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

[The T]

Find an adult and have them explain it to you. It is way over your head.

In other words YOU are at MY FEET begging MY forgiveness?

Granted. GO, and SIN no more.

No, the political affiliation of Burr and Hamilton is totally irrelevant to the point I was making. Our founding fathers were not all tolerant, civil and non-confrontational as FF wants to believe.

NO it WAS relevant BASED UPON YOUR TROLLING PARTISAN HISTORY.

LEARN IT, KNOW IT, LIVE IT. *HACK*

 

[Bfgrn]

In other words YOU are at MY FEET begging MY forgiveness?

Granted. GO, and SIN no more.

No, the political affiliation of Burr and Hamilton is totally irrelevant to the point I was making. Our founding fathers were not all tolerant, civil and non-confrontational as FF wants to believe.

NO it WAS relevant BASED UPON YOUR TROLLING PARTISAN HISTORY.

LEARN IT, KNOW IT, LIVE IT. *HACK*

What would you call yourself, NON-partisan?

 

[The T]

No, the political affiliation of Burr and Hamilton is totally irrelevant to the point I was making. Our founding fathers were not all tolerant, civil and non-confrontational as FF wants to believe.

NO it WAS relevant BASED UPON YOUR TROLLING PARTISAN HISTORY.

LEARN IT, KNOW IT, LIVE IT. *HACK*

What would you call yourself, NON-partisan?

YOU should know. WHY are YOU asking me? YOU posted that crap knowing full well the content. So stop the crap game you're playing, DEAL?

 

[BDBoop]

You clipped off the words he said just before that. He was referring to gays and lesbians. Not unexpected of you.


But lets go it your way.

All sinners.

Everyone is

...full of murder

full of envy,

full of strife,

full of hatred

is insolent

is arrogant

is a God hater

is ruthless

is faithless

are heartless.

senseless.

ruthless.

and invent ways of doing evil.


Everyone.

Because everyone is a sinner.



You run with that.

What a dumb ass you are.

He was listing types of sin. As stated previously, he was listing the various types of sin running amok in the USA. WTF is wrong with people like you that you have to lie all the damn time?

You're full of murder? Everyone is?

Holy crap. My whole life, I never knew.

Everyone is evil. Is this what Christianity is about to you?

That's the fixation, yes.

I've finally come to the conclusion that the Bible is merely a reflection of who we are, spiritually. So those of us who grasp at 'don't judge, help the poor, love everybody, even the unlovable,etc' are stunned at those who walk away with 'burn the witches, stone the adulterers, kill the gays' - *except they actually sort of skip the 'stone the adulterers bit' anyway.*

 

[Bfgrn]

NO it WAS relevant BASED UPON YOUR TROLLING PARTISAN HISTORY.

LEARN IT, KNOW IT, LIVE IT. *HACK*

What would you call yourself, NON-partisan?

YOU should know. WHY are YOU asking me? YOU posted that crap knowing full well the content. So stop the crap game you're playing, DEAL?

Their political affiliation had ZERO to do with me posting that article. It didn't even cross my mind. FF seized on it and missed the point completely. You are just digging a deeper hole.

 

[Plasmaball]

So Phil Robertson's suspension is over.

I think the first thing that should be done on this board is that all of you imbeciles who claimed that GLAAD was evil because they were forcing A&E to do this or that

should apologize to the rest of you for your choice to annoy us with such rubbish.

Sorry. The fact that GLAAD did a hateful bad act is not changed because A&E chose to do the right thing. I haven't seen any remorse or regret from GLAAD that they were hateful, bigoted, prejudiced, intolerant, and vindictive and chose to act that out intead of simply stating their opinion about what Phil Robertson said.

um if this is about them saying phil linked Gays with terrorists, he did. He also said drunks as well.

See Glaad, you, me all have the right to call for someone to be fired. The company in charge has the right to ignore it. This is called freedom of choice.

Instead you decided to cry about something being unfair. You are actually the perfect example of what your Op is all about. You dont get your way and thus whine until you do. Glaad ironically was doing the samething as what you are crying about Glaad doing to phil.

You are intolerant of Glaad being intolerant of being Phil being intolerant.

 

[The T]

What would you call yourself, NON-partisan?

YOU should know. WHY are YOU asking me? YOU posted that crap knowing full well the content. So stop the crap game you're playing, DEAL?

Their political affiliation had ZERO to do with me posting that article. It didn't even cross my mind. FF seized on it and missed the point completely. You are just digging a deeper hole.

So WHY did YOU mention it?
Care to impart that bit of disingenuousness? CARE to explain the LIE you stated?

Didn't think so, HACK. GET out of my sight before I hurt you.

 

[The T]

Metaphoracially.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay let's try it this way:

The reasonable, sane people on the thread, no matter what your point of view, please put the trolls on ignore for one day. We will consider trolls those who have nothing to offer but criticism of or personal attacks on the rest of us, who see this as a partisan issue, who are doing their damndest to start a food fight, and/or those who have no apparent interest in discussing the topic. That should remove the temptation to feed the trolls, argue with idiots, and engage in other exercises in futility. If nobody responds to them, maybe they will go away.

Now then back to the topic.

To those who object to Phil Robertson's (or any of our) interpretations of the Bible, there's an awful lot of that going around. As I've said several times now, I do not agree with his interpretation nor do I agree with his point of view re gays. I know a lot of people that I disagree with about a lot of things including what they insist is what the Bible says.

But if I want to be allowed my point of view without fear that some mob, group, or organization will target me for physical and/or material harm or otherwise make my life miserable, the way I see it is that I need to allow others their point of view, their beliefs, their convictions, and even their biases and prejudices so long as they do not impose them in a way that physically or materially harms others. On balance most people get more right than they get wrong, and though, as Phil Robertson would say, we have all sinned and fallen short, and I can disagree with all of you while still considering you good people. I don't know him, but I'm guessing Phil Robertson is good people. I don't know her but I'm guessing Ellen Degeneres is good people. People should be allowed to be who and what they are without fear.

Freedom includes the privilege of being wrong as well as being right.

 

[The T]

Okay let's try it this way:

The reasonable, sane people on the thread, no matter what your point of view, please put the trolls on ignore for one day. We will consider trolls those who have nothing to offer but criticism of or personal attacks on the rest of us, who see this as a partisan issue, who are doing their damndest to start a food fight, and/or those who have no apparent interest in discussing the topic. That should remove the temptation to feed the trolls, argue with idiots, and engage in other exercises in futility. If nobody responds to them, maybe they will go away.

Now then back to the topic.

To Boop or anybody else who objects to Phil Robertson's (or any of our) interpretations of the Bible, there's an awful lot of that going around. As I've said several times now, I do not agree with his interpretation nor do I agree with his point of view re gays. I know a lot of people that I disagree with about a lot of things including what they insist is what the Bible says.

But if I want to be allowed my point of view without fear that some mob, group, or organization will target me for physical and/or material harm or otherwise make my life miserable, the way I see it is that I need to allow others their point of view, their beliefs, their convictions, and even their biases and prejudices so long as they do not impose them in a way that physically or materially harms others.

Freedom includes the privilege of being wrong as well as being right.

Brilliant. Foxy? LEAVE IT HERE. Nothing else to say for the cause of Liberty. Nothing to discuss.

/Thread.

Absolutely brilliant.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay let's try it this way:

The reasonable, sane people on the thread, no matter what your point of view, please put the trolls on ignore for one day. We will consider trolls those who have nothing to offer but criticism of or personal attacks on the rest of us, who see this as a partisan issue, who are doing their damndest to start a food fight, and/or those who have no apparent interest in discussing the topic. That should remove the temptation to feed the trolls, argue with idiots, and engage in other exercises in futility. If nobody responds to them, maybe they will go away.

Now then back to the topic.

To Boop or anybody else who objects to Phil Robertson's (or any of our) interpretations of the Bible, there's an awful lot of that going around. As I've said several times now, I do not agree with his interpretation nor do I agree with his point of view re gays. I know a lot of people that I disagree with about a lot of things including what they insist is what the Bible says.

But if I want to be allowed my point of view without fear that some mob, group, or organization will target me for physical and/or material harm or otherwise make my life miserable, the way I see it is that I need to allow others their point of view, their beliefs, their convictions, and even their biases and prejudices so long as they do not impose them in a way that physically or materially harms others.

Freedom includes the privilege of being wrong as well as being right.

Brilliant. Foxy? LEAVE IT HERE. Nothing else to say for the cause of Liberty. Nothing to discuss.

/Thread.

Absolutely brilliant.

LOL. I wish. There are a lot of good people who have posted on this thread who really are stuggling with that concept though.

Some have not distinguished between what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson and a valid, legitimate boycott. Some still think what GLAAD did was okay. I don't think it was okay. I don't see it at all as the same thing as a legitimate boycott. I see what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson; what the American Family Association did to Ellen DeGeneres, and anybody who does that sort of thing as being destructively intolerant, hateful, vindictive, and committing a very bad act.

I think good people have to push back on such bad acts and make them culturally unacceptable. Express our opinions of course. Put our money where our mouth is, of course. We don't have to like what others say. We don't even have to be quiet about what we think about what others say. But we have to allow them to be who and what they are without fear that some mob, group, or organization will try to physically and/or materially harm them.

 

[Plasmaball]

Okay let's try it this way:

The reasonable, sane people on the thread, no matter what your point of view, please put the trolls on ignore for one day. We will consider trolls those who have nothing to offer but criticism of or personal attacks on the rest of us, who see this as a partisan issue, who are doing their damndest to start a food fight, and/or those who have no apparent interest in discussing the topic. That should remove the temptation to feed the trolls, argue with idiots, and engage in other exercises in futility. If nobody responds to them, maybe they will go away.

Now then back to the topic.

To those who object to Phil Robertson's (or any of our) interpretations of the Bible, there's an awful lot of that going around. As I've said several times now, I do not agree with his interpretation nor do I agree with his point of view re gays. I know a lot of people that I disagree with about a lot of things including what they insist is what the Bible says.

But if I want to be allowed my point of view without fear that some mob, group, or organization will target me for physical and/or material harm or otherwise make my life miserable, the way I see it is that I need to allow others their point of view, their beliefs, their convictions, and even their biases and prejudices so long as they do not impose them in a way that physically or materially harms others. On balance most people get more right than they get wrong, and though, as Phil Robertson would say, we have all sinned and fallen short, and I can disagree with all of you while still considering you good people. I don't know him, but I'm guessing Phil Robertson is good people. I don't know her but I'm guessing Ellen Degeneres is good people. People should be allowed to be who and what they are without fear.

Freedom includes the privilege of being wrong as well as being right.

Called it..

 

[The T]

Okay let's try it this way:

The reasonable, sane people on the thread, no matter what your point of view, please put the trolls on ignore for one day. We will consider trolls those who have nothing to offer but criticism of or personal attacks on the rest of us, who see this as a partisan issue, who are doing their damndest to start a food fight, and/or those who have no apparent interest in discussing the topic. That should remove the temptation to feed the trolls, argue with idiots, and engage in other exercises in futility. If nobody responds to them, maybe they will go away.

Now then back to the topic.

To Boop or anybody else who objects to Phil Robertson's (or any of our) interpretations of the Bible, there's an awful lot of that going around. As I've said several times now, I do not agree with his interpretation nor do I agree with his point of view re gays. I know a lot of people that I disagree with about a lot of things including what they insist is what the Bible says.

But if I want to be allowed my point of view without fear that some mob, group, or organization will target me for physical and/or material harm or otherwise make my life miserable, the way I see it is that I need to allow others their point of view, their beliefs, their convictions, and even their biases and prejudices so long as they do not impose them in a way that physically or materially harms others.

Freedom includes the privilege of being wrong as well as being right.

Brilliant. Foxy? LEAVE IT HERE. Nothing else to say for the cause of Liberty. Nothing to discuss.

/Thread.

Absolutely brilliant.

LOL. I wish. There are a lot of good people who have posted on this thread who really are stuggling with that concept though.

Some have not distinguished between what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson and a valid, legitimate boycott. Some still think what GLAAD did was okay. I don't think it was okay. I don't see it at all as the same thing as a legitimate boycott. I see what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson; what the American Family Association did to Ellen DeGeneres, and anybody who does that sort of thing as being destructively intolerant, hateful, vindictive, and committing a very bad act.

I think good people have to push back on such bad acts and make them culturally unacceptable. Express our opinions of course. Put our money where our mouth is, of course. We don't have to like what others say. We don't even have to be quiet about what we think about what others say. But we have to allow them to be who and what they are without fear that some mob, group, or organization will try to physically and/or materially harm them.

Yeah, I have no illusions, Foxy. You and I have been through this thread since day ONE, and YOU having to put up with it AS the OP...but as far as I am concerned? YOUR statement ties the ribbons on it. I'll be passive now. Consider this a WIN for you my dear.

HAPPY New Year.

 

[Plasmaball]

Okay let's try it this way:

The reasonable, sane people on the thread, no matter what your point of view, please put the trolls on ignore for one day. We will consider trolls those who have nothing to offer but criticism of or personal attacks on the rest of us, who see this as a partisan issue, who are doing their damndest to start a food fight, and/or those who have no apparent interest in discussing the topic. That should remove the temptation to feed the trolls, argue with idiots, and engage in other exercises in futility. If nobody responds to them, maybe they will go away.

Now then back to the topic.

To Boop or anybody else who objects to Phil Robertson's (or any of our) interpretations of the Bible, there's an awful lot of that going around. As I've said several times now, I do not agree with his interpretation nor do I agree with his point of view re gays. I know a lot of people that I disagree with about a lot of things including what they insist is what the Bible says.

But if I want to be allowed my point of view without fear that some mob, group, or organization will target me for physical and/or material harm or otherwise make my life miserable, the way I see it is that I need to allow others their point of view, their beliefs, their convictions, and even their biases and prejudices so long as they do not impose them in a way that physically or materially harms others.

Freedom includes the privilege of being wrong as well as being right.

Brilliant. Foxy? LEAVE IT HERE. Nothing else to say for the cause of Liberty. Nothing to discuss.

/Thread.

Absolutely brilliant.

LOL. I wish. There are a lot of good people who have posted on this thread who really are stuggling with that concept though.

Some have not distinguished between what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson and a valid, legitimate boycott. Some still think what GLAAD did was okay. I don't think it was okay. I don't see it at all as the same thing as a legitimate boycott. I see what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson; what the American Family Association did to Ellen DeGeneres, and anybody who does that sort of thing as being destructively intolerant, hateful, vindictive, and committing a very bad act.

I think good people have to push back on such bad acts and make them culturally unacceptable. Express our opinions of course. Put our money where our mouth is, of course. We don't have to like what others say. We don't even have to be quiet about what we think about what others say. But we have to allow them to be who and what they are without fear that some mob, group, or organization will try to physically and/or materially harm them.

nobody is "struggling " with it. We just dont agree with you and you have an issue with this. therefore you will continue this game of nobody gets me when you've been answered numerous times about this subject. It would seem you arent for honest debate and just thanks from the cheerleaders.

Im out...once again you bored me with the typical nothing.

 

[The T]

Brilliant. Foxy? LEAVE IT HERE. Nothing else to say for the cause of Liberty. Nothing to discuss.

/Thread.

Absolutely brilliant.

LOL. I wish. There are a lot of good people who have posted on this thread who really are stuggling with that concept though.

Some have not distinguished between what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson and a valid, legitimate boycott. Some still think what GLAAD did was okay. I don't think it was okay. I don't see it at all as the same thing as a legitimate boycott. I see what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson; what the American Family Association did to Ellen DeGeneres, and anybody who does that sort of thing as being destructively intolerant, hateful, vindictive, and committing a very bad act.

I think good people have to push back on such bad acts and make them culturally unacceptable. Express our opinions of course. Put our money where our mouth is, of course. We don't have to like what others say. We don't even have to be quiet about what we think about what others say. But we have to allow them to be who and what they are without fear that some mob, group, or organization will try to physically and/or materially harm them.

nobody is "struggling " with it. We just dont agree with you and you have an issue with this. therefore you will continue this game of nobody gets me when you've been answered numerous times about this subject. It would seem you arent for honest debate and just thanks from the cheerleaders.

Im out...once again you bored me with the typical nothing.

EASY to BE BORED when YOU have nothing, isn't it?

 

[Plasmaball]

LOL. I wish. There are a lot of good people who have posted on this thread who really are stuggling with that concept though.

Some have not distinguished between what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson and a valid, legitimate boycott. Some still think what GLAAD did was okay. I don't think it was okay. I don't see it at all as the same thing as a legitimate boycott. I see what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson; what the American Family Association did to Ellen DeGeneres, and anybody who does that sort of thing as being destructively intolerant, hateful, vindictive, and committing a very bad act.

I think good people have to push back on such bad acts and make them culturally unacceptable. Express our opinions of course. Put our money where our mouth is, of course. We don't have to like what others say. We don't even have to be quiet about what we think about what others say. But we have to allow them to be who and what they are without fear that some mob, group, or organization will try to physically and/or materially harm them.

nobody is "struggling " with it. We just dont agree with you and you have an issue with this. therefore you will continue this game of nobody gets me when you've been answered numerous times about this subject. It would seem you arent for honest debate and just thanks from the cheerleaders.

Im out...once again you bored me with the typical nothing.

EASY to BE BORED when YOU have nothing, isn't it?

dude all youve done in this thread is TALK like THIS and shove your nose so far up foxes ass you knew what she had to eat 3 days ago.

 

[Plasmaball]

There are holes in her logic, tommy. Such as "good people should push back on such bad acts & make the culturally unacceptable."

Know why? Because some people feel that the "good people" would not employ a person as a face of their company who views people as deviants in society simply because of their sexuality.

So theyre doing, in effect, what fox is saying "good people" should do, except each has a different definition of what is "bad."

If you dont find that to be inconsistent/hypocritical and actually label it a "thread ending post," im afraid you fall into that same category. Hypocritical.

end thread! Brilliant!

this has been pointed out to her.

 

[The T]

There are holes in her logic, tommy. Such as "good people should push back on such bad acts & make the culturally unacceptable."

Know why? Because some people feel that the "good people" would not employ a person as a face of their company who views people as deviants in society simply because of their sexuality.

So theyre doing, in effect, what fox is saying "good people" should do, except each has a different definition of what is "bad."

If you dont find that to be inconsistent/hypocritical and actually label it a "thread ending post," im afraid you fall into that same category. Hypocritical.

There are NO HOLES in logic where LIBERTY of the individual is concerned.

YOU are dismissed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Brilliant. Foxy? LEAVE IT HERE. Nothing else to say for the cause of Liberty. Nothing to discuss.

/Thread.

Absolutely brilliant.

LOL. I wish. There are a lot of good people who have posted on this thread who really are stuggling with that concept though.

Some have not distinguished between what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson and a valid, legitimate boycott. Some still think what GLAAD did was okay. I don't think it was okay. I don't see it at all as the same thing as a legitimate boycott. I see what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson; what the American Family Association did to Ellen DeGeneres, and anybody who does that sort of thing as being destructively intolerant, hateful, vindictive, and committing a very bad act.

I think good people have to push back on such bad acts and make them culturally unacceptable. Express our opinions of course. Put our money where our mouth is, of course. We don't have to like what others say. We don't even have to be quiet about what we think about what others say. But we have to allow them to be who and what they are without fear that some mob, group, or organization will try to physically and/or materially harm them.

Yeah, I have no illusions, Foxy. You and I have been through this thread since day ONE, and YOU having to put up with it AS the OP...but as far as I am concerned? YOUR statement ties the ribbons on it. I'll be passive now. Consider this a WIN for you my dear.

HAPPY New Year.

Thanks. Usually they just go away if nobody responds to them at all. So I hope everybody who is interested in the topic--those who agree with me and those who don't--will put them on ignore for just one day. Otherwise it is too tempting to take the derail bait they dangle out there.

And no need to be passive. I sure haven't been passive. I slip now and then but I usually try not to feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in other exercises of futility.

I don't believe it is futile to deal head on with the issue of tolerance as it applies to our liberties. And I also believe that my opinions aren't worth having if they can't stand up to reasoned different opinions from the rest of you. So if ya'll think I'm all wet or have a screw loose or just have it all wrong, bring it on. Just stay on topic.