In Politics and Society: Is it Intolerant to be Intolerant of Intolerance?

[candycorn]

You have a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe?

Ya didn't ask me, but I will answer. YES, I have a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe because they are hypocrites. But they have a RIGHT to say whatever they want to say, whine and have a temper tantrum whenever they want, and then they need to change the channel if they don't like what they see or hear and stop trying to force everyone else to think as THEY do.

Sorry...groups do that all the time. Should the NRA stop trying to influence others?

 

[Foxfyre]

You have a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe?

Ya didn't ask me, but I will answer. YES, I have a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe because they are hypocrites. But they have a RIGHT to say whatever they want to say, whine and have a temper tantrum whenever they want, and then they need to change the channel if they don't like what they see or hear and stop trying to force everyone else to think as THEY do.

Sorry...groups do that all the time. Should the NRA stop trying to influence others?

Nope. Nor should GLAAD if they really believe what they say they believe. But neither can ethically expect to be respected for who they are and what they believe when they are not willing to give others the same privilege. Trying to influence somebody to your way of thinking is a very different thing than actively working to have somebody punished who is guilty of nothing more than expressing an opinion you don't like.

Most members here understand that. I wish you could.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Earlier you said:


Now you say,

Seems like you have a quarrel with Glaad afterall.

Seems like to me you want to mince words, not argue the point. Typical.

She says she has no problem with GLAAD but does have a problem with GLAAD. You say you're a libertarian but are against certain people excercising their personal liberties.

Typical.

Am I? So, it is clearly evident that you won't allow Mr. Robertson to exercise his. He should be bullied and silenced. I don't have to be a libertarian to know whose in the wrong here. However, I acknowledge the personal liberties of those involved to do what they did. Still doesn't make what they are doing to him right.

You are a liberal that preaches tolerance, but will call a man a bigot for quoting the Bible and expressing his faith. Par for the course for you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You wrote:



What is the group you're talking about?

Whatever group demands that they be allowed to be who they are, say what they think, say what they believe but won't allow others the same liberty. In the case of Phil Robertson, the intolerant group is GLAAD. They are really big on demanding that we treat gays and lesbians with respect and allow them to be open and free about who they are and what they believe and what they want, but they were totally intolerant when it came to Phil Robertson to the point of demanding that A&E dump hm.

Why are gays and lesbians entitled to be who they are and Phil Robertson isn't?

He's completely being allowed to be himself.

Don't you think tolerance should go both ways?

It is going both ways between Glaad and this guy. They are both giving their opinion.

Correct.

No one’s being ‘censored,’ ‘shutdown,’ or otherwise ‘disallowed’ to give his opinion, express his views, or be who he is.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Whatever group demands that they be allowed to be who they are, say what they think, say what they believe but won't allow others the same liberty. In the case of Phil Robertson, the intolerant group is GLAAD. They are really big on demanding that we treat gays and lesbians with respect and allow them to be open and free about who they are and what they believe and what they want, but they were totally intolerant when it came to Phil Robertson to the point of demanding that A&E dump hm.

Why are gays and lesbians entitled to be who they are and Phil Robertson isn't?

He's completely being allowed to be himself.

Don't you think tolerance should go both ways?

It is going both ways between Glaad and this guy. They are both giving their opinion.

Correct.

No one’s being ‘censored,’ ‘shutdown,’ or otherwise ‘disallowed’ to give his opinion, express his views, or be who he is.

You know, Clayton, I wish you'd stop playing cheerleader.

There is censorship going on here, of a man expressing his faith. There are people in America out to destroy him. GLAAD tried and failed to do such, even though they did succeed in getting him suspended.

 

[candycorn]

Seems like to me you want to mince words, not argue the point. Typical.

She says she has no problem with GLAAD but does have a problem with GLAAD. You say you're a libertarian but are against certain people excercising their personal liberties.

Typical.

Am I? So, it is clearly evident that you won't allow Mr. Robertson to exercise his.

He can say whatever he wants to whomever he wants, anytime he wants and I fully support it. A&E Doesn't have to like it and can repremand him--and they did.

It won't change my viewing habits one bit.

I fully support both parties in this case.

He should be bullied and silenced. I don't have to be a libertarian to know whose in the wrong here. However, I acknowledge the persona liberties of those involved to do what they did. Still doesn't make what they are doing to him right.

Nobody is stopping him from saying/doing anything. Just not drawing a paycheck while he is doing it. You give up some of your rights when you agree to work for someone...a foreign concept to you but it's the truth.

Ask someone who is employed.

You are a liberal that preaches tolerance, but will call a man a bigot for quoting the Bible and expressing his faith. Par for the course for you.

I will call a man a bigot if he has bigoted views whether he is quoting the Bible or 50 Shades of Gray. Quoting the Bible gives you no special license.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You have a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe?

Ya didn't ask me, but I will answer. YES, I have a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe because they are hypocrites. But they have a RIGHT to say whatever they want to say, whine and have a temper tantrum whenever they want, and then they need to change the channel if they don't like what they see or hear and stop trying to force everyone else to think as THEY do.

Sorry...groups do that all the time. Should the NRA stop trying to influence others?

The NRA doesn't go around trying to silence gun control advocates who disagree with them. When will you stop with the red herrings?

 

[TemplarKormac]

She says she has no problem with GLAAD but does have a problem with GLAAD. You say you're a libertarian but are against certain people excercising their personal liberties.

Typical.

Am I? So, it is clearly evident that you won't allow Mr. Robertson to exercise his.

He can say whatever he wants to whomever he wants, anytime he wants and I fully support it. A&E Doesn't have to like it and can repremand him--and they did.

It won't change my viewing habits one bit.

I fully support both parties in this case.

He should be bullied and silenced. I don't have to be a libertarian to know whose in the wrong here. However, I acknowledge the persona liberties of those involved to do what they did. Still doesn't make what they are doing to him right.

Nobody is stopping him from saying/doing anything. Just not drawing a paycheck while he is doing it. You give up some of your rights when you agree to work for someone...a foreign concept to you but it's the truth.

Ask someone who is employed.

You are a liberal that preaches tolerance, but will call a man a bigot for quoting the Bible and expressing his faith. Par for the course for you.

I will call a man a bigot if he has bigoted views whether he is quoting the Bible or 50 Shades of Gray. Quoting the Bible gives you no special license.

He made it quite clear he isn't a bigot. Nowhere is he passing judgement on homosexuals. In one ear and out the other. "He said this" or "he said that" therefore he's a bigot. Sorry, the intolerance lies in the fact you call him a bigot for simply quoting the Bible. You do begrudge him the right to do so, your language suggests such.

 

[Foxfyre]

Whatever group demands that they be allowed to be who they are, say what they think, say what they believe but won't allow others the same liberty. In the case of Phil Robertson, the intolerant group is GLAAD. They are really big on demanding that we treat gays and lesbians with respect and allow them to be open and free about who they are and what they believe and what they want, but they were totally intolerant when it came to Phil Robertson to the point of demanding that A&E dump hm.

Why are gays and lesbians entitled to be who they are and Phil Robertson isn't?

He's completely being allowed to be himself.

Don't you think tolerance should go both ways?

It is going both ways between Glaad and this guy. They are both giving their opinion.

Correct.

No one’s being ‘censored,’ ‘shutdown,’ or otherwise ‘disallowed’ to give his opinion, express his views, or be who he is.

Yes. When somebody can have their business picketed or their customers threatened and harrassed by boycotters; when somebody has their advertisers harrassed and threatened and badgered if they don't drop a program; when Phil Robertson is fired - and all these people did absolutely nothing other than express an opinion - they are in effect being disallowed their opinion.

As I said, the intellectually honest know the difference between honest disagreement and disliking what others say as opposed to activists who would attempt to physically or economically hurt somebody because they don't like a person's opinion.

Again, for the very few individuals on this thread who can't seem to understand how those two things are different, I just sigh and reconcile myself to a world that is going to be populated with a few who are incapable of understanding.

But I am tolerant because I am going to allow you to be who you are. No neg rep. No reporting you hoping some mod will take my side. No trying to get other members to turn against you. I will simply disagree with you and allow you to be who you are. THAT is my definition of tolerance.

 

[candycorn]

Ya didn't ask me, but I will answer. YES, I have a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe because they are hypocrites. But they have a RIGHT to say whatever they want to say, whine and have a temper tantrum whenever they want, and then they need to change the channel if they don't like what they see or hear and stop trying to force everyone else to think as THEY do.

Sorry...groups do that all the time. Should the NRA stop trying to influence others?

Nope. Nor should GLAAD if they really believe what they say they believe. But neither can ethically expect to be respected for who they are and what they believe when they are not willing to give others the same privilege. Trying to influence somebody to your way of thinking is a very different thing than actively working to have somebody punished who is guilty of nothing more than expressing an opinion you don't like.

Most members here understand that. I wish you could.

So when the NRA decides to run/fund attack ads, they deserve no respect... Interesting take on the first amendment you have.

 

[candycorn]

Am I? So, it is clearly evident that you won't allow Mr. Robertson to exercise his.

He can say whatever he wants to whomever he wants, anytime he wants and I fully support it. A&E Doesn't have to like it and can repremand him--and they did.

It won't change my viewing habits one bit.

I fully support both parties in this case.



Nobody is stopping him from saying/doing anything. Just not drawing a paycheck while he is doing it. You give up some of your rights when you agree to work for someone...a foreign concept to you but it's the truth.

Ask someone who is employed.

You are a liberal that preaches tolerance, but will call a man a bigot for quoting the Bible and expressing his faith. Par for the course for you.

I will call a man a bigot if he has bigoted views whether he is quoting the Bible or 50 Shades of Gray. Quoting the Bible gives you no special license.

He made it quite clear he isn't a bigot.

Oh? He procliamed himself not to be a bigot?

Nowhere is he passing judgement on homosexuals.

Just equating their behavior to Beastiality (sp?).

In one ear and out the other. "He said this" or "he said that" therefore he's a bigot. Sorry, the intolerance lies in the fact you call him a bigot for simply quoting the Bible. You do begrudge him the right to do so, your language suggests such.

Quoting the bible gives you no license to be a bigot.

 

[TemplarKormac]

He can say whatever he wants to whomever he wants, anytime he wants and I fully support it. A&E Doesn't have to like it and can repremand him--and they did.

It won't change my viewing habits one bit.

I fully support both parties in this case.



Nobody is stopping him from saying/doing anything. Just not drawing a paycheck while he is doing it. You give up some of your rights when you agree to work for someone...a foreign concept to you but it's the truth.

Ask someone who is employed.



I will call a man a bigot if he has bigoted views whether he is quoting the Bible or 50 Shades of Gray. Quoting the Bible gives you no special license.

He made it quite clear he isn't a bigot.

Oh? He procliamed himself not to be a bigot?

Nowhere is he passing judgement on homosexuals.

Just equating their behavior to Beastiality (sp?).

In one ear and out the other. "He said this" or "he said that" therefore he's a bigot. Sorry, the intolerance lies in the fact you call him a bigot for simply quoting the Bible. You do begrudge him the right to do so, your language suggests such.

Quoting the bible gives you no license to be a bigot.

Nor did he say that it does give him any license to be a bigot, but he has a right to express himself freely.

On the other hand you are being facetious, which makes me inclined not to take your arguments seriously anymore. He did not compare homosexuality with bestiality, candycorn. Along with homosexuality he said, he believed that bestiality is a sin also, so is adultery, drinking, idolatry and etc. Repeating tired old talking points gives you no license to be misleading either.

 

[Vox]

He can say whatever he wants to whomever he wants, anytime he wants and I fully support it. A&E Doesn't have to like it and can repremand him--and they did.

It won't change my viewing habits one bit.

I fully support both parties in this case.



Nobody is stopping him from saying/doing anything. Just not drawing a paycheck while he is doing it. You give up some of your rights when you agree to work for someone...a foreign concept to you but it's the truth.

Ask someone who is employed.



I will call a man a bigot if he has bigoted views whether he is quoting the Bible or 50 Shades of Gray. Quoting the Bible gives you no special license.

He made it quite clear he isn't a bigot.

Oh? He procliamed himself not to be a bigot?

Nowhere is he passing judgement on homosexuals.

Just equating their behavior to Beastiality (sp?).

In one ear and out the other. "He said this" or "he said that" therefore he's a bigot. Sorry, the intolerance lies in the fact you call him a bigot for simply quoting the Bible. You do begrudge him the right to do so, your language suggests such.

Quoting the bible gives you no license to be a bigot.

and he is not a bigot.

get used to it - not everybody has to ACCEPT homosexuality and not accepting it is not bigotry.

 

[candycorn]

Whatever group demands that they be allowed to be who they are, say what they think, say what they believe but won't allow others the same liberty. In the case of Phil Robertson, the intolerant group is GLAAD. They are really big on demanding that we treat gays and lesbians with respect and allow them to be open and free about who they are and what they believe and what they want, but they were totally intolerant when it came to Phil Robertson to the point of demanding that A&E dump hm.

Why are gays and lesbians entitled to be who they are and Phil Robertson isn't?

He's completely being allowed to be himself.

Don't you think tolerance should go both ways?

It is going both ways between Glaad and this guy. They are both giving their opinion.

Correct.

No one’s being ‘censored,’ ‘shutdown,’ or otherwise ‘disallowed’ to give his opinion, express his views, or be who he is.

Seems pretty simple doesn't it? But somehow since it was a anti-gay person being repremanded for being a jerk, it becomes a vortex of good versus evil, light versus dark, that focuses upon the larger issue involved that shakes the very foundations that this nation was built upon. When Bashir got canned for being a jerk...somehow it was just fine.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry...groups do that all the time. Should the NRA stop trying to influence others?

Nope. Nor should GLAAD if they really believe what they say they believe. But neither can ethically expect to be respected for who they are and what they believe when they are not willing to give others the same privilege. Trying to influence somebody to your way of thinking is a very different thing than actively working to have somebody punished who is guilty of nothing more than expressing an opinion you don't like.

Most members here understand that. I wish you could.

So when the NRA decides to run/fund attack ads, they deserve no respect... Interesting take on the first amendment you have.

If you had bothered to read the thread before wading in here, you would know that this isn't a First Amendment issue. And I have strongly resisted those who have attempted to make it that. It also has nothing to do with who is or is not a 'real' Christian. It has nothing to do with whether somebody is straight or gay or how they got that way. And now I will add that it has absolutely nothing to do wth the Second Amendment either. It has nothing to do with those who are advocates for or lobby for whatever causes. And it has nothing to do with whatever business decisions A&E chooses to make. And it has nothing to do with who is and who is not a bigot.

This is a thread that focuses on tolerance. And the hypocrisy of those who expect others to be tolerant of their point of view and not give them a lot of sh*t or punish them or discriminate against them because they are who they are - BUT - who will not extend that kind of tolerance to a Phil Robertson or anybody else who holds an opinion they don't like.

Again almost everybody, both leftwingers and rightwingers, who have posted on this thread have easily grasped that concept. Only a very few, both leftwingers and rightwingers, have not. Why do you think that is?

 

[candycorn]

Nope. Nor should GLAAD if they really believe what they say they believe. But neither can ethically expect to be respected for who they are and what they believe when they are not willing to give others the same privilege. Trying to influence somebody to your way of thinking is a very different thing than actively working to have somebody punished who is guilty of nothing more than expressing an opinion you don't like.

Most members here understand that. I wish you could.

So when the NRA decides to run/fund attack ads, they deserve no respect... Interesting take on the first amendment you have.

If you had bothered to read the thread before wading in here, you would know that this isn't a First Amendment issue.

A simple yes or no to the highlighted conclusion above will suffice.

 

[hunarcy]

Correct.

No one’s being ‘censored,’ ‘shutdown,’ or otherwise ‘disallowed’ to give his opinion, express his views, or be who he is.

I would agree with you had GLAAD not announced they were "researching" Robertson to contact all who used him as a sponsor. They seem determined to drive him out of public life, which will censor him and prevent him from expressing his views.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Seems like to me you want to mince words, not argue the point. Typical.

She says she has no problem with GLAAD but does have a problem with GLAAD. You say you're a libertarian but are against certain people excercising their personal liberties.

Typical.

Am I? So, it is clearly evident that you won't allow Mr. Robertson to exercise his. He should be bullied and silenced. I don't have to be a libertarian to know whose in the wrong here. However, I acknowledge the personal liberties of those involved to do what they did. Still doesn't make what they are doing to him right.

You are a liberal that preaches tolerance, but will call a man a bigot for quoting the Bible and expressing his faith. Par for the course for you.

Incorrect.

He’s accurately being identified as someone who exhibits ignorance and hate toward homosexuals, comparing gay Americans to terrorists, prostitutes and bestiality.

If that’s an expression of Christian faith then Robertson is not alone in his ignorance and hate.

The issue has nothing to do with tolerance, or the lack thereof; the issue is Christians’ very inconsistent message as to what exactly their faith is about.

Is Robertson expressing personal opinion only, having nothing to do with his faith, or does he indeed represent all Christians? If the former then criticism of Robertson’s statements is not intolerance, if the latter then Christianity as a whole should be rebuked.

You can’t have it both ways.

 

[candycorn]

Nope. Nor should GLAAD if they really believe what they say they believe. But neither can ethically expect to be respected for who they are and what they believe when they are not willing to give others the same privilege. Trying to influence somebody to your way of thinking is a very different thing than actively working to have somebody punished who is guilty of nothing more than expressing an opinion you don't like.

Most members here understand that. I wish you could.

So when the NRA decides to run/fund attack ads, they deserve no respect... Interesting take on the first amendment you have.

If you had bothered to read the thread before wading in here, you would know that this isn't a First Amendment issue. And I have strongly resisted those who have attempted to make it that. It also has nothing to do with who is or is not a 'real' Christian. It has nothing to do with whether somebody is straight or gay or how they got that way. And now I will add that it has absolutely nothing to do wth the Second Amendment either. It has nothing to do with those who are advocates for or lobby for whatever causes. And it has nothing to do with whatever business decisions A&E chooses to make. And it has nothing to do with who is and who is not a bigot.

This is a thread that focuses on tolerance. And the hypocrisy of those who expect others to be tolerant of their point of view and not give them a lot of sh*t or punish them or discriminate against them because they are who they are - BUT - who will not extend that kind of tolerance to a Phil Robertson or anybody else who holds an opinion they don't like.

Again almost everybody, both leftwingers and rightwingers, who have posted on this thread have easily grasped that concept. Only a very few, both leftwingers and rightwingers, have not. Why do you think that is?

I did read the thread...it reinforces that since you have ant-gay views, you support this guy from DD and disapprove of GLAAD. You just try to dress up that essence with trying to frame it as some sort of referendum on tolerance; you're tolerant of those who agree with you and distolerant of those you disagree with.

Almost everybody here can see it. Only you and a few others cannot.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So when the NRA decides to run/fund attack ads, they deserve no respect... Interesting take on the first amendment you have.

If you had bothered to read the thread before wading in here, you would know that this isn't a First Amendment issue.

A simple yes or no to the highlighted conclusion above will suffice.

The problem is that it is a conclusion, not based on reality, or the topic. Stop with the red herrings.