Most intolerant poster in the forums?

[Everett]

Certainly you and opebo

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

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'.

And how have these 'intolerants' directly harmed you through their intolerance?

[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.

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'.

And how have these 'intolerants' directly harmed you through their intolerance?

Well, obviously the primary way is through the theocratic government that has ruled this country for pretty much all of its history.  Also of course their intolerance is an insult to me and to anyone of whom they disapprove.

You're avoiding the question. Give me specific examples.

[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?

[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?