espn-double standard much??

[4everwarriors]

Why can't we all just be friends, hey?

[Galway Eagle]

The tolerance brigade on one front is fighting for those rights while at the same time showing intolerance to others that have differing viewpoints based on religion.  Yet, according to the very definition of tolerance, that shouldn't be happening. 

Sorry, the Fox News thing I don't get since I don't watch Fox News very often, but even right there you show your "tolerance" for people that may watch Fox News.  Again, the irony....it just keeps on giving.  You don't like views from Fox News or people that espouse them, thus you are not tolerant of those views.  Magically.  Delicious. 

But you said it yourself "fighting" in fighting you choose a side and fight for the cause, the cause is tolerance and because it is a fight there is an enemy the enemy is intolerance and if someone embodies intolerant philosophies then what have they done to earn tolerance themselves? In Christianity the golden rule is treat others the way I wish to be treated so in essence we are following your religion by being intolerant of intolerant views. 

Tolerance brigade just sounded like a term you would have gotten from there.  How did I show my intolerance for people who watch fox news? By asking you not to use those distracting terms? That doesn't seem intolerant it seems like me expressing that I'm easily distracted (MUScoop at work).  You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about me based off of the fact that I said I was distracted.  I'm sure you being you you'll stubbornly deny it but we both know in our hearts it's true. 

Also "magically delicious"? I'm not sure if you're trying to come off like a creepy version of the lucky charms guy but well you succeeded. 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Who is the "intolerance brigade", and where can I sign up?

I'm Catholic, so can I still be a member? Oh, and I'm mostly white, if that matters.

[mu-rara]

Not sure I should even go here but

Why is it that a coach using a homophobic slur (words) gets a 3 game suspension and

Ray Rice gets a 2 game suspension for beating the hell (physical harm) out of his fiancé?

Again:  I am for totally equal treatment for homosexuals and hope Michael Sam has a long successful career in the NFL.

[MU82]

Not sure I should even go here but

Why is it fair that a coach using a homophobic slur (words) gets a 3 game suspension and

Ray Rice gets a 2 game suspension for beating the hell (physical harm) out of his fiancé?

Again:  I am for totally equal treatment for homosexuals and hope Michael Sam has a long successful career in the NFL.

You're right. It's not fair in the least.

[mu-rara]

You're right. It's not fair in the least.

Fair is not what I was asking.  My bad.

I will amend my question.  Why is it right?

[swoopem]

Not sure I should even go here but

Why is it that a coach using a homophobic slur (words) gets a 3 game suspension and

Ray Rice gets a 2 game suspension for beating the hell (physical harm) out of his fiancé?

Again:  I am for totally equal treatment for homosexuals and hope Michael Sam has a long successful career in the NFL.

You can also throw in possession of a plant, 4 game suspension.

[Lennys Tap]

Fair is not what I was asking.  My bad.

I will amend my question.  Why is it right?

It's not fair or right. It's absurd.

I think Kluwe is suing everybody in sight. Maybe that has something to do with it.

[jesmu84]

You can also throw in possession of a plant, 4 game suspension.

Possession of an illegal substance. It's currently federal la. He wasn't holding on to a pine tree. Difference

[Aughnanure]

Fair is not what I was asking.  My bad.

I will amend my question.  Why is it right?

It's not.

[g0lden3agle]

Am I the only one that no longer has any idea what CBB's stance is on any of the issues in this thread???

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Not sure I should even go here but

Why is it that a coach using a homophobic slur (words) gets a 3 game suspension and

Ray Rice gets a 2 game suspension for beating the hell (physical harm) out of his fiancé?

Again:  I am for totally equal treatment for homosexuals and hope Michael Sam has a long successful career in the NFL.

It's ain't right.

[Lennys Tap]

Am I the only one that no longer has any idea what CBB's stance is on any of the issues in this thread???

His stance is as follows:

People who feel that homosexuals are an aberrant abomination or that a husband can order his raped wife to be stoned to death are not homophobic or misogynistic as long as they base those feelings on religious beliefs. Nor are they intolerant. The intolerant ones are those who object to those feelings.

[mu-rara]

His stance is as follows:

People who feel that homosexuals are an aberrant abomination or that a husband can order his raped wife to be stoned to death are not homophobic or misogynistic as long as they base those feelings on religious beliefs. Nor are they intolerant. The intolerant ones are those who object to those feelings.

Lenny, your dislike for Chicos has hit a low.  He his bombastic and has points of view that I disagree with often enough.  There is enough to argue with Chicos about without making it up. 

[Galway Eagle]

Lenny, your dislike for Chicos has hit a low.  He his bombastic and has points of view that I disagree with often enough.  There is enough to argue with Chicos about without making it up. 

Can't tell if this sarcastic or not.  But I thought Lenny was pretty spot on with what ive surmised from Chicos so far

[mu-rara]

Can't tell if this sarcastic or not.  But I thought Lenny was pretty spot on with what ive surmised from Chicos so far

You would.

[brandx]

Lenny, your dislike for Chicos has hit a low.  He his bombastic and has points of view that I disagree with often enough.  There is enough to argue with Chicos about without making it up. 

I think this was part of Golden's point earlier. CBB just wants to argue with everyone. Even when you agree with him, he will still argue.

[brandx]

the short answer is....yup. check out wikipedia.  the very 2nd sentence states-"he received considerable press attention for his public displays of...wait for it...RELIGIOUS FAITH..."  then the side story was that as a heisman trophy winner, a very successful college career and a 1st round nfl pick(25th), he struggled in the nfl and to be very honest with you, i don't know where he is with regards to football.  wikepedia isn't really known for a right wing bias.  as a matter of fact, many articles have been written on wikipedia being a little left leaning at times  

Surgeon, - the whole Tebow thing reminds me of the Vietnam War. We obviously couldn't go to war with the USSR since we both have nuclear weapons. So we fought a proxy war in Vietnam.

The Tebow thing was a proxy war for the left and the right (religious conservatives) to battle it out - it had nothing to do with football.

I have met and talked with Tebow and have nothing but respect for him. He really is a good human being. But because he was a christian, the right latched onto him as the greatest football player in the history of the world (disregarding the fact that people have eyes). Not to be outdone by stupidity, the left then went after Tebow.

Most people, I think, were just disgusted by the whole thing. Both the fact that he was overrated solely because of his religion and that a bad football player was getting so much attention.

[Galway Eagle]

You would.

I know that's what I said.  Was reiterating that really worth a post?

[forgetful]

Ding ding ding.  Unfortunately, that's not how it works, especially for the tolerance lobby.  They immediately go into "you're racist, you're a bigot, you're a religious blah blah" and the tolerance nonsense goes right out the window. It's a defensive mechanism for them but the whole ruse of tolerance from these people is a canard.  It doesn't exist.  It is tolerance for those views for which THEY believe.  If someone has different views, than tolerance no longer exists and the justification for not allowing that tolerance is to label people they don't agree with with various names.

It's quite entertaining.

You tend to like this argument a lot, but IMO it is a poor argument.  When someone comes out and says they wouldn't employ a person because they are homosexual…they are a bigot.  If the reasoning is, because of religious reasons, they are a fundamentalist.  Those are facts.  Calling them that has nothing to do with discrimination or tolerance.

They were entitled to their opinion, they will be criticized accordingly and have no protection under the 1st amendment to repercussions to their employment. 

Now, equivalently, if instead of stating that they would not employ them, they had said something like…that person is a homosexual…they have relationships with the same sex.  No one would have criticized them…again those are stating facts…they went derogatory so they are criticized.

Similarly:

That person is of African American decent, or his skin is darker than the average person…perfectly ok.

That person is a N-word…not ok…subject to criticism.  You say this…by definition you are a racist…that doesn't mean someone that says that is throwing their tolerance out the window.

That person is an intolerant christian fundamentalist….perfectly ok.

(I don't think there is an equivalent…but I'm sure there is…maybe something like they are a religious nut job…not ok/offensive).

You are trying to create arguments that have no merit.

[ChicosBailBonds]

In the age of every athlete thanking God for everything,  pre and post game prayers,  of players kneeling together, many sporting events singing the song God Bless America,  you truly believe the media had on all assault of Tebow because of Christian beliefs?  

This does a nice job


http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/04/30/tim-tebow-jason-collins-and-the-medias-gay-christian-double-standard

[Lennys Tap]

Lenny, your dislike for Chicos has hit a low.  He his bombastic and has points of view that I disagree with often enough.  There is enough to argue with Chicos about without making it up. 

MU - if Chico is consistent in his logic my examples are accurate. Retread what he's written.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Of course Christianity is sexist, or at least some of its branches are. So are the other big religions.

My brother is an Orthodox Jew. His wife is an extremely outspoken, confident woman; if you talked with her for 10 minutes about any subject, you might even think she's a women's libber. Yet she willingly belongs to a religion that makes her sit in the back of the synagogue and makes her ineligible to take an active part in services. So she has chosen to be discriminated against - and I don't think that's what is meant by the Chosen People!

And let's not even start about the sexism in Islam.

Sexist?  Or based on theology and religious dogma?  Here again, your view of sexism trumps their view of religion.  You're placing higher value of one over the other, when the very definition of tolerance is supposed to include religious views as one core principle.

See, not so easy, but you and others (myself included) make value judgments based on our own belief systems.  When we do that, we are bigoted, intolerant, etc, ourselves because we are no longer applying a standard of intolerance.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You're a hospital. Not a "Christian" hospital. You want all the legal tax breaks and profits from publicly-traded insurance companies and grants from the State and payments from public and private sector workers, then you act like a hospital that doesn't discriminate. Deal. Additionally, all these hospitals were providing birth control to employees way before this scary Obamacare started. It's amazing how many of them suddenly "object" to it now.

Please try to argue that Christianity (the religion) is not sexist. Go ahead. Try it. I dare you.

The problems with these "beliefs" is that they're factually incorrect. I don't need your opinions on facts.

Calling something sexist or racist does not make me "intolerant." You're literally arguing we should never point out when someone is a bigot because....the word sounds mean?

Actually, it is a hospital with a Christian source, run privately with the intent to be a hospital but also one that operates on religious ideals.  You may not like that, but that is why so man sued.  Their existence is rooted in their religious beliefs and is material to their entire mission.

Let's cut to the chase, what I'm arguing is the BS nonsense from people who claim to be tolerant and preach how intolerant others are, when in fact there is no such thing.  Everyone is intolerant to some degree and there is bigotry every bit as much from the so called bigot free folks.  It usually stems against religious views, political views, etc, but it is there in spades and it floors me that in your own definition that you provided you cannot see that.  FLOORS ME. 

Finally, as for the Church being sexist, again based on what?  Your views.  In the church's views men were supposed to be in certain positions as priests, etc.  You can call that sexist all you want, but that practice is rooted in theology which you are intolerant of.  Your sexist belief trumps the church's religious or theological beliefs...just ANOTHER example in this thread of the double standard which you and others here have fallen into that trap repeatedly.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Let me get this straight. You're tolerant because you don't call something that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck a duck unless the duck says it's ok to call him a duck. I don't wait for the duck's permission, so I'm intolerant. Fine, but the misogyny that some Muslims practice "based on their religious viewpoints" and the homophobia that some Muslims and Christians practice "based on their religious viewpoints" aren't any more acceptable to me than they would be if it was based on atheistic or totalitarian viewpoints. In your "tolerant" world, Sharia Law would be legitimate, something to be tolerated. No thanks.

LOL

Based on this post and about 3 or 4 others in this thread, you clearly haven't read a word I have said.

First of all, I have not said I am tolerant.  That is my whole point.  I'm not tolerant, I have biases and beliefs about certain things.  What I'm driving home is that others here claiming to be tolerant are just as intolerant under the definition of tolerance, the definition of bigotry, etc.  Your example in this very thread shows that to be the case.  If religious views are part of the definition of being tolerant and you are saying "no thanks", then you aren't being tolerant.

That's ok, because I think that is reality and also what I've been saying this entire thread.  What gets me wound up is all the supposed holier than thou folks who claim to be tolerant, throw out definitions and then violate the VERY DEFINITIONS they throw out.  

So stop claiming you are tolerant, because you aren't.  Just as you said, no thanks.  You aren't tolerant Lenny...which is fine.  Neither is MU82, neither is anyone else on this thread or anywhere else.  So stop shoving it down people's throats how tolerant you are, because no one is.  What troubles many people when we read this tolerant lobby bullshyte proclamations is their own violations of the very nonsense they proclaim to uphold and often don't even have the mental capacity to realize their own intolerant actions.

Thus, the irony remains magically delicious.  We're all intolerant to some extent, because we let our own biases and worldly views enter our thought processes.  You do your best, you act within the law, you try to be fair.  That is what a normal person would do.  It is when the "tolerant" among us tells everyone else how intolerant everyone else is that rubs folks wrong, especially when they are intellectually dishonest from the get go.