Social Issues have really helped the Democrats

[Adam Griffin]

Big deal, Social issues cost the Democrats the South.

1976: Carter wins every state in the South but Virginia.

2004: Kerry loses every Southern state.

Correct, PBrunsel - tolerance wins on the coasts, intolerance in the South. 

Not exactly big news.

By that logic, morality wins the South and immorality wins on the coasts.

So, in conclusion:

Tolerance = Immorality
Intolerance = Morality

How strange. However, this does explain why Southerners love the Bible so much.

[Adam Griffin]

So, in conclusion:

Tolerance = Immorality
Intolerance = Morality

How strange. However, this does explain why Southerners love the Bible so much.

Tolerance = Nothing
Intolerance = Something

Oh, so intolerance = something? I assume that you are stating that as a general assumption. In that case, you should have no problem whether it be black lynchings in Virginia or public Christian executions in Iran. Too bad there's not a Virginia state icon in the Atlas file library for the Dumbass Party.

[Adam Griffin]

Hah, nice one Booth.

While your statement is somewhat accurate and I have always thought that way to an extent, it is impossible for someone to be entirely tolerant or intolerant, so in essence those extremes do not really exist. My definition of intolerance is an ideal in which a person or a group of people find all differences outside the majority of their culture to be incorrect or offensive. Essentially I am against xenophobia and discrimination based on useless factors such as skin color, race, gender, or sexual orientation because in the end, individuals will always find other individuals within their own social and cultural cliques with more flaws than the people that they discriminate against and fear.

[Adam Griffin]

OK Booth, whatever helps you sleep at night.

God, enough with the abstractness. When I see 'something', 'anything', and 'subjective' all in the same sentence, it is safe to say that it can be seen as one of those "all-purpose" sentences to which nothing of value can be extracted. However, this is a pretty abstract topic in general, so I guess there's not a point to debate, as it does break down for each individual to decide.

[Adam Griffin]

No, it is when an argument breaks down to such abstractness that neither side can be proven, then it becomes futile to argue. I already admitted that I understood the basis of Sic's argument in the beginning, so I really don't see why the hell you are rambling.