLAAD's members may have better reasoning behind their actions than simply a desire to see Robertson hurt.

And as long as such actions as boycotts remain legal, I am fine if they are unacceptable by societal standards.

 

[Bfgrn]

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?

Wrong...they ARE private numbers. You can't 'tweet' corporate phone systems.

 

[hunarcy]

Why would someone want to do this? Because there are opinions and beliefs that you don't want to see spread. Because when an opinion is not fought against it can be seen as a tacit acceptance of or support for that opinion. Because when someone with those kinds of opinions (whatever they may be) is held up as an admirable celebrity, it sends a bad message.

I agree, but the opinion must be fought and defeated in the open, not censored and stifled, left to fester in the back channels of our society. Being held in secret gives such ideas a "decadent" allure and allows it to live on and grow like a cancer.

That's why censorship is so destructive.

 

[Mathbud1]

Robertson's own words do the conflating;

If I say I am going to the store to buy corn flakes, radishes, and tomato soup and ya'll can decide what you want for supper, is that conflating those things? What Robertson did was provide a list of things that he believes are sins. That is NOT conflating the things that he listed.

Actually it is. You combined the things you are buying into a shopping list. PR combined homosexuality into a list of other despicable things. In essence he said that there is no difference whatsoever between the terrorists who murdered 3000 innocent people on 9/11 and the gay couple who live next door. How would you feel if someone lumped you in with mass murderers? You would have every right to be be offended and call out the person who did that to you irrespective of their belief that their "bible" was telling them that retired ladies in NM are plotting to fly planes into tall buildings using radishes and soup cans.

Wrong. Combining things into a list does not mean that you think they are equal.

Corn Flakes = Radishes?

Even saying you value them the same is incorrect. I may love corn flakes and hate radishes but need them for a recipe.

I can list murder and lying as sins. That does not mean that I think lying = murder.

 

[Montrovant]

If I say I am going to the store to buy corn flakes, radishes, and tomato soup and ya'll can decide what you want for supper, is that conflating those things? What Robertson did was provide a list of things that he believes are sins. That is NOT conflating the things that he listed.

Actually it is. You combined the things you are buying into a shopping list. PR combined homosexuality into a list of other despicable things. In essence he said that there is no difference whatsoever between the terrorists who murdered 3000 innocent people on 9/11 and the gay couple who live next door. How would you feel if someone lumped you in with mass murderers? You would have every right to be be offended and call out the person who did that to you irrespective of their belief that their "bible" was telling them that retired ladies in NM are plotting to fly planes into tall buildings using radishes and soup cans.

Wrong. Combining things into a list does not mean that you think they are equal.

Corn Flakes = Radishes?

Even saying you value them the same is incorrect. I may love corn flakes and hate radishes but need them for a recipe.

I can list murder and lying as sins. That does not mean that I think lying = murder.

That's completely true.

However, I would like to point out that rarely, if ever, do I see homosexuality compared with lying, or disrespecting one's parents, or taking the name of god in vain when it comes to comparing sins. Bestiality? Pedophilia? Murder? Yep, those kinds of comparisons are made plenty.

I won't try to speculate on Phil Robertson's views. Enough people seem to compare homosexuality to horrible things that when anyone else does it, whatever their motivations, I can understand why some might find it hard to believe their motives are benign.

 

[R.D.]

Actually it is. You combined the things you are buying into a shopping list. PR combined homosexuality into a list of other despicable things. In essence he said that there is no difference whatsoever between the terrorists who murdered 3000 innocent people on 9/11 and the gay couple who live next door. How would you feel if someone lumped you in with mass murderers? You would have every right to be be offended and call out the person who did that to you irrespective of their belief that their "bible" was telling them that retired ladies in NM are plotting to fly planes into tall buildings using radishes and soup cans.

Wrong. Combining things into a list does not mean that you think they are equal.

Corn Flakes = Radishes?

Even saying you value them the same is incorrect. I may love corn flakes and hate radishes but need them for a recipe.

I can list murder and lying as sins. That does not mean that I think lying = murder.

That's completely true.

However, I would like to point out that rarely, if ever, do I see homosexuality compared with lying, or disrespecting one's parents, or taking the name of god in vain when it comes to comparing sins. Bestiality? Pedophilia? Murder? Yep, those kinds of comparisons are made plenty.

I won't try to speculate on Phil Robertson's views. Enough people seem to compare homosexuality to horrible things that when anyone else does it, whatever their motivations, I can understand why some might find it hard to believe their motives are benign.

Homosexuality is sexual behavior so to make other sexual comparisons only makes sense. Selective outrage is what took over. He did go further though

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong… Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.” Robertson then paraphrased Corinthians from the Bible: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”



If he had followed with pedophilia instead of bestiality he would have been accused of claiming homosexuals were dangerous child predictors.

 

[hunarcy]

Wrong. Combining things into a list does not mean that you think they are equal.

Corn Flakes = Radishes?

Even saying you value them the same is incorrect. I may love corn flakes and hate radishes but need them for a recipe.

I can list murder and lying as sins. That does not mean that I think lying = murder.

That's completely true.

However, I would like to point out that rarely, if ever, do I see homosexuality compared with lying, or disrespecting one's parents, or taking the name of god in vain when it comes to comparing sins. Bestiality? Pedophilia? Murder? Yep, those kinds of comparisons are made plenty.

I won't try to speculate on Phil Robertson's views. Enough people seem to compare homosexuality to horrible things that when anyone else does it, whatever their motivations, I can understand why some might find it hard to believe their motives are benign.

Homosexuality is sexual behavior so to make other sexual comparisons only makes sense. Selective outrage is what took over. He did go further though

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong… Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.” Robertson then paraphrased Corinthians from the Bible: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”



If he had followed with pedophilia instead of bestiality he would have been accused of claiming homosexuals were dangerous child predictors.

No matter what he'd said, because he didn't say it was acceptable, he'd have been held to be intolerant and judgmental. But, if you look at his whole quote, he said they were to be loved and judgment would come at a different time by a grander authority.

 

[Montrovant]

Wrong. Combining things into a list does not mean that you think they are equal.

Corn Flakes = Radishes?

Even saying you value them the same is incorrect. I may love corn flakes and hate radishes but need them for a recipe.

I can list murder and lying as sins. That does not mean that I think lying = murder.

That's completely true.

However, I would like to point out that rarely, if ever, do I see homosexuality compared with lying, or disrespecting one's parents, or taking the name of god in vain when it comes to comparing sins. Bestiality? Pedophilia? Murder? Yep, those kinds of comparisons are made plenty.

I won't try to speculate on Phil Robertson's views. Enough people seem to compare homosexuality to horrible things that when anyone else does it, whatever their motivations, I can understand why some might find it hard to believe their motives are benign.

Homosexuality is sexual behavior so to make other sexual comparisons only makes sense. Selective outrage is what took over. He did go further though

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong… Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.” Robertson then paraphrased Corinthians from the Bible: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”



If he had followed with pedophilia instead of bestiality he would have been accused of claiming homosexuals were dangerous child predictors.

Comparisons to all sexual behaviors do not make sense. If I were to say that swinging is a sin, would it make sense to compare it to rape?

And again, what Robertson was trying to say was not my point. My point is that when those who demonize homosexuals use some of the same comparisons over and over; gays and pedophiles; gays and bestiality; whenever someone uses those same comparisons it's understandable that they will cause a particular reaction. It's unfortunate, but you can see enough of those kinds of comparisons right here on this board that I think the reason for such a reaction is understandable.

 

[Montrovant]

That's completely true.

However, I would like to point out that rarely, if ever, do I see homosexuality compared with lying, or disrespecting one's parents, or taking the name of god in vain when it comes to comparing sins. Bestiality? Pedophilia? Murder? Yep, those kinds of comparisons are made plenty.

I won't try to speculate on Phil Robertson's views. Enough people seem to compare homosexuality to horrible things that when anyone else does it, whatever their motivations, I can understand why some might find it hard to believe their motives are benign.

Homosexuality is sexual behavior so to make other sexual comparisons only makes sense. Selective outrage is what took over. He did go further though

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong… Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.” Robertson then paraphrased Corinthians from the Bible: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”



If he had followed with pedophilia instead of bestiality he would have been accused of claiming homosexuals were dangerous child predictors.

No matter what he'd said, because he didn't say it was acceptable, he'd have been held to be intolerant and judgmental. But, if you look at his whole quote, he said they were to be loved and judgment would come at a different time by a grander authority.

For some, I'm sure that's true.

On the other hand, if you insult someone, then say they are to be loved, that doesn't make the insult disappear.

 

[hunarcy]

Homosexuality is sexual behavior so to make other sexual comparisons only makes sense. Selective outrage is what took over. He did go further though

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong… Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.” Robertson then paraphrased Corinthians from the Bible: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”



If he had followed with pedophilia instead of bestiality he would have been accused of claiming homosexuals were dangerous child predictors.

No matter what he'd said, because he didn't say it was acceptable, he'd have been held to be intolerant and judgmental. But, if you look at his whole quote, he said they were to be loved and judgment would come at a different time by a grander authority.

For some, I'm sure that's true.

On the other hand, if you insult someone, then say they are to be loved, that doesn't make the insult disappear.

True, but if he was talking about types of sin, and that his Bible says an activity is a sin, is it an insult?

 

[Foxfyre]

That's completely true.

However, I would like to point out that rarely, if ever, do I see homosexuality compared with lying, or disrespecting one's parents, or taking the name of god in vain when it comes to comparing sins. Bestiality? Pedophilia? Murder? Yep, those kinds of comparisons are made plenty.

I won't try to speculate on Phil Robertson's views. Enough people seem to compare homosexuality to horrible things that when anyone else does it, whatever their motivations, I can understand why some might find it hard to believe their motives are benign.

Homosexuality is sexual behavior so to make other sexual comparisons only makes sense. Selective outrage is what took over. He did go further though

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong… Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.” Robertson then paraphrased Corinthians from the Bible: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”



If he had followed with pedophilia instead of bestiality he would have been accused of claiming homosexuals were dangerous child predictors.

Comparisons to all sexual behaviors do not make sense. If I were to say that swinging is a sin, would it make sense to compare it to rape?

And again, what Robertson was trying to say was not my point. My point is that when those who demonize homosexuals use some of the same comparisons over and over; gays and pedophiles; gays and bestiality; whenever someone uses those same comparisons it's understandable that they will cause a particular reaction. It's unfortunate, but you can see enough of those kinds of comparisons right here on this board that I think the reason for such a reaction is understandable.

This is a valid observation. Which is why I have been clear that I don't agree with Robertson's interpretation of that scripture and I didn't appreciate the way he gave it in that interview, even though he did soften it with his qualifying remarks and made it clear he holds no contempt or malice for homosexuals and includes himself among all sinners.

But the whole point here is that we all won't agree on the way much of anything is. We won't all agree on what is or what is not good, evil, sin, corruption, ethical, beneficial, or whatever. There are plenty of people who think the religious views I hold are an abomination and who won't even discuss them with me and see me as evil because I hold them. That would include a lot of Atheists and also some devout Christians.

But if they are interviewed and express their opinion that such religious views are an abomination, should I take personal offense at that to the point I need to lash out and hurt that person for saying it? Do I organize an angry mob or group or enlist my organization to punish the person expressing that? Or, if I feel the record needs to be set straight, do I write a letter to the editor of GQ and express that? Which is the tolerant way to act?

Which should an ethical and moral society push as a societal norm?

 

[Foxfyre]

No matter what he'd said, because he didn't say it was acceptable, he'd have been held to be intolerant and judgmental. But, if you look at his whole quote, he said they were to be loved and judgment would come at a different time by a grander authority.

For some, I'm sure that's true.

On the other hand, if you insult someone, then say they are to be loved, that doesn't make the insult disappear.

True, but if he was talking about types of sin, and that his Bible says an activity is a sin, is it an insult?

In this case it almost certainly was not intended to be one. But even if it had, shouldn't we as a society insist that somebody be the grown up in the room? If I took everything expressed on a message board that I don't believe or don't agree with or don't accept as the truth as a personal insult that deserved retaliation, I would be angry and insulted and on the defensive all the time here. And I would run out of rep very quickly every day just by the neg reps I would be handing out.

I don't see the ethics or why it is 'fun' or even satisfying for some to neg rep somebody just because that somebody expressed an opinion that is disagreed with. Even if you think the opinion is hyper partisan or expresses some kind of -ist or some kind of -phobia. I accept that it is perfectly legal to do so and ingrained in the USMB culture.

But I would like for it to be socially unacceptable in our real lives culture.

 

[hunarcy]

For some, I'm sure that's true.

On the other hand, if you insult someone, then say they are to be loved, that doesn't make the insult disappear.

True, but if he was talking about types of sin, and that his Bible says an activity is a sin, is it an insult?

In this case it almost certainly was not intended to be one. But even if it had, shouldn't we as a society insist that somebody be the grown up in the room? If I took everything expressed on a message board that I don't believe or don't agree with or don't accept as the truth as a personal insult that deserved retaliation, I would be angry and insulted and on the defensive all the time here. And I would run out of rep very quickly every day just by the neg reps I would be handing out.

I don't see the ethics or why it is 'fun' or even satisfying for some to neg rep somebody just because that somebody expressed an opinion that is disagreed with. Even if you think the opinion is hyper partisan or expresses some kind of -ist or some kind of -phobia. I accept that it is perfectly legal to do so and ingrained in the USMB culture.

But I would like for it to be socially unacceptable in our real lives culture.

As I look at my record, I seem to run out of reps because I give a lot of positive ones. Most of the negs I give out are for vulgarities and insult filled flamers. People who seem to routinely lie get on ignore and other than that, I try to read all the posts in a thread in which I participate

But, I do get your point.

 

[Montrovant]

No matter what he'd said, because he didn't say it was acceptable, he'd have been held to be intolerant and judgmental. But, if you look at his whole quote, he said they were to be loved and judgment would come at a different time by a grander authority.

For some, I'm sure that's true.

On the other hand, if you insult someone, then say they are to be loved, that doesn't make the insult disappear.

True, but if he was talking about types of sin, and that his Bible says an activity is a sin, is it an insult?

I'm not saying he did intentionally insult anyone, just that it can easily and understandably be perceived as one.

 

[BillyZane]

For some, I'm sure that's true.

On the other hand, if you insult someone, then say they are to be loved, that doesn't make the insult disappear.

True, but if he was talking about types of sin, and that his Bible says an activity is a sin, is it an insult?

I'm not saying he did intentionally insult anyone, just that it can easily and understandably be perceived as one.

What's the difference anyway? when did we become such wimps in this country? Someone insults me , I go on about my life. No matter how harsh the insult, it's still just words.