Most intolerant poster in the forums?

[A18]

Does anyone here still think opebo is a serious poster? Because if so, that person is more than a little dumb.

[Max Power]

No, I don't. Only BRTD and Killerpolo probably do.

[opebo]

By Opeo standard I amk an "intolerant". But then again, most people are by his standards.

Yes, PBrunsel, you are an intolerant.

By contrast I am the foremost advocate of tolerance on this board - hence my constant remonstrating against the ideology of intolerance (religion).

Hahahaha. Foremost advocate. Prove it, prude.

I like all forms of sexuality and 'approve of' any and all private behaviours.  Also I hate anyone who doesn't have a similarly tolerant attitude.

Hahahahahahaha... in defending your tolerance you declare that you hate anyone who disagrees with your views.

I have no words.

Tolerance doesn't require that we accept the intolerant. 

[KillerPollo]

By Opeo standard I amk an "intolerant". But then again, most people are by his standards.

Yes, PBrunsel, you are an intolerant.

By contrast I am the foremost advocate of tolerance on this board - hence my constant remonstrating against the ideology of intolerance (religion).

Hahahaha. Foremost advocate. Prove it, prude.

I like all forms of sexuality and 'approve of' any and all private behaviours.  Also I hate anyone who doesn't have a similarly tolerant attitude.

You hate people? Well, you're an intolerant just like anyone else, then. And if you so arrogantly affirm that you approve of all private behaviours, religion falls into 'private' behaviour, prude.

No, it doesn't.  It includes such statements as 'right', 'wrong', 'sin', and various condemnations of others for their private acts.  In other words it makes the claim of the existence of an objective morality.  Therefore any tolerant person should hate them, or at least dispassionately feed them to the lions.

It's private behaviour, prude. If you were tolerant of everything, you would be tolerant of religion too. So I can only conclude that you are an intolerant prude.

I smell Hypocrisy!

[Gabu]

By Opeo standard I amk an "intolerant". But then again, most people are by his standards.

Yes, PBrunsel, you are an intolerant.

By contrast I am the foremost advocate of tolerance on this board - hence my constant remonstrating against the ideology of intolerance (religion).

Hahahaha. Foremost advocate. Prove it, prude.

I like all forms of sexuality and 'approve of' any and all private behaviours.  Also I hate anyone who doesn't have a similarly tolerant attitude.

Hahahahahahaha... in defending your tolerance you declare that you hate anyone who disagrees with your views.

I have no words.

Tolerance doesn't require that we accept the intolerant. 

Let's check the definition of "tolerant":

tolerance
1. adj.    a. Disposed or inclined to tolerate or bear with something; practising or favouring toleration.

No, I'm fairly sure that not tolerating absolutely everything you don't like makes you intolerant.

[opebo]

By Opeo standard I amk an "intolerant". But then again, most people are by his standards.

Yes, PBrunsel, you are an intolerant.

By contrast I am the foremost advocate of tolerance on this board - hence my constant remonstrating against the ideology of intolerance (religion).

Hahahaha. Foremost advocate. Prove it, prude.

I like all forms of sexuality and 'approve of' any and all private behaviours.  Also I hate anyone who doesn't have a similarly tolerant attitude.

You hate people? Well, you're an intolerant just like anyone else, then. And if you so arrogantly affirm that you approve of all private behaviours, religion falls into 'private' behaviour, prude.

No, it doesn't.  It includes such statements as 'right', 'wrong', 'sin', and various condemnations of others for their private acts.  In other words it makes the claim of the existence of an objective morality.  Therefore any tolerant person should hate them, or at least dispassionately feed them to the lions.

It's private behaviour, prude. If you were tolerant of everything, you would be tolerant of religion too. So I can only conclude that you are an intolerant prude.

I smell Hypocrisy!

Not at all.  As a tolerant, I quite naturally must oppose intolerants.  It is only reasonable.

[KillerPollo]

By Opeo standard I amk an "intolerant". But then again, most people are by his standards.

Yes, PBrunsel, you are an intolerant.

By contrast I am the foremost advocate of tolerance on this board - hence my constant remonstrating against the ideology of intolerance (religion).

Hahahaha. Foremost advocate. Prove it, prude.

I like all forms of sexuality and 'approve of' any and all private behaviours.  Also I hate anyone who doesn't have a similarly tolerant attitude.

Hahahahahahaha... in defending your tolerance you declare that you hate anyone who disagrees with your views.

I have no words.

Tolerance doesn't require that we accept the intolerant. 

Let's check the definition of "tolerant":

tolerance
1. adj.    a. Disposed or inclined to tolerate or bear with something; practising or favouring toleration.

No, I'm fairly sure that not tolerating absolutely everything you don't like makes you intolerant.

Pwnd!

[Gabu]

By Opeo standard I amk an "intolerant". But then again, most people are by his standards.

Yes, PBrunsel, you are an intolerant.

By contrast I am the foremost advocate of tolerance on this board - hence my constant remonstrating against the ideology of intolerance (religion).

Hahahaha. Foremost advocate. Prove it, prude.

I like all forms of sexuality and 'approve of' any and all private behaviours.  Also I hate anyone who doesn't have a similarly tolerant attitude.

You hate people? Well, you're an intolerant just like anyone else, then. And if you so arrogantly affirm that you approve of all private behaviours, religion falls into 'private' behaviour, prude.

No, it doesn't.  It includes such statements as 'right', 'wrong', 'sin', and various condemnations of others for their private acts.  In other words it makes the claim of the existence of an objective morality.  Therefore any tolerant person should hate them, or at least dispassionately feed them to the lions.

It's private behaviour, prude. If you were tolerant of everything, you would be tolerant of religion too. So I can only conclude that you are an intolerant prude.

I smell Hypocrisy!

Not at all.  As a tolerant, I quite naturally must oppose intolerants.  It is only reasonable.

As a tolerant person, you must be intolerant?  That doesn't exactly follow.

[opebo]

By Opeo standard I amk an "intolerant". But then again, most people are by his standards.

Yes, PBrunsel, you are an intolerant.

By contrast I am the foremost advocate of tolerance on this board - hence my constant remonstrating against the ideology of intolerance (religion).

Hahahaha. Foremost advocate. Prove it, prude.

I like all forms of sexuality and 'approve of' any and all private behaviours.  Also I hate anyone who doesn't have a similarly tolerant attitude.

Hahahahahahaha... in defending your tolerance you declare that you hate anyone who disagrees with your views.

I have no words.

Tolerance doesn't require that we accept the intolerant. 

Let's check the definition of "tolerant":

tolerance
1. adj.    a. Disposed or inclined to tolerate or bear with something; practising or favouring toleration.

No, I'm fairly sure that not tolerating absolutely everything you don't like makes you intolerant.

And yet one inevitably finds oneself opposed to and in disagreement with those who disapprove of things and believe in objective morality.  A paradox!

[Max Power]

opebo, BRTD, Statesrights, and PD (Why didn't any body mention him!!!)

Oh, and PBrunsel. He scares me so much that I am afraid he will hunt me down and slap me. Just joking

[Everett]

By Opeo standard I amk an "intolerant". But then again, most people are by his standards.

Yes, PBrunsel, you are an intolerant.

By contrast I am the foremost advocate of tolerance on this board - hence my constant remonstrating against the ideology of intolerance (religion).

Hahahaha. Foremost advocate. Prove it, prude.

I like all forms of sexuality and 'approve of' any and all private behaviours.  Also I hate anyone who doesn't have a similarly tolerant attitude.

Hahahahahahaha... in defending your tolerance you declare that you hate anyone who disagrees with your views.

I have no words.

Tolerance doesn't require that we accept the intolerant. 

You aren't being tolerant of intolerance, opebo. That's not tolerance.

[opebo]

By Opeo standard I amk an "intolerant". But then again, most people are by his standards.

Yes, PBrunsel, you are an intolerant.

By contrast I am the foremost advocate of tolerance on this board - hence my constant remonstrating against the ideology of intolerance (religion).

Hahahaha. Foremost advocate. Prove it, prude.

I like all forms of sexuality and 'approve of' any and all private behaviours.  Also I hate anyone who doesn't have a similarly tolerant attitude.

You hate people? Well, you're an intolerant just like anyone else, then. And if you so arrogantly affirm that you approve of all private behaviours, religion falls into 'private' behaviour, prude.

No, it doesn't.  It includes such statements as 'right', 'wrong', 'sin', and various condemnations of others for their private acts.  In other words it makes the claim of the existence of an objective morality.  Therefore any tolerant person should hate them, or at least dispassionately feed them to the lions.

It's private behaviour, prude. If you were tolerant of everything, you would be tolerant of religion too. So I can only conclude that you are an intolerant prude.

I smell Hypocrisy!

Not at all.  As a tolerant, I quite naturally must oppose intolerants.  It is only reasonable.

As a tolerant person, you must be intolerant?  That doesn't exactly follow.

Of course it does.  By definition a tolerant is the opposite of and opposed to the intolerant.

[Everett]

By Opeo standard I amk an "intolerant". But then again, most people are by his standards.

Yes, PBrunsel, you are an intolerant.

By contrast I am the foremost advocate of tolerance on this board - hence my constant remonstrating against the ideology of intolerance (religion).

Hahahaha. Foremost advocate. Prove it, prude.

I like all forms of sexuality and 'approve of' any and all private behaviours.  Also I hate anyone who doesn't have a similarly tolerant attitude.

You hate people? Well, you're an intolerant just like anyone else, then. And if you so arrogantly affirm that you approve of all private behaviours, religion falls into 'private' behaviour, prude.

No, it doesn't.  It includes such statements as 'right', 'wrong', 'sin', and various condemnations of others for their private acts.  In other words it makes the claim of the existence of an objective morality.  Therefore any tolerant person should hate them, or at least dispassionately feed them to the lions.

It's private behaviour, prude. If you were tolerant of everything, you would be tolerant of religion too. So I can only conclude that you are an intolerant prude.

I smell Hypocrisy!

Not at all.  As a tolerant, I quite naturally must oppose intolerants.  It is only reasonable.

As a tolerant person, you must be intolerant?  That doesn't exactly follow.

Of course it does.  By definition a tolerant is the opposite of and opposed to the intolerant.

And where is that definition, prude?

[opebo]

By Opeo standard I amk an "intolerant". But then again, most people are by his standards.

Yes, PBrunsel, you are an intolerant.

By contrast I am the foremost advocate of tolerance on this board - hence my constant remonstrating against the ideology of intolerance (religion).

Hahahaha. Foremost advocate. Prove it, prude.

I like all forms of sexuality and 'approve of' any and all private behaviours.  Also I hate anyone who doesn't have a similarly tolerant attitude.

Hahahahahahaha... in defending your tolerance you declare that you hate anyone who disagrees with your views.

I have no words.

Tolerance doesn't require that we accept the intolerant. 

You aren't being tolerant of intolerance, opebo. That's not tolerance.

One cannot be tolerant of intolerance, everett, without thereby being intolerant - in other words abetting and aquiesing to intolerance.

[Gabu]

And yet one inevitably finds oneself opposed to and in disagreement with those who disapprove of things and believe in objective morality.  A paradox!

How is that a paradox?  If you're tolerant, you tolerate things.  If you don't tolerate things, you're intolerant.  You don't tolerate things, therefore, by defintion, you're intolerant.

Being tolerant means that you accept and tolerate the fact that people around you hold opinions that you disagree with and find distasteful.  You don't have to agree with them; you just have to tolerate them.  Being tolerant does not mean that you want to kill everyone you don't like.  You're just blatantly making up definitions for "tolerant" purely so you can label yourself as such.

[KillerPollo]

By Opeo standard I amk an "intolerant". But then again, most people are by his standards.

Yes, PBrunsel, you are an intolerant.

By contrast I am the foremost advocate of tolerance on this board - hence my constant remonstrating against the ideology of intolerance (religion).

Hahahaha. Foremost advocate. Prove it, prude.

I like all forms of sexuality and 'approve of' any and all private behaviours.  Also I hate anyone who doesn't have a similarly tolerant attitude.

Hahahahahahaha... in defending your tolerance you declare that you hate anyone who disagrees with your views.

I have no words.

Tolerance doesn't require that we accept the intolerant. 

You aren't being tolerant of intolerance, opebo. That's not tolerance.

One cannot be tolerant of intolerance, everett, without thereby being intolerant - in other words abetting and aquiesing to intolerance.

Ok if you do not tolerate the opinions of a close-minded individual, than you're also intolerant.
Intolerant does not always mean close-minded.

[opebo]

By Opeo standard I amk an "intolerant". But then again, most people are by his standards.

Yes, PBrunsel, you are an intolerant.

By contrast I am the foremost advocate of tolerance on this board - hence my constant remonstrating against the ideology of intolerance (religion).

Hahahaha. Foremost advocate. Prove it, prude.

I like all forms of sexuality and 'approve of' any and all private behaviours.  Also I hate anyone who doesn't have a similarly tolerant attitude.

You hate people? Well, you're an intolerant just like anyone else, then. And if you so arrogantly affirm that you approve of all private behaviours, religion falls into 'private' behaviour, prude.

No, it doesn't.  It includes such statements as 'right', 'wrong', 'sin', and various condemnations of others for their private acts.  In other words it makes the claim of the existence of an objective morality.  Therefore any tolerant person should hate them, or at least dispassionately feed them to the lions.

It's private behaviour, prude. If you were tolerant of everything, you would be tolerant of religion too. So I can only conclude that you are an intolerant prude.

I smell Hypocrisy!

Not at all.  As a tolerant, I quite naturally must oppose intolerants.  It is only reasonable.

As a tolerant person, you must be intolerant?  That doesn't exactly follow.

Of course it does.  By definition a tolerant is the opposite of and opposed to the intolerant.

And where is that definition, prude?

 

The prefix 'in'?

Dictionary.com:
in-1 or il- or im- or ir-
pref.
Not: inarticulate. Before l, in- is usually assimilated to il-; before r to ir-; and before b, m, and p to im-. See Usage Note at un-1.

[Everett]

By Opeo standard I amk an "intolerant". But then again, most people are by his standards.

Yes, PBrunsel, you are an intolerant.

By contrast I am the foremost advocate of tolerance on this board - hence my constant remonstrating against the ideology of intolerance (religion).

Hahahaha. Foremost advocate. Prove it, prude.

I like all forms of sexuality and 'approve of' any and all private behaviours.  Also I hate anyone who doesn't have a similarly tolerant attitude.

Hahahahahahaha... in defending your tolerance you declare that you hate anyone who disagrees with your views.

I have no words.

Tolerance doesn't require that we accept the intolerant. 

You aren't being tolerant of intolerance, opebo. That's not tolerance.

One cannot be tolerant of intolerance, everett, without thereby being intolerant - in other words abetting and aquiesing to intolerance.

And where exactly is that definition, prude? Are you simply making up nonsense again to satisfy your contradictory and hypocritical tastes? Or are you unable to understand a simple dictionary definition?

[Everett]

By Opeo standard I amk an "intolerant". But then again, most people are by his standards.

Yes, PBrunsel, you are an intolerant.

By contrast I am the foremost advocate of tolerance on this board - hence my constant remonstrating against the ideology of intolerance (religion).

Hahahaha. Foremost advocate. Prove it, prude.

I like all forms of sexuality and 'approve of' any and all private behaviours.  Also I hate anyone who doesn't have a similarly tolerant attitude.

You hate people? Well, you're an intolerant just like anyone else, then. And if you so arrogantly affirm that you approve of all private behaviours, religion falls into 'private' behaviour, prude.

No, it doesn't.  It includes such statements as 'right', 'wrong', 'sin', and various condemnations of others for their private acts.  In other words it makes the claim of the existence of an objective morality.  Therefore any tolerant person should hate them, or at least dispassionately feed them to the lions.

It's private behaviour, prude. If you were tolerant of everything, you would be tolerant of religion too. So I can only conclude that you are an intolerant prude.

I smell Hypocrisy!

Not at all.  As a tolerant, I quite naturally must oppose intolerants.  It is only reasonable.

As a tolerant person, you must be intolerant?  That doesn't exactly follow.

Of course it does.  By definition a tolerant is the opposite of and opposed to the intolerant.

And where is that definition, prude?

 

The prefix 'in'?

Dictionary.com:
in-1 or il- or im- or ir-
pref.
Not: inarticulate. Before l, in- is usually assimilated to il-; before r to ir-; and before b, m, and p to im-. See Usage Note at un-1.

Show me where the definiton of tolerant says that, in order to be tolerant, you must be intolerant of intolerance.

[opebo]

And yet one inevitably finds oneself opposed to and in disagreement with those who disapprove of things and believe in objective morality.  A paradox!

How is that a paradox?  If you're tolerant, you tolerate things.  If you don't tolerate things, you're intolerant.  You don't tolerate things, therefore, by defintion, you're intolerant.

Being tolerant means that you accept and tolerate the fact that people around you hold opinions that you disagree with and find distasteful.  You don't have to agree with them; you just have to tolerate them. 

Ah, but you see I do tolerate them on an intellectual level.  I only want them slaughtered by lions because of the practical threat the represent, due to their intolerance.  In other words, I'm arguing self defence, not objective morality.

[Everett]

And yet one inevitably finds oneself opposed to and in disagreement with those who disapprove of things and believe in objective morality.  A paradox!

How is that a paradox?  If you're tolerant, you tolerate things.  If you don't tolerate things, you're intolerant.  You don't tolerate things, therefore, by defintion, you're intolerant.

Being tolerant means that you accept and tolerate the fact that people around you hold opinions that you disagree with and find distasteful.  You don't have to agree with them; you just have to tolerate them. 

Ah, but you see I do tolerate them on an intellectual level.  I only want them slaughtered by lions because of the practical threat the represent, due to their intolerance.  In other words, I'm arguing self defence, not objective morality.

Wanting people killed doesn't seem like tolerance to me, you intolerant prude. And elucidate on this 'practical threat' they represent. Ten pages, argued well, no logical fallacies broken. No hyperbole. Go for it, little opebo.

[opebo]

By Opeo standard I amk an "intolerant". But then again, most people are by his standards.

Yes, PBrunsel, you are an intolerant.

By contrast I am the foremost advocate of tolerance on this board - hence my constant remonstrating against the ideology of intolerance (religion).

Hahahaha. Foremost advocate. Prove it, prude.

I like all forms of sexuality and 'approve of' any and all private behaviours.  Also I hate anyone who doesn't have a similarly tolerant attitude.

You hate people? Well, you're an intolerant just like anyone else, then. And if you so arrogantly affirm that you approve of all private behaviours, religion falls into 'private' behaviour, prude.

No, it doesn't.  It includes such statements as 'right', 'wrong', 'sin', and various condemnations of others for their private acts.  In other words it makes the claim of the existence of an objective morality.  Therefore any tolerant person should hate them, or at least dispassionately feed them to the lions.

It's private behaviour, prude. If you were tolerant of everything, you would be tolerant of religion too. So I can only conclude that you are an intolerant prude.

I smell Hypocrisy!

Not at all.  As a tolerant, I quite naturally must oppose intolerants.  It is only reasonable.

As a tolerant person, you must be intolerant?  That doesn't exactly follow.

Of course it does.  By definition a tolerant is the opposite of and opposed to the intolerant.

And where is that definition, prude?

 

The prefix 'in'?

Dictionary.com:
in-1 or il- or im- or ir-
pref.
Not: inarticulate. Before l, in- is usually assimilated to il-; before r to ir-; and before b, m, and p to im-. See Usage Note at un-1.

Show me where the definiton of tolerant says that, in order to be tolerant, you must be intolerant of intolerance.

The prefix 'in' means 'not', or opposite, you see, everett.

[KillerPollo]

And yet one inevitably finds oneself opposed to and in disagreement with those who disapprove of things and believe in objective morality.  A paradox!

How is that a paradox?  If you're tolerant, you tolerate things.  If you don't tolerate things, you're intolerant.  You don't tolerate things, therefore, by defintion, you're intolerant.

Being tolerant means that you accept and tolerate the fact that people around you hold opinions that you disagree with and find distasteful.  You don't have to agree with them; you just have to tolerate them. 

Ah, but you see I do tolerate them on an intellectual level.  I only want them slaughtered by lions because of the practical threat the represent, due to their intolerance.  In other words, I'm arguing self defence, not objective morality.

Wanting people killed doesn't seem like tolerance to me, you intolerant prude.

*sits back and eats popcorn*

wow! just wow! opebo is getting helplessly ass-raped

[opebo]

And yet one inevitably finds oneself opposed to and in disagreement with those who disapprove of things and believe in objective morality.  A paradox!

How is that a paradox?  If you're tolerant, you tolerate things.  If you don't tolerate things, you're intolerant.  You don't tolerate things, therefore, by defintion, you're intolerant.

Being tolerant means that you accept and tolerate the fact that people around you hold opinions that you disagree with and find distasteful.  You don't have to agree with them; you just have to tolerate them. 

Ah, but you see I do tolerate them on an intellectual level.  I only want them slaughtered by lions because of the practical threat the represent, due to their intolerance.  In other words, I'm arguing self defence, not objective morality.

Wanting people killed doesn't seem like tolerance to me, you intolerant prude.

Actually they bring it on themselves, through their intolerance.  Do you think that a tolerant must allow murderers to go free?  I say no, he must merely refrain from making the claim that they are 'bad'.

[Gabu]

And yet one inevitably finds oneself opposed to and in disagreement with those who disapprove of things and believe in objective morality.  A paradox!

How is that a paradox?  If you're tolerant, you tolerate things.  If you don't tolerate things, you're intolerant.  You don't tolerate things, therefore, by defintion, you're intolerant.

Being tolerant means that you accept and tolerate the fact that people around you hold opinions that you disagree with and find distasteful.  You don't have to agree with them; you just have to tolerate them. 

Ah, but you see I do tolerate them on an intellectual level.  I only want them slaughtered by lions because of the practical threat the represent, due to their intolerance.  In other words, I'm arguing self defence, not objective morality.

"To tolerate" means "to tolerate", and not "not to tolerate".  Tolerating something involves allowing it to be without interfering.  Therefore, as you are not doing so, you are, by definition, being intolerant.  Being intolerant of someone who is intolerant does not make you tolerant in some sort of "double negative".  Two wrongs don't make a right.