Tolerance: Allowing people to be who and what they are.

[Plasmaball]

I swear it is in the water that you guys drink that make you absolutely incapable of reading a statement as it is written. I at no time have suggested, hinted, inferred, or implied that anybody should be intolerant of GLAAD any more than I suggested, hinted, inferred, implied that GLAAD should be illegal.

I did say we should be intolerant of that kind of ACTION from GLAAD or anybody else. That is an entirely different thing than being intolerant of GLAAD.

Can you at least be intellectually honest about that?

You cannot be tolerant or intolerant of inanimate ojects, like ideas. You are tolerant or intolerant of ANIMATE objects, such as PEOPLE. An idea is not a person, as you already made clear. Time for you to eat some of your own crow, now.

You can reject an idea or accept an idea.

You do understand the difference, right?

What you are trying to say is that we should all reject GLAAD's actions, because YOU think that GLAAD did was evil.

What you are trying to do is to curb the 1st Amendment. I cannot support such fascist policies.

This is not a First Amendment issue.
This is not a constitutional issue at all.
This is not a legal issue.
This IS a moral and ethical issue.

We should all oppose GLAAD's actions because they are immoral and unethical. We should all reject GLAAD's actions because they deny a person's unalienable right to be who and what he is. We should all oppose GLAAD's actions because suppression of human beliefs and thoughts is detrimental to a free society and puts the biggest, baddest, most funded bullies in charge of what people are required to be and believe to avoid being physically and/or materially punished. And if you support that, you better hope that it is YOUR bully who is the biggest, baddest, and best funded.

You can't claim that this thread isnt about constitutional rights and then claim that glaad is denying an unalienable right.
You dont get to do this, so stop it, seriously stop trying to control everything and have your cake.


Yes we know you need to stay within moral and ethical because it gives you the most wiggle room to move the goals posts, claim people are not on topic, and blah blah blah...

 

[Plasmaball]

If you recall at the outset I pointed out that I was tolerant of PR's ill considered opinion and GLAAD's reaction. The only difference in where we stand is that you want me to become intolerant of GLAAD's reaction.

If I do that I am infringing on GLAAD's rights. It doesn't matter if it is done legally or morally it is equally wrong for me to do so.

If GLAAD hadn't reacted then the odds are it would have been someone else and that someone could just as easily have been myself. When I see someone espousing bigotry and intolerance I will stand up to them because I have an obligation to defend the rights of others when they are infringed. Yes, PR, does have a right to his opinion but he doesn't have a right to not be held accountable for his opinion.

Rights come with RESPONSIBILITIES. My responsibility towards your right to express your opinion on this matter is to defend your right to have your say. Your responsibility is to defend my right to have my say. Neither of us has to agree with what the other says. But both of us have a RESPONSIBILITY to defend the right of each to have their say no matter how much we disagree with what is said.

So in order to "change us" into the society that you want you would have to infringe upon my rights. I won't let you do that for the simple reason that if you were to succeed you would infringe upon your own rights. Now you might be happy to surrender that aspect of your rights but you don't get to impose your will on the rest of us just as we can't impose our will on you. Our INDIVIDUAL rights are sacred and we each have that RESPONSIBILITY towards each other to uphold them.

To do any less is to fail to do our duty to each other.

Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction which, in my opinion, was an evil act. I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like. I want everybody to make such hatefulness socially unacceptable. I fully realize I will probably not get what I want, but I am so convinced of the rightness of my position on this, I'm willing to try as well as put myself in the position of being accused of all sorts of hateful and stupid stuff by some on this thread. Accuse away. Ridicule, excoriate, blame, denigrate, demonize to your/their heart's content. That won't hurt me in the least. Just don't presume to think it is okay to suppress my opinion--to come after me to physically and/or materially hurt/damage/ruin me because you don't like my opinions.

Where is the requirement for GLAAD to be tolerant of Phil Robertson's beliefs? Would he be ethical and within his rights to organize a mob and go after members of GLAAD for the purpose of hurting them physically and/or materially because they don't like his religious beliefs? Or would that be considered hateful and intolerable? Most of us would say so. In fact, I'm pretty sure HE would say so.

So how is it any less hateful for GLAAD to go after Phil Robertson (or anybody else) for no other reason than he believes the Bible says something they don't agree with?

GLAAD's response was a REACTION to PR's intolerant ACTION.

Expecting me to be intolerant of a reaction to intolerance is nonsensical. It is also a betrayal of GLAAD's rights to express their opinion. In essence you are asking me to betray their rights and by doing so, my own rights.

If that is what you expect from me then I need a sound logical basis for giving up my own rights. Please provide me with the reason why I would be willing to surrender my rights to react to intolerance and bigotry?

at somepoint you have to wonder if it would not be better to just start your own thread on this so the rest of us can all agree on whats going on and stop arguing against whatever this is that she and the other person is doing.

It will be a very short thread.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction which, in my opinion, was an evil act. I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like. I want everybody to make such hatefulness socially unacceptable. I fully realize I will probably not get what I want, but I am so convinced of the rightness of my position on this, I'm willing to try as well as put myself in the position of being accused of all sorts of hateful and stupid stuff by some on this thread. Accuse away. Ridicule, excoriate, blame, denigrate, demonize to your/their heart's content. That won't hurt me in the least. Just don't presume to think it is okay to suppress my opinion--to come after me to physically and/or materially hurt/damage/ruin me because you don't like my opinions.

Where is the requirement for GLAAD to be tolerant of Phil Robertson's beliefs? Would he be ethical and within his rights to organize a mob and go after members of GLAAD for the purpose of hurting them physically and/or materially because they don't like his religious beliefs? Or would that be considered hateful and intolerable? Most of us would say so. In fact, I'm pretty sure HE would say so.

So how is it any less hateful for GLAAD to go after Phil Robertson (or anybody else) for no other reason than he believes the Bible says something they don't agree with?

Would you advocate tolerance for David Duke when he expresses his opinion on Blacks? If he is intolerant, as Robertson was, should American society simply accept his opinion and tolerate it? Where do opinions stop being simply opinions and begin an advocacy of intolerance?

How much intolerance should we tolerate?

Tolerance for his right to believe whatever he believes about blacks? Absolutely however reprehensible to me that is, and his views are mostly reprehensible to me. But if I want to be allowed my opinion about blacks--which is the polar opposite of what David Duke has preached--then I have to allow him his opinion. What I don't have to allow is if he acts out his opinions and is hurting/harming people. But just holding an opinion? Yes. He should be allowed to hold even an intolerant, disgusting, bigoted, prejudiced opinion without fear that some angry mob will come after him.

For who among us is wise enough to dictate to any of us what any of us must think, believe, be without fear of some angry mob, group, or organization will come after us to hurt us? Do you trust me to make up such a list of what is acceptable to think, believe, speak? I sure as hell don't trust any of you, even those I love the most, to make up such a list for me.

But aren't you making up a list for me as to what I must deem to be unacceptable and putting what GLAAD said right at the top?

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction which, in my opinion, was an evil act. I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like. I want everybody to make such hatefulness socially unacceptable. I fully realize I will probably not get what I want, but I am so convinced of the rightness of my position on this, I'm willing to try as well as put myself in the position of being accused of all sorts of hateful and stupid stuff by some on this thread. Accuse away. Ridicule, excoriate, blame, denigrate, demonize to your/their heart's content. That won't hurt me in the least. Just don't presume to think it is okay to suppress my opinion--to come after me to physically and/or materially hurt/damage/ruin me because you don't like my opinions.

Where is the requirement for GLAAD to be tolerant of Phil Robertson's beliefs? Would he be ethical and within his rights to organize a mob and go after members of GLAAD for the purpose of hurting them physically and/or materially because they don't like his religious beliefs? Or would that be considered hateful and intolerable? Most of us would say so. In fact, I'm pretty sure HE would say so.

So how is it any less hateful for GLAAD to go after Phil Robertson (or anybody else) for no other reason than he believes the Bible says something they don't agree with?

GLAAD's response was a REACTION to PR's intolerant ACTION.

Expecting me to be intolerant of a reaction to intolerance is nonsensical. It is also a betrayal of GLAAD's rights to express their opinion. In essence you are asking me to betray their rights and by doing so, my own rights.

If that is what you expect from me then I need a sound logical basis for giving up my own rights. Please provide me with the reason why I would be willing to surrender my rights to react to intolerance and bigotry?

at somepoint you have to wonder if it would not be better to just start your own thread on this so the rest of us can all agree on whats going on and stop arguing against whatever this is that she and the other person is doing.

It will be a very short thread.

I would be most happy if you would do that. Perhaps there wouldn't be so much reading dysfunction on your own thread and all of you who refuse to focus on the thread topic and insist on characterizing it as something it isn't would be much happier. See? Derideo Te agrees with you.

(And I still think it must be something in the water some folks drink that makes them incapable of focusing on a concept and discussing it honestly.)

 

[Foxfyre]

Would you advocate tolerance for David Duke when he expresses his opinion on Blacks? If he is intolerant, as Robertson was, should American society simply accept his opinion and tolerate it? Where do opinions stop being simply opinions and begin an advocacy of intolerance?

How much intolerance should we tolerate?

Tolerance for his right to believe whatever he believes about blacks? Absolutely however reprehensible to me that is, and his views are mostly reprehensible to me. But if I want to be allowed my opinion about blacks--which is the polar opposite of what David Duke has preached--then I have to allow him his opinion. What I don't have to allow is if he acts out his opinions and is hurting/harming people. But just holding an opinion? Yes. He should be allowed to hold even an intolerant, disgusting, bigoted, prejudiced opinion without fear that some angry mob will come after him.

For who among us is wise enough to dictate to any of us what any of us must think, believe, be without fear of some angry mob, group, or organization will come after us to hurt us? Do you trust me to make up such a list of what is acceptable to think, believe, speak? I sure as hell don't trust any of you, even those I love the most, to make up such a list for me.

But aren't you making up a list for me as to what I must deem to be unacceptable and putting what GLAAD said right at the top?

What list? Are you truly incapable of quoting what I presented in the OP as the thread topic and discussing what is SAID there honestly and objectively? Are you truly incapable of characterizing my position honestly and as I have presented it? I expected more from you, frankly, as I have always considered you one of the intelligent liberals capable of reasoning and analyzing something objectively. And you have made posts that did address the OP and agreed that it is wrong to physically and/or materially punish people for no other reason than they expressed an opinion that somebody didn't like.

And now you're backing off that? Why?

If you think I am wrong in the OP, give me a rationale for HOW I am wrong. WHY I am wrong. That's what grown up discussion is. Don't try to put words in my mouth I haven't said and wouldn't say.

 

[Statistikhengst]

So, just to recap, so that the entire world can see this:

Foxfyre starts a thread on intolerance.

A poster contributes this video:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html#post8386087

The video is of Evan Sayet, a stand-up comedian and self identified "former Liberal Jew from New York", who rages on the Democratic party and Liberalism with one ad hominem attack after another, without even one shred of fact or information. All opinon, no discourse. NO tolerance.

Here once again is that 48 minute video:



Foxfyre responds to that posting with this:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html#post8386380

Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one. Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.

Many people challenged that video. Foxfyre castigated them for doing this and challenged people (meaning: Liberals) to actually quote parts of the video and bring evidence against her argument that Sayet did his homework.

To date, I am the only person to have done exactly that, in THREE different postings, here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-19.html#post8405372

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8405489

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8405545

As a result, all Foxfyre has done is to insult people's reading ability or say that there must be something in the water.....

So, I turned the screws on Foxfyre and challenged her to show me a minute and second marker on the video that she has so praised to back up her claim that Sayet did his homework. And until now, no response.

I also asked Foxfyre if she even watched the video at all. Still, no response.

But she did give me this response:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8406102

The video is of a lecture of a person giving what he believes is an informed opinion/observation/conclusion and his topic is the M.O. of liberals in our modern society. Right or wrong he provides a reasoned rationale for each point he presents and that is all that is required in order for it to be a scholarly lecture. I have not mentioned the video in any context other than that. I thanked the member who posted it because the video DOES, among other things, provide a rationale for why liberals are so often compelled or motivated to suppress opinion and also to condemn and/or physically and materially attack those who express an opinion the liberals do not agree with. I was also clear that I did not agree with every point the speaker made and encouraged anybody to present a comparable presentation re conservatives related to suppression of speech and/or opinion.

Now then. Who has been more focused on the topic of suppression of speech and opinion in this thread and who has been more focused on condemning the video or accusing me or somebody else who has expressed an opinion they don't agree with? Conservatives? or Liberals?

the bolded: I pointed out to here that absolutely none of that is true. Since when is screaming talking points, without facts, without an argument, without logic, "scholarly". Bullshit.

Then Foxfyre admits to a member that she wants us to be intolerant of GLAAD's actions (which is actually just a way of saying that she wants us to be intolerant of GLAAD):

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8406525

Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction which, in my opinion, was an evil act. I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like. I want everybody to make such hatefulness socially unacceptable.

I then reminded people that we are tolerant/intolerant of people, not inanimate objects. We accept or reject inanimate objects, like ideas. And just to note, Foxfyre, you deliberately tried to link GLAAD with people punching someone. You put the two sentences next to each other quite deliberately. Tell me, do you have evidence that GLAAD has punched someone in the face? I would like to see that evidence.

Or perhaps on my next thread, should I put these two sentences together?

"Now, we should be more tolerant of Republicans, they also have their difficulties. So to child rapists and mass murderers."

Gee, I wonder if people would like to see that kind of stuff..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FACIT: while I agree with Foxfyre more than she realizes that intolerance is an issue worth looking at, she deliberately started this OP just to defame Liberals, just as she did it on the open forum, and when she got all upset because too many people challenged her, she just called them all "trolls" and asked the thread to be closed. Ok, fine, her call.

Now, here in the CDZ, any argument brought against any point she makes is responded to with intolerance on her part.

I want to thank Foxfyre from the bottom of my heart for proving that intolerance usually resides with those who scream against it the most.

Oh, and BTW, Foxfyre, gotta minute and second marker for me, now that I have asked you for the 5th and final time? Did you even watch 10 minutes of that video that you praised to high heaven, or not?

So, I am now done with this thread. You all can have fun with the rest of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

So, just to recap, just so the entire world can see this:

Foxfyre starts a thread on intolerance.

A poster contributes this video:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html#post8386087

The video is of Evan Sayet, a stand-up comedian and self identified "former Liberal Jew from New York", who rages on the Democratic party and Liberalism with one ad hominem attack after another, without even one shred of fact or information. All opinon, no discourse. NO tolerance.

Foxfyre responds to that posting with this:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html#post8386380

Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one. Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.

Many people challenged that video. Foxfyre castigated them for doing this and challenged people (meaning: Liberals) to actually quote parts of the video and bring evidence against her argument that Sayet did his homework.

To date, I am the only person to have done exactly that, in THREE different postings, here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-19.html#post8405372

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8405489

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8405545

As a result, all Foxfyre has done is to insult people's reading ability or say that there must be something in the water.....

So, I turned the screws on Foxfyre and challenged here to show me a minute and second marker on the video that she has so praised to back up her claim that Sayet did his homework. And until now, no response.

I also asked Foxfyre if she even watched the video at all. Still, no response.

But she did give me this response:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8406102

The video is of a lecture of a person giving what he believes is an informed opinion/observation/conclusion and his topic is the M.O. of liberals in our modern society. Right or wrong he provides a reasoned rationale for each point he presents and that is all that is required in order for it to be a scholarly lecture. I have not mentioned the video in any context other than that. I thanked the member who posted it because the video DOES, among other things, provide a rationale for why liberals are so often compelled or motivated to suppress opinion and also to condemn and/or physically and materially attack those who express an opinion the liberals do not agree with. I was also clear that I did not agree with every point the speaker made and encouraged anybody to present a comparable presentation re conservatives related to suppression of speech and/or opinion.

Now then. Who has been more focused on the topic of suppression of speech and opinion in this thread and who has been more focused on condemning the video or accusing me or somebody else who has expressed an opinion they don't agree with? Conservatives? or Liberals?

the bolded: I pointed out to here that absolutely none of that is true. Since when is screaming talking points, without facts, without an argument, without logic, "scholarly". Bullshit.

Then Foxfyre admits to a member that she wants us to be intolerant of GLAAD's actions (which is actually just a way of saying that she wants us to be intolerant of GLAAD):

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8406525

Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction which, in my opinion, was an evil act. I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like. I want everybody to make such hatefulness socially unacceptable.

I then reminded people that we are tolerant/intolerant of people, not inanimate objects. We accept or reject inanimate objects, like ideas. And just to remind, Foxfyre, you deliberate tried to link GLAAD with people punching someone. You put the two sentences next to each other quite deliberately. Tell me, do you have evidence that GLAAD has punched someone in the face.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FACIT: while I agree with Foxfyre more than she realizes that intolerance is an issue worth looking at, she deliberately started this OP just to defame Liberals, just as she did it on the open forum, and when she got all upset because too many people challenged her, she just called them all "trolls" and asked the thread to be closed. Ok, fine, her call.

Now, here in the CDZ, any argument brought against any point she makes is responded to with intolerance on her part.

I want to thank Foxfyre from the bottom of my heart for proving that intolerance usually resides with those who scream against it the most.

Oh, and BTW, Foxfyre, gotta minute and second marker for me, now that I have asked you for the 5th and final time? Did you even watch 10 minutes of that video that you praised to high heaven, or not?

So, I am now done with this thread. You all can have fun with the rest of it.

I made a very strong point in the last thread and this one that this was not a liberal or conservative issue and used illustrations from both camps. I have repeated those examples from both camps more than once. I have reprimanded those who have tried to make it a liberal or conservative issue. So once again you have misquoted me and mischaracterized what I have posted. And yeah, I'll call you on it every single time.

As I will usually be consistent on focusing on the thread topic and resist all those who try to divert from that topic. If you see my not dealing with off topic subjects and insistance that we focus on the thread topic as intolerance, well that's your right to do.

I also neither called for the other thread to be closed or even reviewed. So again you have stated a falsehood about what I have done.

An apology or at least an acknowledgment of that would be seen as a grown up honorable thing to do. Alas, I no longer hope for such apology or acknowledgment from anybody on the left.

But why don't you guys start your own thread where you won't be bound to this thread topic and can bring in all the stuff you would rather talk about?

 

[Plasmaball]

GLAAD's response was a REACTION to PR's intolerant ACTION.

Expecting me to be intolerant of a reaction to intolerance is nonsensical. It is also a betrayal of GLAAD's rights to express their opinion. In essence you are asking me to betray their rights and by doing so, my own rights.

If that is what you expect from me then I need a sound logical basis for giving up my own rights. Please provide me with the reason why I would be willing to surrender my rights to react to intolerance and bigotry?

at somepoint you have to wonder if it would not be better to just start your own thread on this so the rest of us can all agree on whats going on and stop arguing against whatever this is that she and the other person is doing.

It will be a very short thread.

I would be most happy if you would do that. Perhaps there woulden't be so much reading dysfunction on your own thread and all of you who refuse to focus on the thread topic and insist on characterizing it as something it isn't would be much happier. See? Derideo Te agrees with you.

(And I still think it must be something in the water some folks drink that makes them incapable of focusing on a concept and discussing it honestly.)

seriously Fox?I think its you who is having trouble reading. You keep repeating this over and over again and everyone has been on topic this whole time. Its more like this is some sort of tactic you are using in order to keep your thread moving and you dont have to admit to anything.

You are the one who wants to make things criminal. You are the one who wants to strip people of their rights. You are the one who is being intolerant of other people and their actions.Remember when you said Liberals don't like consequence?

The simple fact that you do not understand that everything ties into one another really says everything. You either ignore things that show you to be wrong, or you claim nobody is staying on topic a if a victim.

I've seen nothing but partisan intellectual dishonesty, and again this is the issue with the CDZ. It allows those type of posts(opinions) a legit footing when they should be put in a corner and told NO.

 

[Plasmaball]

tolerance for his right to believe whatever he believes about blacks? Absolutely however reprehensible to me that is, and his views are mostly reprehensible to me. But if i want to be allowed my opinion about blacks--which is the polar opposite of what david duke has preached--then i have to allow him his opinion. What i don't have to allow is if he acts out his opinions and is hurting/harming people. But just holding an opinion? Yes. He should be allowed to hold even an intolerant, disgusting, bigoted, prejudiced opinion without fear that some angry mob will come after him.

for who among us is wise enough to dictate to any of us what any of us must think, believe, be without fear of some angry mob, group, or organization will come after us to hurt us? Do you trust me to make up such a list of what is acceptable to think, believe, speak? I sure as hell don't trust any of you, even those i love the most, to make up such a list for me.

but aren't you making up a list for me as to what i must deem to be unacceptable and putting what glaad said right at the top?

what list? Are you truly incapable of quoting what i presented in the op as the thread topic and discussing what is said there honestly and objectively? Are you truly incapable of characterizing my position honestly and as i have presented it? I expected more from you, frankly, as i have always considered you one of the intelligent liberals capable of reasoning and analyzing something objectively. And you have made posts that did address the op and agreed that it is wrong to physically and/or materially punish people for no other reason than they expressed an opinion that somebody didn't like.

And now you're backing off that? Why?

if you think i am wrong in the op, give me a rationale for how i am wrong. Why i am wrong. That's what grown up discussion is. Don't try to put words in my mouth i haven't said and wouldn't say.

we have!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Tolerance for his right to believe whatever he believes about blacks? Absolutely however reprehensible to me that is, and his views are mostly reprehensible to me. But if I want to be allowed my opinion about blacks--which is the polar opposite of what David Duke has preached--then I have to allow him his opinion. What I don't have to allow is if he acts out his opinions and is hurting/harming people. But just holding an opinion? Yes. He should be allowed to hold even an intolerant, disgusting, bigoted, prejudiced opinion without fear that some angry mob will come after him.

For who among us is wise enough to dictate to any of us what any of us must think, believe, be without fear of some angry mob, group, or organization will come after us to hurt us? Do you trust me to make up such a list of what is acceptable to think, believe, speak? I sure as hell don't trust any of you, even those I love the most, to make up such a list for me.

But aren't you making up a list for me as to what I must deem to be unacceptable and putting what GLAAD said right at the top?

What list? Are you truly incapable of quoting what I presented in the OP as the thread topic and discussing what is SAID there honestly and objectively? Are you truly incapable of characterizing my position honestly and as I have presented it? I expected more from you, frankly, as I have always considered you one of the intelligent liberals capable of reasoning and analyzing something objectively. And you have made posts that did address the OP and agreed that it is wrong to physically and/or materially punish people for no other reason than they expressed an opinion that somebody didn't like.

And now you're backing off that? Why?

If you think I am wrong in the OP, give me a rationale for HOW I am wrong. WHY I am wrong. That's what grown up discussion is. Don't try to put words in my mouth I haven't said and wouldn't say.

The list is the same one that you referred to in the bolded text in blue. You brought up the concept of a list so I opted to use it in reverse as a means to try and show you what you asking of us instead.

And your reaction seems disproportionate to what I said. I asked you to give me a sound reason why I must deny GLAAD their inalienable right (your OP words) to REACT as they deem fit to the intolerance that was directed at them by PR?

I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.

In essence you want me to deny GLAAD their rights while claiming that failure to do so would be an erosion of our rights.

That makes no logical sense at all because they are the same rights.

No, it doesn't matter if they are constitutional rights or social morality and ethics. The principle remains identical.

It would be immoral and unethical of me to condemn GLAAD for doing something that I would do myself while claiming my right to do it and denying their equal right.

 

[Foxfyre]

but aren't you making up a list for me as to what i must deem to be unacceptable and putting what glaad said right at the top?

what list? Are you truly incapable of quoting what i presented in the op as the thread topic and discussing what is said there honestly and objectively? Are you truly incapable of characterizing my position honestly and as i have presented it? I expected more from you, frankly, as i have always considered you one of the intelligent liberals capable of reasoning and analyzing something objectively. And you have made posts that did address the op and agreed that it is wrong to physically and/or materially punish people for no other reason than they expressed an opinion that somebody didn't like.

And now you're backing off that? Why?

if you think i am wrong in the op, give me a rationale for how i am wrong. Why i am wrong. That's what grown up discussion is. Don't try to put words in my mouth i haven't said and wouldn't say.

we have!

No, you haven't. You've made a lot of statements about legalities and First Amendment and used a lot of non sequitur and diversionary tactics and personal aspersions re me or other unrelated persons. You've accused me of wanting to do a lot of stuff that you can't show in my posts that I want to do.

But not one of you has provided a rationale for why a person should be denied the ability to express his/her opinion without fear. The closest anybody has come to such a rationale is the theory that somebody might act on the opinion somebody expresses. But nobody on the left would respond when it was pointed out that anybody might act on ANY opinion whether or not it was an opinion that you guys would consider okay. And if we could not express ANY opinion for fear somebody might act it out negatively, nobody could express any opinion on anything ever.

I provided a list of possible opposing opinions for consideration of what would be okay to express and what would not. Nobody commented on them except Asclepias who said he shouldn't be expected to answer those. Nor would he or anybody else agree on who should be given authority to designate which of those examples would be okay to express and what could be ethically physically and/or materially punished.

So nobody has rebutted the OP as written and intended. Lots of accusations, mischaracterizations, downright falsehoods about what the OP says, assumptions, and derogatory comments about it, but not a single straight up intellectually honest rationale rebuttal.

 

[Statistikhengst]

So, just to recap, just so the entire world can see this:

Foxfyre starts a thread on intolerance.

A poster contributes this video:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html#post8386087

The video is of Evan Sayet, a stand-up comedian and self identified "former Liberal Jew from New York", who rages on the Democratic party and Liberalism with one ad hominem attack after another, without even one shred of fact or information. All opinon, no discourse. NO tolerance.

Foxfyre responds to that posting with this:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html#post8386380

Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one. Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.

Many people challenged that video. Foxfyre castigated them for doing this and challenged people (meaning: Liberals) to actually quote parts of the video and bring evidence against her argument that Sayet did his homework.

To date, I am the only person to have done exactly that, in THREE different postings, here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-19.html#post8405372

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8405489

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8405545

As a result, all Foxfyre has done is to insult people's reading ability or say that there must be something in the water.....

So, I turned the screws on Foxfyre and challenged here to show me a minute and second marker on the video that she has so praised to back up her claim that Sayet did his homework. And until now, no response.

I also asked Foxfyre if she even watched the video at all. Still, no response.

But she did give me this response:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8406102



the bolded: I pointed out to here that absolutely none of that is true. Since when is screaming talking points, without facts, without an argument, without logic, "scholarly". Bullshit.

Then Foxfyre admits to a member that she wants us to be intolerant of GLAAD's actions (which is actually just a way of saying that she wants us to be intolerant of GLAAD):

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8406525

Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction which, in my opinion, was an evil act. I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like. I want everybody to make such hatefulness socially unacceptable.

I then reminded people that we are tolerant/intolerant of people, not inanimate objects. We accept or reject inanimate objects, like ideas. And just to remind, Foxfyre, you deliberate tried to link GLAAD with people punching someone. You put the two sentences next to each other quite deliberately. Tell me, do you have evidence that GLAAD has punched someone in the face.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FACIT: while I agree with Foxfyre more than she realizes that intolerance is an issue worth looking at, she deliberately started this OP just to defame Liberals, just as she did it on the open forum, and when she got all upset because too many people challenged her, she just called them all "trolls" and asked the thread to be closed. Ok, fine, her call.

Now, here in the CDZ, any argument brought against any point she makes is responded to with intolerance on her part.

I want to thank Foxfyre from the bottom of my heart for proving that intolerance usually resides with those who scream against it the most.

Oh, and BTW, Foxfyre, gotta minute and second marker for me, now that I have asked you for the 5th and final time? Did you even watch 10 minutes of that video that you praised to high heaven, or not?

So, I am now done with this thread. You all can have fun with the rest of it.

I made a very strong point in the last thread and this one that this was not a liberal or conservative issue and used illustrations from both camps. I have repeated those examples from both camps more than once. I have reprimanded those who have tried to make it a liberal or conservative issue. So once again you have misquoted me and mischaracterized what I have posted. And yeah, I'll call you on it every single time.

As I will usually be consistent on focusing on the thread topic and resist all those who try to divert from that topic. If you see my not dealing with off topic subjects and insistance that we focus on the thread topic as intolerance, well that's your right to do.

I also neither called for the other thread to be closed or even reviewed. So again you have stated a falsehood about what I have done.

An apology or at least an acknowledgment of that would be seen as a grown up honorable thing to do. Alas, I no longer hope for such apology or acknowledgment from anybody on the left.

But why don't you guys start your own thread where you won't be bound to this thread topic and can bring in all the stuff you would rather talk about?

first bolded: guaranteed, I am going to ask the mods about this.

second bolded: if it ends up I was in error, I will apologize immediate. But then again, you absolutely ruined any spirit of cooperation with the last bolded sentence or yours. Hey, we are in the CDZ, remember?

Why even have people contribute to a thread if all you are really interested in hearing confirmation of what you want to hear?

Oh, and gotta minute and second marker for me? Did you even watch the video?

This is now the SIXTH time I have asked you. Fascinating. You talk about people needing to be grown up. Perhaps you can also be grown up enough to answer two very simple, easy to answer questions.

And in closing, you only reprimanded Liberals, not Conservatives. I was there. I saw it with my own eyes.

 

[Mertex]

The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.

This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.

I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.

I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.

That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not. There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.

We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share. And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.

I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.

What do you think?

I watched a video recently that was so spot on and explained the answer to your subject so well that I felt compelled to post a link to it here as well as posting it as the featured subject matter of it's own thread.

The video is full of information and I am in the middle of watching it a second time, it is so good.

Here is a link to it.

Once you watch it you should have an answer to your question.

Really.

It's THAT good!

2:12

"I've gotta assume that just about everybody in this room thinks that the Democrats are wrong on just about every issue. Well, here to propose to you, it's just just about every issue, it's quite literally every issue. It's not just wrong, it's as wrong as wrong can be. It is 180 degrees from right and it is diametrically opposed to that which is good, right and successful."

That is not a statement of fact. It is an opinion, a very intolerant one, for he does not even give a long list of issues.


And this is supposed to be reasonable discourse? This is supposed to be tolerance?

It seems to me that this whole issue on the part of the "right" boils down to "When someone in my party that I agree with wholeheartedly says something, whether backed by facts or not, it is totally acceptable and nobody should get their panties in a wad over it, but when someone from the opposing party says something that I don't agree with, they totally should be held accountable, even found guilty of a crime."

 

[Mertex]

That statement was not in the OP. And even if it was, saying what somebody does should be illegal is not the same thing as saying that somebody should be illegal.

So I still expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something I did not say in the OP.

I will expect your acknowledgement that you accused me of saying something about GLAAD that I did not say.

And I fully realize I probably won't get what I expect.

And could we please now focus on the topic?

[MENTION=24916]Plasmaball[/MENTION], if you want my opinion on something, I'll be happy to provide it.

Perhaps you could ask it in a way that is straightforward and honest, without misrepresenting what I or someone else said. How in the world was I supposed to know you were referring to GLAAD when it wasn't even mentioned in the OP? If you're going to dishonestly use Foxfyre to make a point -- that appears to be what you're trying to do -- I'm not interested in playing along.

The intellectual dishonesty here just doesn't stop.

.

i dont care about you and your opinion anymore. You have already lost all respect i had for you, so your opinion is now irrelevant. This is the last post i will be responding to you in this thread.

You are wrong, you've been wrong this whole time, you've been given numerous answers to your questions, and you still decided to play games.
The CDZ isnt the place for you.

Bolded part-irony.

He's just like the dude on the video....accusing the left of doing something that the right is on record for doing....i.e. his own posts.

 

[Foxfyre]

So, just to recap, just so the entire world can see this:

Foxfyre starts a thread on intolerance.

A poster contributes this video:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html#post8386087

The video is of Evan Sayet, a stand-up comedian and self identified "former Liberal Jew from New York", who rages on the Democratic party and Liberalism with one ad hominem attack after another, without even one shred of fact or information. All opinon, no discourse. NO tolerance.

Foxfyre responds to that posting with this:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html#post8386380




Many people challenged that video. Foxfyre castigated them for doing this and challenged people (meaning: Liberals) to actually quote parts of the video and bring evidence against her argument that Sayet did his homework.

To date, I am the only person to have done exactly that, in THREE different postings, here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-19.html#post8405372

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8405489

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8405545

As a result, all Foxfyre has done is to insult people's reading ability or say that there must be something in the water.....

So, I turned the screws on Foxfyre and challenged here to show me a minute and second marker on the video that she has so praised to back up her claim that Sayet did his homework. And until now, no response.

I also asked Foxfyre if she even watched the video at all. Still, no response.

But she did give me this response:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8406102



the bolded: I pointed out to here that absolutely none of that is true. Since when is screaming talking points, without facts, without an argument, without logic, "scholarly". Bullshit.

Then Foxfyre admits to a member that she wants us to be intolerant of GLAAD's actions (which is actually just a way of saying that she wants us to be intolerant of GLAAD):

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8406525



I then reminded people that we are tolerant/intolerant of people, not inanimate objects. We accept or reject inanimate objects, like ideas. And just to remind, Foxfyre, you deliberate tried to link GLAAD with people punching someone. You put the two sentences next to each other quite deliberately. Tell me, do you have evidence that GLAAD has punched someone in the face.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FACIT: while I agree with Foxfyre more than she realizes that intolerance is an issue worth looking at, she deliberately started this OP just to defame Liberals, just as she did it on the open forum, and when she got all upset because too many people challenged her, she just called them all "trolls" and asked the thread to be closed. Ok, fine, her call.

Now, here in the CDZ, any argument brought against any point she makes is responded to with intolerance on her part.

I want to thank Foxfyre from the bottom of my heart for proving that intolerance usually resides with those who scream against it the most.

Oh, and BTW, Foxfyre, gotta minute and second marker for me, now that I have asked you for the 5th and final time? Did you even watch 10 minutes of that video that you praised to high heaven, or not?

So, I am now done with this thread. You all can have fun with the rest of it.

I made a very strong point in the last thread and this one that this was not a liberal or conservative issue and used illustrations from both camps. I have repeated those examples from both camps more than once. I have reprimanded those who have tried to make it a liberal or conservative issue. So once again you have misquoted me and mischaracterized what I have posted. And yeah, I'll call you on it every single time.

As I will usually be consistent on focusing on the thread topic and resist all those who try to divert from that topic. If you see my not dealing with off topic subjects and insistance that we focus on the thread topic as intolerance, well that's your right to do.

I also neither called for the other thread to be closed or even reviewed. So again you have stated a falsehood about what I have done.

An apology or at least an acknowledgment of that would be seen as a grown up honorable thing to do. Alas, I no longer hope for such apology or acknowledgment from anybody on the left.

But why don't you guys start your own thread where you won't be bound to this thread topic and can bring in all the stuff you would rather talk about?

first bolded: guaranteed, I am going to ask the mods about this.

second bolded: if it ends up I was in error, I will apologize immediate. But then again, you absolutely ruined any spirit of cooperation with the last bolded sentence or yours. Hey, we are in the CDZ, remember?

Why even have people contribute to a thread if all you are really interested in hearing confirmation of what you want to hear?

Oh, and gotta minute and second marker for me? Did you even watch the video?

This is now the SIXTH time I have asked you. Fascinating. You talk about people needing to be grown up. Perhaps you can also be grown up enough to answer two very simple, easy to answer questions.

And in closing, you only reprimanded Liberals, not Conservatives. I was there. I saw it with my own eyes.

Ask the mods anything you wish. I did not ask the mods to review or close the thread.

You obviously are not reading the thread or you would have seen several times now that I clearly said I did watch the video and all of the video. And you were not paying attention if you think I reprimanded only liberals for introducing content that was off topic. One of my frustrations with you is that you aren't reading what is written and keep asking the same questions that have been asked and answered.

I would be crazy wow happy if any of you would quote the OP accurately and as written, and provide a good argument for why you disagree with it. When any of you do, you will find I am maybe the most tolerant of opinions I don't agree with as anybody on this board. But if you expect me to be tolerant of inadvertent or deliberate attempts to change the subject or derail the thread, yep I can be pretty damn intolerant.

 

[Plasmaball]

what list? Are you truly incapable of quoting what i presented in the op as the thread topic and discussing what is said there honestly and objectively? Are you truly incapable of characterizing my position honestly and as i have presented it? I expected more from you, frankly, as i have always considered you one of the intelligent liberals capable of reasoning and analyzing something objectively. And you have made posts that did address the op and agreed that it is wrong to physically and/or materially punish people for no other reason than they expressed an opinion that somebody didn't like.

And now you're backing off that? Why?

if you think i am wrong in the op, give me a rationale for how i am wrong. Why i am wrong. That's what grown up discussion is. Don't try to put words in my mouth i haven't said and wouldn't say.

we have!

No, you haven't. You've made a lot of statements about legalities and First Amendment and used a lot of non sequitur and diversionary tactics and personal aspersions re me or other unrelated persons. You've accused me of wanting to do a lot of stuff that you can't show in my posts that I want to do.

But not one of you has provided a rationale for why a person should be denied the ability to express his/her opinion without fear. The closest anybody has come to such a rationale is the theory that somebody might act on the opinion somebody expresses. But nobody on the left would respond when it was pointed out that anybody might act on ANY opinion whether or not it was an opinion that you guys would consider okay. And if we could not express ANY opinion for fear somebody might act it out negatively, nobody could express any opinion on anything ever.

I provided a list of possible opposing opinions for consideration of what would be okay to express and what would not. Nobody commented on them except Asclepias who said he shouldn't be expected to answer those. Nor would he or anybody else agree on who should be given authority to designate which of those examples would be okay to express and what could be ethically physically and/or materially punished.

So nobody has rebutted the OP as written and intended. Lots of accusations, mischaracterizations, downright falsehoods about what the OP says, assumptions, and derogatory comments about it, but not a single straight up intellectually honest rationale rebuttal.

You literally said you would make the actions of Glaad criminal aka illegal. YOU said this. I didnt make this up. You are being dishonest. Im done with you. Enjoy talking to yourself. I made my own thread.

 

[Montrovant]

So, just to recap, so that the entire world can see this:

Foxfyre starts a thread on intolerance.

A poster contributes this video:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html#post8386087

The video is of Evan Sayet, a stand-up comedian and self identified "former Liberal Jew from New York", who rages on the Democratic party and Liberalism with one ad hominem attack after another, without even one shred of fact or information. All opinon, no discourse. NO tolerance.

Here once again is that 48 minute video:

Understanding How Modern Liberals Think- Evan Sayet - YouTube

Foxfyre responds to that posting with this:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html#post8386380

Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one. Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.

Many people challenged that video. Foxfyre castigated them for doing this and challenged people (meaning: Liberals) to actually quote parts of the video and bring evidence against her argument that Sayet did his homework.

To date, I am the only person to have done exactly that, in THREE different postings, here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-19.html#post8405372

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8405489

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8405545

As a result, all Foxfyre has done is to insult people's reading ability or say that there must be something in the water.....

So, I turned the screws on Foxfyre and challenged her to show me a minute and second marker on the video that she has so praised to back up her claim that Sayet did his homework. And until now, no response.

I also asked Foxfyre if she even watched the video at all. Still, no response.

But she did give me this response:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8406102

The video is of a lecture of a person giving what he believes is an informed opinion/observation/conclusion and his topic is the M.O. of liberals in our modern society. Right or wrong he provides a reasoned rationale for each point he presents and that is all that is required in order for it to be a scholarly lecture. I have not mentioned the video in any context other than that. I thanked the member who posted it because the video DOES, among other things, provide a rationale for why liberals are so often compelled or motivated to suppress opinion and also to condemn and/or physically and materially attack those who express an opinion the liberals do not agree with. I was also clear that I did not agree with every point the speaker made and encouraged anybody to present a comparable presentation re conservatives related to suppression of speech and/or opinion.

Now then. Who has been more focused on the topic of suppression of speech and opinion in this thread and who has been more focused on condemning the video or accusing me or somebody else who has expressed an opinion they don't agree with? Conservatives? or Liberals?

the bolded: I pointed out to here that absolutely none of that is true. Since when is screaming talking points, without facts, without an argument, without logic, "scholarly". Bullshit.

Then Foxfyre admits to a member that she wants us to be intolerant of GLAAD's actions (which is actually just a way of saying that she wants us to be intolerant of GLAAD):

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8406525

Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction which, in my opinion, was an evil act. I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like. I want everybody to make such hatefulness socially unacceptable.

I then reminded people that we are tolerant/intolerant of people, not inanimate objects. We accept or reject inanimate objects, like ideas. And just to note, Foxfyre, you deliberately tried to link GLAAD with people punching someone. You put the two sentences next to each other quite deliberately. Tell me, do you have evidence that GLAAD has punched someone in the face? I would like to see that evidence.

Or perhaps on my next thread, should I put these two sentences together?

"Now, we should be more tolerant of Republicans, they also have their difficulties. So to child rapists and mass murderers."

Gee, I wonder if people would like to see that kind of stuff..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FACIT: while I agree with Foxfyre more than she realizes that intolerance is an issue worth looking at, she deliberately started this OP just to defame Liberals, just as she did it on the open forum, and when she got all upset because too many people challenged her, she just called them all "trolls" and asked the thread to be closed. Ok, fine, her call.

Now, here in the CDZ, any argument brought against any point she makes is responded to with intolerance on her part.

I want to thank Foxfyre from the bottom of my heart for proving that intolerance usually resides with those who scream against it the most.

Oh, and BTW, Foxfyre, gotta minute and second marker for me, now that I have asked you for the 5th and final time? Did you even watch 10 minutes of that video that you praised to high heaven, or not?

So, I am now done with this thread. You all can have fun with the rest of it.

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

You say you 'reminded' people that we are tolerant of people and not inanimate objects. You go on to call ideas inanimate objects. Ideas are NOT objects, and tolerance is NOT confined to people by any definition I'm aware of. In fact, in looking up the definition of tolerance, multiple sources use tolerance of ideas in at least one of the definitions. Objects, on the other hand, are specifically material things.

Whatever the validity of your other points, you are quite wrong with this.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I made a very strong point in the last thread and this one that this was not a liberal or conservative issue and used illustrations from both camps. I have repeated those examples from both camps more than once. I have reprimanded those who have tried to make it a liberal or conservative issue. So once again you have misquoted me and mischaracterized what I have posted. And yeah, I'll call you on it every single time.

As I will usually be consistent on focusing on the thread topic and resist all those who try to divert from that topic. If you see my not dealing with off topic subjects and insistance that we focus on the thread topic as intolerance, well that's your right to do.

I also neither called for the other thread to be closed or even reviewed. So again you have stated a falsehood about what I have done.

An apology or at least an acknowledgment of that would be seen as a grown up honorable thing to do. Alas, I no longer hope for such apology or acknowledgment from anybody on the left.

But why don't you guys start your own thread where you won't be bound to this thread topic and can bring in all the stuff you would rather talk about?

first bolded: guaranteed, I am going to ask the mods about this.

second bolded: if it ends up I was in error, I will apologize immediate. But then again, you absolutely ruined any spirit of cooperation with the last bolded sentence or yours. Hey, we are in the CDZ, remember?

Why even have people contribute to a thread if all you are really interested in hearing confirmation of what you want to hear?

Oh, and gotta minute and second marker for me? Did you even watch the video?

This is now the SIXTH time I have asked you. Fascinating. You talk about people needing to be grown up. Perhaps you can also be grown up enough to answer two very simple, easy to answer questions.

And in closing, you only reprimanded Liberals, not Conservatives. I was there. I saw it with my own eyes.

Ask the mods anything you wish. I did not ask the mods to review or close the thread.

You obviously are not reading the thread or you would have seen several times now that I clearly said I did watch the video and all of the video. And you were not paying attention if you think I reprimanded only liberals for introducing content that was off topic. One of my frustrations with you is that you aren't reading what is written and keep asking the same questions that have been asked and answered.

I would be crazy wow happy if any of you would quote the OP accurately and as written, and provide a good argument for why you disagree with it. When any of you do, you will find I am maybe the most tolerant of opinions I don't agree with as anybody on this board. But if you expect me to be tolerant of inadvertent or deliberate attempts to change the subject or derail the thread, yep I can be pretty damn intolerant.

I gotta say, you appear to be excellent at attacking people, even in the CDZ, but when it comes to responding with facts, you do seem to be a little slow on the uptake. Is that a tactic of yours, or what?

RE: facts -

Since you watched all of the video, gotta minute and second marker for me to back up your argument vis-a-vis the video? This is now the SEVENTH time I have asked you. Come on, don't be so intellectually lazy. You challenged libs to quote from the video, and I did that, three times. Your turn. Or are you saying that you are not in a position to present some evidence?

 

[Statistikhengst]

So, just to recap, so that the entire world can see this:

Foxfyre starts a thread on intolerance.

A poster contributes this video:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html#post8386087

The video is of Evan Sayet, a stand-up comedian and self identified "former Liberal Jew from New York", who rages on the Democratic party and Liberalism with one ad hominem attack after another, without even one shred of fact or information. All opinon, no discourse. NO tolerance.

Here once again is that 48 minute video:

Understanding How Modern Liberals Think- Evan Sayet - YouTube

Foxfyre responds to that posting with this:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html#post8386380

Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one. Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.

Many people challenged that video. Foxfyre castigated them for doing this and challenged people (meaning: Liberals) to actually quote parts of the video and bring evidence against her argument that Sayet did his homework.

To date, I am the only person to have done exactly that, in THREE different postings, here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-19.html#post8405372

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8405489

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8405545

As a result, all Foxfyre has done is to insult people's reading ability or say that there must be something in the water.....

So, I turned the screws on Foxfyre and challenged her to show me a minute and second marker on the video that she has so praised to back up her claim that Sayet did his homework. And until now, no response.

I also asked Foxfyre if she even watched the video at all. Still, no response.

But she did give me this response:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8406102



the bolded: I pointed out to here that absolutely none of that is true. Since when is screaming talking points, without facts, without an argument, without logic, "scholarly". Bullshit.

Then Foxfyre admits to a member that she wants us to be intolerant of GLAAD's actions (which is actually just a way of saying that she wants us to be intolerant of GLAAD):

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-be-who-and-what-they-are-20.html#post8406525

Yes, I want you to be intolerant of GLAAD's reaction which, in my opinion, was an evil act. I want you and everybody else to be intolerant of anybody who would punch somebody out for no reason that a person expressed and opinion or belief that such anybody didn't like. I want everybody to make such hatefulness socially unacceptable.

I then reminded people that we are tolerant/intolerant of people, not inanimate objects. We accept or reject inanimate objects, like ideas. And just to note, Foxfyre, you deliberately tried to link GLAAD with people punching someone. You put the two sentences next to each other quite deliberately. Tell me, do you have evidence that GLAAD has punched someone in the face? I would like to see that evidence.

Or perhaps on my next thread, should I put these two sentences together?

"Now, we should be more tolerant of Republicans, they also have their difficulties. So to child rapists and mass murderers."

Gee, I wonder if people would like to see that kind of stuff..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FACIT: while I agree with Foxfyre more than she realizes that intolerance is an issue worth looking at, she deliberately started this OP just to defame Liberals, just as she did it on the open forum, and when she got all upset because too many people challenged her, she just called them all "trolls" and asked the thread to be closed. Ok, fine, her call.

Now, here in the CDZ, any argument brought against any point she makes is responded to with intolerance on her part.

I want to thank Foxfyre from the bottom of my heart for proving that intolerance usually resides with those who scream against it the most.

Oh, and BTW, Foxfyre, gotta minute and second marker for me, now that I have asked you for the 5th and final time? Did you even watch 10 minutes of that video that you praised to high heaven, or not?

So, I am now done with this thread. You all can have fun with the rest of it.

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

You say you 'reminded' people that we are tolerant of people and not inanimate objects. You go on to call ideas inanimate objects. Ideas are NOT objects, and tolerance is NOT confined to people by any definition I'm aware of. In fact, in looking up the definition of tolerance, multiple sources use tolerance of ideas in at least one of the definitions. Objects, on the other hand, are specifically material things.

Whatever the validity of your other points, you are quite wrong with this.

Wordplay, only wordplay. But if you wanna play, ok:

ideas are inanimate. There is no law that says an object must have a physical form. Go check it out.

 

[Foxfyre]

first bolded: guaranteed, I am going to ask the mods about this.

second bolded: if it ends up I was in error, I will apologize immediate. But then again, you absolutely ruined any spirit of cooperation with the last bolded sentence or yours. Hey, we are in the CDZ, remember?

Why even have people contribute to a thread if all you are really interested in hearing confirmation of what you want to hear?

Oh, and gotta minute and second marker for me? Did you even watch the video?

This is now the SIXTH time I have asked you. Fascinating. You talk about people needing to be grown up. Perhaps you can also be grown up enough to answer two very simple, easy to answer questions.

And in closing, you only reprimanded Liberals, not Conservatives. I was there. I saw it with my own eyes.

Ask the mods anything you wish. I did not ask the mods to review or close the thread.

You obviously are not reading the thread or you would have seen several times now that I clearly said I did watch the video and all of the video. And you were not paying attention if you think I reprimanded only liberals for introducing content that was off topic. One of my frustrations with you is that you aren't reading what is written and keep asking the same questions that have been asked and answered.

I would be crazy wow happy if any of you would quote the OP accurately and as written, and provide a good argument for why you disagree with it. When any of you do, you will find I am maybe the most tolerant of opinions I don't agree with as anybody on this board. But if you expect me to be tolerant of inadvertent or deliberate attempts to change the subject or derail the thread, yep I can be pretty damn intolerant.

I gotta say, you appear to be excellent at attacking people, even in the CDZ, but when it comes to responding with facts, you do seem to be a little slow on the uptake. Is that a tactic of yours, or what?

RE: facts -

Since you watched all of the video, gotta minute and second marker for me to back up your argument vis-a-vis the video? This is now the SEVENTH time I have asked you. Come on, don't be so intellectually lazy. You challenged libs to quote from the video, and I did that, three times. Your turn. Or are you saying that you are not in a position to present some evidence?

Why is it that you can say almost any negative thing about me and it is not a personal attack but if I object not to you, but to what you have said, that IS a personal attack? Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can. Nobody has done that I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it. All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.

Other than what is relative to this thread topic, I am not interested in discussing the video here.

And I have no clue what you are asking about the minute and second marker. I didn't pick out any phrases from the video to comment on and I sure as hell didn't time any of it. I did find myself agreeing with some of his comments, thinking some stuff merited additional research, and I didn't agree with him on some points though I would have to listen to it again to jog my memory about exactly what. I really choose not to do that because I don't think it is something important to do.