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

[Plasmaball]

What a stupid statement.
We don't have to tolerate it. We can believe he has the right to say it, but we don't have to tolerate it, el presidente. That's the part you guys don't get. You have the freedom to be a bigot, and we have the freedom to not tolerate it. We have the freedom to call you out on it.
Stop with the whiskey and you might get that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^Doesn't get it OR LIBERTY, The Constitution, The First Amendment OR the Founders.

Just Destroy it ALL.

NO SURPRISE.

What are you talking about, drunky?
I have freedom of speech too, which allows me to call out your bigotry and intolerance, and in this case your ignorance.
The fact you don't get that is more of a **** you to the Constitution.
You have no concept of what liberty means, moron. Maybe switching to Jim Beam will help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

its literally giving me a headache how these two dont get it. See how Fox continues her tripe?

 

[Foxfyre]

As a matter of course? It is. The people are awake and aren't taking the PC crap any longer...A&E are the FIRST to feel the wrath...FAR too many more to go.

Okay, hopefully those discussing the topic now have all the trolls on ignore.

I don't think there was every a contract issue anyway. A&E knew Phil was doing the interview with GQ and they had given him no instructions of what he could and could not say. Phil had violated no 'tolerance rules' on Duck Dynasty. Again I don't agree with Phil's interpretation of scripture or how he explained it, but that it is really irrelevent. He is entitled to be who and what he is just as Ellen Degeneres is entitled to be who and what she is. And no big organization should have the right to try to harm either one of them physically and/or materially. In a way, what AFA did to Ellen was even worse because there was nothing offensive or controversial in the ad that she did.

If we are good people. If we value liberty. We should not condone either situation. People should be allowed to be who and what they are without fear that some mob, group, or organization will go after them to punish them physically and/or materially for no reason than they are who they are or they express an opinion that somebody didn't like.

I wonder if it might work like the NFL. The NFL has no problems suspending players for violating their code of conduct. If they get arrested, if they make public statements opposed to what the NFL wants to see from it's players, they have a legal right to take punitive actions, even if the players were not doing anything football related at the time.

I realize that the NFL is an unusual business model, but might the A&E contract have worked in a similar fashion?

I just don't believe there was a contract issue involved. A&E knew Phil was doing the interview with GQ and they certainly knew he was a Christian because the Robertsons refused to do the show if their Christian values were to be restricted. Duck Dynasty is A&E's most popular show--maybe the most popular cable program EVER--and a huge cash cow for A&E. A&E had no problem with Phil doing the interview and had to know that his Christian faith would come up.

I think the only reason that A&E suspended Phil Robertson was because of GLAAD's demands and threats if A&E did not get rid of him and that if A&E had not done so, GLAAD would have gone after their advertisers.

So A&E was between a rock and a hard place: balancing the risk that GLAAD would be able to intimidate their advertisers or losing most of the audience that attracted the advertisers to the program in the first place. As it turned out, public opinion of good people won out over GLAAD's hateful intolerance.

And that is a good thing.

 

[Plasmaball]

Okay, hopefully those discussing the topic now have all the trolls on ignore.

I don't think there was every a contract issue anyway. A&E knew Phil was doing the interview with GQ and they had given him no instructions of what he could and could not say. Phil had violated no 'tolerance rules' on Duck Dynasty. Again I don't agree with Phil's interpretation of scripture or how he explained it, but that it is really irrelevent. He is entitled to be who and what he is just as Ellen Degeneres is entitled to be who and what she is. And no big organization should have the right to try to harm either one of them physically and/or materially. In a way, what AFA did to Ellen was even worse because there was nothing offensive or controversial in the ad that she did.

If we are good people. If we value liberty. We should not condone either situation. People should be allowed to be who and what they are without fear that some mob, group, or organization will go after them to punish them physically and/or materially for no reason than they are who they are or they express an opinion that somebody didn't like.

I wonder if it might work like the NFL. The NFL has no problems suspending players for violating their code of conduct. If they get arrested, if they make public statements opposed to what the NFL wants to see from it's players, they have a legal right to take punitive actions, even if the players were not doing anything football related at the time.

I realize that the NFL is an unusual business model, but might the A&E contract have worked in a similar fashion?

I just don't believe there was a contract issue involved. A&E knew Phil was doing the interview with GQ and they certainly knew he was a Christian because the Robertsons refused to do the show if their Christian values were to be restricted. Duck Dynasty is A&E's most popular show--maybe the most popular cable program EVER--and a huge cash cow for A&E. A&E had no problem with Phil doing the interview and had to know that his Christian faith would come up.

I think the only reason that A&E suspended Phil Robertson was because of GLAAD's demands and threats if A&E did not get rid of him and that if A&E had not done so, GLAAD would have gone after their advertisers.

So A&E was between a rock and a hard place: balancing the risk that GLAAD would be able to intimidate their advertisers or losing most of the audience that attracted the advertisers to the program in the first place. As it turned out, public opinion of good people won out over GLAAD's hateful intolerance.

And that is a good thing.

still doesnt get it.

 

[BDBoop]

When you think about it, maybe we are seeing a push back. When is the last time you saw one of these big guns back down when they fired somebody over a flap like this? But A&E blinked under the pressure of millions of viewers who love Duck Dynasty and the Robertson family and expressed their support for them.

That is rather encouraging. Maybe the pendulum is swinging back to something more normal than the politics of personal destruction that we've been subjected to for the last 20 years?

As a matter of course? It is. The people are awake and aren't taking the PC crap any longer...A&E are the FIRST to feel the wrath...FAR too many more to go.

Okay, hopefully those discussing the topic now have all the trolls on ignore.

I don't think there was every a contract issue anyway. A&E knew Phil was doing the interview with GQ and they had given him no instructions of what he could and could not say. Phil had violated no 'tolerance rules' on Duck Dynasty. Again I don't agree with Phil's interpretation of scripture or how he explained it, but that it is really irrelevent. He is entitled to be who and what he is just as Ellen Degeneres is entitled to be who and what she is. And no big organization should have the right to try to harm either one of them physically and/or materially. In a way, what AFA did to Ellen was even worse because there was nothing offensive or controversial in the ad that she did.

If we are good people. If we value liberty. We should not condone either situation. People should be allowed to be who and what they are without fear that some mob, group, or organization will go after them to punish them physically and/or materially for no reason than they are who they are or they express an opinion that somebody didn't like.

Oh, I've had Tommy on ignore for months. RKMBrown, check; Iceman, check, TK, check.

Trolls on ignore, yessiree bob.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't completely agree with what he stated either...but I defend his right to say it. And that's what's missing...TOLERANCE of INTOLERANCE.

I think that's where some are missing the boat.

There is an unalienable RIGHT to be intolerant. I have an unalienable RIGHT to be intolerant of drunks, of smokers in confined spaces where I have to share the air, of people who won't control their kids, of people who insist on talking loudly on their cell phones when other people are trying to enjoy a meal or a movie or some other venue. Probably nobody would argue with me about that.

There is an unalienable RIGHT to be intolerant of the gay person who is in my face demanding respect. Or the Christian in my face demanding that I repent and be saved NOW. Or the Muslim in my face demanding that I allow Sharia Law. Or the family values activist in my face demanding that I boycott this movie or that program or a business featuring something in an ad. Or the PETA activist in my face demanding I give up certain kinds of food. Or the environmental wacko in my face demanding that I utilize some products and forego others.

And there is an unalienable RIGHT to be as bigoted or prejudiced or biased about anything or anybody just so long as we do not act out our bigotry or prejudice.

Everybody should have an unalienable right to their beliefs and convictions and to be who and what they are without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after them to punish them for heresy.

Define intolerant.

this one? "not willing to allow some people to have equality, freedom, or other social rights"

Just how do you plan to take away equality, freedom, and other social rights from parents that don't control their kids? What is your plan? Or did you mean the kids?

The point is I have no intention of taking social rights from parents who don't control their kids. But I don't have to subject myself to situations where parents don't control their kids. I will simply take my business to a venue where I don't have to put up with that kind of thing. Just as I wouldn't buy a magazine containing content I found objectionable, or tune into a television show that I found offensive.

See how easy it is to deal with those things we don't tolerate and still allow people to be who and what they are?

What GLAAD did to Phil Robertson and what AFA did to Ellen Degeneres was not just making a personal choice, however. It was going after somebody to physically and/or materially harm them for no reason other than who they are or for expressing a personal opinion that somebody didn't like.

And that should be acceptable to nobody.

 

[Vox]

Okay, hopefully those discussing the topic now have all the trolls on ignore.

I don't think there was every a contract issue anyway. A&E knew Phil was doing the interview with GQ and they had given him no instructions of what he could and could not say. Phil had violated no 'tolerance rules' on Duck Dynasty. Again I don't agree with Phil's interpretation of scripture or how he explained it, but that it is really irrelevent. He is entitled to be who and what he is just as Ellen Degeneres is entitled to be who and what she is. And no big organization should have the right to try to harm either one of them physically and/or materially. In a way, what AFA did to Ellen was even worse because there was nothing offensive or controversial in the ad that she did.

If we are good people. If we value liberty. We should not condone either situation. People should be allowed to be who and what they are without fear that some mob, group, or organization will go after them to punish them physically and/or materially for no reason than they are who they are or they express an opinion that somebody didn't like.

I wonder if it might work like the NFL. The NFL has no problems suspending players for violating their code of conduct. If they get arrested, if they make public statements opposed to what the NFL wants to see from it's players, they have a legal right to take punitive actions, even if the players were not doing anything football related at the time.

I realize that the NFL is an unusual business model, but might the A&E contract have worked in a similar fashion?

I just don't believe there was a contract issue involved. A&E knew Phil was doing the interview with GQ and they certainly knew he was a Christian because the Robertsons refused to do the show if their Christian values were to be restricted. Duck Dynasty is A&E's most popular show--maybe the most popular cable program EVER--and a huge cash cow for A&E. A&E had no problem with Phil doing the interview and had to know that his Christian faith would come up.

I think the only reason that A&E suspended Phil Robertson was because of GLAAD's demands and threats if A&E did not get rid of him and that if A&E had not done so, GLAAD would have gone after their advertisers.

So A&E was between a rock and a hard place: balancing the risk that GLAAD would be able to intimidate their advertisers or losing most of the audience that attracted the advertisers to the program in the first place. As it turned out, public opinion of good people won out over GLAAD's hateful intolerance.

And that is a good thing.

the best thing was that the gay gestapo got a backlash they deserved.
That is a very good thing.
Hopefully those who are intolerant of criminal forcing( Chicago-style) the views preferable for some group will have even more power in the future.
But this was very important.

 

[Foxfyre]

As a matter of course? It is. The people are awake and aren't taking the PC crap any longer...A&E are the FIRST to feel the wrath...FAR too many more to go.

Okay, hopefully those discussing the topic now have all the trolls on ignore.

I don't think there was every a contract issue anyway. A&E knew Phil was doing the interview with GQ and they had given him no instructions of what he could and could not say. Phil had violated no 'tolerance rules' on Duck Dynasty. Again I don't agree with Phil's interpretation of scripture or how he explained it, but that it is really irrelevent. He is entitled to be who and what he is just as Ellen Degeneres is entitled to be who and what she is. And no big organization should have the right to try to harm either one of them physically and/or materially. In a way, what AFA did to Ellen was even worse because there was nothing offensive or controversial in the ad that she did.

If we are good people. If we value liberty. We should not condone either situation. People should be allowed to be who and what they are without fear that some mob, group, or organization will go after them to punish them physically and/or materially for no reason than they are who they are or they express an opinion that somebody didn't like.

Oh, I've had Tommy on ignore for months. RKMBrown, check; Iceman, check, TK, check.

Trolls on ignore, yessiree bob.

Good. Then perhaps you will help us in discussing the topic.

 

[RKMBrown]

I think that's where some are missing the boat.

There is an unalienable RIGHT to be intolerant. I have an unalienable RIGHT to be intolerant of drunks, of smokers in confined spaces where I have to share the air, of people who won't control their kids, of people who insist on talking loudly on their cell phones when other people are trying to enjoy a meal or a movie or some other venue. Probably nobody would argue with me about that.

There is an unalienable RIGHT to be intolerant of the gay person who is in my face demanding respect. Or the Christian in my face demanding that I repent and be saved NOW. Or the Muslim in my face demanding that I allow Sharia Law. Or the family values activist in my face demanding that I boycott this movie or that program or a business featuring something in an ad. Or the PETA activist in my face demanding I give up certain kinds of food. Or the environmental wacko in my face demanding that I utilize some products and forego others.

And there is an unalienable RIGHT to be as bigoted or prejudiced or biased about anything or anybody just so long as we do not act out our bigotry or prejudice.

Everybody should have an unalienable right to their beliefs and convictions and to be who and what they are without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after them to punish them for heresy.

Define intolerant.

this one? "not willing to allow some people to have equality, freedom, or other social rights"

Just how do you plan to take away equality, freedom, and other social rights from parents that don't control their kids? What is your plan? Or did you mean the kids?

The point is I have no intention of taking social rights from parents who don't control their kids. But I don't have to subject myself to situations where parents don't control their kids. I will simply take my business to a venue where I don't have to put up with that kind of thing. Just as I wouldn't buy a magazine containing content I found objectionable, or tune into a television show that I found offensive.

See how easy it is to deal with those things we don't tolerate and still allow people to be who and what they are?

What you mean to say then, is you choose to tolerate them by walking away. Words matter. If you were intolerant of them you would be for restricting their rights in some fashion. An employer would be intolerant of them if he fired them. Suing someone would be a means to express your intolerance. Making a law or protesting for a law that restricts freedom, such as being able to express religious views or a sexual preference in public would be intolerance.

 

[BDBoop]

Okay, hopefully those discussing the topic now have all the trolls on ignore.

I don't think there was every a contract issue anyway. A&E knew Phil was doing the interview with GQ and they had given him no instructions of what he could and could not say. Phil had violated no 'tolerance rules' on Duck Dynasty. Again I don't agree with Phil's interpretation of scripture or how he explained it, but that it is really irrelevent. He is entitled to be who and what he is just as Ellen Degeneres is entitled to be who and what she is. And no big organization should have the right to try to harm either one of them physically and/or materially. In a way, what AFA did to Ellen was even worse because there was nothing offensive or controversial in the ad that she did.

If we are good people. If we value liberty. We should not condone either situation. People should be allowed to be who and what they are without fear that some mob, group, or organization will go after them to punish them physically and/or materially for no reason than they are who they are or they express an opinion that somebody didn't like.

Oh, I've had Tommy on ignore for months. RKMBrown, check; Iceman, check, TK, check.

Trolls on ignore, yessiree bob.

Good. Then perhaps you will help us in discussing the topic.

I've tried. Nobody can hear me. Have you changed your beliefs one iota since the inception of this thread?

I don't do the definition of insanity. If I'm not heard, and I know I'm not not - then I stop trying.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder if it might work like the NFL. The NFL has no problems suspending players for violating their code of conduct. If they get arrested, if they make public statements opposed to what the NFL wants to see from it's players, they have a legal right to take punitive actions, even if the players were not doing anything football related at the time.

I realize that the NFL is an unusual business model, but might the A&E contract have worked in a similar fashion?

I just don't believe there was a contract issue involved. A&E knew Phil was doing the interview with GQ and they certainly knew he was a Christian because the Robertsons refused to do the show if their Christian values were to be restricted. Duck Dynasty is A&E's most popular show--maybe the most popular cable program EVER--and a huge cash cow for A&E. A&E had no problem with Phil doing the interview and had to know that his Christian faith would come up.

I think the only reason that A&E suspended Phil Robertson was because of GLAAD's demands and threats if A&E did not get rid of him and that if A&E had not done so, GLAAD would have gone after their advertisers.

So A&E was between a rock and a hard place: balancing the risk that GLAAD would be able to intimidate their advertisers or losing most of the audience that attracted the advertisers to the program in the first place. As it turned out, public opinion of good people won out over GLAAD's hateful intolerance.

And that is a good thing.

the best thing was that the gay gestapo got a backlash they deserved.
That is a very good thing.
Hopefully those who are intolerant of criminal forcing( Chicago-style) the views preferable for some group will have even more power in the future.
But this was very important.

But they didn't. Nobody was wishing any harm come to GLAAD. Nobody was wishing any harm come to AFA. But neither was successful in accomplishing their goal. Well, GLAAD was temporarily successful, but in the end, the non hateful, non vindictive folks won the day. And that was a beautiful thing to see.

GLAAD is just as entitled to their point of view that Phil Robertson is a homophobic religious nut as Phil Robertson is entitled to his belief that homosexuality is a sin. The difference is that GLAAD tried harm to come to Phil R. And Phil R. expressed his love for gay people and wished absolutely no harm of any kind for them. Had Phil R. tried to stir up some kind of action that would have harmed GLAAD, then I would have a problem with him too. He didn't.

 

[RKMBrown]

I think folks are confusing the issue when they use the word "intolerance" inappropriately in a sentence , such as when they really mean "dislike."

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh, I've had Tommy on ignore for months. RKMBrown, check; Iceman, check, TK, check.

Trolls on ignore, yessiree bob.

Good. Then perhaps you will help us in discussing the topic.

I've tried. Nobody can hear me. Have you changed your beliefs one iota since the inception of this thread?

I don't do the definition of insanity. If I'm not heard, and I know I'm not not - then I stop trying.

For me the object of a thread like this is to do some consciousness raising, but I don't require anybody to agree with me. All I expect from other members is that they treat each other with respect and allow them to be who they are. (The trolls refuse to do that which is why I wanted the reasonable people to put them on ignore.)

But if an opinion is offered, it is fair game to be challenged. I figure any opinion I hold is not worth having, if somebody can show how it is flawed. So far nobody has done that in this thread. I've been called a lot of unkind names and accused, mostly dishonestly, of a lot of things. But nobody has offered a reasoned rebuttal to the thesis of the thread.

The thesis once again is that everybody, even the prejudiced and bigoted and intolerant, is entitled to be who and what he or she is without fear that some mob or group or organization will punish them for nothing more than they are who they are and express an opinion of what they believe.

 

[RKMBrown]

Oh, I've had Tommy on ignore for months. RKMBrown, check; Iceman, check, TK, check.

Trolls on ignore, yessiree bob.

Good. Then perhaps you will help us in discussing the topic.

I've tried. Nobody can hear me. Have you changed your beliefs one iota since the inception of this thread?

I don't do the definition of insanity. If I'm not heard, and I know I'm not not - then I stop trying.

LOL so basically she only wants to debate with people that agree with her.

 

[BDBoop]

Good. Then perhaps you will help us in discussing the topic.

I've tried. Nobody can hear me. Have you changed your beliefs one iota since the inception of this thread?

I don't do the definition of insanity. If I'm not heard, and I know I'm not not - then I stop trying.

For me the object of a thread like this is to do some consciousness raising, but I don't require anybody to agree with me. All I expect from other members is that they treat each other with respect and allow them to be who they are. (The trolls refuse to do that which is why I wanted the reasonable people to put them on ignore.)

But if an opinion is offered, it is fair game to be challenged. I figure any opinion I hold is not worth having, if somebody can show how it is flawed. So far nobody has done that in this thread. I've been called a lot of unkind names and accused, mostly dishonestly, of a lot of things. But nobody has offered a reasoned rebuttal to the thesis of the thread.

The thesis once again is that everybody, even the prejudiced and bigoted and intolerant, is entitled to be who and what he or she is without fear that some mob or group or organization will punish them for nothing more than they are who they are and express an opinion of what they believe.

A mob, group or organization is simply several like-minded individuals.

On another note, I strongly believe you have yet to prove physical harm.

 

[RKMBrown]

Good. Then perhaps you will help us in discussing the topic.

I've tried. Nobody can hear me. Have you changed your beliefs one iota since the inception of this thread?

I don't do the definition of insanity. If I'm not heard, and I know I'm not not - then I stop trying.

For me the object of a thread like this is to do some consciousness raising, but I don't require anybody to agree with me. All I expect from other members is that they treat each other with respect and allow them to be who they are. (The trolls refuse to do that which is why I wanted the reasonable people to put them on ignore.)

But if an opinion is offered, it is fair game to be challenged. I figure any opinion I hold is not worth having, if somebody can show how it is flawed. So far nobody has done that in this thread. I've been called a lot of unkind names and accused, mostly dishonestly, of a lot of things. But nobody has offered a reasoned rebuttal to the thesis of the thread.

The thesis once again is that everybody, even the prejudiced and bigoted and intolerant, is entitled to be who and what he or she is without fear that some mob or group or organization will punish them for nothing more than they are who they are and express an opinion of what they believe.

Again you are using the word intolerant incorrectly. It is not ok for the bigots and prejudiced to be intolerant of others. While there's nothing wrong with disliking others, it's another thing entirely to intolerant, such as by restricting the civil rights of said others.

 

[The T]

I am intolerant of tolerance of single mothers in politics and society.

Do you feel ignored?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did I touch a nerve?

It's easy to touch the nerves of TROLLS as Luissa.

 

[The T]

I've tried. Nobody can hear me. Have you changed your beliefs one iota since the inception of this thread?

I don't do the definition of insanity. If I'm not heard, and I know I'm not not - then I stop trying.

For me the object of a thread like this is to do some consciousness raising, but I don't require anybody to agree with me. All I expect from other members is that they treat each other with respect and allow them to be who they are. (The trolls refuse to do that which is why I wanted the reasonable people to put them on ignore.)

But if an opinion is offered, it is fair game to be challenged. I figure any opinion I hold is not worth having, if somebody can show how it is flawed. So far nobody has done that in this thread. I've been called a lot of unkind names and accused, mostly dishonestly, of a lot of things. But nobody has offered a reasoned rebuttal to the thesis of the thread.

The thesis once again is that everybody, even the prejudiced and bigoted and intolerant, is entitled to be who and what he or she is without fear that some mob or group or organization will punish them for nothing more than they are who they are and express an opinion of what they believe.

Again you are using the word intolerant incorrectly. It is not ok for the bigots and prejudiced to be intolerant of others. While there's nothing wrong with disliking others, it's another thing entirely to intolerant, such as by restricting the civil rights of said others.

Sure it is. It shows their ignorance, for all and GOD to see.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think folks are confusing the issue when they use the word "intolerance" inappropriately in a sentence , such as when they really mean "dislike."

But isn't that the point of an intelligent discussion? Back and forth until everybody understands where the others are coming from whether or not they agree with anybody else? But you are right that we sometimes get stalled on a word as that word means something different to different people.

What seems obvious to me may not be obvious to somebody else and vice versa. So a reasoned discussion on a multi-faceted subject requires some inquiry, restating, regrouping, and finding ways to explain things. We don't all have to agree to benefit from the exercise.

So yes. It is important to know what we mean by intolerance. Those who think homosexuality is disgusting are likely to be intolerant of homosexuals just as there are people intolerant of anything Christian and some are intolerant of Christians. But as long as such people express their opinion but do not act on it, should they be entitled to their opinion? Is it somehow more evil to be repulsed by gay people than it is evil to be repulsed by Christians?

Probably all of us are intolerant of something. But as long as our intolerance does not infringe on the rights of others, should it not be our right to be intolerant?

 

[The T]

i think folks are confusing the issue when they use the word "intolerance" inappropriately in a sentence , such as when they really mean "dislike."

but isn't that the point of an intelligent discussion? Back and forth until everybody understands where the others are coming from whether or not they agree with anybody else?

What seems obvious to me may not be obvious to somebody else and vice versa. So a reasoned discussion on a multi-faceted subject requires some inquiry, restating, regrouping, and finding ways to explain things. We don't all have to agree to benefit from the exercise.

So yes. It is important to know what we mean by intolerance. Those who think homosexuality is disgusting are likely to be intolerant of homosexuals just as there are people intolerant of anything christian and some are intolerant of christians. But as long as such people express their opinion but do not act on it, should they be entitled to their opinion? Is it somehow more evil to be repulsed by gay people than it is evil to be repulsed by christians?

Probably all of us are intolerant of something. but as long as our intolerance does not infringe on the rights of others, should it not be our right to be intolerant?

*yes*

 

[Foxfyre]

I've tried. Nobody can hear me. Have you changed your beliefs one iota since the inception of this thread?

I don't do the definition of insanity. If I'm not heard, and I know I'm not not - then I stop trying.

For me the object of a thread like this is to do some consciousness raising, but I don't require anybody to agree with me. All I expect from other members is that they treat each other with respect and allow them to be who they are. (The trolls refuse to do that which is why I wanted the reasonable people to put them on ignore.)

But if an opinion is offered, it is fair game to be challenged. I figure any opinion I hold is not worth having, if somebody can show how it is flawed. So far nobody has done that in this thread. I've been called a lot of unkind names and accused, mostly dishonestly, of a lot of things. But nobody has offered a reasoned rebuttal to the thesis of the thread.

The thesis once again is that everybody, even the prejudiced and bigoted and intolerant, is entitled to be who and what he or she is without fear that some mob or group or organization will punish them for nothing more than they are who they are and express an opinion of what they believe.

A mob, group or organization is simply several like-minded individuals.

On another note, I strongly believe you have yet to prove physical harm.

To lose one's job is to remove them physically from their means of income. And it harms them materially too because they lose that ncome. Did GLAAD demand that A&E fire Phil Robertson or not? I believe the evidence is that they did. And that is demanding physical and material harm to the targeted person. And the AFA was attempting to do physical and material harm to Ellen Degeneres by trying to force J C Penney to dump her from their ads. That was just as reprehensible and shouldn't be okay with any of us.

And GLAAD and the AFA are more than 'simply several like-minded individuals.' They are well funded organizations with staff and operatives and legal teams that can apply significant pressure on whomever they target.

Now I can put you down as one who thinks it is okay to punish people physically and/or materially simple because they are who they are or express an opinion somebody doesn't like. That is your prerogative and I can respect that is your opinion.

Is that your opinion?