Most intolerant poster in the forums?

[Gabu]

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.

[Gabu]

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. 

Let's check the definition of "tolerant":

tolerance
1. adj.    a. Disposed or inclined to tolerate or bear with something; practising or favouring toleration.

No, I'm fairly sure that not tolerating absolutely everything you don't like makes you intolerant.

[Gabu]

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.

[Gabu]

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.  Being tolerant does not mean that you want to kill everyone you don't like.  You're just blatantly making up definitions for "tolerant" purely so you can label yourself as such.

[Gabu]

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.

"To tolerate" means "to tolerate", and not "not to tolerate".  Tolerating something involves allowing it to be without interfering.  Therefore, as you are not doing so, you are, by definition, being intolerant.  Being intolerant of someone who is intolerant does not make you tolerant in some sort of "double negative".  Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Gabu]

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.

"To tolerate" means "to tolerate", and not "not to tolerate".  Tolerating something involves allowing it to be without interfering.  Therefore, as you are not doing so, you are, by definition, being intolerant.  Being intolerant of someone who is intolerant does not make you tolerant in some sort of "double negative".  Two wrongs don't make a right.

By being tolerant one must inevitably be in conflict with the intolerant - one is making the claim that their intolerance is invalid.  And by the way there is no objective right or wrong, whether one or two.

Feeling that someone else is wrong does not make you automatically in conflict with that person.  If you're tolerant, you will leave the person alone with his or her opinions and will not attempt to interfere.  If you're not, you will attempt to force your own opinions on that person.

Now then, which of these two are you doing?

[Gabu]

Neither!  I am attempting to prevent him from forcing his opinions upon me and others - preferable through the lion method, but if necessary by less picturesque means.

So, in other words, you're not tolerating what you perceive the other person as wanting to do.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.