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

[hunarcy]

True, but if he was talking about types of sin, and that his Bible says an activity is a sin, is it an insult?

I'm not saying he did intentionally insult anyone, just that it can easily and understandably be perceived as one.

What's the difference anyway? when did we become such wimps in this country? Someone insults me , I go on about my life. No matter how harsh the insult, it's still just words.

Even if my feelings are hurt, I don't call for a "jihad" on those who insult me.

 

[BillyZane]

I'm not saying he did intentionally insult anyone, just that it can easily and understandably be perceived as one.

What's the difference anyway? when did we become such wimps in this country? Someone insults me , I go on about my life. No matter how harsh the insult, it's still just words.

Even if my feelings are hurt, I don't call for a "jihad" on those who insult me.

Exactly.

But look at society today. "You called me fag, I'm suing" or "you hate God, I'm suing" or whatever. Jesus people toughen up.

We have a bunch of adults in this nation who need to relearn sticks and stones.

 

[R.D.]

Comparisons to all sexual behaviors do not make sense. If I were to say that swinging is a sin, would it make sense to compare it to rape?

And again, what Robertson was trying to say was not my point. My point is that when those who demonize homosexuals use some of the same comparisons over and over; gays and pedophiles; gays and bestiality; whenever someone uses those same comparisons it's understandable that they will cause a particular reaction. It's unfortunate, but you can see enough of those kinds of comparisons right here on this board that I think the reason for such a reaction is understandable.

So can we assume you're intent here is to demonize swingers?

 

[Foxfyre]

True, but if he was talking about types of sin, and that his Bible says an activity is a sin, is it an insult?

In this case it almost certainly was not intended to be one. But even if it had, shouldn't we as a society insist that somebody be the grown up in the room? If I took everything expressed on a message board that I don't believe or don't agree with or don't accept as the truth as a personal insult that deserved retaliation, I would be angry and insulted and on the defensive all the time here. And I would run out of rep very quickly every day just by the neg reps I would be handing out.

I don't see the ethics or why it is 'fun' or even satisfying for some to neg rep somebody just because that somebody expressed an opinion that is disagreed with. Even if you think the opinion is hyper partisan or expresses some kind of -ist or some kind of -phobia. I accept that it is perfectly legal to do so and ingrained in the USMB culture.

But I would like for it to be socially unacceptable in our real lives culture.

As I look at my record, I seem to run out of reps because I give a lot of positive ones. Most of the negs I give out are for vulgarities and insult filled flamers. People who seem to routinely lie get on ignore and other than that, I try to read all the posts in a thread in which I participate

But, I do get your point.

I also try to read all the posts on the threads I participate in, but sometimes I just don't take the time when my time is limited and the thread is really active and fast moving. Have caused myself some grief because of that too and have hurt some feelings or generated resentment by those who felt ignored.

I get my share of accusations and insults and vulgarities thrown my way by people who don't know any other way to conduct themselves on a message board. I have been accused of many things because I am a Christian, because I am a conservative, because I describe myself as a classical liberal, because. . .because. . .because. The funniest is that my insults are far worse because I make them civilly. And I do get very weary of numbnuts who don't know me at all telling me over and over what I think, what I want, what I feel, what I promote. But such idiots have no ability to affect my feelings or how I choose to conduct myself. But if I had the power to do so, would I demand they be banished from the board? No I would not. (Though I'll admit I sometimes really enjoy seeing some turn pink. )

However, when somebody I befriend betrays me with unkind and untrue remarks behind my back or accuses me of being a liar or thanks those who make dishonest, cruel or unfounded accusations about me, I'm as human as the next person. That does hurt and it is difficult for me to forgive. But would I demand such person be banished from the board if I had the power to do that? No I would not.

It is that which I would like to change in our culture. Dislike, even hate people if you must. We don't have to appreciate what they say or anything about them. But if we want to be allowed our own opinions without fear, common sense says we must allow others their opinions too so long as they do not violate somebody else's rights.

 

[Montrovant]

True, but if he was talking about types of sin, and that his Bible says an activity is a sin, is it an insult?

I'm not saying he did intentionally insult anyone, just that it can easily and understandably be perceived as one.

What's the difference anyway? when did we become such wimps in this country? Someone insults me , I go on about my life. No matter how harsh the insult, it's still just words.

Meh, I wasn't trying to say we should overreact to insults, just got sidetracked about whether what Phil Robertson said could be seen as insulting.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not saying he did intentionally insult anyone, just that it can easily and understandably be perceived as one.

What's the difference anyway? when did we become such wimps in this country? Someone insults me , I go on about my life. No matter how harsh the insult, it's still just words.

Meh, I wasn't trying to say we should overreact to insults, just got sidetracked about whether what Phil Robertson said could be seen as insulting.

What COULD be seen as insulting and what SHOULD be seen as insulting are two separate things. If I say that conservative principles are more compassionate than liberal principles, most liberals take strong offense to that. If I say that what is purported to be conservative principles are not conservative at all, both conservatives or liberals could take offense to that. You can go right down the line re opinions about marriage and family, religion, wages and benefits, unions, or just pick almost any sociopolitical subject--any opinion you express, pro or con, is likely to be resented by somebody who will take offense.

We as a culture have mostly lost our capacity to disagree and to discuss principles, concepts, values, and ideas without feeling compelled to demonize the opponent. And when disagreeing or resenting the opinion of the other is acted out to punish the other in some way, our environment becomes toxic, destructive, and harmful with the most powerful having the ability to dictate to the weaker what and who they must be in order to be acceptable.

 

[hunarcy]

The funniest is that my insults are far worse because I make them civilly.

I LOVE that. My mother used to call that style of argument the "Southern Slow Death". LOL!

 

[hunarcy]

However, when somebody I befriend betrays me with unkind and untrue remarks behind my back or accuses me of being a liar or thanks those who make dishonest, cruel or unfounded accusations about me, I'm as human as the next person. That does hurt and it is difficult for me to forgive. But would I demand such person be banished from the board if I had the power to do that? No I would not.

It is that which I would like to change in our culture. Dislike, even hate people if you must. We don't have to appreciate what they say or anything about them. But if we want to be allowed our own opinions without fear, common sense says we must allow others their opinions too so long as they do not violate somebody else's rights.

That feeling of betrayal in that sort of circumstance is, I believe, natural and a part of all our natures. But, you seem to handle it with grace because you HAVE an attitude of tolerance. Remember, everyone has an opinion...but not everyone's opinion matters.

 

[hunarcy]

I'm not saying he did intentionally insult anyone, just that it can easily and understandably be perceived as one.

What's the difference anyway? when did we become such wimps in this country? Someone insults me , I go on about my life. No matter how harsh the insult, it's still just words.

Meh, I wasn't trying to say we should overreact to insults, just got sidetracked about whether what Phil Robertson said could be seen as insulting.

I'm sorry...it's those stray thought sirens that keep trying to lure me to the rocks of deflections. I'll try to do better. )

 

[Foxfyre]

So I just did a quick google and this is all over the internet:

Former heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield said he does not think being gay is normal and compared it to a handicap that can be fixed.

Holyfield made the anti-gay comments in the "UK Celebrity Big Brother" house while speaking to reality star Luisa Zissman about gay boxers. When Zissman -- who was seemingly unaware of the fact Orlando Cruz came out in 2012 -- said it would be good for a gay boxer to be public about his sexuality, Holyfield was taken aback.

"What would be good about it?" he asked. "That ain't normal."

After saying that the Bible spells out what's wrong and what's right, Holyfield compared being gay to having a handicap that could be fixed.
Evander Holyfield Says Being Gay Is Not Normal, Compares It To A Handicap

So I have to wonder. Why isn't GLAAD and the Rainbow Coalition all over this? What makes Phil Robertson's opinion so much worse than Holyfield's opinion? Wouldn't you think they would have at least issued a statement?

And again, wouldn't you think they would criticize the dozens of publications who are reporting the remarks over and over again? Who would know Holyfield even said it if it didn't get so much publicity? Isn't it the publicity that would have any chance to 'denigrate' or 'harm' gays if in fact gay people are harmed by an opinion?

Again, I think we need a cultural re-do in America and more good people need to start speaking out and demanding some common sense.

 

[Montrovant]

So I just did a quick google and this is all over the internet:

Former heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield said he does not think being gay is normal and compared it to a handicap that can be fixed.

Holyfield made the anti-gay comments in the "UK Celebrity Big Brother" house while speaking to reality star Luisa Zissman about gay boxers. When Zissman -- who was seemingly unaware of the fact Orlando Cruz came out in 2012 -- said it would be good for a gay boxer to be public about his sexuality, Holyfield was taken aback.

"What would be good about it?" he asked. "That ain't normal."

After saying that the Bible spells out what's wrong and what's right, Holyfield compared being gay to having a handicap that could be fixed.
Evander Holyfield Says Being Gay Is Not Normal, Compares It To A Handicap

So I have to wonder. Why isn't GLAAD and the Rainbow Coalition all over this? What makes Phil Robertson's opinion so much worse than Holyfield's opinion? Wouldn't you think they would have at least issued a statement?

And again, wouldn't you think they would criticize the dozens of publications who are reporting the remarks over and over again? Who would know Holyfield even said it if it didn't get so much publicity? Isn't it the publicity that would have any chance to 'denigrate' or 'harm' gays if in fact gay people are harmed by an opinion?

Again, I think we need a cultural re-do in America and more good people need to start speaking out and demanding some common sense.

To be fair to GLAAD, I don't think Evander Holyfield is very much in the public eye these days. What he says on the subject is unlikely to carry nearly as much weight as Phil Robertson, who is currently at the peak of popularity.

 

[Foxfyre]

So I just did a quick google and this is all over the internet:

Former heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield said he does not think being gay is normal and compared it to a handicap that can be fixed.

Holyfield made the anti-gay comments in the "UK Celebrity Big Brother" house while speaking to reality star Luisa Zissman about gay boxers. When Zissman -- who was seemingly unaware of the fact Orlando Cruz came out in 2012 -- said it would be good for a gay boxer to be public about his sexuality, Holyfield was taken aback.

"What would be good about it?" he asked. "That ain't normal."

After saying that the Bible spells out what's wrong and what's right, Holyfield compared being gay to having a handicap that could be fixed.
Evander Holyfield Says Being Gay Is Not Normal, Compares It To A Handicap

So I have to wonder. Why isn't GLAAD and the Rainbow Coalition all over this? What makes Phil Robertson's opinion so much worse than Holyfield's opinion? Wouldn't you think they would have at least issued a statement?

And again, wouldn't you think they would criticize the dozens of publications who are reporting the remarks over and over again? Who would know Holyfield even said it if it didn't get so much publicity? Isn't it the publicity that would have any chance to 'denigrate' or 'harm' gays if in fact gay people are harmed by an opinion?

Again, I think we need a cultural re-do in America and more good people need to start speaking out and demanding some common sense.

To be fair to GLAAD, I don't think Evander Holyfield is very much in the public eye these days. What he says on the subject is unlikely to carry nearly as much weight as Phil Robertson, who is currently at the peak of popularity.

No doubt. But it still smacks of opportunism and less than authentic outrage when they apply their 'rules' so selectively.

In any case, I am still hoping that reasonableness will prevail and restore a culture in which what people DO that affects others is considered actionable but people are allowed their opinions, convictions, beliefs, and even their biases and prejudices, in peace.

 

[Bfgrn]

So I just did a quick google and this is all over the internet:



So I have to wonder. Why isn't GLAAD and the Rainbow Coalition all over this? What makes Phil Robertson's opinion so much worse than Holyfield's opinion? Wouldn't you think they would have at least issued a statement?

And again, wouldn't you think they would criticize the dozens of publications who are reporting the remarks over and over again? Who would know Holyfield even said it if it didn't get so much publicity? Isn't it the publicity that would have any chance to 'denigrate' or 'harm' gays if in fact gay people are harmed by an opinion?

Again, I think we need a cultural re-do in America and more good people need to start speaking out and demanding some common sense.

To be fair to GLAAD, I don't think Evander Holyfield is very much in the public eye these days. What he says on the subject is unlikely to carry nearly as much weight as Phil Robertson, who is currently at the peak of popularity.

No doubt. But it still smacks of opportunism and less than authentic outrage when they apply their 'rules' so selectively.

In any case, I am still hoping that reasonableness will prevail and restore a culture in which what people DO that affects others is considered actionable but people are allowed their opinions, convictions, beliefs, and even their biases and prejudices, in peace.

You seem incapable of ever putting yourself in someone else's shoes.

Never any acknowledgment of the hate crimes against gays.

 

[Foxfyre]

Whose shoes I put on or hate crimes against gays are not the topic of this thread. I have never condoned hate crimes against anybody and I don't think anybody on this thread is condoning hate crimes. Thanks for understanding.

So what makes Evander Holyfield's public comments that were specifically about gays more tolerable than Phil Robertson's comments about what he believes the Bible teaches?

Or is it possible that neither comment has power to hurt anybody and while we can disagree with what they said and object to the way it was said, is it possible to make it culturally unacceptable to punish people for no crime other than believing something we don't believe?

 

[Bfgrn]

Whose shoes I put on or hate crimes against gays are not the topic of this thread. I have never condoned hate crimes against anybody and I don't think anybody on this thread is condoning hate crimes. Thanks for understanding.

So what makes Evander Holyfield's public comments that were specifically about gays more tolerable than Phil Robertson's comments about what he believes the Bible teaches?

Or is it possible that neither comment has power to hurt anybody and while we can disagree with what they said and object to the way it was said, is it possible to make it culturally unacceptable to punish people for no crime other than believing something we don't believe?

There is quite a difference between what Holyfield said and what Robertson said. Are you unable to discern the difference?

Maybe GLAAD is more tolerant than you wish to paint them.

 

[Montrovant]

So I just did a quick google and this is all over the internet:



So I have to wonder. Why isn't GLAAD and the Rainbow Coalition all over this? What makes Phil Robertson's opinion so much worse than Holyfield's opinion? Wouldn't you think they would have at least issued a statement?

And again, wouldn't you think they would criticize the dozens of publications who are reporting the remarks over and over again? Who would know Holyfield even said it if it didn't get so much publicity? Isn't it the publicity that would have any chance to 'denigrate' or 'harm' gays if in fact gay people are harmed by an opinion?

Again, I think we need a cultural re-do in America and more good people need to start speaking out and demanding some common sense.

To be fair to GLAAD, I don't think Evander Holyfield is very much in the public eye these days. What he says on the subject is unlikely to carry nearly as much weight as Phil Robertson, who is currently at the peak of popularity.

No doubt. But it still smacks of opportunism and less than authentic outrage when they apply their 'rules' so selectively.

In any case, I am still hoping that reasonableness will prevail and restore a culture in which what people DO that affects others is considered actionable but people are allowed their opinions, convictions, beliefs, and even their biases and prejudices, in peace.

Certainly, there may be some hypocrisy involved.

On the other hand, GLAAD may not go after every anti-gay comment made but specifically target those most widely disseminated.

Further, according to the article, the show came out with a statement opposed to Holyfield's words and said that they will monitor to make sure he doesn't say anything similar again. So that could also have something to do with it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I still say who among us has the righteous authority to dictate what somebody else must think, believe, or say? And who should have the righteous authority to organize an angry mob, group, or organization to go after and physically and/or materially punish somebody if they say something that offends us? How does anybody equate that with a tolerant society?

 

[Montrovant]

I still say who among us has the righteous authority to dictate what somebody else must think, believe, or say? And who should have the righteous authority to organize an angry mob, group, or organization to go after and physically and/or materially punish somebody if they say something that offends us? How does anybody equate that with a tolerant society?

That's fine, but as has been said many times, no one is being preventing from thinking, believing, or saying pretty much whatever they want.

Everyone should have the authority to organize to go after someone, so long as the actions they take remain legal.

Whether those actions are righteous is an individual judgement.

None of which, so far as I can tell, has anything to do with why GLAAD might have decided to go after Phil Robertson and not go after Evander Holyfield.

 

[Bfgrn]

I still say who among us has the righteous authority to dictate what somebody else must think, believe, or say? And who should have the righteous authority to organize an angry mob, group, or organization to go after and physically and/or materially punish somebody if they say something that offends us? How does anybody equate that with a tolerant society?

Coming from the group of people who believe they have the righteous authority to dictate who someone can fall in love with, and what a woman is allowed to do with her uterus.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
Barry Goldwater

 

[Foxfyre]

I still say who among us has the righteous authority to dictate what somebody else must think, believe, or say? And who should have the righteous authority to organize an angry mob, group, or organization to go after and physically and/or materially punish somebody if they say something that offends us? How does anybody equate that with a tolerant society?

Coming from the group of people who believe they have the righteous authority to dictate who someone can fall in love with, and what a woman is allowed to do with her uterus.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
Barry Goldwater

This is not a thread about Republicans or Democxrats or social issues of any kind. This thread has to do with freedom of thought, belief, conviction without fear. Try to concentrate on that please.