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

[JohnL.Burke]

On the bright side, according to this thread, most people (left and right) seem to be tolerant of people they disagree with or find objectionable because they understand the bigger issues. It only seems to be a handful of authoritarian types who can't think outside their own bias.

Yeah, Foxy needs some mental counseling.

Maybe you can teach her what you learned at the asylum.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, PR had every right to express his opinion just as GLAAD had every right to express theirs too.

Both parties were demonstrating intolerance of the other therefore both parties are in the wrong in my opinion.

However I uphold the right of both parties to express their intolerant opinions irrespective of my own personal position.

Because to support and/or condemn one side or the other would make me guilty of intolerance and I am not going there. In essence I am being tolerant of their right to express their intolerance because that it what freedom of expression is all about.

I don't agree that PR's expressed opinion was intolerant. Critical or disapproving? Yes. Crudely and unpleasantly expressed? Yes. Untactful? Yes. Un-PC? Most definitely. Worthy of criticism? Absolutely. But he was wishing no ill will or restrictions or requirements on gay people; wishing them no harm; was not refusing to associate with or accommodate gay people. Therefore, his comments do not constitute intolerance.

GLAAD however was not content to simply express their opinion about PR's comments. They were not content to defend themselves or explain how their view was different or why PR was wrong. They were reactionary physically--going after PR to hurt him, punish him, if at all possible destroy him. THAT is more than expressing one's opinion. THAT is intolerance to the point of denying somebody the right to their opinion.

Tolerance and acceptance are two different things. In order to be tolerant, one does not have to agree with the other person or accept what they offer. All they have to do is to allow the other to be different. I think too many here are confusing the two.

The topic is tolerance and here are some of the definitions;

n.
1. a fair and permissive attitude toward those whose race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3. any liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

Since what PR said is the opposite of those definitions that makes him intolerant. Likewise what GLAAD said was intolerant of PR's statements. Under the definition above both are equally guilty of intolerance.

Now you are trying to draw a distinction regarding the "level" of intolerance by introducing "acceptance". The line where intolerance becomes unacceptable is where actual harm comes to someone. GLAAD is in no position to inflict any harm therefore all they are doing is expressing their opinion. To condemn them for doing so is censorship since they cannot inflict any actual harm. And no, they cannot censor PR's opinion either. He is free to express it anywhere and anytime he wishes. However A&E gets to decide who uses their platform and that will be a business decision that will be based entirely upon revenue earnings/losses.

So on the original premise of the OP I am standing my ground. If you wish to switch to the topic of acceptance we can do so but before we go there let me point out that it is a slippery slope. PR included prostitution and terrorism in his statement. Do you really want to argue that those are acceptable and defensible?

I do not entirely agree with those definitions, but let's go with them anyway.

Okay PR was intolerant because of how he views homosexuality.
GLAAD is intolerant because of how they view PR's Christian beliefs.

PR, however, is tolerant of GLAAD's intolerance because he does not seek to silence GLAAD or punish them in any way or harm or discriminate against any person who happens to be gay. He simply expressed his opinion about what he believes the Bible to teach about homosexuality and his personal views about it.

GLAAD was not content to rebut PR's opinion or express their own views. They DID seek to punish, materially damage, hurt PR, not because of any action or threat to GLAAD or anybody else, but purely because he expressed an opinion they didn't like.

And in my point of view, GLAAD's kind of intolerance should NOT be tolerated by any of us who appreciate liberty and/or the right to be who we are when we are not harming or huting anybody else.

Tolerance does not mean agreement or acceptance to me. It means that we allow others to be who and what they are even if we do not agree with their lifestyle or what they believe and profess.

 

[hunarcy]

The NRA spends millions trying to get or keep people out of office in government. If that isn't trying to silence people I don't know what is.

And, while we're at it:

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons

"A massive boycott backed by the NRA and outdoorsmen and women outraged that the nation's largest outdoors show banned the exhibition of assault weapons has caused the show's organizers to abruptly cancel the week-long event in Harrisburg, Pa.

The successful boycott, started by the website mynortheastoutdoors.com, was the biggest demonstration of support by the outdoors industry yet against gun control efforts being pushed in Washington and in several states."

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons | WashingtonExaminer.com

The difference is that while promoting their political beliefs, they do not "research" their opponents with the goal of insuring they lose their ability to make a living.

And, they didn't demand that the nations largest outdoors show be shut down. They just didn't go. If GLAAD had just said we won't watch Duck Dynasty and called for a boycott of it as they have done countless other times (Dr. Laura, for example) there wouldn't have been the backlash. It was the calling of the "jihad" that smacks of bullying.

 

[candycorn]

The NRA spends millions trying to get or keep people out of office in government. If that isn't trying to silence people I don't know what is.

And, while we're at it:

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons

"A massive boycott backed by the NRA and outdoorsmen and women outraged that the nation's largest outdoors show banned the exhibition of assault weapons has caused the show's organizers to abruptly cancel the week-long event in Harrisburg, Pa.

The successful boycott, started by the website mynortheastoutdoors.com, was the biggest demonstration of support by the outdoors industry yet against gun control efforts being pushed in Washington and in several states."

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons | WashingtonExaminer.com

You'll note Foxy was smart enough to not try to pull that nonsense. She abandoned her own thread because she painted herself into a corner.

I susupect she'll come back and say that since this guy from DD wasn' a political figure and he wasn't citing a candidate it's somehow different; that her brand of morality only applies in certain cases...much like GOP superstition.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYaewOBGybw]The West Wing: Bartlet quotes scripture. - YouTube[/ame]

You'll notice that Foxy draws a distinction between boycotting AN ACTION by a group or entity or person--an ACTION that physically and materially affects others--as opposed to somebody simply expressing an opinion that does not physically or materially affect anybody.

Can you make that distinction? Or is it too difficult?

Here is what the NRA spent in 2012:

NRA spent $15 million to oust President Obama from office in 2012, and donated overwhelmingly to Republican candidates - NY Daily News
This in an effort to oust those they disagree with and install those who agree with them.

I'm sure you have your hair splitter out, honed to a fine edge, and will now make a distinction between support/opposition of a private citizen's views and a public official. Whatever lets you sleep peacefully at night.

Here appears another attack from the inert NRA.

Ironically, she's probably a supporter of this guy on DD's views from what I've read.

 

[Sunshine]

How do you know what a true Christian is? Hmm? Where do you get off making such an inflammatory remark?

My opinion is based on his blatant inflammatory remarks. You can be against homosexuality and still treat homosexual people with respect. Like it or not, they exist.

But his blatant inflammatory remarks are inflammatory only to those who think such people should not be allowed to speak those remarks. If you simply disagree with him or wrinkle your nose because he expressed himself more crudely or judgmentally than was necessary, that is your right too. Your right to say so even.

But when you seek to punish him physically or materially because you didn't like what he said or how he said it, you've crossed over a line from opinion to destructive activism. I think that is wrong. Even evil. And I think good people have to start standing up and pushing back on that kind of activism because it is harmful and destructive and is very bad for us.

Sometimes I think it is too late.

 

[candycorn]

On the bright side, according to this thread, most people (left and right) seem to be tolerant of people they disagree with or find objectionable because they understand the bigger issues. It only seems to be a handful of authoritarian types who can't think outside their own bias.

Yeah, Foxy needs some mental counseling.

Maybe you can teach her what you learned.

I already have a full time job and go to school full time...but thanks.

 

[occupied]

Tolerating intolerance is otherwise known as apathy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The NRA spends millions trying to get or keep people out of office in government. If that isn't trying to silence people I don't know what is.

And, while we're at it:

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons

"A massive boycott backed by the NRA and outdoorsmen and women outraged that the nation's largest outdoors show banned the exhibition of assault weapons has caused the show's organizers to abruptly cancel the week-long event in Harrisburg, Pa.

The successful boycott, started by the website mynortheastoutdoors.com, was the biggest demonstration of support by the outdoors industry yet against gun control efforts being pushed in Washington and in several states."

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons | WashingtonExaminer.com

The difference is that while promoting their political beliefs, they do not "research" their opponents with the goal of insuring they lose their ability to make a living.

And, they didn't demand that the nations largest outdoors show be shut down. They just didn't go. If GLAAD had just said we won't watch Duck Dynasty and called for a boycott of it as they have done countless other times (Dr. Laura, for example) there wouldn't have been the backlash. It was the calling of the "jihad" that smacks of bullying.

Exactly as I predicted.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Yeah, Foxy needs some mental counseling.

Maybe you can teach her what you learned.

I already have a full time job and go to school full time...but thanks.

and yet... I don't care.

 

[Foxfyre]

You'll note Foxy was smart enough to not try to pull that nonsense. She abandoned her own thread because she painted herself into a corner.

I susupect she'll come back and say that since this guy from DD wasn' a political figure and he wasn't citing a candidate it's somehow different; that her brand of morality only applies in certain cases...much like GOP superstition.

The West Wing: Bartlet quotes scripture. - YouTube

You'll notice that Foxy draws a distinction between boycotting AN ACTION by a group or entity or person--an ACTION that physically and materially affects others--as opposed to somebody simply expressing an opinion that does not physically or materially affect anybody.

Can you make that distinction? Or is it too difficult?

Here is what the NRA spent in 2012:

NRA spent $15 million to oust President Obama from office in 2012, and donated overwhelmingly to Republican candidates - NY Daily News
This in an effort to oust those they disagree with and install those who agree with them.

I'm sure you have your hair splitter out, honed to a fine edge, and will now make a distinction between support/opposition of a private citizen's views and a public official. Whatever lets you sleep peacefully at night.

Here appears another attack from the inert NRA.

Ironically, she's probably a supporter of this guy on DD's views from what I've read.

And what the NRA spent is relevent to the topic HOW? For that matter what GLAAD has taken in and spent is relevent to the topic HOW? Campaigning for a political candidate is relevent HOW? Being advocate for a cause whether a group is GLAAD or the NRA or the Democrats or the Republicans is relevent how?

Can you see a difference between allowing somebody an opinion--just an opinion--not an action, an OPINION --as necessary for tolerance? Do you not see it as intolerant to attempt to punish, materially or physical harm somebody not because they did anything to you or cost you anything or physically or materially harmed you in any way but simply because they expressed an opinion you didn't like?

You honestly don't see a difference between those two things?

 

[candycorn]

Maybe you can teach her what you learned.

I already have a full time job and go to school full time...but thanks.

and yet... I don't care.

And yet....I don't care that you don't care....

 

[candycorn]

You'll notice that Foxy draws a distinction between boycotting AN ACTION by a group or entity or person--an ACTION that physically and materially affects others--as opposed to somebody simply expressing an opinion that does not physically or materially affect anybody.

Can you make that distinction? Or is it too difficult?

Here is what the NRA spent in 2012:

NRA spent $15 million to oust President Obama from office in 2012, and donated overwhelmingly to Republican candidates - NY Daily News
This in an effort to oust those they disagree with and install those who agree with them.

I'm sure you have your hair splitter out, honed to a fine edge, and will now make a distinction between support/opposition of a private citizen's views and a public official. Whatever lets you sleep peacefully at night.

Here appears another attack from the inert NRA.

Ironically, she's probably a supporter of this guy on DD's views from what I've read.

And what the NRA spent is relevent to the topic HOW? For that matter what GLAAD has taken in and spent is relevent to the topic HOW? Campaigning for a political candidate is relevent HOW? Being advocate for a cause whether a group is GLAAD or the NRA or the Democrats or the Republicans is relevent how?

Can you see a difference between allowing somebody an opinion--just an opinion--not an action, an OPINION --as necessary for tolerance? Do you not see it as intolerant to attempt to punish, materially or physical harm somebody not because they did anything to you or cost you anything or physically or materially harmed you in any way but simply because they expressed an opinion you didn't like?

You honestly don't see a difference between those two things?

I agree, the NRA is being totally intolerant and is spending boatloads of money in activism to impose their views on me. We agree on this.

 

[Bfgrn]

I don't agree that PR's expressed opinion was intolerant. Critical or disapproving? Yes. Crudely and unpleasantly expressed? Yes. Untactful? Yes. Un-PC? Most definitely. Worthy of criticism? Absolutely. But he was wishing no ill will or restrictions or requirements on gay people; wishing them no harm; was not refusing to associate with or accommodate gay people. Therefore, his comments do not constitute intolerance.

GLAAD however was not content to simply express their opinion about PR's comments. They were not content to defend themselves or explain how their view was different or why PR was wrong. They were reactionary physically--going after PR to hurt him, punish him, if at all possible destroy him. THAT is more than expressing one's opinion. THAT is intolerance to the point of denying somebody the right to their opinion.

Tolerance and acceptance are two different things. In order to be tolerant, one does not have to agree with the other person or accept what they offer. All they have to do is to allow the other to be different. I think too many here are confusing the two.

BS...

Your idea of 'tolerance' is for Phil Robertson to have the right to speak his mind. And for GLAAD to have the right to be SILENT.

And the violent threats and intimidation is coming from the right, not the left.

GLAAD spokesman Wilson Cruz said at the time:

“He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.”

Now, the tables have turned on GLAAD and they are the ones facing backlash because of their condemnation of Robertson.

Rich Ferraro, vice president of communications for GLAAD told The Wrap:

“In the five-and-a-half years I’ve worked at GLAAD, I’ve never received so many violently angry phone calls and social media posts attacking GLAAD for us speaking out against these comments.”

No. I have not at any point or any way suggested GLAAD should be silent. My only objection to GLAAD is that they did not just express their opinion in rebuttal to PR, but they sought to physically and materially punish him, hurt him, destroy him for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like.

Is it just the liberal mind that cannot distinguish between those two things? Is any conservative here having the same problem seeing expressing an opinion and materially punishing somebody as separate things? Am I explaining it that badly?

I have no problem distinguishing, but I do have a problem with you portraying GLAAD speaking out against PR as "sought to physically and materially punish him, hurt him, destroy him for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like."

HOW did GLAAD "sought to physically and materially punish him, hurt him, destroy him for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like."

 

[NYcarbineer]

The NRA spends millions trying to get or keep people out of office in government. If that isn't trying to silence people I don't know what is.

And, while we're at it:

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons

"A massive boycott backed by the NRA and outdoorsmen and women outraged that the nation's largest outdoors show banned the exhibition of assault weapons has caused the show's organizers to abruptly cancel the week-long event in Harrisburg, Pa.

The successful boycott, started by the website mynortheastoutdoors.com, was the biggest demonstration of support by the outdoors industry yet against gun control efforts being pushed in Washington and in several states."

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons | WashingtonExaminer.com

You'll note Foxy was smart enough to not try to pull that nonsense. She abandoned her own thread because she painted herself into a corner.

I susupect she'll come back and say that since this guy from DD wasn' a political figure and he wasn't citing a candidate it's somehow different; that her brand of morality only applies in certain cases...much like GOP superstition.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYaewOBGybw]The West Wing: Bartlet quotes scripture. - YouTube[/ame]

You'll notice that Foxy draws a distinction between boycotting AN ACTION by a group or entity or person--an ACTION that physically and materially affects others--as opposed to somebody simply expressing an opinion that does not physically or materially affect anybody.

Can you make that distinction? Or is it too difficult?

No, you're inventing distinctions for the purpose of keeping your poorly concealed partisan agenda in order.

 

[Sunshine]

About that contract Phil may have signed.....

Did you know that many retailers tell their employees that if their cash register till is short after their shift that they (the employee running that machine) is liable for any loss...and they signed an agreement stating such would be the case....and the employer does indeed take out what is missing or lost from that persons check? But do you know that that is also ILLEGAL to do, signature on a contract, or not, and cannot be LEGALLY enforced? At least, not in California. Don't know about other states.

So...perhaps Phil signed a contract that is illegal in the first place. Nobody knows or will know unless the contract is shown in it's entirety.

Unconscionability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[candycorn]

The NRA spends millions trying to get or keep people out of office in government. If that isn't trying to silence people I don't know what is.

And, while we're at it:

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons

"A massive boycott backed by the NRA and outdoorsmen and women outraged that the nation's largest outdoors show banned the exhibition of assault weapons has caused the show's organizers to abruptly cancel the week-long event in Harrisburg, Pa.

The successful boycott, started by the website mynortheastoutdoors.com, was the biggest demonstration of support by the outdoors industry yet against gun control efforts being pushed in Washington and in several states."

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons | WashingtonExaminer.com

The difference is that while promoting their political beliefs, they do not "research" their opponents with the goal of insuring they lose their ability to make a living.

And, they didn't demand that the nations largest outdoors show be shut down. They just didn't go. If GLAAD had just said we won't watch Duck Dynasty and called for a boycott of it as they have done countless other times (Dr. Laura, for example) there wouldn't have been the backlash. It was the calling of the "jihad" that smacks of bullying.

Exactly as I predicted.

There is a "fish in the barrel" aspect to this isn't there?

We're running out of fish.

 

[hunarcy]

The NRA spends millions trying to get or keep people out of office in government. If that isn't trying to silence people I don't know what is.

And, while we're at it:

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons

"A massive boycott backed by the NRA and outdoorsmen and women outraged that the nation's largest outdoors show banned the exhibition of assault weapons has caused the show's organizers to abruptly cancel the week-long event in Harrisburg, Pa.

The successful boycott, started by the website mynortheastoutdoors.com, was the biggest demonstration of support by the outdoors industry yet against gun control efforts being pushed in Washington and in several states."

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons | WashingtonExaminer.com

The difference is that while promoting their political beliefs, they do not "research" their opponents with the goal of insuring they lose their ability to make a living.

And, they didn't demand that the nations largest outdoors show be shut down. They just didn't go. If GLAAD had just said we won't watch Duck Dynasty and called for a boycott of it as they have done countless other times (Dr. Laura, for example) there wouldn't have been the backlash. It was the calling of the "jihad" that smacks of bullying.

Exactly as I predicted.

You predicted that someone would post the truth to rebut your silly comment? That doesn't make you Kreskin, it just shows you knew you were wrong and would be corrected.

 

[hunarcy]

I have no problem distinguishing, but I do have a problem with you portraying GLAAD speaking out against PR as "sought to physically and materially punish him, hurt him, destroy him for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like."

HOW did GLAAD "sought to physically and materially punish him, hurt him, destroy him for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like."

"After the meeting, GLAAD issued its statement on Robertson’s comments. A&E initially released a statement from Robertson in which he said he would “never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me.” But the network declined to comment itself until Wednesday night, when it announced the suspension, which GLAAD applauded.

“We believe the next step is to use this as an opportunity for Phil to sit down with gay families in Louisiana and learn about their lives and the values they share,” the spokesman said.

The organization is also currently researching companies who use Robertson as a spokesperson."

?Duck Dynasty? Fallout: GLAAD Reeling From Biggest Backlash in Years, Says Rep - Yahoo TV

 

[Derideo_Te]

I don't agree that PR's expressed opinion was intolerant. Critical or disapproving? Yes. Crudely and unpleasantly expressed? Yes. Untactful? Yes. Un-PC? Most definitely. Worthy of criticism? Absolutely. But he was wishing no ill will or restrictions or requirements on gay people; wishing them no harm; was not refusing to associate with or accommodate gay people. Therefore, his comments do not constitute intolerance.

GLAAD however was not content to simply express their opinion about PR's comments. They were not content to defend themselves or explain how their view was different or why PR was wrong. They were reactionary physically--going after PR to hurt him, punish him, if at all possible destroy him. THAT is more than expressing one's opinion. THAT is intolerance to the point of denying somebody the right to their opinion.

Tolerance and acceptance are two different things. In order to be tolerant, one does not have to agree with the other person or accept what they offer. All they have to do is to allow the other to be different. I think too many here are confusing the two.

The topic is tolerance and here are some of the definitions;

n.
1. a fair and permissive attitude toward those whose race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3. any liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

Since what PR said is the opposite of those definitions that makes him intolerant. Likewise what GLAAD said was intolerant of PR's statements. Under the definition above both are equally guilty of intolerance.

Now you are trying to draw a distinction regarding the "level" of intolerance by introducing "acceptance". The line where intolerance becomes unacceptable is where actual harm comes to someone. GLAAD is in no position to inflict any harm therefore all they are doing is expressing their opinion. To condemn them for doing so is censorship since they cannot inflict any actual harm. And no, they cannot censor PR's opinion either. He is free to express it anywhere and anytime he wishes. However A&E gets to decide who uses their platform and that will be a business decision that will be based entirely upon revenue earnings/losses.

So on the original premise of the OP I am standing my ground. If you wish to switch to the topic of acceptance we can do so but before we go there let me point out that it is a slippery slope. PR included prostitution and terrorism in his statement. Do you really want to argue that those are acceptable and defensible?

I do not entirely agree with those definitions, but let's go with them anyway.

Okay PR was intolerant because of how he views homosexuality.
GLAAD is intolerant because of how they view PR's Christian beliefs.

PR, however, is tolerant of GLAAD's intolerance because he does not seek to silence GLAAD or punish them in any way or harm or discriminate against any person who happens to be gay. He simply expressed his opinion about what he believes the Bible to teach about homosexuality and his personal views about it.

GLAAD was not content to rebut PR's opinion or express their own views. They DID seek to punish, materially damage, hurt PR, not because of any action or threat to GLAAD or anybody else, but purely because he expressed an opinion they didn't like.

And in my point of view, GLAAD's kind of intolerance should NOT be tolerated by any of us who appreciate liberty and/or the right to be who we are when we are not harming or huting anybody else.

Tolerance does not mean agreement or acceptance to me. It means that we allow others to be who and what they are even if we do not agree with their lifestyle or what they believe and profess.

Ok, we are coming closer. The use of financial boycotting and/or firing is not unique to GLAAD. As provided in another post the NRA has done both to those who have expressed their opinions that are contrary to the NRA's stance. If you wish to condemn GLAAD then in all fairness you must condemn the NRA for hurting/harming their opponents financially.

The only reason I don't consider financial harm to be relevant is because it is used by both sides and it is currently treated as being part of "free speech" under the latest SCOTUS ruling. (Personally I disagree with that ruling but since it is now legal I give it a pass.)

Real harm stems from physical violence and threats of violence that can cause mental harm. That is where the line must be drawn. GLAAD calling for PR to be fired was not harming him under the current SCOTUS interpretation. However if GLAAD had issued death threats then they would have crossed the line. What is interesting is that death threats have been issued by those defending PR against the president of A&E. I can and do condemn those who are threatening actual violence now.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

The NRA spends millions trying to get or keep people out of office in government. If that isn't trying to silence people I don't know what is.

And, while we're at it:

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons

"A massive boycott backed by the NRA and outdoorsmen and women outraged that the nation's largest outdoors show banned the exhibition of assault weapons has caused the show's organizers to abruptly cancel the week-long event in Harrisburg, Pa.

The successful boycott, started by the website mynortheastoutdoors.com, was the biggest demonstration of support by the outdoors industry yet against gun control efforts being pushed in Washington and in several states."

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons | WashingtonExaminer.com

But this thread isn't about the NRA is it? Therefore I will dismiss this argument absent consideration. You disrespect the author of this OP by spouting irrelevance.