WWL Radio tweets homophobic slur about WWL sports reporter Seth Dunlap (2 Viewers)

[mjcouvi]

I think it's like 50/50 that Brees will run for office after his football career (based on some of his comments). He's trying his hardest not to offend anyone. If he knew that this bring your bible to school thing would cause this uproar, then he wouldn't have done it.

 

[Infoman]

Accept your altered post is saying something completely different. So it's not even close to the same thing. Read through it again and see if you can see it.

I doubt you will be able to.

I read it... It's perfectly clear...

Tolerating a person and not what they believe or how they behave... Is Intolerance... no matter what side of the argument you are on.

You see a distinction, because you want there to be one to justify your stance... my words are different... but the premise and the hypocrisy within are the same.

 

[Doug B]

Brees won’t do it again because of the harrassment he received.

No other reason than that?

Not that I'm in a position to know, but: I don't believe Brees even secretly, in his heart of hearts, agrees with James Dobson and others in FoF about homosexuality.

EDIT: Plus, you skipped right over my first paragraph. That was the meat of what I wrote. You wrote of a group we "should all strive to be" as "acting hypocritical". Is that what you were trying to convey?

 

[mjcouvi]

I read it... It's perfectly clear...

Tolerating a person and not what they believe or how they behave... Is Intolerance... no matter what side of the argument you are on.

You see a distinction, because you want there to be one to justify your stance... my words are different... but the premise and the hypocrisy within are the same.

There are many different levels of tolerance. You can tolerate many things a person does, while not tolerating the various things a person believes. Wouldn't you agree?

Now the confusion may come in when you don't tolerate what a person believes, and what form that takes. If you don't tolerate what a person believes, what do you do? Do you act violently? Where does what they do impact how you might act against it?

 

[Brandon13]

I read it... It's perfectly clear...

Tolerating a person and not what they believe or how they behave... Is Intolerance... no matter what side of the argument you are on.

You see a distinction, because you want there to be one to justify your stance... my words are different... but the premise and the hypocrisy within are the same.

Certainly, though, you'd agree that intolerance of bigotry and bigotry itself are not equal forms of intolerance.

 

[sammymvpknight]

No other reason than that?

Not that I'm in a position to know, but: I don't believe Brees even secretly, in his heart of hearts, agrees with James Dobson and others in FoF about homosexuality.

I don’t think that he regrets doing it. I think he’s learned that something like this takes a lot out of you and that you have a priority to maintain your own mental health for the wellbeing of your family. So I don’t think he’ll do this anytime soon. But I highly doubt you’d ever get him to admit that talking to those children was a mistake. It’s something that he valued. And he’s too strong.

 

[Infoman]

There are many different levels of tolerance. You can tolerate many things a person does, while not tolerating the various things a person believes. Wouldn't you agree?

Now the confusion may come in when you don't tolerate what a person believes, and what form that takes. If you don't tolerate what a person believes, what do you do? Do you act violently? Where does what they do impact how you might act against it?

Of course I agree.... that wasn't my point... my point was to show him that what he was saying, was exactly what most Christians say and do from the opposite end of the spectrum... I.e. Tolerate your existence (Christian or Homosexual Person)... but don't Tolerate your Lifestyle Choices or Belief Choices (Christian Faith or Homosexual Lifestyle)...

They are the same, and both still incorporate an equal level of intolerance... where that intolerance is placed or rooted is irrelevant...

And of course, intolerance without action is manageable to a degree... until it's not manageable with action sparked by emotion.

 

[Infoman]

Certainly, though, you'd agree that intolerance of bigotry and bigotry itself are not equal forms of intolerance.

Of course not, but that's not even remotely what we are comparing... or even in the same realm... we are talking about the difference between tolerating Faith and Faith teachings... and tolerating a Persons' Sexual Orientation Choice and Lifestyle... on both ends of the spectrum... Not blind hate vs the tolerance of blind hate.

 

[First Time Poster]

I want to point out how it hasn't gone unnoticed, at least not by me, that in a thread that is supposed to be about the disparaging remarks made about a homosexual man, its the homosexual man who's intentions and mindset gets questioned but the heterosexual Christian male's intentions and mindset should go unquestioned, unchallenged. I mean, how dare we? So Seth gets called a slur and we have "warranted" speculation about his intentions but Drew and the rest of the white, straight Christian males are the real victims of the hate mob.

I mean, I would be disgusted and disappointed but, you know....
<---black dude

 

[mjcouvi]

Of course I agree.... that wasn't my point... my point was to show him that what he was saying, was exactly what most Christians say and do from the opposite end of the spectrum... I.e. Tolerate your existence (Christian or Homosexual Person)... but don't Tolerate your Lifestyle Choices or Belief Choices (Christian Faith or Homosexual Lifestyle)...

They are the same, and both still incorporate an equal level of intolerance... where that intolerance is placed or rooted is irrelevant...

And of course, intolerance without action is manageable to a degree... until it's not manageable with action sparked by emotion.

I actually think y'all are saying pretty much the same thing, just coming across differently. Oh well. When boundaries are so fleeting, it's hard to know which side everyone is on.

 

[coldseat]

I read it... It's perfectly clear...

Tolerating a person and not what they believe or how they behave... Is Intolerance... no matter what side of the argument you are on.

You see a distinction, because you want there to be one to justify your stance... my words are different... but the premise and the hypocrisy within are the same.

I figured you wouldn't be able to see the difference. I'll do a side by side comparison for you.

When I say I do not tolerate the "Christian understanding", what I'm saying is that I don't tolerate the orthodox teaching. In other words, I don't accept it as valid and believe it is damaging to gay people. So I don't tolerate it by accepting that it's okay to believe that. I think it's wrong to believe that, even if all your doing is following your churches teachings.

I can believe that and still tolerate people who are christian. We just don't talk about what they believe, that easy.

When I say I do not tolerate the "Homosexual Lifestyle", what I'm saying is that I don't tolerate the act of homosexual sex. In other words, I don't accept it as valid and believe it is damaging a persons' soul. So I don't tolerate it by accepting that it's okay to commit the act of homosexual sex. I think it's wrong to do that, even if all your doing is following your sexual urges.

I can believe that and still tolerate people who are homosexual. We just don't talk about what they do in their bedrooms, that easy.

In my statement, I don't accept the Christian teaching because it is damaging and hurts gay people (i.e. other people are hurting gays). In your retort, you don't accept the homosexual lifestyle because it is self-damaging to gays (they're hurting themselves). That probably seems like a subtle difference to you, but you couldn't be more wrong. I can decide for myself what is damaging to me, I don't need anybodies opinion on the matter. Much less a random person's religious opinion.

Second, your beliefs come from teaching of a 3rd party, your religion. Where as my "homosexual urges" come from an internal disposition. I think I know myself better than your religion does and I don't need your opinion on the matter.

Like I originally said, not the same thing. Would you accept this?

When I say I do not tolerate the "Heterosexual Lifestyle", what I'm saying is that I don't tolerate the act of heterosexual sex. In other words, I don't accept it as valid and believe it is damaging a persons' soul. So I don't tolerate it by accepting that it's okay to commit the act of heterosexual sex. I think it's wrong to do that, even if all your doing is following your sexual urges.

I can believe that and still tolerate people who are hetrosexual. We just don't talk about what they do in their bedrooms, that easy.

 

[Brandon13]

Of course not, but that's not even remotely what we are comparing... or even in the same realm... we are talking about the difference between tolerating Faith and Faith teachings... and tolerating a Persons' Sexual Orientation Choice and Lifestyle... on both ends of the spectrum... Not blind hate vs the tolerance of blind hate.

(Genuinely not trying to be difficult, just trying to get the distinction you're making)

So does that mean that actively disliking homosexuality (which I'd certainly argue is bigotry, especially when sexual orientation is not a choice) because of faith is more defensible in nature and should be tolerated because it's not a blind belief?

I know I'm probably missing something because I don't think that's what you're saying.

 

[Infoman]

You didn't say don't "accept" in your original post... you said don't "tolerate"... there is difference, especially when your whole premise is tolerance. And, again, intolerance of any form (even if it fits your narrative / opinions / beliefs)... is still intolerance.

 

[sammymvpknight]

I want to point out how it hasn't gone unnoticed, at least not by me, that in a thread that is supposed to be about the disparaging remarks made about a homosexual man, its the homosexual man who's intentions and mindset gets questioned but the heterosexual Christian male's intentions and mindset should go unquestioned, unchallenged. I mean, how dare we? So Seth gets called a slur and we have "warranted" speculation about his intentions but Drew and the rest of the white, straight Christian males are the real victims of the hate mob.

I mean, I would be disgusted and disappointed but, you know....
<---black dude

Everyone agrees that story in the OP is deplorable. For that reason...this thread would have died earlier today. I commented because the open letter to Brees has a good chance to be part of the reason for the story in the OP. Again...not excusable, still deplorable. Brees/FoF/gay right groups is a much more engaging conversation piece. In hindsight I should have probably just commented on the Drew/FoF thread at the bottom of the screen that I didn’t even see has been discussed in detail.

 

[coldseat]

You didn't say don't "accept" in your original post... you said don't "tolerate"... there is difference, especially when your whole premise is tolerance. And, again, intolerance of any form (even if it fits your narrative / opinions / beliefs)... is still intolerance.

I already provided clarification for you on that:

When I say I do not tolerate the "Christian understanding", what I'm saying is that I don't tolerate the orthodox teaching. In other words, I don't accept it as valid ...