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

[WillReadmore]

The thread is not about government infringement or interference. It's about whether we should tolerate intolerance from those trying to impose their brand of tolerance on us all. That's been said MANY times, so I have to wonder if you missed it on purpose.

They have to take the issue off the rails, move it into another direction.

Heaven forbid they admit to being -- wait for it -- intolerant.

Should we allow states to re-institute laws against racial intermarriage?

 

[BDBoop]

The thread is not about government infringement or interference. It's about whether we should tolerate intolerance from those trying to impose their brand of tolerance on us all. That's been said MANY times, so I have to wonder if you missed it on purpose.

They have to take the issue off the rails, move it into another direction.

Heaven forbid they admit to being -- wait for it -- intolerant.

Should we allow states to re-institute laws against racial intermarriage?

Good question. Everything I've seen thus far has indicated that we are expected to tolerate the intolerable.

On another note - Phil was put on hiatus for what he said. One Million Moms tried to get Ellen fired for who she is.

And really. If a lot more of the "live and let live" people actually did so, we'd have a lot less problems.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

However twisted or unethical the Phil Robertson situation may be, he was not made to stop speaking by the government or law. He's free to continue speaking as he has without government interference, as he should be. Why would you want to take that away from others?

The thread is not about government infringement or interference. It's about whether we should tolerate intolerance from those trying to impose their brand of tolerance on us all. That's been said MANY times, so I have to wonder if you missed it on purpose.

Rhetorical: Absent the police power of the states, then, how do you and others on the right propose compelling those who seek to impose their brand of tolerance on us all to stop.

Most already know the answer, just wondering if conservatives do.

 

[Montrovant]

You have, on multiple occasions, mentioned that you think it should be illegal for someone to boycott based on someone's opinions. I disagree with that. Should I simply not bring it up? Do you want me to make a separate thread, is it too off topic? I have simply been replying to what you have freely stated in the thread.

My take on the illegal comment is should it be illegal to harm someone financially because of a difference of opinion.

How would you define 'harm someone financially'?

I'm not being flippant, I think it's an important and difficult question. Am I harming someone financially if I stop doing business with them? Am I harming someone financially if I put out a competitive product? Am I harming someone financially if I tell my friends they should stop using a company's service?

I realize we're not quite on point with the OP, so if you don't want to get into a discussion about this I don't mind.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They have to take the issue off the rails, move it into another direction.

Heaven forbid they admit to being -- wait for it -- intolerant.

Should we allow states to re-institute laws against racial intermarriage?

Good question. Everything I've seen thus far has indicated that we are expected to tolerate the intolerable.

On another note - Phil was put on hiatus for what he said. One Million Moms tried to get Ellen fired for who she is.

And really. If a lot more of the "live and let live" people actually did so, we'd have a lot less problems.

Everything thus far has indicated that we are expected to tolerate the intolerable and shut up about it as well.

 

[BDBoop]

Well, I'm going to side with Eleanor Roosevelt.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't."

 

[OODA_Loop]

I think the Examiner is where the Jeep is moving to China story came from if I recall correctly;

Chrysler announces deal to build Jeeps in China

 

[hunarcy]

No, I am refuting your claim that Phil has a contract with A&E.

You can't expect the Self Feeding Troll to stick to his statement and back up his claim, can you?

You're a very optimistic soul. I applaud you.

 

[hunarcy]

I already provided you a link to compare yourself.

Go search it out!

You're a little slow on the draw there grannypants. Your pal hunarcy already admitted yesterday that you and he were both wrong.

Go nag him for awhile, lol.

Except HE did not.

You LIE again

You are absolutely correct. I never said MsBelle was wrong, I said I'd made a mistake about the circumstances and paraphrasing.

 

[hunarcy]

Should we allow states to re-institute laws against racial intermarriage?

May I ask why you'd propose such a stupid thing or who you thought might have implied that was a good idea?

 

[hunarcy]

However twisted or unethical the Phil Robertson situation may be, he was not made to stop speaking by the government or law. He's free to continue speaking as he has without government interference, as he should be. Why would you want to take that away from others?

The thread is not about government infringement or interference. It's about whether we should tolerate intolerance from those trying to impose their brand of tolerance on us all. That's been said MANY times, so I have to wonder if you missed it on purpose.

Rhetorical: Absent the police power of the states, then, how do you and others on the right propose compelling those who seek to impose their brand of tolerance on us all to stop.

Most already know the answer, just wondering if conservatives do.

Same way I deal with trolls. Express contempt for their juvenile behavior and then ignore 'em. However, I've never tried to hunt one down to ensure they never post again.

 

[hunarcy]

Everything thus far has indicated that we are expected to tolerate the intolerable and shut up about it as well.

Sad...I would have expected you to be a bit more honest than that.

C'est la vie!

 

[hunarcy]

Good question. Everything I've seen thus far has indicated that we are expected to tolerate the intolerable.

On another note - Phil was put on hiatus for what he said. One Million Moms tried to get Ellen fired for who she is.

And really. If a lot more of the "live and let live" people actually did so, we'd have a lot less problems.

You are mistaken in your interpretation about what you are expected to tolerate.

And, once again, based on the information I've seen about the Million Moms, they were wrong. How long do you intend to beat that dead horse?

 

[Foxfyre]

Should we allow states to re-institute laws against racial intermarriage?

Good question. Everything I've seen thus far has indicated that we are expected to tolerate the intolerable.

On another note - Phil was put on hiatus for what he said. One Million Moms tried to get Ellen fired for who she is.

And really. If a lot more of the "live and let live" people actually did so, we'd have a lot less problems.

Everything thus far has indicated that we are expected to tolerate the intolerable and shut up about it as well.

It is sad that you think everything thus far has indicated that since I certainly have not said that nor do I believe anybody else has said that. But alas, the reading dysfunction among some continues. Oh well. It is late on Christmas Eve and I won't keep stating the obvious.

I will wish all those who do not have a cognitive reading disorder a very Merry Christmas whomever or wherever you are, and regardless of what personal opinions you might hold.

 

[hunarcy]

Good question. Everything I've seen thus far has indicated that we are expected to tolerate the intolerable.

On another note - Phil was put on hiatus for what he said. One Million Moms tried to get Ellen fired for who she is.

And really. If a lot more of the "live and let live" people actually did so, we'd have a lot less problems.

Everything thus far has indicated that we are expected to tolerate the intolerable and shut up about it as well.

It is sad that you think everything thus far has indicated that since I certainly have not said that nor do I believe anybody else has said that. But alas, the reading dysfunction among some continues. Oh well. It is late on Christmas Eve and I won't keep stating the obvious.

I will wish all those who do not have a cognitive reading disorder a very Merry Christmas whomever or wherever you are, and regardless of what personal opinions you might hold.

Merry Christmas, Foxfyre. I appreciate your efforts to discuss this topic, in spite of the willful ignorance shown by some.

And, I hope you have a very happy New Year

 

[Foxfyre]

They have to take the issue off the rails, move it into another direction.

Heaven forbid they admit to being -- wait for it -- intolerant.

Should we allow states to re-institute laws against racial intermarriage?

Good question. Everything I've seen thus far has indicated that we are expected to tolerate the intolerable.

On another note - Phil was put on hiatus for what he said. One Million Moms tried to get Ellen fired for who she is.

And really. If a lot more of the "live and let live" people actually did so, we'd have a lot less problems.

While I don't know that One Million Moms tried to get Ellen fired, they certainly did object to J C Penney using her in their ads. And in my opinion for them to do that was very much wrong and should not be acceptable to any freedom loving person. Which I have already posted.

But we are expected to tolerate the intolerable? I don't believe any of us have said anything like that. All we have said is that people have a right to express their opinions and be who they are so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. So long as they do not violate the rights of others, people should have the right to be who and what they are whether they are super cool, wonderfully popular, intensely unpopular, kind, generous, stingy, hateful, bigoted, prejudiced, or 'intolerable' in their views. And they should be able to be who they are without some angry mob, group, or organization trying to physically and/or materially harm them.

What is intolerable about Ellen being gay so long as she is more than willing to allow others to be who and what they are? Nothing.

What is intolerable about Phil Robertson being a fundamentalist Christian so long as he is more than willing to allow others to be who and what they are? Nothing.

What is intolerable is ANY group who would presume to physically or materially punish or harm either Ellen Degeneres or Phil Robertson for no other reason than they express a personal opinion or because they are who they are.

 

[Statistikhengst]

So, four or five times I queried [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION] about a very specific point (which, gee, I thought that is what debate is about) and four or five times I was ignored. Guess the idea was not worthy of thought. Ok, we are done here. Merry Christmas to all.

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION] - I'm sorry Stat. I have not intended to slight anybody. I have been dodging a lot of posts that were off topic and I no doubt skipped over some that were pertinent in the process. And unless somebody directs a question specifically to me, I sometimes don't see any reason to add on when somebody else answers adequately. I try to stay with it, but it is a very busy time at our house and the thread is moving very fast and I almost certainly have not seen every single post and of course have not responded to every single post. And certainly the legitimate post amidst the occasional off topic food fights can be lost when I scroll over those food fights. So if I inadvertenty slighted you I apologize.

Was there a specific question or point you wanted addressed? I think I have read most of your comments, but could you kindly repost the gist of your point that I should address?

You constantly referred to the actions of GLAAD as "physically" harming Robertson.

Where is the physical harm? I see none at all.

Sunshine contended that the pressure, which probably cost him his job, would mean he can't eat anymore, and that would be physical harm. Seriously, no one believes that junk, really?

So, where is the "physical" harm? Where are the "physical" threats? I mean, are the glad people standing there like many Tea Partiers have, with placards that same "we came unarmed, this time"? Really?

I think you can see I have not tried to derail your thread, but it has been one mud-flinging insult from Righties after another. Not exactly a shining moment for them.

And btw, I even mentioned you with the @ every time I asked the question.

Most of the jist of what you wrote, I can live with, at least with the general principle, but I take strong exception to the "physical harm" part. Because those words make Robertson look like much more of a victim than he is.

-Stat

 

[Statistikhengst]

And therefore it would follow that One Million Moms was wrong to go after Ellen's contract with JCPenney as well. Correct? No qualifiers, no excuses or explanations.

Thats different. Watch.

They cant explain how it just is

DeGeneres, a spokeswoman for the department store, is featured in a holiday ad in which she asks a group of Santa's elves to make more toys for a giveaway contest but winds up making a bunch of clumsy "small" jokes in the process.

Since April, JC Penney's has not aired Ellen DeGeneres in one of their commercials until now. A new JCP ad features Ellen and three elves. JCP has made their choice to offend a huge majority of their customers again. Christians must now vote with their wallets. We have contacted JC Penney's several times in the past with our concerns, and they will not listen. They have decided to ignore our complaints so we will avoid them at all costs.

I personally haven't a clue what the One Million Moms were offended by.

I often have the feeling that the One Million Moms themselves have absolutely no idea what they were offended by, but they protest, anyway. Which is ok, they have a right to do it, only, it makes their cause look weaker.

 

[BDBoop]

Several years ago, I represented a fire fighter who lost most of his friends on 9/11 and who sued to stop construction of 15-fifteen story mosque near Ground Zero. In response to the suit, many people cried “free speech, freedom of religion, First Amendment.” As I explained, part of free speech is the ability of others to respond and to express disapproval. Part of free speech is the consequence of bad decisions that are part of any free marketplace. And just as the expression of ideas that comes with building a mosque near the site of the 9/11 attacks had consequences, our filing of a lawsuit did as well. You live with those consequences, particularly when you stand by your words or actions, and move on.

As Sarah Palin ought to appreciate by now, that’s free speech at work. It doesn’t change when it’s your team that’s taking the heat.

Read more: What Sarah Palin Doesn?t Get About Free Speech - Brett Joshpe - POLITICO Magazine

 

[Mac1958]

The thread is not about government infringement or interference. It's about whether we should tolerate intolerance from those trying to impose their brand of tolerance on us all. That's been said MANY times, so I have to wonder if you missed it on purpose.

They have to take the issue off the rails, move it into another direction.

Heaven forbid they admit to being -- wait for it -- intolerant.

Should we allow states to re-institute laws against racial intermarriage?

Uh, no. What a weird straw man question.

This has nothing to do with the government or laws.

And I wonder if you realize that you just provided a vivid example of my point, by trying to put me on the defensive by moving the conversation off into another direction. That was a perfect illustration of what I was talking about, right there.

Do you see that?

.