Most intolerant poster in the forums?

[The Man From G.O.P.]

count me in on the intolerant column

[King]

count me in on the intolerant column

At least you are honest.

[opebo]

However when they make the claim that it is objectively true, that is when I feel the need to feed them to the lions.

Ah so you agree that you would be intolerant of a person if they made a strong claim of their religious belief.

No, not at all.  It is merely self-defense to object to their claim they know what is best for others.

Then why do you label people 'prudes' if they abstain from sleeping with dozens of Thai whores?

Ah, I label people prudes for disapproving of others sleeping with dozens of Thai whores, not for abstaining from the fun themselves.

[Gabu]

However when they make the claim that it is objectively true, that is when I feel the need to feed them to the lions.

Ah so you agree that you would be intolerant of a person if they made a strong claim of their religious belief.

No, not at all.  It is merely self-defense to object to their claim they know what is best for others.

Defending oneself is being intolerant towards what you're defending against.  This says nothing about whether or not that's a bad thing, but it nonetheless is true.

[opebo]

However when they make the claim that it is objectively true, that is when I feel the need to feed them to the lions.

Ah so you agree that you would be intolerant of a person if they made a strong claim of their religious belief.

No, not at all.  It is merely self-defense to object to their claim they know what is best for others.

Shut up with the self-defense BS; you're just using that as an excuse that no-one is stupid enough to fall for. You can't even list specific examples when you were directly affected by these people who have supposedly been tormenting you for the past thirteen - I mean, thirty-six - years.

Well, for example the illegality of prostitution and drugs - that alone is justification for feeding advocates of those laws to the lions.

[Gabu]

However when they make the claim that it is objectively true, that is when I feel the need to feed them to the lions.

Ah so you agree that you would be intolerant of a person if they made a strong claim of their religious belief.

No, not at all.  It is merely self-defense to object to their claim they know what is best for others.

Shut up with the self-defense BS; you're just using that as an excuse that no-one is stupid enough to fall for. You can't even list specific examples when you were directly affected by these people who have supposedly been tormenting you for the past thirteen - I mean, thirty-six - years.

Well, for example the illegality of prostitution and drugs - that alone is justification for feeding advocates of those laws to the lions.

Boo hoo, you're so oppressed.

You're as close as one can get to the textbook example of a spoiled brat.

[opebo]

However when they make the claim that it is objectively true, that is when I feel the need to feed them to the lions.

Ah so you agree that you would be intolerant of a person if they made a strong claim of their religious belief.

No, not at all.  It is merely self-defense to object to their claim they know what is best for others.

Shut up with the self-defense BS; you're just using that as an excuse that no-one is stupid enough to fall for. You can't even list specific examples when you were directly affected by these people who have supposedly been tormenting you for the past thirteen - I mean, thirty-six - years.

Well, for example the illegality of prostitution and drugs - that alone is justification for feeding advocates of those laws to the lions.

Explain a specific time when someone told you that to your face.

What do you mean 'told me that'?  Told me what?  I'm not sure what you're saying here.  Certainly those things are illegal due to the votes of the intolerants.

[King]

However when they make the claim that it is objectively true, that is when I feel the need to feed them to the lions.

Ah so you agree that you would be intolerant of a person if they made a strong claim of their religious belief.

No, not at all.  It is merely self-defense to object to their claim they know what is best for others.

Shut up with the self-defense BS; you're just using that as an excuse that no-one is stupid enough to fall for. You can't even list specific examples when you were directly affected by these people who have supposedly been tormenting you for the past thirteen - I mean, thirty-six - years.

Well, for example the illegality of prostitution and drugs - that alone is justification for feeding advocates of those laws to the lions.

Advocating keeping prostitution and drugs illegal as justification for a lion feeding is so intolerant that it isn't funny to continue this "debate" anymore.

[KillerPollo]

*bumpity bump*

Hey HERE's the intolerant thread for you guys to flame on!

[dazzleman]

Tolerance is not always a good thing.

I once watched an interview with a woman who runs a home in Harlem taking care of babies who are born drug-addicted and abandoned.

The interviewer asked her why we have these terrible problems.  Her answer was -- we are too tolerant of the behavior that leads to these problems.  She was exactly right.

We should be tolerant of that which may be different but brings us no harm, but intolerant of things that are very wrong and bring harm to innocent people.

I think it's just as bad to be tolerant of things that bring real harm to innocent children, in particular, as it is to be intolerant of things that are different but harmless.

[Democratic Hawk]

Being a moderate, I've always broadly considered myself to be tolerant but am I?

As you probably know, I'm never happier unless I'm berating social liberals, doves, the GOP, the Religious Right and Thargaret Matcher

Dave

[dazzleman]

Being a moderate, I've always broadly considered myself to be tolerant but am I?

As you probably know, I'm never happier unless I'm berating social liberals, doves, the GOP, the Religious Right and Thargaret Matcher

Dave

Quite a contradictory list you have there, dude.  That list includes just about everybody.

[Democratic Hawk]

Being a moderate, I've always broadly considered myself to be tolerant but am I?

As you probably know, I'm never happier unless I'm berating social liberals, doves, the GOP, the Religious Right and Thargaret Matcher

Dave

Quite a contradictory list you have there, dude.  That list includes just about everybody.

Not really, considering I'm socially populist, a 'hawk', a Democrat, a mainline Protestant and no Thatcherite

Dave

[dazzleman]

Being a moderate, I've always broadly considered myself to be tolerant but am I?

As you probably know, I'm never happier unless I'm berating social liberals, doves, the GOP, the Religious Right and Thargaret Matcher

Dave

Quite a contradictory list you have there, dude.  That list includes just about everybody.

Not really, considering I'm socially populist, a 'hawk', a Democrat, a mainline Protestant and no Thatcherite

Dave

You may be about the only person who doesn't fit into one of those groups.

[MODU]

In this rare moment, I will defend Opie on this one.  He is actually quite tollerant.  His manner of expressing himself and his views annoys the crap out of me, but he is more accepting/tolerant of gays, pedophiles, criminals, et al than most of us. 

[dazzleman]

In this rare moment, I will defend Opie on this one.  He is actually quite tollerant.  His manner of expressing himself and his views annoys the crap out of me, but he is more accepting/tolerant of gays, pedophiles, criminals, et al than most of us. 

In some of those cases, that isn't a good thing.  It may be a good thing to be "tolerant" (a word I don't like, since it implies reluctant acceptance of something you find distasteful) of gays who are good people, but I can't see a positive in being tolerant of pedophiles and criminals.  To argue that "tolerance" of things like that is positive seem to me to be mindless political correctness run amok.

[Democratic Hawk]

Being a moderate, I've always broadly considered myself to be tolerant but am I?

As you probably know, I'm never happier unless I'm berating social liberals, doves, the GOP, the Religious Right and Thargaret Matcher

Dave

You may be about the only person who doesn't fit into one of those groups.

Guess that kinda makes me one in a million

Dave

[MODU]

In this rare moment, I will defend Opie on this one.  He is actually quite tollerant.  His manner of expressing himself and his views annoys the crap out of me, but he is more accepting/tolerant of gays, pedophiles, criminals, et al than most of us. 

In some of those cases, that isn't a good thing.  It may be a good thing to be "tolerant" (a word I don't like, since it implies reluctant acceptance of something you find distasteful) of gays who are good people, but I can't see a positive in being tolerant of pedophiles and criminals.  To argue that "tolerance" of things like that is positive seem to me to be mindless political correctness run amok.

hahaha . . . I never said that being tolerant was a good thing.   

Now, if the original question was "Who is the one poster you cannot tollerate the most," then that would be a totally different debate.    But, as is the current question, I would be more intolerant than Opie.  hahha

[MissCatholic]

i am intolerant to 10-13 year olds that want to pracitce sex. if that makes me a homophobe then fine but i wont accept my child being gay at such an early age.

[afleitch]

Scientists now tend believe that sexuality is determined in the womb. So technically, the child is gay whether it knows it or not until it becomes sexually aware.

Bear in mind that children dont even have a concept of sexes (as in male and female) until about the age of 5. They may understand cultural notions of boy and girl, but not necessarily understand the physical differences between them. A child may finally realise he or she is gay at 10 or 18, either way it is not choice than makes them say they are gay, but self realisation of the fact that they are gay.

[MODU]

[SOME] Scientists now tend believe that sexuality is determined in the womb. So technically, the child is gay whether it knows it or not until it becomes sexually aware.

Many Scientists hold the opposite view as well.  There has been no proof yet showing sexual predisposition.

[afleitch]

[SOME] Scientists now tend believe that sexuality is determined in the womb. So technically, the child is gay whether it knows it or not until it becomes sexually aware.

Many Scientists hold the opposite view as well.  There has been no proof yet showing sexual predisposition.

True there is a split scientific community (scientists are rarely in complete agreement on anything!) but it is trending towards recognition that sexuality is pre-determined in the womb. More and more evidence is appearing that backs up that assesment.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Robert Stark.

[Mechaman]

Myself, towards everyone else who disagrees with my views because they're......RETARDS.