Most intolerant poster in the forums?

[A18]

The prefix 'in' means 'not', or opposite, you see, everett.

Yes, not. As in, not intolerant. Not intolerant of the other side.

[opebo]

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.

*sits back and eats popcorn*

wow! just wow! opebo is getting helplessly ass-raped

Ahha!  I thought you secretly had such fantasies, you closeted homophobic.

[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?

[opebo]

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.

[opebo]

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.

[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.

[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?

[opebo]

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.

The funny thing, little opebo, is that you're defending a point that doesn't exist. Simply show us where in the dictionary it says that in order to be tolerant, you must wish death upon those you consider intolerant. Furthermore, if there is no objective right or wrong, there is no objective definition of tolerance or intolerance, thus rendering your self-label of 'tolerant' worthless.

The dictionary is hardly going to outline a program for political action, everrett..

[opebo]

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?

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.

[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.

[opebo]

His opinions, which are perfectly correct by your standards of 'objective morality'.

I have no fantasies of objective morality. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nothing I have said has implied any preference for a particularl 'way of life', nor an condemnation of another.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you mean 'trolling'?  And I wish I were in Thailand - I'm stuck in this horrific land for another couple of months.  [/quote]

[Jake]

As Everett just tagged me, I'm in for this round.

opebo - you show yourself to be intolerant to the nth degree with your stances against anyone who doesn't agree with you. You just don't believe you're being intolerant because they disagree with you. In reality, you're an extremely hate filled person, even for those you claim to speak for.

[KillerPollo]

As Everett just tagged me, I'm in for this round.

opebo - you show yourself to be intolerant to the nth degree with your stances against anyone who doesn't agree with you. You just don't believe you're being intolerant because they disagree with you. In reality, you're an extremely hate filled person, even for those you claim to speak for.

Opebo is a repressed hatemonger.

[opebo]

As Everett just tagged me, I'm in for this round.

opebo - you show yourself to be intolerant to the nth degree with your stances against anyone who doesn't agree with you. You just don't believe you're being intolerant because they disagree with you. In reality, you're an extremely hate filled person, even for those you claim to speak for.

No, Jake, I hate them for their intolerance.  

[A18]

Then you're not tolerant.

[KillerPollo]

As Everett just tagged me, I'm in for this round.

opebo - you show yourself to be intolerant to the nth degree with your stances against anyone who doesn't agree with you. You just don't believe you're being intolerant because they disagree with you. In reality, you're an extremely hate filled person, even for those you claim to speak for.

No, Jake, I hate them for their intolerance.  

hate of intolerants = intolerance.

[opebo]

haha! pollo and phillip - now I know I'm tolerant!

[Jake]

As Everett just tagged me, I'm in for this round.

opebo - you show yourself to be intolerant to the nth degree with your stances against anyone who doesn't agree with you. You just don't believe you're being intolerant because they disagree with you. In reality, you're an extremely hate filled person, even for those you claim to speak for.

No, Jake, I hate them for their intolerance.  

So, you hate them because they disagree with you. You could've just agreed with my post saying the same thing.

Opebo is a repressed hatemonger.

Pot, kettle, black

[Speed of Sound]

definetly ilikeverin.


j/k

however,  i must say that i dont think that Opebo is the most intolerant poster. is he intolerant? absolutely. the most intolerant? no way. from the times ive debated him, hes always been very respectable. (But ive seen him be disrespectful his fair share of times )

[MHS2002]

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.

[opebo]

As Everett just tagged me, I'm in for this round.

opebo - you show yourself to be intolerant to the nth degree with your stances against anyone who doesn't agree with you. You just don't believe you're being intolerant because they disagree with you. In reality, you're an extremely hate filled person, even for those you claim to speak for.

No, Jake, I hate them for their intolerance.  

So, you hate them because they disagree with you. You could've just agreed with my post saying the same thing.

No, no I hate them because they are a threat, and also making a stupid, patently erroneous claim.  One may disagree about what one likes, but when one makes a claim that what one likes is objectively better, or right, or moral, one is a danger, as well as a fool.

[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.

[Jake]

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

[MHS2002]

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?

[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.