Meh, if someone wants to say I'm bigoted against bigots, I'm fine with that. Fuck em, and fuck their apologists.

(November 21, 2014 at 1:37 am)Drich Wrote: Intollerant of the intollerant... What makes you better?

Clearly intolerance and bigotry is not the issue as you have shown both these attributes in your op in spades (pun intended.)

You seem to labor under the delusion that I promote tolerance of all things. Your mistake. It's not just about the fact that the man's hateful. It's about how he hates so much that he was willing to let potentially injured people go without help or care because of their skin color.

Quote:what about tollenence of any kind... because no tollerance has been shown at all when the oppertunity has been given to you.

If I was fire chief and I told first responders not to use my county's facilities to help a Christian or a Republican, if I risked lives because I didn't like something about a person who needed help, I suppose you'd have something approaching a point, perhaps for the first time in my experience at af.org.

"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
― Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

(November 21, 2014 at 11:40 am)Drich Wrote:

(November 21, 2014 at 10:16 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: No one has argued for unlimited tolerance. Anyone with half-a-brain could understand that immediately.

Yes, I'm looking at you ... halfwit.

what about tollenence of any kind... because no tollerance has been shown at all when the oppertunity has been given to you.

I tolerate many things. I don't tolerate racism in my presence. If that cramps your style, tough shit.

(November 21, 2014 at 11:40 am)Drich Wrote: Just look at your last comment. You call me a half wit just because i point out hypocritical hate in this thread. none of this was even directed at you and the first thing you say is riddled with hate.

I despise bigots, and the people who defend them; they're worthy of nothing but contempt. If you don't like that, tough shit.

(November 21, 2014 at 11:40 am)Drich Wrote: So thanks for illustrating my point sport. Good job!

Your point is vapid, based on a misunderstanding of what tolerance is, and sculpted in order to defend a bigot, rather than have respectful communication. As such, you don't merit respectful communication.

And yes, if you don't like it, tough shit.

My favorite part of this charade is that Drich sees himself as some sort of enlightened being that is attempting to educate the lesser people by pointing out that hating intolerance is, in fact, intolerance.

Pretty soon he's going to think he's the messiah because he figured out that leaving something out in the sun will make it hot.

But really, he is actively promoting racial discrimination by suggesting that intolerance of racism as the moral equivalent of racism.

(November 21, 2014 at 2:20 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(November 21, 2014 at 2:10 am)Drich Wrote: Little did the 'thinker' realize, He himself was Using the very same level of bigotry and hate that a racist would use, just refocused on another segment of trivial attributes of his fellow man.

Really. So, in Drich-land, there's not a whit of difference between directing hate towards physical characteristics that one cannot control (say, skin color), and directing hate towards behavior and content of character.

Interesting world you live in, where those two things are equivalent.

I am very new to this forum. Does Drich always take the opposite side from the majority of the posters just to be obnoxious or is the poster really spouting what they believe?

It seems that a lot of members of the Christian Right have a problem with the word, tolerance. They do not define it like the rest of the population. I have a theory that because they deal with absolutes in their faith they like absolutes in their lives. Tolerance can't mean just minding your own business and being polite to others. To a right leaning Christian, it has to mean "Accept everything' In their eyes, they win an argument against what they term a liberal if they bring up that their opponent doesn't 'tolerate' any number of really crappy behavior. It is bizarre but I have seen the same reasoning used multiple times on forums or in conversations so that the Christian can shut down and not have to actually listen to the other side. By the way, the word liberal is used for anyone that disagrees with the right leaning Christian even someone who considers themselves conservative.

There also appears to be an upside down world for right leaning Christians where what most of us consider good human behavior---treating others with respect and fairness regardless of their skin color, religion or nationality---somehow is a sign of being liberal and tolerant and therefore bad.

(November 23, 2014 at 9:00 am)Nope Wrote:

(November 21, 2014 at 2:20 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Really. So, in Drich-land, there's not a whit of difference between directing hate towards physical characteristics that one cannot control (say, skin color), and directing hate towards behavior and content of character.

Interesting world you live in, where those two things are equivalent.

I am very new to this forum. Does Drich always take the opposite side from the majority of the posters just to be obnoxious or is the poster really spouting what they believe?

Drich is simply as stupid as he appears to be.

(November 21, 2014 at 4:27 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: But really, he is actively promoting racial discrimination by suggesting that intolerance of racism as the moral equivalent of racism.

Again ALL Cultures and even most religions segergate and discriminate to one degree or another. Nothing wrong with that. Primarily in the west because of slavery and subsequent oppression in the US does discrimination marry itself to hate. It is possible to seperate one's self from another group of people whether it be on a religious bases or according to race and not hate them.

I've done this very thing here. I am not 'White' (As I was reminded daily by the people i grew up with) and I do not believe the same things you do. (As I am reminded by you all every time I post) I see my self as being set apart from the rest of you. Even so I do not hate anyone here. (including minie) Nor do I think I am better, just different, and as such need to lead a different life to maintain what I believe.

Excellent, nothing wrong with that - now get to the back of the bus and don't expect to be able to use the same drinking fountain as I do. Don't bother responding to this, or posting at all, because you aren't allowed to -since you're not white. Run off and find a non-white forum...didn't you see the sign?

Fucking douchebag.