Most intolerant poster in the forums?

[opebo]

From wikipedia (not the best source, but good enough for this argument I suppose)

"Tolerance is a social, cultural and religious term applied to the collective and individual practice of not persecuting those who may believe, behave or act in ways of which one may not approve."

Ah yes, opebo: a hallmark of tolerance.

Ah, but the practice of tolerance requires preventing the intolerant from gaining and utilizing political power to impose their intolerance.

By throwing them to the lions, I assume?

Yes, I think that method has charm, and tradition.  It shows a note of respect of those who fought the good fight before - the Romans.  They went down fighting!

[Gabu]

From wikipedia (not the best source, but good enough for this argument I suppose)

"Tolerance is a social, cultural and religious term applied to the collective and individual practice of not persecuting those who may believe, behave or act in ways of which one may not approve."

Ah yes, opebo: a hallmark of tolerance.

Ah, but the practice of tolerance requires preventing the intolerant from gaining and utilizing political power to impose their intolerance.

Why do you continue to just blatantly make up definitions for words and then use them on yourself?

[Jake]

You claim that they are intolerant, yes? Why do you use your morality to call them intolerant? That seems rather hypocritical.

The term 'intolerant' has nothing to do with morality.  It is merely descriptive, not a value judgement.

No, you claim they are intolerant of others. There intolerance can easily just be their subjective preference being expressed.

[opebo]

From wikipedia (not the best source, but good enough for this argument I suppose)

"Tolerance is a social, cultural and religious term applied to the collective and individual practice of not persecuting those who may believe, behave or act in ways of which one may not approve."

Ah yes, opebo: a hallmark of tolerance.

Ah, but the practice of tolerance requires preventing the intolerant from gaining and utilizing political power to impose their intolerance.

Why do you continue to just blatantly make up definitions for words and then use them on yourself?

I didn't do that.  I'm talking about how to realize tolerance as a political goal, not about the definition of tolerance.  Of course in order to realize tolerance as a political goal, anyone who believes in objective morality has to be fed to the lions.

[Gabu]

From wikipedia (not the best source, but good enough for this argument I suppose)

"Tolerance is a social, cultural and religious term applied to the collective and individual practice of not persecuting those who may believe, behave or act in ways of which one may not approve."

Ah yes, opebo: a hallmark of tolerance.

Ah, but the practice of tolerance requires preventing the intolerant from gaining and utilizing political power to impose their intolerance.

Why do you continue to just blatantly make up definitions for words and then use them on yourself?

I didn't do that.  I'm talking about how to realize tolerance as a political goal, not about the definition of tolerance.  Of course in order to realize tolerance as a political goal, anyone who believes in objective morality has to be fed to the lions.

To realize tolerance as a political goal requires you to be as intolerant as possible towards everyone you disagree with?  What does it even mean to "realize tolerance as a political goal", anyway?

[opebo]

You claim that they are intolerant, yes? Why do you use your morality to call them intolerant? That seems rather hypocritical.

The term 'intolerant' has nothing to do with morality.  It is merely descriptive, not a value judgement.

No, you claim they are intolerant of others. There intolerance can easily just be their subjective preference being expressed.

Yes, obviously it is their subjective preference.  So?

However, in their delusion, it is also objective morality.   It isn't just that they don't like gays, it is that gays are 'bad'.  Of course thinking people realize that those two statements mean the same thing, but intolerants do not.

[opebo]

From wikipedia (not the best source, but good enough for this argument I suppose)

"Tolerance is a social, cultural and religious term applied to the collective and individual practice of not persecuting those who may believe, behave or act in ways of which one may not approve."

Ah yes, opebo: a hallmark of tolerance.

Ah, but the practice of tolerance requires preventing the intolerant from gaining and utilizing political power to impose their intolerance.

Why do you continue to just blatantly make up definitions for words and then use them on yourself?

I didn't do that.  I'm talking about how to realize tolerance as a political goal, not about the definition of tolerance.  Of course in order to realize tolerance as a political goal, anyone who believes in objective morality has to be fed to the lions.

To realize tolerance as a political goal requires you to be as intolerant as possible towards everyone you disagree with?  What does it even mean to "realize tolerance as a political goal", anyway?

Not at all.  One defends oneself against those who would impose their subjective preferences as objective morality.  Disagreement is not important, it is their claim that they can judge others by an 'objective' standard.

[Gabu]

From wikipedia (not the best source, but good enough for this argument I suppose)

"Tolerance is a social, cultural and religious term applied to the collective and individual practice of not persecuting those who may believe, behave or act in ways of which one may not approve."

Ah yes, opebo: a hallmark of tolerance.

Ah, but the practice of tolerance requires preventing the intolerant from gaining and utilizing political power to impose their intolerance.

Why do you continue to just blatantly make up definitions for words and then use them on yourself?

I didn't do that.  I'm talking about how to realize tolerance as a political goal, not about the definition of tolerance.  Of course in order to realize tolerance as a political goal, anyone who believes in objective morality has to be fed to the lions.

To realize tolerance as a political goal requires you to be as intolerant as possible towards everyone you disagree with?  What does it even mean to "realize tolerance as a political goal", anyway?

Not at all.  One defends oneself against those who would impose their subjective preferences as objective morality.  Disagreement is not important, it is their claim that they can judge others by an 'objective' standard.

But what exactly is it you're "tolerant" of?  It's not "tolerating" something if you like it.  Tolerance implies that you dislike something, but you let it be nonetheless.

[opebo]

From wikipedia (not the best source, but good enough for this argument I suppose)

"Tolerance is a social, cultural and religious term applied to the collective and individual practice of not persecuting those who may believe, behave or act in ways of which one may not approve."

Ah yes, opebo: a hallmark of tolerance.

Ah, but the practice of tolerance requires preventing the intolerant from gaining and utilizing political power to impose their intolerance.

Why do you continue to just blatantly make up definitions for words and then use them on yourself?

I didn't do that.  I'm talking about how to realize tolerance as a political goal, not about the definition of tolerance.  Of course in order to realize tolerance as a political goal, anyone who believes in objective morality has to be fed to the lions.

To realize tolerance as a political goal requires you to be as intolerant as possible towards everyone you disagree with?  What does it even mean to "realize tolerance as a political goal", anyway?

Not at all.  One defends oneself against those who would impose their subjective preferences as objective morality.  Disagreement is not important, it is their claim that they can judge others by an 'objective' standard.

But what exactly is it you're "tolerant" of?  It's not "tolerating" something if you like it.  Tolerance implies that you dislike something, but you let it be nonetheless.

Of course I am tolerant of any number of things that I dislike, but which are not a threat.. such as..  fast food, malls..  well just about everything about american culture.  However, those who claim that other people are somehow inferior or 'bad' according to an objective morality - in fact anyone who claims objectivity for their own subjective preferences -  are as dangerous as a homicidal maniac loose in the streets.

[Gabu]

Of course I am tolerant of any number of things that I dislike, but which are not a threat.. such as..  fast food, malls..  well just about everything about american culture.  However, those who claim that other people are somehow inferior or 'bad' according to an objective morality - in fact anyone who claims objectivity for their own subjective preferences -  are as dangerous as a homicidal maniac loose in the streets.

I'm sure that heavily religious people think that you're just as dangerous.  What makes you tolerant while they are not?

[MaC]

Of course I am tolerant of any number of things that I dislike, but which are not a threat.. such as..  fast food, malls..  well just about everything about american culture.  However, those who claim that other people are somehow inferior or 'bad' according to an objective morality - in fact anyone who claims objectivity for their own subjective preferences -  are as dangerous as a homicidal maniac loose in the streets.

I'm sure that heavily religious people think that you're just as dangerous.  What makes you tolerant while they are not?

Heh, as Killerpollo would say: pwn3d!

[Inmate Trump]

StatesRights

Cosmo Kramer

[opebo]

Of course I am tolerant of any number of things that I dislike, but which are not a threat.. such as..  fast food, malls..  well just about everything about american culture.  However, those who claim that other people are somehow inferior or 'bad' according to an objective morality - in fact anyone who claims objectivity for their own subjective preferences -  are as dangerous as a homicidal maniac loose in the streets.

I'm sure that heavily religious people think that you're just as dangerous.  What makes you tolerant while they are not?

Ah, because the reason I think they are dangerous is because of their belief in an objective morality, while the reason they think I am dangerous is because I violate the above mentioned 'objective morality', which of course we all know is just their subjective preference. 

In other words they think I am dangerous because they don't like me, while I think they are dangerous because they don't like me and assert that I am objectively 'wrong'.

[King]

Of course I am tolerant of any number of things that I dislike, but which are not a threat.. such as..  fast food, malls..  well just about everything about american culture.  However, those who claim that other people are somehow inferior or 'bad' according to an objective morality - in fact anyone who claims objectivity for their own subjective preferences -  are as dangerous as a homicidal maniac loose in the streets.

I'm sure that heavily religious people think that you're just as dangerous.  What makes you tolerant while they are not?

Ah, because the reason I think they are dangerous is because of their belief in an objective morality, while the reason they think I am dangerous is because I violate the above mentioned 'objective morality', which of course we all know is just their subjective preference. 

In other words they think I am dangerous because they don't like me, while I think they are dangerous because they don't like me and assert that I am objectively 'wrong'.

They don't agree with your ways so they are dangerous?

[Ebowed]

Someone start keeping a count of how many questions opebo has dodged in this thread.

[Rob]

Opebo is clearly the greatest intolerant here.

[opebo]

Of course I am tolerant of any number of things that I dislike, but which are not a threat.. such as..  fast food, malls..  well just about everything about american culture.  However, those who claim that other people are somehow inferior or 'bad' according to an objective morality - in fact anyone who claims objectivity for their own subjective preferences -  are as dangerous as a homicidal maniac loose in the streets.

I'm sure that heavily religious people think that you're just as dangerous.  What makes you tolerant while they are not?

Ah, because the reason I think they are dangerous is because of their belief in an objective morality, while the reason they think I am dangerous is because I violate the above mentioned 'objective morality', which of course we all know is just their subjective preference. 

In other words they think I am dangerous because they don't like me, while I think they are dangerous because they don't like me and assert that I am objectively 'wrong'.

They don't agree with your ways so they are dangerous?

No, they claim that they are objectively right, and I am objectively wrong - a blatant threat.

[Alcon]

Of course I am tolerant of any number of things that I dislike, but which are not a threat.. such as..  fast food, malls..  well just about everything about american culture.  However, those who claim that other people are somehow inferior or 'bad' according to an objective morality - in fact anyone who claims objectivity for their own subjective preferences -  are as dangerous as a homicidal maniac loose in the streets.

I'm sure that heavily religious people think that you're just as dangerous.  What makes you tolerant while they are not?

Ah, because the reason I think they are dangerous is because of their belief in an objective morality, while the reason they think I am dangerous is because I violate the above mentioned 'objective morality', which of course we all know is just their subjective preference. 

In other words they think I am dangerous because they don't like me, while I think they are dangerous because they don't like me and assert that I am objectively 'wrong'.

They don't agree with your ways so they are dangerous?

No, they claim that they are objectively right, and I am objectively wrong - a blatant threat.

And you claim the same thing about them!

[opebo]

Of course I am tolerant of any number of things that I dislike, but which are not a threat.. such as..  fast food, malls..  well just about everything about american culture.  However, those who claim that other people are somehow inferior or 'bad' according to an objective morality - in fact anyone who claims objectivity for their own subjective preferences -  are as dangerous as a homicidal maniac loose in the streets.

I'm sure that heavily religious people think that you're just as dangerous.  What makes you tolerant while they are not?

Ah, because the reason I think they are dangerous is because of their belief in an objective morality, while the reason they think I am dangerous is because I violate the above mentioned 'objective morality', which of course we all know is just their subjective preference. 

In other words they think I am dangerous because they don't like me, while I think they are dangerous because they don't like me and assert that I am objectively 'wrong'.

They don't agree with your ways so they are dangerous?

No, they claim that they are objectively right, and I am objectively wrong - a blatant threat.

And you claim the same thing about them!

No, I don't make that claim at all - I make the claim that no one can be objectively right, as there is no such thing as objective morality.  I am making the observation that their claim to objective morality is factually incorrect, and in fact logically impossible.  My disdain for them is purely my subjective taste, not a claim that they are objectively 'bad'. 

[Everett]

Of course I am tolerant of any number of things that I dislike, but which are not a threat.. such as..  fast food, malls..  well just about everything about american culture.  However, those who claim that other people are somehow inferior or 'bad' according to an objective morality - in fact anyone who claims objectivity for their own subjective preferences -  are as dangerous as a homicidal maniac loose in the streets.

I'm sure that heavily religious people think that you're just as dangerous.  What makes you tolerant while they are not?

Ah, because the reason I think they are dangerous is because of their belief in an objective morality, while the reason they think I am dangerous is because I violate the above mentioned 'objective morality', which of course we all know is just their subjective preference. 

In other words they think I am dangerous because they don't like me, while I think they are dangerous because they don't like me and assert that I am objectively 'wrong'.

They don't agree with your ways so they are dangerous?

No, they claim that they are objectively right, and I am objectively wrong - a blatant threat.

And you claim the same thing about them!

No, I don't make that claim at all - I make the claim that no one can be objectively right, as there is no such thing as objective morality.  I am making the observation that their claim to objective morality is factually incorrect, and in fact logically impossible.  My disdain for them is purely my subjective taste, not a claim that they are objectively 'bad'. 

Riiiiiight... and if you were tolerant, you wouldn't have a subjective taste like that because you would tolerate everyone and everything. And we're back at Square One, little opebo. Are you going to answer the questions from three pages back or not?

[opebo]

Of course I am tolerant of any number of things that I dislike, but which are not a threat.. such as..  fast food, malls..  well just about everything about american culture.  However, those who claim that other people are somehow inferior or 'bad' according to an objective morality - in fact anyone who claims objectivity for their own subjective preferences -  are as dangerous as a homicidal maniac loose in the streets.

I'm sure that heavily religious people think that you're just as dangerous.  What makes you tolerant while they are not?

Ah, because the reason I think they are dangerous is because of their belief in an objective morality, while the reason they think I am dangerous is because I violate the above mentioned 'objective morality', which of course we all know is just their subjective preference. 

In other words they think I am dangerous because they don't like me, while I think they are dangerous because they don't like me and assert that I am objectively 'wrong'.

They don't agree with your ways so they are dangerous?

No, they claim that they are objectively right, and I am objectively wrong - a blatant threat.

And you claim the same thing about them!

No, I don't make that claim at all - I make the claim that no one can be objectively right, as there is no such thing as objective morality.  I am making the observation that their claim to objective morality is factually incorrect, and in fact logically impossible.  My disdain for them is purely my subjective taste, not a claim that they are objectively 'bad'. 

Riiiiiight... and if you were tolerant, you wouldn't have a subjective taste like that because you would tolerate everyone and everything. And we're back at Square One, little opebo. Are you going to answer the questions from three pages back or not?

You seem to equate tolerance with pacifism, everett.  Tolerance doesn't involve liking everything, or being without revulsion towards the disgusting, it involves recognizeing the fact that they are seperate subjectivities just like you, and that no objective values exist. 

[King]

Of course I am tolerant of any number of things that I dislike, but which are not a threat.. such as..  fast food, malls..  well just about everything about american culture.  However, those who claim that other people are somehow inferior or 'bad' according to an objective morality - in fact anyone who claims objectivity for their own subjective preferences -  are as dangerous as a homicidal maniac loose in the streets.

I'm sure that heavily religious people think that you're just as dangerous.  What makes you tolerant while they are not?

Ah, because the reason I think they are dangerous is because of their belief in an objective morality, while the reason they think I am dangerous is because I violate the above mentioned 'objective morality', which of course we all know is just their subjective preference. 

In other words they think I am dangerous because they don't like me, while I think they are dangerous because they don't like me and assert that I am objectively 'wrong'.

They don't agree with your ways so they are dangerous?

No, they claim that they are objectively right, and I am objectively wrong - a blatant threat.

And you claim the same thing about them!

No, I don't make that claim at all - I make the claim that no one can be objectively right, as there is no such thing as objective morality.  I am making the observation that their claim to objective morality is factually incorrect, and in fact logically impossible.  My disdain for them is purely my subjective taste, not a claim that they are objectively 'bad'. 

Riiiiiight... and if you were tolerant, you wouldn't have a subjective taste like that because you would tolerate everyone and everything. And we're back at Square One, little opebo. Are you going to answer the questions from three pages back or not?

You seem to equate tolerance with pacifism, everett.  Tolerance doesn't involve liking everything, or being without revulsion towards the disgusting, it involves recognizeing the fact that they are seperate subjectivities just like you, and that no objective values exist. 

tol·er·ance n. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

Opebo, you certainly recognize Christianity, but do you respect it? No.

[opebo]

tol·er·ance n. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

Opebo, you certainly recognize Christianity, but do you respect it? No.

Well, I 'respect' it in the sense that I would never presume to tell others what fantasies they may have or what subjective preferences they may prefer.  Of course it is ridiculous nonsense, but it is none of my business.  However when they make the claim that it is objectively true, that is when I feel the need to feed them to the lions.

[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.

[Everett]

tol·er·ance n. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

Opebo, you certainly recognize Christianity, but do you respect it? No.

Well, I 'respect' it in the sense that I would never presume to tell others what fantasies they may have or what subjective preferences they may prefer.  Of course it is ridiculous nonsense, but it is none of my business.  However when they make the claim that it is objectively true, that is when I feel the need to feed them to the lions.

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