Tolerance

[Korriken]

NOTE: I'm about to rustle a lot of jimmies and I offer no apologies. I am not and never will be politically correct and I will always call it as I see it, as I am about to do.

People often speak of 'tolerance'. Even as a child I was always told "You have to tolerate others, even if you don't agree with them." which is fine with me. What you do, what you believe, and what you like/dislike is your own business, as what I do, what I believe, and what I like/dislike is my business.

Last time I checked, tolerance means that even though you disagree with a person's views/origins/lifestyle/etc, you don't give them trouble over it. It does NOT mean that you have to accept them or be compelled to think or act the way they do. You simply live and let live. Problem is, a lot of people and groups forget this part.

I find that I am, with this definition of tolerance, a very tolerant person. If I see 2 guys holding hands, I won't give them any trouble over it. I will hold a door open for people of any race or religion, and all that good stuff. To me, what you do and who are you is YOUR business and I, quite frankly, don't care what you do. We're all talking primates on a giant ball of rock and water that orbits a giant fireball and none of us are getting out of this alive.

That said, I find it amusing how intolerant people are of those who either have a differing opinion, or otherwise share their opinion. Many people, while screaming for others to be tolerant, are actively intolerant of those they don't agree with, or don't agree with them. To me, this is unacceptable. Also, to me, tolerance ends when someone tries to FORCE you to accept them.

What comes next doesn't really affect me, since I don't even watch television, if it wasn't for the principle of the matter, I wouldn't even care.

As many have probably read by now A&E tossed Phil Robertson off the air over this supposedly "anti gay comments" during an interview with GQ magazine. apparently GLAAD got all pissy about it, made some huge deal over it and now he's off the air. This man, according to his own beliefs, makes an honest comment, and suddenly the "you have to be tolerant" crowd shows up and tries to browbeat him into silence, which is precisely what these crowds are supposedly against. Phil doesn't go around town seeking out homosexuals to assault, or shoot, or even demean. No one has a documented instance of this man ever giving an actual homosexual any trouble.

The 'tolerance' crowd can be amazingly intolerant of opinions and beliefs that differ from their own. What does it say about a group that can't even handle the thought of someone disagreeing with them? Given that this man doesn't actively do any harm to gays or their community, he simply disagrees with them, they have no reason to bring harm to this man. the gay community needs to tolerate the beliefs and lifestyles of others or else they should not expect others to tolerate them. It's a 2 way street.

At what point do you reflect on your actions and realize that you have become the enemy you fight against? You cannot demand that others tolerate you while you actively attack those that believe or behave differently than you. Simply accept that there are those who do not condone your ways and move on. Trying to force your views on others is simply intolerant.

[randomperson23]

The contemporary 'tolerance' crowd that you are referring to just makes it look as though they are tolerant, but they will just try as hard as possible to censor dissidents. They will jump on people for service refusal, but when actual violence occurs against them, they usually ignore it.

[Camarohusky]

While you do have a point, I think you miss something very crucial.

The key part of tolerance is keeping your opinions and views to yourself. If you like something, embrace it. If you don't like something, avoid it.

Openly stating that you do not like something is NOT tolerant. It is not merely a statement of one's opinion. Opinions are like assholes (all but a few poor souls have one). We KNOW everyone has an opinion, and we KNOW we would disagree with many of those opinions. The mere having of an opinion is A-OK.

However, once a person goes to the active steps of communicating that opinion, especially in a public forum such as TV, they are no longer having a mere opinion, they are openly putting their opinion out there. They are no longer being tolerant, which by its very nature is passive. They are making an active point, be it for or against something. Saying "My opinion is that homosexuality is wrong" in a public place where a homosexual might hear it is less akin to having an opinion and being tolerant, and mor elike walking up to a homosexual and saying "I hate you." It's an active assertion, while made under the guise of merely expressing an opinion, that often has strong intent (to oppress, insult, threaten, or to rally against, if negative, or to openly foist, coerce, or rally support for, if positive.)

There is another dynamic of which many conservatives completely miss out on, though it is slightly dubious. This is a difference in levels of tolerance. There is tolerance of passive traits, and the tolerance of active actions. In short, many who openly browbeat those they claim are intolerant think that because their intolerance is meant to stop a form of intolerance that does nothing, but seek to harm others, is OK.

Making this a black and white issue seems to me to reek of the powerful claiming victimization in order to avoid actually addressing the faults others point out in them.

[Gario]

At 12/18/13 10:46 PM, Korriken wrote:
As many have probably read by now A&E tossed Phil Robertson off the air over this supposedly "anti gay comments" during an interview with GQ magazine. apparently GLAAD got all pissy about it, made some huge deal over it and now he's off the air. This man, according to his own beliefs, makes an honest comment, and suddenly the "you have to be tolerant" crowd shows up and tries to browbeat him into silence, which is precisely what these crowds are supposedly against. Phil doesn't go around town seeking out homosexuals to assault, or shoot, or even demean. No one has a documented instance of this man ever giving an actual homosexual any trouble.

The 'tolerance' crowd can be amazingly intolerant of opinions and beliefs that differ from their own. What does it say about a group that can't even handle the thought of someone disagreeing with them? Given that this man doesn't actively do any harm to gays or their community, he simply disagrees with them, they have no reason to bring harm to this man. the gay community needs to tolerate the beliefs and lifestyles of others or else they should not expect others to tolerate them. It's a 2 way street.

I do agree with this sentiment, though I completely understand why a network would shut down someone for making a controversial statement. Basically, the network saw his point of view as something that would tear their ratings right down due to the sensitivity of the people watching. I unfortunately can't blame the network for protecting their interests, but I do find it a shame when people are shut down for expressing their views (even if they're views that I don't agree with), but let's face it - freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of the natural consequences of that speech.

He said what he believed in, and I commend his honesty, at least. In the climate that we're in, though, people will react negatively for such opinions. Such is the way of life - as long as people have the right to express an opinion, people will have the right to react to the opinion as they please... and if such a reaction will affect the ratings then a network would be crazy not to respond in kind.

[Korriken]

At 12/18/13 11:41 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

The key part of tolerance is keeping your opinions and views to yourself. If you like something, embrace it. If you don't like something, avoid it.

No, actually, it isn't. If that's the case, then gays must stop parading their lifestyle, literally, down the street. Tolerance is voicing your opinion in a peaceful way without trying to force the hand of others, or silence/kill/destroy them. Silencing dissenting opinion is intolerant. I don't agree with Atheists or Muslims and their opinions on Christianity, but I would never try to silence their opinion. I will, however, disagree with them.

Openly stating that you do not like something is NOT tolerant. It is not merely a statement of one's opinion. Opinions are like assholes (all but a few poor souls have one). We KNOW everyone has an opinion, and we KNOW we would disagree with many of those opinions. The mere having of an opinion is A-OK.

Saying that you don't like something is also NOT intolerant. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and should be allowed to state their opinion as long as things remain peaceful. Someone asked him a question and he gave an honest answer. A society where a man can't answer a question honestly without fear of being attacked for it is not a tolerant society. A tolerant society does NOT silence dissent nor does it try to destroy the person for dissenting.

Phil did not just walk into down with a megaphone and began screaming, "you are going to hell!" Nor would he. If you want a tolerant society, then you have to be prepare to tolerate ALL opinions and lifestyles, within reason. Obviously you can't allow people to do certain things, like assault, kill or harass people. If you denounce Phil's honest opinion about gays, then you also have to denounce gays trying to push their culture on others, atheists for denouncing religion, etc. You would basically have to denounce everyone who doesn't walk the narrow path of "what everyone agrees on" without showing the slightest hint of deviation off of that extremely narrow path.

However, once a person goes to the active steps of communicating that opinion, especially in a public forum such as TV, they are no longer having a mere opinion, they are openly putting their opinion out there.

It's America, we're free to state our opinion. If a man can say, "Hey, I'm all for Gays." You cannot silence the man who says, "I don't believe in it." Of course, going into town and screaming, "you are all going to hell! do you hear me?!" Is over the line since that would disrupt the peace.

Saying "My opinion is that homosexuality is wrong" in a public place where a homosexual might hear it is less akin to having an opinion and being tolerant, and mor elike walking up to a homosexual and saying "I hate you."

This right here is one of the major problems with the 'tolerance' group. Just because someone says they believe homosexuality is wrong is nowhere NEAR like walking up to a person and saying "I hate you." This is nothing more than an attempt to silence dissent. If you really believe this, then you also have to silence the Atheists who say that they believe religion is wrong. If a person can't even handle something as minor as a person saying, "Yeah, I don't condone your lifestyle" Then they need to seal themselves in a pretty little bubble. Naturally, if the person tries to make a scene about a person being gay and begins to harass them, then that's over the line.

There is another dynamic of which many conservatives completely miss out on, though it is slightly dubious. This is a difference in levels of tolerance. There is tolerance of passive traits, and the tolerance of active actions. In short, many who openly browbeat those they claim are intolerant think that because their intolerance is meant to stop a form of intolerance that does nothing, but seek to harm others, is OK.

No, browbeating others over their beliefs is NEVER ok. you can disagree with them, but you must tolerate them. However, silencing others who do not agree with you is intolerant. Demanding others tolerate you while you seek to crush all dissent and destroy those who disagree with you is pure hypocrisy. You may think it's ok over some sort of bullshit "moral imperative" or what have you, but if you try to destroy and silence those who believe that homosexuality is wrong, then you become the intolerant enemy you oppose, and a hypocrite to boot, making you even worse than the person you oppose. You can't rape people to stop rape.

Now, if this person makes active strides to destroy you and your beliefs, then you fight back. For example, the Westboro Baptist Church goes beyond the line of "Disagree but tolerate" into actively trying to harm others and should be opposed as such.

Making this a black and white issue seems to me to reek of the powerful claiming victimization in order to avoid actually addressing the faults others point out in them.

I fail to see how this has anything to do with what I wrote. I'm speaking of those who claim to desire tolerance that shut down anyone who disagrees with them. I'm saying everyone has their opinion. Everyone has a right to their beliefs. No one has a right to shut down dissent. Also, no one has a right to get violent or otherwise disruptive with their opinion and everyone has the right to give honest opinions.

[Korriken]

At 12/18/13 11:42 PM, Gario wrote:

I do agree with this sentiment, though I completely understand why a network would shut down someone for making a controversial statement.

Oh I don't care what A&E thinks or does. I don't even care about the show, or the Robertson family, in particular. I'm not talking about any of that. I'm talking about the people who made a big deal out of a man giving his opinion.

He said what he believed in, and I commend his honesty, at least. In the climate that we're in, though, people will react negatively for such opinions. Such is the way of life - as long as people have the right to express an opinion, people will have the right to react to the opinion as they please.

They're allowed to react, yes. However, that is not the problem. The problem is with people who want to shut down all dissent, all discussion, who want to destroy those who disagree and will actively look for the smallest thing, then make a mountain out of a molehill.

Here's what he said: “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

Read More http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson#ixzz2ntcbTcgo

Homosexuality is a sin. Big deal. Everyone knows this. Why the gay community wants to get bent out of shape over this is beyond me. If this is enough to get people made enough to try and destroy this man, then I need to arm myself to the teeth and go wipe out the New Black Panthers, given that King Samir Shabazz actively advocates killing my kind. however, I could care less what that idiot thinks and I know for all the bluster and hateful speech, that he's simply too big of a pussy to actually try it.

[Feoric]

At 12/19/13 12:39 AM, Korriken wrote: Homosexuality is a sin.

Is it?

[Korriken]

At 12/19/13 12:45 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 12/19/13 12:39 AM, Korriken wrote: Homosexuality is a sin.

Is it?

According to Abrahamic religions? yes. And people believe in the Abrahamic religions. Just because others don't it doesn't give them any more right to silence those that do any more than gives those who do the right to silence those who don't.

Everyone's opinion should be respected, even if you don't like it. No one is the arbiter or moral authority.

[Gario]

Quick question about his interview (since the other source doesn't detail this at all and I have no convenient computer to vheck this on) - was he asked to give his opinion on homosexuality, or did he bring it up himself? If the latter, then I can understand thehomosexual community's response - just randomly blurting something like that is pretty offensive. If he was asked to express his opinion, however (which is something I initially assumed, not sure if it's correct) then the response is very much unwarrented - he readily admits to being a bible-belt Christiam, so what other response is expected other than he doesn't like it? If it's aboit tact... well, he has.a show all about how tactless he is, so that really shouldn't be treated.in any special way here.

Sorry for spelling, this is on a phone, atm.

[Feoric]

At 12/19/13 01:30 AM, Korriken wrote:

According to Abrahamic religions? yes. And people believe in the Abrahamic religions. Just because others don't it doesn't give them any more right to silence those that do any more than gives those who do the right to silence those who don't.

Correction: some people believe in Abrahamic religions, and some people who believe in Abrahamic religious believe homosexuality is sinful, just like some people who believe in Abrahamic religious believe homosexuality is not sinful. Considering the divide between not just common practitioners of Christianity, but also those who are scholars and theologians who use scripture to defend homosexuality, it cannot be as simple as you are making it out to be. That's number one. Number two, who exactly is being "silenced?" Challenged in the public arena is not akin to being silenced; it is an exercise of the rights you claim to support and defend. Public figures like Phil Robertson who are being called out on his controversial stance are being given an opportunity to exercise those same rights to defend his position.

Everyone's opinion should be respected, even if you don't like it. No one is the arbiter or moral authority.

No, not everyone's opinion should be respected. If your opinion is part of a larger network in society that is hindering the advance of civil liberties or otherizes and demonizes a group(s) of people, no, I do not respect your opinion. I respect your freedom of speech, but not your position. You should have the right to say whatever you'd like to say, but so should the people that vehemently disagree with you. No person should tolerate intolerance. As societies evolve, old norms can become taboo and pushed to the fringes. This is happening with the issue of homosexuality, at least in this country. For you to say:

Trying to force your views on others is simply intolerant.

Makes me wonder whether or not you realize that people who hold a similar stance to Phil Robertson (but not necessarily Phil Robertson himself) are actively pushing their views (conservative religious doctrine) onto homosexuals (preventing same sex marriage and otherwise hindering the advancement of gay rights) and are, in fact, the ones that are intolerant here. This is the crux of the issue.

[AxTekk]

I think you miss the distinction between tolerating people and tolerating opinions. As far as I knew, the point of tolerance was to make us respect our fellow man and look past his flaws. He may express a viewpoint I find offensive, in which case I'm free to shoot his view down and show him why he's wrong. If he does so and his JOB is to give opinions, it's a question of whether he's doing his job properly.

There is a problem though, some people really are less about freedom of speech and just about freedom to say things they agree with.

[Feoric]

At 12/19/13 02:14 AM, Gario wrote: Quick question about his interview (since the other source doesn't detail this at all and I have no convenient computer to vheck this on) - was he asked to give his opinion on homosexuality, or did he bring it up himself? If the latter, then I can understand thehomosexual community's response - just randomly blurting something like that is pretty offensive. If he was asked to express his opinion, however (which is something I initially assumed, not sure if it's correct) then the response is very much unwarrented - he readily admits to being a bible-belt Christiam, so what other response is expected other than he doesn't like it? If it's aboit tact... well, he has.a show all about how tactless he is, so that really shouldn't be treated.in any special way here.

Sorry for spelling, this is on a phone, atm.

Here's the controversial part in context:

“We’re Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television,” he tells me. “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”

What does repentance entail? Well, in Robertson’s worldview, America was a country founded upon Christian values (Thou shalt not kill, etc.), and he believes that the gradual removal of Christian symbolism from public spaces has diluted those founding principles. (He and Si take turns going on about why the Ten Commandments ought to be displayed outside courthouses.) He sees the popularity of Duck Dynasty as a small corrective to all that we have lost.

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.”

What, in your mind, is sinful?

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

[Camarohusky]

At 12/19/13 12:29 AM, Korriken wrote: No, actually, it isn't. If that's the case, then gays must stop parading their lifestyle, literally, down the street. Tolerance is voicing your opinion in a peaceful way without trying to force the hand of others, or silence/kill/destroy them. Silencing dissenting opinion is intolerant. I don't agree with Atheists or Muslims and their opinions on Christianity, but I would never try to silence their opinion. I will, however, disagree with them.

There is a VERY big difference between openly showing who oneself is and openly stating one's views of another. The gay person who is parading is merely being who they are. The person expressing an opinion on another is making an open publishimg of their feelings toward another. It is good to be open about who you are. Negative opinions of others rarely do any good at all.

Perhaps the Hippocratic oath ca best sum up tolerance "try to help, but at least do no harm." Outward negative opinions on others does nothing but harm.

Atheism is very fuzzy as while the core tenant of atheism is not believing in a god, the feelings about others vary widely within the group. Being an atheist in now way indicates having negative feelings toward another, and in no way projects that. Being in the KKK does.

Saying that you don't like something is also NOT intolerant.

Passively not liking something is tolerant. Actively expressing to the World dislike for something can very easily cross the line into intolerance, for MANY reasons. It openly asserts that those who are tied to that something are wrong or inferior. It openly makes people tied to that something uncomfortable. It has gone far beyond the self and has affected others. That is hardly tolerant. In short, if you don't have anything nice to say, shut up, or at least have the base level of adulthood to admit you are not being nice or tolerant.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and should be allowed to state their opinion as long as things remain peaceful.

And people are just as well entitled to feel attacked by the mere statement of an opinion. When an opinion carries such inherent baggage (as expressing dislike for homosexuality does) and will likely hurt so many one cannot merely state that opinion and have it remain a benign opinion. For if that person nows, or should know that their opinion will hurt others and they continue to move forward expressing it they have crossed beyond the do no harm boundaries of tolerance.

Someone asked him a question and he gave an honest answer.

That's sad, however, the man should have the basic wherewithall to know when to deflect such a question. He's a TV personality for Gods sake, and not a shocking on either.

Obviously you can't allow people to do certain things, like assault, kill or harass people. If you denounce Phil's honest opinion about gays, then you also have to denounce gays trying to push their culture on others, atheists for denouncing religion, etc.

First off, in a situation where people are constantly hearing that they are not full on people because of their association with something, adding to that by saying you don;t agree with a fundamental part of their lifestyle IS a form of harassment.

If you've travelled onto the religion devates here, you would see that I categorically oppose the atheists who denounce religion. Saying you don't believe it is one thing, saying those who believe it are wrong is another. And NO, sayin you don't believe in God is not the same as saying homosexuality is wrong. It's closer to saying "I would never be homosexual," or "I am straight." The mere expression of ones status is more or less benign. The judgment of others is NEVER benign.

It's America, we're free to state our opinion. If a man can say, "Hey, I'm all for Gays." You cannot silence the man who says, "I don't believe in it." Of course, going into town and screaming, "you are all going to hell! do you hear me?!" Is over the line since that would disrupt the peace.

But you can call out the second guy for having an opinion that actively seeks to hurt others. Short term for actively seeking to hurt others? Intolerance.

This right here is one of the major problems with the 'tolerance' group. Just because someone says they believe homosexuality is wrong is nowhere NEAR like walking up to a person and saying "I hate you."

Another one of these people who thinks that saying "everything you do is stupid" isnt calling someone stupid. Saying "all gays are sinners and will go to Hell" is expressing a VERY strong dislike for homosexuals. "I hate and feel disgust at your lifestyle" can hardly be distinguished from "I hte you" because we ARE our lifestyle. If you hate a big part of who I am, you hate me. You can't separate them at your own convenience.

This is nothing more than an attempt to silence dissent. If you really believe this, then you also have to silence the Atheists who say that they believe religion is wrong. If a person can't even handle something as minor as a person saying, "Yeah, I don't condone your lifestyle" Then they need to seal themselves in a pretty little bubble. Naturally, if the person tries to make a scene about a person being gay and begins to harass them, then that's over the line.

This is an argument that grates on me. I hate it. This is not an attempt to silence anything. I don't want people to stop expressing their opinions, regardless of how popular they are. Go ahead and say offensive things all you want, I don't care. However, don't have the gall to say such things and claim you are being friendly, ro tolerant, or morally proper. It has never been considered tolerant to openly express disdain for one;s lifestyle, regardless of how you do it. A tolerant person would shut the hell up and live and let live. Criticism, while msall beans, is still a negative interjection into another's life. Furthermore, knowingly harming another, even in the smallest level (without any redeeming purpose) is not and has not been for a long time morally proper.

No, browbeating others over their beliefs is NEVER ok. you can disagree with them, but you must tolerate them. However, silencing others who do not agree with you is intolerant.

But calling out the person for being what they are are when it harms others is considered socially OK.

It seems as if you want the right to express your opinions left and right without any consequences or backlash. If someone wants to tell you that by expressing opinions you are knowlingly harming others and therefore being an asshole, they are just as free to do that as you are to express your opinions. Many, because they are seeking to protect others, believe they are more in the right to call you out than you were to make your opinion.

Now, if this person makes active strides to destroy you and your beliefs, then you fight back. For example, the Westboro Baptist Church goes beyond the line of "Disagree but tolerate" into actively trying to harm others and should be opposed as such.

Not really. Westboro has done nothing other than make statements of opinion. They are louder and more in your face about it, but saying "God Hates Fags" at a soldier's funeral is only a stronger form of saying "I disagree with homosexuality." It's the M-60 to the latter's 22. M-60 may be a beast, and far more harmful, but in the end both are guns and when used both will harm.

Also, no one has a right to get violent or otherwise disruptive with their opinion and everyone has the right to give honest opinions.

And everyone has the right to openly and strongly express dislike when someone make a very person dilike of another public.

Freedom to act should never be freedom from consequence.

Also, a white male complaining about the "tolerance police" and claiming to be tolerant when expressing dislike of minorities very much expresses that victim complex I mentioned before.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

Imma just copy and paste what I said in the general thread.

So he is asked about his personal belief on the subject, he says its sinful but doesn't condemn or judge because thats God's duty. here's a quote: "We never, ever judge someone on who's going to heaven, hell. That's the Almighty's job," he told the magazine. "We just love 'em, give 'em the good news about Jesus — whether they're homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort 'em out later, you see what I'm saying?"

so he gets judged by A&E (EVEN THOUGH ITS A DISNEY SUBSIDIARY) and he gets kicked off the show despite his personal beliefs he also believes in being tolerant of others based on his religious beliefs to not judge others, and for someone from his generation thats pretty progressive especially where he lives.

[Camarohusky]

At 12/19/13 08:50 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: he says its sinful but doesn't condemn or judge

Do you not see the contradiction here?

[Korriken]

At 12/19/13 12:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Do you not see the contradiction here?

There is no contradiction, and if you can't handle the fact that someone may not believe your ways are right and proper, then you may want to develop some emotional fortitude. Muslims disapprove of my way of life, but I don't see the need to constantly try to silence them because of it, so long as they don't begin attacking people in the streets.

You don't win a debate by forcefully silencing your opposition by spewing your own hate at them. People have their beliefs and you're just going to have to respect that the same as they are going to have to respect your beliefs, despite not agreeing with them.

[Camarohusky]

At 12/19/13 05:57 PM, Korriken wrote: There is no contradiction,

Calling someone a sinner or sinful IS casting judgment upon them AND is condemning them.

[Camarohusky]

Also, need I say again that there is nothing here trying to stifle debate. I am just calling for people to be honest with themselves.

[Feoric]

At 12/19/13 05:57 PM, Korriken wrote: You don't win a debate by forcefully silencing your opposition by spewing your own hate at them. People have their beliefs and you're just going to have to respect that the same as they are going to have to respect your beliefs, despite not agreeing with them.

Why would anyone willfully accept unequal rights and discrimination just because of someones opinion?

[Korriken]

At 12/19/13 06:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Calling someone a sinner or sinful IS casting judgment upon them AND is condemning them.

In that case, no one can ever say anything bad about anyone, because they would be judging and condemning them. And we must blindly accept everyone no matter what they do.

Or do you call for special protected status for certain people while everyone else is fair game?

At 12/19/13 06:25 PM, Feoric wrote:

Why would anyone willfully accept unequal rights and discrimination just because of someones opinion?

I wouldn't expect them to. Of course, trying to forcefully silence those who you don't agree with you or condone your actions won't sway anyone.

[Feoric]

At 12/19/13 07:48 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 12/19/13 06:25 PM, Feoric wrote:

Why would anyone willfully accept unequal rights and discrimination just because of someones opinion?

I wouldn't expect them to. Of course, trying to forcefully silence those who you don't agree with you or condone your actions won't sway anyone.

Who is being forcefully silenced? And how?

[Camarohusky]

At 12/19/13 07:48 PM, Korriken wrote: In that case, no one can ever say anything bad about anyone, because they would be judging and condemning them.

Only if they want to be tolerant.

And we must blindly accept everyone no matter what they do.

Nope. No one is saying that.

Or do you call for special protected status for certain people while everyone else is fair game?

WOE IS ME!!!!! Being a white male is SO DAMN HARD!! The World is out to get me!

You are free to be an ass. You are free to be intolerant. Hell, damn near everyone is intolerant at sometime or another. I sure as hell know I have been, a lot.

However, you cannot outwardly judge others and judge them whilst considering yourself tolerant on the issue.

[Korriken]

At 12/20/13 01:48 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

Only if they want to be tolerant.

This right here is the problem with society. Discussion is shut down and a barrier of silence is erected, and for what? someone's feelings might get hurt? Give me a break. If you want to progress society, you can't do it by duct taping everyone's mouth shut. That only breeds resentment and fuels the very ignorance and hate that comes from both sides.

Nope. No one is saying that.

Yes, you are. Otherwise, you're being intolerant.

WOE IS ME!!!!! Being a white male is SO DAMN HARD!! The World is out to get me!

And this is why I can't take you or your kind seriously. Ever. Obviously, you have a problem, given that you're basically repeating, 'Shut up, I'll not tolerate any open dissent" coupled with this bullshit. You don't want discussion, you want obedience, silence, and for everyone to accept you. Not going to happen.

You are free to be an ass. You are free to be intolerant. Hell, damn near everyone is intolerant at sometime or another. I sure as hell know I have been, a lot.

However, you cannot outwardly judge others and judge them whilst considering yourself tolerant on the issue.

You can disagree with someone without being judgmental. You can believe that someone is wrong without being judgmental. If you can't handle someone disagreeing with you, then you should never, ever state an opinion, keep your head down and eyes forward. For the rest of us, we're all for discussion of the problems at hand.

[AxTekk]

At 12/19/13 05:57 PM, Korriken wrote: There is no contradiction, and if you can't handle the fact that someone may not believe your ways are right and proper, then you may want to develop some emotional fortitude. Muslims disapprove of my way of life, but I don't see the need to constantly try to silence them because of it, so long as they don't begin attacking people in the streets.

Grade A bullshit. If a Muslim anchor went on record in America saying the same thing about Christians you and I both know he'd get his job taken (quite rightly).

[Korriken]

At 12/20/13 03:58 AM, AxTekk wrote:

Grade A bullshit. If a Muslim anchor went on record in America saying the same thing about Christians you and I both know he'd get his job taken (quite rightly).

I'm not getting into hypotheticals and Phil being tossed off the show is beside the point anyway. The point is these groups that get their panties in a wad over even the slightest hint of a perceived offense in an attempt stifle debate and strong-arm people into accepting their ways.

[AxTekk]

At 12/20/13 10:16 AM, Korriken wrote: I'm not getting into hypotheticals and Phil being tossed off the show is beside the point anyway. The point is these groups that get their panties in a wad over even the slightest hint of a perceived offense in an attempt stifle debate and strong-arm people into accepting their ways.

Fair enough, but my point is that gays are no different to your standard Christians in that respect. True, they swing above their weight in terms of their numbers, but if you look at the genuine oppression they used to face, that's just something they had to learn to do.

I think I might have misunderstood you - if this case doesn't show the problem you see gay people creating, can you point to a case that does?

[Korriken]

At 12/20/13 10:32 AM, AxTekk wrote:

Fair enough, but my point is that gays are no different to your standard Christians in that respect.

This is actually very true, which is what I find amusing.

True, they swing above their weight in terms of their numbers, but if you look at the genuine oppression they used to face, that's just something they had to learn to do.

Maybe, but howling every time you perceive some sort of slight indignation and trying to duct tape everyone's mouth shut isn't going to win the day, nor is it going to change peoples' minds. The only thing that accomplishes is driving people away from your cause and making them apathetic to your plight because you simple sound like you're looking for any reason at all to complain for attention.

I think I might have misunderstood you - if this case doesn't show the problem you see gay people creating, can you point to a case that does?

Not sure what you mean by this, maybe I should elaborate.

Ok, if a group like GLAAD, or NAACP, or any other of these 'rights' groups want to complain about a real problem, fine, great, it's a real problem and let's discuss and deal with it. If a group of people are going around and saying how people should attack and harm Gays, Blacks, Mexicans, or any other group, then this needs to be brought to everyone's attention and a stop be put to it because our society should be above such things.

However, to go apeshit over, say, South Park making fun of someone, it makes you look like an idiot, because South Park aims to offend EVERYONE. South Park doesn't single out anyone, they make a mockery of everyone and everything. To think you deserve some sort of exemption because you're Gay, Black, Muslim, Christian, White, Male, Female, etc, is just being a whiner, especially if you didn't complain, or even laughed as everyone else was being mocked, then want to get angry when it's your own.

Or even worse, when people bitch because the villain of a movie is Gay, Black, Mexican, etc. Here is a perfect example, Cleft Lip groups were outraged because Butch Cavendish in the new Lone Ranger movie had, wait for it, a cleft lip! You can make your villain into whatever you like but don't you DARE give him a cleft lip!

[AxTekk]

At 12/20/13 11:32 AM, Korriken wrote: Not sure what you mean by this, maybe I should elaborate [...]

VERY true. Didn't get what you were talking about at first, but I think I follow now.

I think the thing is that when you become a professional gay guy/ professional cleft lipped person/ etc there's a strong temptation to see everything through that lens and blow a lot of stuff out of proportion. Other side of things is that by their nature special interests groups only talk about their special interest. For example, Al Sharpton might go see Django Unchained, think it was an incredible piece of cinema etc but only find the excessive use of the word n*gger worth talking about when he's doing his race representative thing.

This is really really stupid because they end up alienating everyone who happens not to have such tunnel vision.

I think this is less a problem of tolerance than perspective, although I doubt there's actually such a clear dividing line between the two.

[Camarohusky]

At 12/20/13 02:45 AM, Korriken wrote: This right here is the problem with society. Discussion is shut down and a barrier of silence is erected, and for what? someone's feelings might get hurt? Give me a break. If you want to progress society, you can't do it by duct taping everyone's mouth shut. That only breeds resentment and fuels the very ignorance and hate that comes from both sides.

If you want to say your opinion at the risk of having others not like you for it, GO AHEAD. I do this ALL THE TIME. However, I don't lie to myself as if what I'm saying is 100% benign and get appalled when others react based on their own opinions. Oh, I also don;t pull the petuant spoiled kid and throw a tantrum when I can't have all the power and gloat about it too.

Yes, you are. Otherwise, you're being intolerant.

... What? did you even read? First off, acceptance is NOT a criterion for tolerance. Like I said before, it's more akin to "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all."

And this is why I can't take you or your kind seriously. Ever. Obviously, you have a problem, given that you're basically repeating, 'Shut up, I'll not tolerate any open dissent" coupled with this bullshit. You don't want discussion, you want obedience, silence, and for everyone to accept you. Not going to happen.

I'm not trying to silence you. I'm trying to get you to realize how stupid your argument sounds. You have ALL the power in society (compared to those with equal monetary and education means). Stop acting like the minority powers that be are conspiring to hurt you. Just be honest to yourself and everyone else and admit that when you publicly say you don't like how someone lives their life, you are not being tolerant. Hell, you may be RIGHT, but that's not the metric here.

You can disagree with someone without being judgmental. You can believe that someone is wrong without being judgmental. If you can't handle someone disagreeing with you, then you should never, ever state an opinion, keep your head down and eyes forward. For the rest of us, we're all for discussion of the problems at hand.

There's a big difference between disagreeing, and casting judgment. Saying "I'm not homosexual and will never be" is disagreeing. Saying "Homosexuals are sinners" is a assertion and a judgment. Ending a judgment with "But I don't judge" or "It's not my place to judge" doesn't erase the judgment. It may hide it, and give you a specious back pedal excuse, but a judgment's a judgement no mater how you couch it. Think of it like the "bless your heart" from the South. If I said "You're a really dumb one, aren't you. Bless you little heart." Have I NOT just called you stupid, even though I couched in bless your heart? If I call your lifestyle a sinner's lifestyle and then say "t;s just my oinion, an di don't judge" have I not just called you a sinner?

It's all about honesty. Don't lie, or fake, or faggily Spanish Soccer your way out of it (I know I'm being an offensive ass here) out of the truth. Be a real person and a real man and be honest with what you do. If you're saying something that may hurt others (such as judging their lifestyle negatively) at least have the basic level of testicles to admit you're likely gonna cause someone some harm.

[Korriken]

At 12/20/13 11:54 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

If you want to say your opinion at the risk of having others not like you for it, GO AHEAD. I do this ALL THE TIME. However, I don't lie to myself as if what I'm saying is 100% benign and get appalled when others react based on their own opinions. Oh, I also don;t pull the petuant spoiled kid and throw a tantrum when I can't have all the power and gloat about it too.

And that is what we call discussion. Of course, reaction should always be proportional to what is said.

Right way to do it.
Man A: I believe that is wrong. Man B: I don't see why. Man A: This is why. Man B: I see your point, but I think your position is wrong.

Wrong way to do it.
Man A: I believe that is wrong. Man B: YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP YOUR STUPID BIGOTED RACIST MOTHER FUCKER! YOU DESERVE TO HAVE EVERYTHING TAKEN FROM YOU AND YOU NEED TO DISAPPEAR AND NEVER SHOW YOUR FACE IN SOCIETY AGAIN!

I'm not trying to silence you. I'm trying to get you to realize how stupid your argument sounds. You have ALL the power in society (compared to those with equal monetary and education means). Stop acting like the minority powers that be are conspiring to hurt you. Just be honest to yourself and everyone else and admit that when you publicly say you don't like how someone lives their life, you are not being tolerant. Hell, you may be RIGHT, but that's not the metric here.

Who said the minority powers that be were conspiring? My entire complain is about these group that make a mountain out of a molehill.

There's a big difference between disagreeing, and casting judgment. Saying "I'm not homosexual and will never be" is disagreeing. Saying "Homosexuals are sinners" is a assertion and a judgment.

Saying that, according to <religious text> that homosexuals are sinners is not judgment. doing something like calling them disgusting subhuman trash, however, would be.

Think of it like the "bless your heart" from the South. If I said "You're a really dumb one, aren't you. Bless you little heart." Have I NOT just called you stupid, even though I couched in bless your heart? If I call your lifestyle a sinner's lifestyle and then say "t;s just my oinion, an di don't judge" have I not just called you a sinner?

First of all, no one would say, "You're a really dumb one, aren't you. Bless you little heart."

Also, Would you not call a drunkard a sinner? how about a liar? a murderer? adulterer? of course you would. According to the viewpoint of someone else, according to their beliefs, they are sinners.

It's all about honesty. Don't lie, or fake, or faggily Spanish Soccer your way out of it (I know I'm being an offensive ass here) out of the truth. Be a real person and a real man and be honest with what you do. If you're saying something that may hurt others (such as judging their lifestyle negatively) at least have the basic level of testicles to admit you're likely gonna cause someone some harm.

Maybe, and other can be honest with themselves as well. Does someone else's opinion really matter so much that you feel compelled to attempt to destroy that person for their opinion, if they're not actively trying to force their unsolicited opinion down your throat?

Does it really matter so much that someone who makes fun of everyone finally got around to making fun of you? You were not complaining when they were making fun of people you didn't like, why should it bother you now?

Does it really matter so much that some movie portrays a villain that somehow resembles you?

This is the problem I have. people who get bent out of shape over trivial issues. Now, if someone made a tv show that constantly singles out your group and rails against them all the time, then you have a case. If a movie studio only put your kind in as the villain and had the hero always be from the countergroup, then you have a case. If someone is constantly ramming their opinion down your throat, then you have a case.

However, If you want to get mad and rage over every slight offense, then you should not be taken seriously and dismissed as a whiner.