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

[candycorn]

Like I said, I will not address any further irrelevance from you. What the NRA did was and is not an example of tolerance and intolerance, it was advocacy done right. They didn't have someone silenced because they disagreed with them. Now if you can't distinguish between the two, I'm sorry, I can't help you.

Neither did GLAAD. This guy from DD can still say whatever he wants. He wasn't saying it on the show so he wasn't silenced in the least.

He was suspended. He was silenced. The NRA doesn't make a habit of targeting individuals for annihilation. Anyway, as much as you want it to be, the NRA is not relevant here.

Suspended means one thing. Silenced means something totally different.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Perhaps if you read the post I was responding to, you'll get what I responding to. I took Derideo as saying you were gay, with nothing other than that to work off of I responded in due kind. I missed that very last point "are you intolerant of him as you are gays?" Now that I know, I will rescind any insinuations that were made in that particular part of my post.

Ah, I am seeing the context now. Not so sure why Derideo Te used me as an example. Must be some confusion. I am a single father, that is true. Divorced since 2010. But being divorced doesn't make one gay, it just makes one divorced. Plus, he never wrote that I was gay, he wrote something to the effect that I am not in a heterosexual marriage, which is correct, for I am not in a marriage at all, and after the last one, probably won't do it again. I can see that his wording must have been a little strange for you but I am sure he did not mean that in any way to confuse, either you or me.

And frankly, I wouldn't care if I were gay. But I'm not. In fact, right now I'm a little depressed that I had to cancel a date with a woman on Friday because extra work fell into my lap and I couldn't pass it up. Kind of a bummer. She is a terrific person and beautiful to boot. Sigh.

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]
[MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION]

My apologies to both of you for the confusion.

I did not intend to imply that Stat was gay. I was simply using Stat as a single hetero father raising a child being no different to a homosexual father raising a child. Neither can conceive a child but that has no bearing on their ability to be good fathers. This was to refute TK's point that since gays cannot conceive they cannot be good parents.

Not a biggie, [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION], it didn't really bother me. Life goes by far too quickly to be bent out of shape about that kind of stuff. Besides, I am secure and happy in who I am, and outside of some wild and whacky RWNJ ongoing obsession with gay sex here in USMB for some inexplicable reason, which always causes me to laugh, I never really think about that stuff. I have a lot of work, I have a little girl to grow up and I have, as most people, family issues to tend to. So, the issue of "gay" is rarely, if ever on my radar. I have lots and lots of gay friends, but I also have lots and lots of straight friends and we all get along just famously with each other. In fact, one of my dearest friends, who is gay, worked very, very hard to set me up on a date with a very nice woman about three weeks ago. She was ok, the date was ok, but she really wasn't my type and I wasn't really hers. But my friend who did this did this because he cares about me as a person and knows what I went through with my divorce.

So, not a biggie. Fuggedaboudit!!


And it is true, what you said about parenting: I know single parents, both male and female, some straight, some gay, some bi, who are busy raising their children.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Alright, I will respond to this as best as I can, point by point. [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]

First:



Okay, firstly, my views of Christianity are based off of Protestantism, not of Catholicism. Therefore, I don't see the Pope as a true man of God. Anyone who prays to Mary and believes in the act of buying someone out of hell or purgatory does not truly understand the ultimate aspect of salvation and damnation. Christians worship Jesus Christ, not his mother. Pope Francis is an admirable man, but I cannot adhere to the tenets he believes in. We all have a general belief in God, therefore we should pray to God and to nobody else. In the end of all things, being a mere man will be irrelevant when God comes to earth at the end of days. All men will be judged equally for his transgressions. Catholics like gays are the children of God, but I believe personally that they are misguided and are stepping ever so closely to the wide path of destruction.

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Matthew 7:13-14 NKJV




As I said previously, all humankind are the children of God. But I must stand true to what I believe the Bible says about homosexuality. In the Book of Matthew, Chapter 7, it tells us not to judge other by our preconceived standards, lest we be judged by those same standards om heaven. It also warns us not to cast what is precious before swine, too. However, if a homosexual claims to be a member of my faith, I feel I must judge him according to the teaching of my faith. I am allowed that right. Christians are to help other Christians grow in the body of Christ.

Interesting you should ask that question, Derideo, "should we be hidebound to the intolerance of 2000+ years ago?" A lot of people think that we still believe in the old mosaic laws of the ancient Israelites, therefore we are seen as intolerant supposedly because it is assumed we are believing in such a system. However, Jesus did away with the old law and established a new covenant. All sin can be forgiven, any man can be redeemed, all he has to do is give his heart to God and expunge himself of his sinful ways. No man should die for his sin, since Jesus himself redeemed mankind with is death on the cross.

My rationale for "gay Christians" can be found here.

What Stat does with his life is of no concern of mine. It does not however stop me from disapproving of it. I cannot openly judge him for what he is. I am tolerant. I have never been intolerant of homosexuals my entire life. My uncle was gay, I have two gay friends. If I see two men holding hands on the street, I don't say a word. I don't cause a scene. Tolerance is a relative term to both gays and Christians. Frankly I've seen gays exercise more tolerance that Christians, and then again I have seen the converse.

Can you watch and comment on the parts of the Bible discussed below?

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

@TemplarKormac...please respond to underlined request above.

[MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]...Gladly. Watch and learn.

I love how all you can do is quote Exodus or Leviticus, the Old Law or the Old Testament to show how Christians supposedly are intolerant or barbaric. Too bad you only read half of the Bible and get only half of the message.

It has been repeatedly drilled into that thick skull of yours that the Old Law isn't applicable to us as it was to the Israelites. We do not suggest that people be put to death for anything today, almost 2,000 years later. Jesus paid for that very death penalty mentioned in those verses cited in that video by dying on the cross. Let me quote you one verse that you neglect to recite, let me show you just how feeble your argument is. Romans Chapter 6, verse 23:

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

You know what that gift is, candycorn? The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to pay the sin debt of all mankind.

Should you ever bother to read both testaments of the Bible, you will understand that. You are patently disingenuous. You insult my intelligence, candycorn. You enrage me to no end with your rank dishonesty. You think we want to kill homosexuals or have them killed for being what they are? All it takes is for someone to ask forgiveness for their sin; turn from their sin; not atone for their sin by dying right on the spot. Jesus died a death that we deserved to die, to redeem us all. Have you lost your pea pickin' mind? (wait, nevermind)

I am not a "true Christian" by anyone's standards. candycorn, but I'm not one of those you can simply overwhelm with tired recitations about how "homosexuals should be put to death because the Bible says so." You know better than that. You won't get by with trashing my faith or the word of the Almighty God. Don't you dare give me that tired old "you shouldn't eat shellfish, keep slaves, be homosexual, wear clothing of two different threads or touch the skin of a dead animal or be put to death" nonsense. I've debated college students, professors and theology majors with the same mindset as you. It won't fly.

Have a seat. People like you really tick me off.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Neither did GLAAD. This guy from DD can still say whatever he wants. He wasn't saying it on the show so he wasn't silenced in the least.

He was suspended. He was silenced. The NRA doesn't make a habit of targeting individuals for annihilation. Anyway, as much as you want it to be, the NRA is not relevant here.

Suspended means one thing. Silenced means something totally different.

I've already slapped you down tonight, candycorn. Don't make the hole deeper for yourself.

You don't hear from him anymore, why is that? He doesn't speak for fear of retribution, that or he lets the silence expose the intolerance some in this world are so willing to display through words.

Silenced. Deal with it.

 

[bayoubill]

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

lol... reminds me of a bumper sticker I had custom-made for a prickly flamin'-lib buddy of mine 30 years ago...

it read "I Can't Stand Intolerant People!"...

 

[candycorn]

Can you watch and comment on the parts of the Bible discussed below?

The West Wing: Bartlet quotes scripture. - YouTube

@TemplarKormac...please respond to underlined request above.

[MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]...Gladly. Watch and learn.

I love how all you can do is quote Exodus or Leviticus, the Old Law or the Old Testament to show how Christians supposedly are intolerant or barbaric. Too bad you only read half of the Bible and get only half of the message.

It has been repeatedly drilled into that thick skull of yours that the Old Law isn't applicable to us as it was to the Israelites. We do not suggest that people be put to death for anything today, almost 2,000 years later. Jesus paid for that very death penalty mentioned in those verses cited in that video by dying on the cross. Let me quote you one verse that you neglect to recite, let me show you just how feeble your argument is. Romans Chapter 6, verse 23:

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

You know what that gift is, candycorn? The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to pay the sin debt of all mankind.

Should you ever bother to read both testaments of the Bible, you will understand that. You are patently disingenuous. You insult my intelligence, candycorn. You enrage me to no end with your rank dishonesty. You think we want to kill homosexuals or have them killed for being what they are? All it takes is for someone to ask forgiveness for their sin; turn from their sin; not atone for their sin by dying right on the spot. Have you lost your pea pickin' mind? (wait, nevermind)

I am not a "true Christian" by anyone's standards. candycorn, but I'm not one of those you can simply overwhelm with tired recitations about how "homosexuals should be put to death because the Bible says so." You know better than that. You won't get by with trashing my faith or the word of the Almighty God. Don't you dare give me that tired old "you shouldn't eat shellfish, keep slaves, be homosexual, wear clothing of two different threads or touch the skin of a dead animal or be put to death" nonsense. I've debated college students, professors and theology majors with the same mindset as you. It won't fly.

Have a seat. People like you really tick me off.

So you only buy part of the Bible...got it.

BTW...I didn't quote anything; just wondering how you justify only adhering to part of the Bible (coincidentally the only part that fits in with GOP supersition). If it's not convenient, you don't go for it. Save your, "the bible says" BS in the future....you can't cite what you don't believe in and use the parts you do buy and defer to it as some sort of authority.

 

[candycorn]

He was suspended. He was silenced. The NRA doesn't make a habit of targeting individuals for annihilation. Anyway, as much as you want it to be, the NRA is not relevant here.

Suspended means one thing. Silenced means something totally different.

I've already slapped you down tonight, candycorn. Don't make the hole deeper for yourself.

You don't hear from him anymore, why is that? He doesn't speak for fear of retribution, that or he lets the silence expose the intolerance some in this world are so willing to display through words.

Silenced. Deal with it.

I never heard from him before...never watched the show; didn't know his name until it was brought up here. If he's being silent, it's two things; probably a good thing for him since A) he's hurt their brand in the long run and B) its his own choice.

You haven't slapped anything sonny boy.

 

[Statistikhengst]

So, is this a thread about tolerance vs. intolerance, or is this now a Sunday School class? I am confused...

 

[Luissa]

He was suspended. He was silenced. The NRA doesn't make a habit of targeting individuals for annihilation. Anyway, as much as you want it to be, the NRA is not relevant here.

Suspended means one thing. Silenced means something totally different.

I've already slapped you down tonight, candycorn. Don't make the hole deeper for yourself.



You don't hear from him anymore, why is that? He doesn't speak for fear of retribution, that or he lets the silence expose the intolerance some in this world are so willing to display through words.



Silenced. Deal with it.

By his own choice. He can talk all he wants, he chooses not to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Luissa]

Yep. When I say 'should', that is my opinion. I think what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson SHOULD be illegal. It SHOULD be considered sufficiently wrong that it should be against the law to intentionally target somebody and attempt to materially harm them for nothing more than expressing an opinion that somebody didn't agree with. When any person or group is allowed to do that to another person or group with impunity, we have no rights left.

And the conservative groups targeting Al Sharpton, Bill Maher, and Ed Schultz?



I take your opinion applies to them equally. I also take it that you will never acknowledge that.



btw, here's the new conservative group Truth Revolt's petition that demanded Martin Bashir lose his job for expressing an opinion:



Stop The Sexist Martin Bashir | Truth Revolt



Do you want that to be illegal on the federal level, or leave it up to the states?



lolol

Hate to break it to you buuut...



Those three bring that on themselves. Phil Jackson quotes one Bible verse and GLAAD is all over him like white on rice. So now you are comparing him to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? That's pretty lame, carbine.

What about the Dixie Chics?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NYcarbineer]

So conservatives now wish to tell me that I am out of line to find this:

"Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

spoken by Phil Robertson a few years ago,

objectionable.

Yes, I'm the villain if I don't quietly and obediently tolerate that sort of hate speech.

 

[BDBoop]

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

The revision has been made. Please accept my apologies, and this pineapple.

And in return:

Off topic:



All apologies. Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

 

[BDBoop]

I think you misunderstood Boop. She was rightfully chastising me for singling out a group for criticism here.

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]

Well see, just by chastising you did she alter your opinion. You weren't allowed to keep your opinion even if it was flawed. She sought you out. She was unable to tolerate your opinion. Is that right for someone to do? Even when someone like her does the same to conservatives? How is that just and fair? Is there not a double standard in place here? Now I'm confused.

Magnify this instance a thousand times over. You get GLAAD, who went so far as to not only chastise a man for his opinion, they sought his capitulation. I say don't let others force you to change your opinions simply because it offends them. You have a right to make such an opinion without being forced to capitulate.The right to change your opinions is yours and yours alone.

The difference is that Boop was making a legitimate observation and commenting on it. She was not presuming to disallow me to hold and/or express the opinion I appeared to express. Nor did she neg rep me or report me or otherwise try to 'hurt' me in any way. She had a legitimate gripe with what I said and/or how I said it, and said so. That, in my view is legitimate. It would have been legitimate even if she was wrong. Alas, in this case she happened to be right.

I would have had zero criticism of GLAAD if they had made a formal statement criticizing Phil Robertson's point of view and stating their own version of what is true about gays and lesbians. That way they would allow PR to be who and what he is without condoning or accepting what he said. I am on the record that I don't agree with what PR said or how he said it either. How could I possibly fault GLAAD for taking issue with it?

But where I take issue with GLAAD, is that they were not content just to rebut what PR said. They took it upon themselves to apply their resources and influence to materially punish him, hurt him, and/or destroy him. Not because he had any power or was seeking power to hurt them. Not because he wished any harm upon them or encouraged anyone to hate or despise them. They sought to hurt him purely because he expressed an opinion they didn't like.

Also, they muddied the waters in a spectacular fashion. All they had to do is watch things unfold. Really. That's all. And don't doubt for a minute that things would have unfolded without their help.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yep. When I say 'should', that is my opinion. I think what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson SHOULD be illegal. It SHOULD be considered sufficiently wrong that it should be against the law to intentionally target somebody and attempt to materially harm them for nothing more than expressing an opinion that somebody didn't agree with. When any person or group is allowed to do that to another person or group with impunity, we have no rights left.

And the conservative groups targeting Al Sharpton, Bill Maher, and Ed Schultz?

I take your opinion applies to them equally. I also take it that you will never acknowledge that.

btw, here's the new conservative group Truth Revolt's petition that demanded Martin Bashir lose his job for expressing an opinion:

Stop The Sexist Martin Bashir | Truth Revolt

Do you want that to be illegal on the federal level, or leave it up to the states?

lolol

Hate to break it to you buuut...

Those three bring that on themselves. Phil Jackson quotes one Bible verse and GLAAD is all over him like white on rice. So now you are comparing him to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? That's pretty lame, carbine.

I satisfied YOUR conditions. Have you forgotten you said this?

Like I said, I will not address any further irrelevance from you. What the NRA did was and is not an example of tolerance and intolerance, it was advocacy done right. They didn't have someone silenced because they disagreed with them. Now if you can't distinguish between the two, I'm sorry, I can't help you

You tried to weasel out of the NRA comparison by saying it had to groups trying to silence someone because they disagreed with them.

I posted 3 examples of EXACTLY that. Schultz, Bashir, and Sharpton. All being attacked for what they SAID,

all having their livelihoods attacked for what they said.

You ran out of goalpost moves, pal. Wake up.

 

[BDBoop]

An example of apathy, am I right?

I would have to work up enough interest to know wha that guy is for me to exercise apathy.

Less talking, more cooking!

You're really kind of crap at the trolling bit.

 

[BDBoop]

@TemplarKormac...please respond to underlined request above.

[MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]...Gladly. Watch and learn.

I love how all you can do is quote Exodus or Leviticus, the Old Law or the Old Testament to show how Christians supposedly are intolerant or barbaric. Too bad you only read half of the Bible and get only half of the message.

It has been repeatedly drilled into that thick skull of yours that the Old Law isn't applicable to us as it was to the Israelites. We do not suggest that people be put to death for anything today, almost 2,000 years later. Jesus paid for that very death penalty mentioned in those verses cited in that video by dying on the cross. Let me quote you one verse that you neglect to recite, let me show you just how feeble your argument is. Romans Chapter 6, verse 23:

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

You know what that gift is, candycorn? The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to pay the sin debt of all mankind.

Should you ever bother to read both testaments of the Bible, you will understand that. You are patently disingenuous. You insult my intelligence, candycorn. You enrage me to no end with your rank dishonesty. You think we want to kill homosexuals or have them killed for being what they are? All it takes is for someone to ask forgiveness for their sin; turn from their sin; not atone for their sin by dying right on the spot. Have you lost your pea pickin' mind? (wait, nevermind)

I am not a "true Christian" by anyone's standards. candycorn, but I'm not one of those you can simply overwhelm with tired recitations about how "homosexuals should be put to death because the Bible says so." You know better than that. You won't get by with trashing my faith or the word of the Almighty God. Don't you dare give me that tired old "you shouldn't eat shellfish, keep slaves, be homosexual, wear clothing of two different threads or touch the skin of a dead animal or be put to death" nonsense. I've debated college students, professors and theology majors with the same mindset as you. It won't fly.

Have a seat. People like you really tick me off.

So you only buy part of the Bible...got it.

BTW...I didn't quote anything; just wondering how you justify only adhering to part of the Bible (coincidentally the only part that fits in with GOP supersition). If it's not convenient, you don't go for it. Save your, "the bible says" BS in the future....you can't cite what you don't believe in and use the parts you do buy and defer to it as some sort of authority.

I had hopes. For one brief, shining moment in time - but no.

How silly was that.

 

[BDBoop]

and yet... I don't care.

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

What would you do if you did care though? Would you call GLAAD and try to have me suspended from my job because I expressed an opinion you disliked? The real question is who do we think should decide what's acceptable speech and what is not. Should the majority of citizens decide what is allowable speech content or should small activist organizations decide? Should republicans decide or should democrats decide? I personally think I should be the only one who decides our speech code but I suspect not everybody would agree with my views. BUT! I could silence the people who disagreed with my views. How dare those intolerant people disagree with me! I shall have them all suspended from their jobs! I shall call it the Candycorn act of 2013. There will be no more hate speech, no more hurt feelings, no more intolerance, no more freedom. All will be perfect for the collective. You're all under my control! Make me pancakes!!!

Sure. Fair warning, though; those aren't chocolate chips.

The arrogance of men stupid enough to make demands astonishes me.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, is this a thread about tolerance vs. intolerance, or is this now a Sunday School class? I am confused...

No, it’s a relatively common thread: conservatives exhibiting their ignorance and stupidity.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]...Gladly. Watch and learn.

I love how all you can do is quote Exodus or Leviticus, the Old Law or the Old Testament to show how Christians supposedly are intolerant or barbaric. Too bad you only read half of the Bible and get only half of the message.

It has been repeatedly drilled into that thick skull of yours that the Old Law isn't applicable to us as it was to the Israelites. We do not suggest that people be put to death for anything today, almost 2,000 years later. Jesus paid for that very death penalty mentioned in those verses cited in that video by dying on the cross. Let me quote you one verse that you neglect to recite, let me show you just how feeble your argument is. Romans Chapter 6, verse 23:

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

You know what that gift is, candycorn? The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to pay the sin debt of all mankind.

Should you ever bother to read both testaments of the Bible, you will understand that. You are patently disingenuous. You insult my intelligence, candycorn. You enrage me to no end with your rank dishonesty. You think we want to kill homosexuals or have them killed for being what they are? All it takes is for someone to ask forgiveness for their sin; turn from their sin; not atone for their sin by dying right on the spot. Have you lost your pea pickin' mind? (wait, nevermind)

I am not a "true Christian" by anyone's standards. candycorn, but I'm not one of those you can simply overwhelm with tired recitations about how "homosexuals should be put to death because the Bible says so." You know better than that. You won't get by with trashing my faith or the word of the Almighty God. Don't you dare give me that tired old "you shouldn't eat shellfish, keep slaves, be homosexual, wear clothing of two different threads or touch the skin of a dead animal or be put to death" nonsense. I've debated college students, professors and theology majors with the same mindset as you. It won't fly.

Have a seat. People like you really tick me off.

So you only buy part of the Bible...got it.

BTW...I didn't quote anything; just wondering how you justify only adhering to part of the Bible (coincidentally the only part that fits in with GOP supersition). If it's not convenient, you don't go for it. Save your, "the bible says" BS in the future....you can't cite what you don't believe in and use the parts you do buy and defer to it as some sort of authority.

I had hopes. For one brief, shining moment in time - but no.

How silly was that.

Your heart was in the right place.

 

[BDBoop]

So conservatives now wish to tell me that I am out of line to find this:

"Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

spoken by Phil Robertson a few years ago,

objectionable.

Yes, I'm the villain if I don't quietly and obediently tolerate that sort of hate speech.

My point stands with your point. No. I can't tolerate statements like that.

I won't.