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

[Soggy in NOLA]

.....Meanwhile I shall continue to believe that good people allow people to be who and what they are whether or not we agree with them. Alas, it appears some simply do not have the ability to do that.

Homosexuals are not by their very nature - "Good People" They preach tolerance for Gays but rabidly practice completely the opposite for anybody who dares to oppose their perverted agenda.

Basically Gays and Liberals are Intolerant about Intolerance , or their warped definition of Intolerance that is.

I know! Those homo's are so against hetero's! They discriminate against us normal folk all the time! So intolerant of our lifestyle. I can hardly get anything done in this life without agreeing to suck a dick!

That's not at all what he said... stop being such an ignorant douchebag... if you can that is. Oh, and knock it off with "homo's" shit... that's very offensive.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Oh, what a bunch of bullshit. You are anything but neutral. What a shame that you decided to play the "I am neutral" game just to shit on liberals. You should shame yourself all the way down to your toes, Fyrefox. For every posting that you claim is over the top by Libs here on this thread, I am pretty sure that I can show you two posts by Cons that are equally lacking in class, or even worse.

6 times I confronted you about the "physical harm" issue. I brought facts to the table. You avoided. And now you want to impugne Libs for bad behaviour on a thread.

I think you have had too much Christmas Punch, really!

And I do think it must be something in the water you libs drink that causes such reading dysfunction. I have stated my position on the 'physical harm' concept several times now and you have yet to address that, so you can just get off your high horse about that please. I have also very clearly addressed that I think some on the right side of the line have also behaved badly and you seem to be incapable of reading that too. If it isn't reading dysfunction, it is selective reading.

But one thing I haven't done is attack any of you on the left or right personally and hatefully which almost every one of you on the left - none on the right - have now done to me. Which is probably why you think it is just fine and dandy that GLAAD attacked Phil Robertson personally and you have no moral or ethical problem with that whatsoever. Phil Robertson isn't on 'your side' and he is not politically correct. Therefore he can be personally destroyed and, with a couple of exceptions, you folks on the left think that's just hunky dory okay.

I think that is also a common trait of the Left if the posts in this thread are any indication. None of you are capable of making a rational argument to rebut a concept you don't like. It's pretty hard to rebut a concept of allowing people to be who and what they are without fear of physical and/or material harm from some mob, group, or organization. So you attack the messenger.

I tried to keep this non partisan and on point. You folks on the left wouldn't let me. So since you have insisted, let's make it about that.

Just how tolerant and open and honest and fair minded do you think you are? Is Phil Robertson such a terrible person because of his interpretation of the Bible that he deserves to be personally destroyed? You all apparently think so. So who gets to decide what and who somebody is allowed to be? And who gets punished for who and what they are?

You're the reason we have laws. If GLAAD did anything to A&E that was outside the law, then the law can deal with that.

Foxfyre's the reason we have laws? Who knew?

 

[hunarcy]

And I do think it must be something in the water you libs drink that causes such reading dysfunction. I have stated my position on the 'physical harm' concept several times now and you have yet to address that, so you can just get off your high horse about that please. I have also very clearly addressed that I think some on the right side of the line have also behaved badly and you seem to be incapable of reading that too. If it isn't reading dysfunction, it is selective reading.

But one thing I haven't done is attack any of you on the left or right personally and hatefully which almost every one of you on the left - none on the right - have now done to me. Which is probably why you think it is just fine and dandy that GLAAD attacked Phil Robertson personally and you have no moral or ethical problem with that whatsoever. Phil Robertson isn't on 'your side' and he is not politically correct. Therefore he can be personally destroyed and, with a couple of exceptions, you folks on the left think that's just hunky dory okay.

I think that is also a common trait of the Left if the posts in this thread are any indication. None of you are capable of making a rational argument to rebut a concept you don't like. It's pretty hard to rebut a concept of allowing people to be who and what they are without fear of physical and/or material harm from some mob, group, or organization. So you attack the messenger.

I tried to keep this non partisan and on point. You folks on the left wouldn't let me. So since you have insisted, let's make it about that.

Just how tolerant and open and honest and fair minded do you think you are? Is Phil Robertson such a terrible person because of his interpretation of the Bible that he deserves to be personally destroyed? You all apparently think so. So who gets to decide what and who somebody is allowed to be? And who gets punished for who and what they are?

You're the reason we have laws. If GLAAD did anything to A&E that was outside the law, then the law can deal with that.

Foxfyre's the reason we have laws? Who knew?

The Self Feeding Troll is known for his hyperbole.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hark! Who goes there! Alas!

Are gays inherently hysterical, hateful, and intolerant of disagreement, I wondered, or are they reading off the same script? Are they systematically organized to strike out at opponents, and to silence them through intimidation? The answer is that no, homosexuals are not necessarily hysterical, hateful, or intolerant by nature — but yes, this is something they have learned. It is a technique called "jamming" which is part of an elaborate program to further the gay agenda.

Throughout the 1990s, the media message pertaining to treatment of Homosexuals was "Tolerance". However, as society became more tolerant of their affliction largely through educational and media mind programming we have become less tolerant of those who refuse to subscribe to this political correctness. Its difficult to fathom, but there was a time not long ago, when morality and virtue was celebrated in mainstream society. Today, anybody in the public eye particularly the mainstream media who dares to disagree with homosexuality or homosexual viewpoints will more than likely be fired, branded and blacklisted.
Weapons of Mass Seduction

Yes. You my friend, have grasped the concept of the OP so far as GLAAD and Phil Robertson are concerned. They demand total immunity from any negatives whatsoever re gays but will not extend even token tolerance to those who promote traditional marriage or certain Christian beliefs or families with a mom and dad providing role models for the kids.

And it isn't just the Gestapo and/or Inquisition tactics of GLAAD demanding not just tolerance, but endorsement, total non criticism, non negative inferences of any kind. There are also groups who target anybody who doesn't interpret women's rights as they interpret them, who refuse to promote the politically correct and often dishonest social dynamics or history of racial minorities, who object to militant Islam, who promote certain Christian beliefs unrelated to homosexuality. And, as I have tried my damndest to point out, there are some rightwing groups who are just as bad.

Is there anybody among us who condones or approves the tacitcs of the Westboro Baptists? What hateful, mean spirited, disgusting, intolerant, and cruel people they show themselves to be. The American Family Association was not so hateful, but still were very very wrong and unAmerican to go after Ellen Degeneres for no other reason than they judged her to be promoting homosexuality purely by appearing in a Christmas ad. That to me is indefensible, wrong, and is an embarrassment to all of us who promote traditional family values as well as the unalienable right to be who and what we are with impunity.

Is there anybody in this thread who supports the tactics of the Westboro Baptists? Is there anybody in this thread who supports that action of the AFA?

How can you condemn one and not also condemn the actions of GLAAD re Phil Robertson?

 

[hunarcy]

Yes. You my friend, have grasped the concept of the OP so far as GLAAD and Phil Robertson are concerned. They demand total immunity from any negatives whatsoever re gays but will not extend even token tolerance to those who promote traditional marriage or certain Christian beliefs or families with a mom and dad providing role models for the kids.

And it isn't just the Gestapo and/or Inquisition tactics of GLAAD demanding not just tolerance, but endorsement, total non criticism, non negative inferences of any kind. There are also groups who target anybody who doesn't interpret women's rights as they interpret them, who refuse to promote the politically correct and often dishonest social dynamics or history of racial minorities, who object to militant Islam, who promote certain Christian beliefs unrelated to homosexuality. And, as I have tried my damndest to point out, there are some rightwing groups who are just as bad.

Is there anybody among us who condones or approves the tacitcs of the Westboro Baptists? What hateful, mean spirited, disgusting, intolerant, and cruel people they show themselves to be. The American Family Association was not so hateful, but still were very very wrong and unAmerican to go after Ellen Degeneres for no other reason than they judged her to be promoting homosexuality purely by appearing in a Christmas ad. That to me is indefensible, wrong, and is an embarrassment to all of us who promote traditional family values as well as the unalienable right to be who and what we are with impunity.

Is there anybody in this thread who supports the tactics of the Westboro Baptists? Is there anybody in this thread who supports that action of the AFA?

How can you condemn one and not also condemn the actions of GLAAD re Phil Robertson?

I think your point has been clear from the beginning and those who attack you are doing so on the flimsiest and most dogged points because they can't really defend the behavior of those who they admire, but who have acted badly.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. You my friend, have grasped the concept of the OP so far as GLAAD and Phil Robertson are concerned. They demand total immunity from any negatives whatsoever re gays but will not extend even token tolerance to those who promote traditional marriage or certain Christian beliefs or families with a mom and dad providing role models for the kids.

And it isn't just the Gestapo and/or Inquisition tactics of GLAAD demanding not just tolerance, but endorsement, total non criticism, non negative inferences of any kind. There are also groups who target anybody who doesn't interpret women's rights as they interpret them, who refuse to promote the politically correct and often dishonest social dynamics or history of racial minorities, who object to militant Islam, who promote certain Christian beliefs unrelated to homosexuality. And, as I have tried my damndest to point out, there are some rightwing groups who are just as bad.

Is there anybody among us who condones or approves the tacitcs of the Westboro Baptists? What hateful, mean spirited, disgusting, intolerant, and cruel people they show themselves to be. The American Family Association was not so hateful, but still were very very wrong and unAmerican to go after Ellen Degeneres for no other reason than they judged her to be promoting homosexuality purely by appearing in a Christmas ad. That to me is indefensible, wrong, and is an embarrassment to all of us who promote traditional family values as well as the unalienable right to be who and what we are with impunity.

Is there anybody in this thread who supports the tactics of the Westboro Baptists? Is there anybody in this thread who supports that action of the AFA?

How can you condemn one and not also condemn the actions of GLAAD re Phil Robertson?

I think your point has been clear from the beginning and those who attack you are doing so on the flimsiest and most dogged points because they can't really defend the behavior of those who they admire, but who have acted badly.

Yes, plus an intolerance for my point of view about this which makes it fair game (to them) to attack me and ignore the topic.

On another thread, I just posted this list as the tactic of those who cannot focus on and discuss a topic and/or defend a principle but rather attack the messenger instead:

If they don't like the topic, they are incapable of rebutting it with a reasoned argument. So I or we can count on:

1. Being called a whole bunch of unattractive names
2. Being accused of all sorts of thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and wants that hadn't occured to me/us
3. Having the discussion immediately diverted to something totally unrelated
4. Being accused of statements I/we didn't make and having statements I/we did make, and that cannot be refuted, ignored. And then later on in the thread we will be accused of saying what we didn't say and we will be accused of not saying what we have already said. (I think there's something in the water they drink that causes such selective reading or cognitive reading dysfunction.)
5. Never having the actual concept of the OP addressed head on with any kind of objective or comprehensive argument expressed.
6. Plus a whole lot of accusations of 'you do it too' or 'others do it too' that is intended to totally excuse them from all sins.

And I would bet that they will post a dictionary definition or divert the subject to law/legality while ignoring the ethical/moral perspective, and not one of them can explain in their own words what tolerance means to them.

As I said in the other thread, I wish we could require everybody to memorize those six things and then we could just throw out a number when it happens to avoid being accused of ignoring somebody. Sure would save a lot of typing.

 

[hunarcy]

Yes. You my friend, have grasped the concept of the OP so far as GLAAD and Phil Robertson are concerned. They demand total immunity from any negatives whatsoever re gays but will not extend even token tolerance to those who promote traditional marriage or certain Christian beliefs or families with a mom and dad providing role models for the kids.

And it isn't just the Gestapo and/or Inquisition tactics of GLAAD demanding not just tolerance, but endorsement, total non criticism, non negative inferences of any kind. There are also groups who target anybody who doesn't interpret women's rights as they interpret them, who refuse to promote the politically correct and often dishonest social dynamics or history of racial minorities, who object to militant Islam, who promote certain Christian beliefs unrelated to homosexuality. And, as I have tried my damndest to point out, there are some rightwing groups who are just as bad.

Is there anybody among us who condones or approves the tacitcs of the Westboro Baptists? What hateful, mean spirited, disgusting, intolerant, and cruel people they show themselves to be. The American Family Association was not so hateful, but still were very very wrong and unAmerican to go after Ellen Degeneres for no other reason than they judged her to be promoting homosexuality purely by appearing in a Christmas ad. That to me is indefensible, wrong, and is an embarrassment to all of us who promote traditional family values as well as the unalienable right to be who and what we are with impunity.

Is there anybody in this thread who supports the tactics of the Westboro Baptists? Is there anybody in this thread who supports that action of the AFA?

How can you condemn one and not also condemn the actions of GLAAD re Phil Robertson?

I think your point has been clear from the beginning and those who attack you are doing so on the flimsiest and most dogged points because they can't really defend the behavior of those who they admire, but who have acted badly.

Yes, plus an intolerance for my point of view about this which makes it fair game (to them) to attack me and ignore the topic.

On another thread, I just posted this list as the tactic of those who cannot focus on and discuss a topic and/or defend a principle but rather attack the messenger instead:

If they don't like the topic, they are incapable of rebutting it with a reasoned argument. So I or we can count on:

1. Being called a whole bunch of unattractive names
2. Being accused of all sorts of thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and wants that hadn't occured to me/us
3. Having the discussion immediately diverted to something totally unrelated
4. Being accused of statements I/we didn't make and having statements I/we did make, and that cannot be refuted, ignored. And then later on in the thread we will be accused of saying what we didn't say and we will be accused of not saying what we have already said. (I think there's something in the water they drink that causes such selective reading or cognitive reading dysfunction.)
5. Never having the actual concept of the OP addressed head on with any kind of objective or comprehensive argument expressed.
6. Plus a whole lot of accusations of 'you do it too' or 'others do it too' that is intended to totally excuse them from all sins.

Exactly right!

 

[Foxfyre]

I've been accused of ignoring their non sequiturs, red herrings, and other diversions so many times now, I think I'll just start posting the number on the list so they won't feel 'ignored'.

 

[hunarcy]

I've been accused of ignoring their non sequiturs, red herrings, and other diversions so many times now, I think I'll just start posting the number on the list so they won't feel 'ignored'.

LOL! Well, it hurts their feelings to be ignored because it reminds them that they're irrelevant.

 

[Samson]

As I said in the other thread, I wish we could require everybody to memorize those six things and then we could just throw out a number when it happens to avoid being accused of ignoring somebody. Sure would save a lot of typing.

You'd be lucky if most of these morons were able to memorize one thing on the list.

 

[Foxfyre]

As I said in the other thread, I wish we could require everybody to memorize those six things and then we could just throw out a number when it happens to avoid being accused of ignoring somebody. Sure would save a lot of typing.

You'd be lucky if most of these morons were able to memorize one thing on the list.

#3

I can be tolerant of morons too except when they are determined to spoil it for everybody else. So yeah, if they want to make it personal, I can show them how to do that without losing too many debate points. I sure would like to put one of my debate teams up against some of these people. We would be a cinch to win the world championship.

But as for the list, I have it written down and don't have to memorize it.

And the topic remains allowing people to be who and what they are with impunity so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

 

[Foxfyre]

I've been accused of ignoring their non sequiturs, red herrings, and other diversions so many times now, I think I'll just start posting the number on the list so they won't feel 'ignored'.

LOL! Well, it hurts their feelings to be ignored because it reminds them that they're irrelevant.

Well certainly their opinion of me is irrelevent. Something about adopting a principle of only an idiot argues with a. . . .

But when they do have a coherent thought--and it has happened however rarely in this thread--I am happy to engage them. Tolerance has to work both ways. So long as the unalienable rights of others are not compromised, I allow them to be who and what they are and expect the same courtesy. None of those on the left have indicated that they understand that concept at all. But at least a few--a very few--have respected my right to hold that opinion. And I appreciate that.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It is ridiculous to compare the tactics of the Westboro nuts and those of the AFA to what GLAAD has done re Phil Robertson. What exactly have they done, by he way?

Lets actually compare. Lets have a discussion of the various tactics and statements issued by each of those groups. We will then hit on the factor that is being conveniently ignored by the OP......who has stated that this is not a debate about legality. Westboro and AFA both engage in oppression of a group.....while GLAAD engages in fighting that oppression. One of those things is not like the other. Or..as the OP has phrased it...GLAAD.....representing an oppressed minority group.....is intolerant of the intolerance of the intolerant groups with whom they struggle.

Legally....they are all within their rights. Morally......not so much. The OP expresses a desire for adult, honest discussion and an end to GLAAD being intolerant. The path to that is to end the oppression and intolerance that illicits the response from GLAAD.

 

[koshergrl]

The dishonesty of the left continues.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is ridiculous to compare the tactics of the Westboro nuts and those of the AFA to what GLAAD has done re Phil Robertson. What exactly have they done, by he way?

Lets actually compare. Lets have a discussion of the various tactics and statements issued by each of those groups. We will then hit on the factor that is being conveniently ignored by the OP......who has stated that this is not a debate about legality. Westboro and AFA both engage in oppression of a group.....while GLAAD engages in fighting that oppression. One of those things is not like the other. Or..as the OP has phrased it...GLAAD.....representing an oppressed minority group.....is intolerant of the intolerance of the intolerant groups with whom they struggle.

Legally....they are all within their rights. Morally......not so much. The OP expresses a desire for adult, honest discussion and an end to GLAAD being intolerant. The path to that is to end the oppression and intolerance that illicits the response from GLAAD.

GLAAD attacked Phil Robertson, demanded that he be fired which is demanding that he be physically removed from a televsion show he loves doing, which is demanding that he lose income from doing that show. They also were organizing to go after anybody who uses Phil Robertson to endorse a product or service which also would cause Phil Robertson further harm.

Phil Robertson is not on a vendetta or campaign to smear or hurt homosexuals. He didn't mention GLAAD or any other gay rights group--such almost certainly never crossed his mind at the time. Phil Robertson was not any kind of advocate against homosexuals--he made that very clear and clearly expressed that he loves his gay brothers and sisters and wishes them the very best. But, when he was specifically ASKED for his view by a GQ interviewer, he answered honestly what he believes the Bible says. He was not unwilling for GLAAD or any gay person to be who what they/he/she are.

And GLAAD was unwilling to allow him his belief, to be who and what he is. That should be reprehensible and unacceptable to ANY freedom loving person.

AFA went after JC Penney to dump Ellen Degeneres because they believe her appearance in an ad is a passive endorsement of non traditional family values. Not only was that a real stretch from a reasoned standpoint, it is also not allowing Ellen to be who and what she is. That should be reprehensible and unacceptable to ANY freedom loving person.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I wish I had a nickel for every time the word "they" or "their" was used in this thread.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Did GLAAD demand that Robertson be fired?

 

[Foxfyre]

i wish i had a nickel for every time the word "they" or "their" was used in this thread.

#3

 

[Foxfyre]

Did GLAAD demand that Robertson be fired?

For maybe the 30th time now yes, GLAAD demanded that Robertson be fired.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Did GLAAD demand that Robertson be fired?

For maybe the 30th time now yes, GLAAD demanded that Robertson be fired.

I would like to see that letter. I had heard that they simply asked A&E to disavow the statements.

And.....does it interest you that he was never fired?