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

[Ava]

He [Robertson] has no power or intent or motive whatsoever to harm anybody, including gay and lesbian people, purely by stating what he believes.

To attempt to physically or materially harm him (or anybody else) for no reason other than he said something somebody disagrees with is evil.

That is true, and his cable network is going to regret their decision to put him on hiatus until it has all blown over. Nothing will ever be the same, if and when, he returns for new episodes. The internal damage has been done. The Robertson's are a proud family.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Okay, we've established that Foxfyre, and now TemplarKormac - and probably some others - believe that what GLAAD did should be a crime (yes, newcomers, as outrageous as that sounds, it's true)

But I'll bet a dollar they won't say that this (virtually the same thing) should be a crime:

Boycott A&E' Facebook Support Page

'Boycott A&E' Facebook Support Page for Phil Robertson Gets over 1M Likes

"virtually" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Could you not do that? Please?

 

[The T]

PR has the right to express his religious views without repercussions.

He most certainly does NOT!

Good Lord!

He has the right to say anything he wants, but there are many forms of repercussion from which he has no legal protection at all.

He DOES however have an unalienable right to express his religious or any other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after him to punish him, hurt him, harm him, destroy him. Just as they have a right to express their contempt for any of his religious or other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after them to punish them, hurt them, harm them, destroy them.

Too many here--people I actually like, enjoy and admire--seem unable to grasp that simple concept. Tolerance is NOT agreement, endorsement, acceptance, or anything of that nature. Tolerance IS allowing the other person, however disagreeable, to be who or what he/she is so long as s/he is not infringing on the rights of others.

Phil Robertson's expressed opinions whenever, whatever, wherever, just as one example, are one man's opinion. Phil isn't running for political office. He is not calling for retribution or action against anybody. He has no power or intent or motive whatsoever to harm anybody, including gay and lesbian people, purely by stating what he believes.

To attempt to physically or materially harm him (or anybody else) for no reason other than he said something somebody disagrees with is evil.

Indeed. NO ONE has the right to steal liberty for their own cause just because they don't like the exercise of anothers' cause.

What we are witnessing here Foxy, are those that live in grey areas, and have never understood liberty itself...and are quick to steal it from others.

 

[NYcarbineer]

PR has the right to express his religious views without repercussions.

He most certainly does NOT!

Good Lord!

He has the right to say anything he wants, but there are many forms of repercussion from which he has no legal protection at all.

He DOES however have an unalienable right to express his religious or any other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after him to punish him, hurt him, harm him, destroy him. Just as they have a right to express their contempt for any of his religious or other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after them to punish them, hurt them, harm them, destroy them.

Too many here--people I actually like, enjoy and admire--seem unable to grasp that simple concept. Tolerance is NOT agreement, endorsement, acceptance, or anything of that nature. Tolerance IS allowing the other person, however disagreeable, to be who or what he/she is so long as s/he is not infringing on the rights of others.

Phil Robertson's expressed opinions whenever, whatever, wherever, just as one example, are one man's opinion. Phil isn't running for political office. He is not calling for retribution or action against anybody. He has no power or intent or motive whatsoever to harm anybody, including gay and lesbian people, purely by stating what he believes.

To attempt to physically or materially harm him (or anybody else) for no reason other than he said something somebody disagrees with is evil.

Phil Robertson has no power? Are you mad? He has thousands now threatening to boycott A & E if they don't keep his show on?

Yes, threatening to physically harm A & E for wanting to decide what their own programming will be -

something you deem criminal.

 

[The T]

You're wrong of course. Most people side with the right of Duck Dynasty to express opinions without fear of censorship or other repercussions. This includes democrats and gays. John Stewart, Andrew Sullivan,etc.
You don't understand that this is a free speech issue and not a religious issue. Your own intolerance of free speech limits your ability to argue on the topic at hand. Your authoritarian views wont allow it.
Gay CNN Anchor Defends 'Duck Dynasty' Star - Video

It is a free speech issue.

But when he quotes the bible as his guide for his feelings about gays, he introduces the teachings, right? He's the one citing the bible as his spiritaul guide to make him think the way he thinks. I didn't bring it up. What I did bring up is that there are parts of the same text that are ignored out of convenience sake Of course, as I have demonstrated, part-time Christians seem to be the norm and in terms of politics, it's only that part of the bible that is in line with GOP supersition that seems to be harped upon. That you think this is just fine...well, that's between you and whom you worship I suppose.

However, you can't cite part of the work and think it elevates your stance/reinforces your positition when you ignore parts of the rest of the work as being totally out of step with 2013/2014 civilized society. Otherwise, those who oppose his viewpoints, can do the same thing, right?

One thing you missed:

How does his quoting the Bible affect you? How does doing such imply action or ill will? Hmm? "Civilized" is a relative term to you. "Civilized" only happens to be those that hold the same opinion as yours. Actually, the word you're looking for is "narcissism." Even the homosexuals who watch the show disagree, they don't care about what Phil Robertson thinks, they care about the show!

Why can't you do that, candycorn?

Might as well be reading 'WAR AND PEACE' aloud in their mind...

 

[hunarcy]

Okay, we've established that Foxfyre, and now TemplarKormac - and probably some others - believe that what GLAAD did should be a crime (yes, newcomers, as outrageous as that sounds, it's true)

But I'll bet a dollar they won't say that this (virtually the same thing) should be a crime:

Boycott A&E' Facebook Support Page

'Boycott A&E' Facebook Support Page for Phil Robertson Gets over 1M Likes

"virtually" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Could you not do that? Please?

I'm sorry, but when he says "virtually", he's admitting that it's not the same thing, but he wants to make the comparison anyway...it is to laugh! I will try to refrain, though.

 

[hunarcy]

Phil Robertson has no power? Are you mad? He has thousands now threatening to boycott A & E if they don't keep his show on?

Yes, threatening to physically harm A & E for wanting to decide what their own programming will be -

something you deem criminal.

It IS criminal and that shouldn't be done by either side.

 

[TemplarKormac]

He most certainly does NOT!

Good Lord!

He has the right to say anything he wants, but there are many forms of repercussion from which he has no legal protection at all.

He DOES however have an unalienable right to express his religious or any other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after him to punish him, hurt him, harm him, destroy him. Just as they have a right to express their contempt for any of his religious or other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after them to punish them, hurt them, harm them, destroy them.

Too many here--people I actually like, enjoy and admire--seem unable to grasp that simple concept. Tolerance is NOT agreement, endorsement, acceptance, or anything of that nature. Tolerance IS allowing the other person, however disagreeable, to be who or what he/she is so long as s/he is not infringing on the rights of others.

Phil Robertson's expressed opinions whenever, whatever, wherever, just as one example, are one man's opinion. Phil isn't running for political office. He is not calling for retribution or action against anybody. He has no power or intent or motive whatsoever to harm anybody, including gay and lesbian people, purely by stating what he believes.

To attempt to physically or materially harm him (or anybody else) for no reason other than he said something somebody disagrees with is evil.

1) Phil Robertson has no power? Are you mad? He has thousands now threatening to boycott A & E if they don't keep his show on?

2) Yes, threatening to physically harm A & E for wanting to decide what their own programming will be -

3) something you deem criminal.

1) I don't remember him calling for anyone to support him or boycott anyone. These people rallied behind him of their own free will. Not even he has that kind of power.

2) Physically harm? You are in need of a dictionary quite badly. To "physically" harm A&E would be to the extent of taking an M16 to their employees and bombing their corporate headquarters into oblivion. That's physical. A boycott is simply a refusal to partake in the goods and/or services of an entity for what is deemed to be offensive and egregious behavior. Which would fall under "material harm." Even so, a boycott is any persons right to engage in.

3) Is there an explicit assertion where she says "I DEEM THIS CRIMINAL"? Or are you putting words into her mouth?

 

[Samson]

He [Robertson] has no power or intent or motive whatsoever to harm anybody, including gay and lesbian people, purely by stating what he believes.

To attempt to physically or materially harm him (or anybody else) for no reason other than he said something somebody disagrees with is evil.

That is true, and his cable network is going to regret their decision to put him on hiatus until it has all blown over. Nothing will ever be the same, if and when, he returns for new episodes. The internal damage has been done. The Robertson's are a proud family.

I know people who never imagined watching "Duck Dynasty" who are now avid fans only since the publicity surrounding the Robertson Remarks.



There is no such thing as bad publicity is Show-Biz.

 

[hunarcy]

He DOES however have an unalienable right to express his religious or any other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after him to punish him, hurt him, harm him, destroy him. Just as they have a right to express their contempt for any of his religious or other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after them to punish them, hurt them, harm them, destroy them.

Too many here--people I actually like, enjoy and admire--seem unable to grasp that simple concept. Tolerance is NOT agreement, endorsement, acceptance, or anything of that nature. Tolerance IS allowing the other person, however disagreeable, to be who or what he/she is so long as s/he is not infringing on the rights of others.

Phil Robertson's expressed opinions whenever, whatever, wherever, just as one example, are one man's opinion. Phil isn't running for political office. He is not calling for retribution or action against anybody. He has no power or intent or motive whatsoever to harm anybody, including gay and lesbian people, purely by stating what he believes.

To attempt to physically or materially harm him (or anybody else) for no reason other than he said something somebody disagrees with is evil.

1) Phil Robertson has no power? Are you mad? He has thousands now threatening to boycott A & E if they don't keep his show on?

2) Yes, threatening to physically harm A & E for wanting to decide what their own programming will be -

3) something you deem criminal.

1) I don't remember him calling for anyone to support him. These people rallied behind him of their own free will. Not even he has the power to influence opinion.

2) Physically harm? You are in need of a dictionary quite badly. To "physically" harm A&E would be to the extent of taking an M16 to their employees and bombing their corporate headquarters into oblivion. That's physical. A boycott is simply a refusal to partake in the goods and/or services of an entity for what is deemed to be offensive and egregious behavior. Which would fall under "material harm."

3) Is there an explicit assertion where she says "I DEEM THIS CRIMINAL"? Or are you putting words into her mouth?

Whether she did nor not, threatening violence is criminal and is counter to our standards as a society.

 

[The T]

He DOES however have an unalienable right to express his religious or any other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after him to punish him, hurt him, harm him, destroy him. Just as they have a right to express their contempt for any of his religious or other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after them to punish them, hurt them, harm them, destroy them.

Too many here--people I actually like, enjoy and admire--seem unable to grasp that simple concept. Tolerance is NOT agreement, endorsement, acceptance, or anything of that nature. Tolerance IS allowing the other person, however disagreeable, to be who or what he/she is so long as s/he is not infringing on the rights of others.

Phil Robertson's expressed opinions whenever, whatever, wherever, just as one example, are one man's opinion. Phil isn't running for political office. He is not calling for retribution or action against anybody. He has no power or intent or motive whatsoever to harm anybody, including gay and lesbian people, purely by stating what he believes.

To attempt to physically or materially harm him (or anybody else) for no reason other than he said something somebody disagrees with is evil.

1) Phil Robertson has no power? Are you mad? He has thousands now threatening to boycott A & E if they don't keep his show on?

2) Yes, threatening to physically harm A & E for wanting to decide what their own programming will be -

3) something you deem criminal.

1) I don't remember him calling for anyone to support him. These people rallied behind him of their own free will. Not even he has the power to influence opinion.

2) Physically harm? You are in need of a dictionary quite badly. To "physically" harm A&E would be to the extent of taking an M16 to their employees and bombing their corporate headquarters into oblivion. That's physical. A boycott is simply a refusal to partake in the goods and/or services of an entity for what is deemed to be offensive and egregious behavior. Which would fall under "material harm."

3) Is there an explicit assertion where she says "I DEEM THIS CRIMINAL"? Or are you putting words into her mouth?

2M+ Likes on Facebook...guess when most of them happened?

 

[TemplarKormac]

1) Phil Robertson has no power? Are you mad? He has thousands now threatening to boycott A & E if they don't keep his show on?

2) Yes, threatening to physically harm A & E for wanting to decide what their own programming will be -

3) something you deem criminal.

1) I don't remember him calling for anyone to support him. These people rallied behind him of their own free will. Not even he has the power to influence opinion.

2) Physically harm? You are in need of a dictionary quite badly. To "physically" harm A&E would be to the extent of taking an M16 to their employees and bombing their corporate headquarters into oblivion. That's physical. A boycott is simply a refusal to partake in the goods and/or services of an entity for what is deemed to be offensive and egregious behavior. Which would fall under "material harm."

3) Is there an explicit assertion where she says "I DEEM THIS CRIMINAL"? Or are you putting words into her mouth?

Whether she did nor not, threatening violence is criminal and is counter to our standards as a society.

Indeed. But nobody ever said or implied anything of the sort.

 

[TemplarKormac]

1) Phil Robertson has no power? Are you mad? He has thousands now threatening to boycott A & E if they don't keep his show on?

2) Yes, threatening to physically harm A & E for wanting to decide what their own programming will be -

3) something you deem criminal.

1) I don't remember him calling for anyone to support him. These people rallied behind him of their own free will. Not even he has the power to influence opinion.

2) Physically harm? You are in need of a dictionary quite badly. To "physically" harm A&E would be to the extent of taking an M16 to their employees and bombing their corporate headquarters into oblivion. That's physical. A boycott is simply a refusal to partake in the goods and/or services of an entity for what is deemed to be offensive and egregious behavior. Which would fall under "material harm."

3) Is there an explicit assertion where she says "I DEEM THIS CRIMINAL"? Or are you putting words into her mouth?

2M+ Likes on Facebook...guess when most of them happened?

Right after the suspension I believe. Phil was quiet the entire time.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Intolerance of intolerance is in itself intolerance - Foxfyre.

Congrats this means nothing

So does this^

By your use of the words "so does" it indicates that my words mean nothing either except Fox received thanks for saying nothing.

I was merely pointing out that if you dont accept intolerance then she believes that is intolerance. Basically there is no right or wrong because if you take a side you yourself are showing a negative trait which is intolerance.

So you cant judge, you cant express disagreement...basically its a PC mexican standoff and its bullshit.

Agree?

 

[Foxfyre]

He most certainly does NOT!

Good Lord!

He has the right to say anything he wants, but there are many forms of repercussion from which he has no legal protection at all.

He DOES however have an unalienable right to express his religious or any other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after him to punish him, hurt him, harm him, destroy him. Just as they have a right to express their contempt for any of his religious or other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after them to punish them, hurt them, harm them, destroy them.

Too many here--people I actually like, enjoy and admire--seem unable to grasp that simple concept. Tolerance is NOT agreement, endorsement, acceptance, or anything of that nature. Tolerance IS allowing the other person, however disagreeable, to be who or what he/she is so long as s/he is not infringing on the rights of others.

Phil Robertson's expressed opinions whenever, whatever, wherever, just as one example, are one man's opinion. Phil isn't running for political office. He is not calling for retribution or action against anybody. He has no power or intent or motive whatsoever to harm anybody, including gay and lesbian people, purely by stating what he believes.

To attempt to physically or materially harm him (or anybody else) for no reason other than he said something somebody disagrees with is evil.

Phil Robertson has no power? Are you mad? He has thousands now threatening to boycott A & E if they don't keep his show on?

Yes, threatening to physically harm A & E for wanting to decide what their own programming will be -

something you deem criminal.

I am on the record that A&E has every right to make whatever business decisions they wish to make that does not infringe on somebody's unalienable rights. There is no unalienable right to have a program on A&E.

It is absolutely my right to inform A&E, should I choose to do so, that I am strongly disappointed in their business decision and that it makes A&E much less appealing to me. That is how I show support for those I believe to be worthy of support. And Duck Dynasty, even though I personally rarely ever watch the show, definitely is one of the truly good programs on television. We need a whole lot more wholesome programming of that nature on television. It is absolutely my right to inform A&E of my opinion about that.

My expressed opinion would be to inform them of what I do or do not want as their customer. It would not be for the purpose of harming or destroying A&E because they did something I didn't like. And any producer worth his/her salt welcomes that kind of input so they will know what their public wants.

I imagine you won't be able to see the distinction here either as you so far have not expressed any understanding of the concept of the thread. But I have been impressed that there are several posting who do understand the concept of the thread.

Nor have I used the word 'criminal' in this context.

 

[hunarcy]

1) I don't remember him calling for anyone to support him. These people rallied behind him of their own free will. Not even he has the power to influence opinion.

2) Physically harm? You are in need of a dictionary quite badly. To "physically" harm A&E would be to the extent of taking an M16 to their employees and bombing their corporate headquarters into oblivion. That's physical. A boycott is simply a refusal to partake in the goods and/or services of an entity for what is deemed to be offensive and egregious behavior. Which would fall under "material harm."

3) Is there an explicit assertion where she says "I DEEM THIS CRIMINAL"? Or are you putting words into her mouth?

Whether she did nor not, threatening violence is criminal and is counter to our standards as a society.

Indeed. But nobody ever said or implied anything of the sort.

So, it was nycarbineer's hyperbole?

 

[The T]

1) I don't remember him calling for anyone to support him. These people rallied behind him of their own free will. Not even he has the power to influence opinion.

2) Physically harm? You are in need of a dictionary quite badly. To "physically" harm A&E would be to the extent of taking an M16 to their employees and bombing their corporate headquarters into oblivion. That's physical. A boycott is simply a refusal to partake in the goods and/or services of an entity for what is deemed to be offensive and egregious behavior. Which would fall under "material harm."

3) Is there an explicit assertion where she says "I DEEM THIS CRIMINAL"? Or are you putting words into her mouth?

2M+ Likes on Facebook...guess when most of them happened?

Right after the suspension I believe. Phil was quiet the entire time.

Naturally. he's a humble man.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Whether she did nor not, threatening violence is criminal and is counter to our standards as a society.

Indeed. But nobody ever said or implied anything of the sort.

So, it was nycarbineer's hyperbole?

Yep. You got it my friend. Carbine is blowing Fox's words completely out of proportion, trying to smear her and her character in the process. Such is an act of cowardice. Unconscionable.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Congrats this means nothing

So does this^

By your use of the words "so does" it indicates that my words mean nothing either except Fox received thanks for saying nothing.

I was merely pointing out that if you dont accept intolerance then she believes that is intolerance. Basically there is no right or wrong because if you take a side you yourself are showing a negative trait which is intolerance.

So you cant judge, you cant express disagreement...basically its a PC mexican standoff and its bullshit.

Agree?

You know you're a paranoid liberal when:

A three word response from a conservative provokes you to write an essay in disagreement.

 

[hunarcy]

Indeed. But nobody ever said or implied anything of the sort.

So, it was nycarbineer's hyperbole?

Yep. You got it my friend. Carbine is blowing Fox's words completely out of proportion, trying to smear her and her character in the process. Such is an act of cowardice. Unconscionable.

He has not performed well in this thread. He's been overly emotional and sometimes incoherent for most of the past two days. It's been sad to watch as he tries again and again to derail the conversation. Perhaps I'll give him a break and let him rest on the sidelines for now.