Most intolerant poster in the forums?

[King]

same here... Fags are filthier than dogs.

and How does that make me intolerant? ms. feminist?

You do not tolerate homosexual behavior.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[King]

count me in on the intolerant column

At least you are honest.

[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.