|
|
| Author |
Message |
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
 Posted: 12/13/03 - 17:18 Post subject: Liberals (NWS)
|
|
|
I would like to open up an honest discussion because understanding your ideologies is difficult for me. We can take this one at a time. I will ask a set of question, and a liberal can attempt to answer them to satisfaction. I may ask follow-ups if my ignorance persists.
First Round...Tolerance: Please define tolerance. Give an example of tolerance. Give an example of intolerance. Why is tolerance good? How far should tolerance extend? On a hierachical scale of virtues, where does tolerance stand?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 12/13/03 - 17:27 Post subject:
|
|
|
lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
That about sums it up, any other questions?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
ATM Banana
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 8575
|
|
Posted: 12/13/03 - 17:35 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
why don't you adress what he said in his questions, and not the definition of a liberal?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4345
Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: 12/13/03 - 17:36 Post subject:
|
|
|
| ATM Banana wrote: | | why don't you adress what he said in his questions, and not the definition of a liberal? |
He's a liberal, he can't!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
scrotum
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 828
|
|
Posted: 12/13/03 - 17:49 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
That about sums it up, any other questions? |
lol nice. nothing else needs to be said.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 12/13/03 - 18:16 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
That about sums it up, any other questions? |
Haha, funny shit.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/13/03 - 18:22 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
That about sums it up, any other questions? |
Yes, I do. I fully understand liberals' self-perception, but don't understand the details. Now your definition included "tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others." Obviously liberals believe this of themselves. But I wanted details on tolerance, not the word used in a sentence. Please provide so as to educate me.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4345
Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: 12/13/03 - 18:24 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | Rennol wrote: | lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
That about sums it up, any other questions? |
Yes, I do. I fully understand liberals' self-perception, but don't understand the details. Now your definition included "tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others." Obviously liberals believe this of themselves. But I wanted details on tolerance, not the word used in a sentence. Please provide so as to educate me. |
+4. Defense, your witness?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
quotison
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 1594
|
|
Posted: 12/13/03 - 18:29 Post subject: Re: Liberals
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | I would like to open up an honest discussion because understanding your ideologies is difficult for me. We can take this one at a time. I will ask a set of question, and a liberal can attempt to answer them to satisfaction. I may ask follow-ups if my ignorance persists.
First Round...Tolerance: Please define tolerance. Give an example of tolerance. Give an example of intolerance. Why is tolerance good? How far should tolerance extend? On a hierachical scale of virtues, where does tolerance stand? |
I'm not sure how liberal I am compared to other liberals, but I'll try to answer these.
I'd define tolerance to be the respect of people who aren't like you. The aspects of a person that tolerance usually extends to are often uncontrollable things, race, gender, nationality, etc. You can't control where you were born, who you were born to, what color skin, etc.
An example of tolerance, hmm could be as simple as making friends with someone of a different race. An example of intolerance, first thing that comes to mind is the murder of Matthew Shepard, because he was gay.
How far should tolerance extend? Difficult question. I can tolerate people who think differently then me, but I can't tolerate people who think its okay to go out and kill someone, for example. Tolerance should defintely extend to the 'uncontrollable' aspects of life. Past that, its hard to judge.
Scale of virtues? Hmm, I really don't know, sorry.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/13/03 - 18:44 Post subject: Re: Liberals
|
|
|
OK, here are my extended questions. I'd like to avoid a heated debate. I'm just trying to understand more fully and will respect the fact that you are not trying to speak for all liberals.
| quotison wrote: | | I'd define tolerance to be the respect of people who aren't like you. The aspects of a person that tolerance usually extends to are often uncontrollable things, race, gender, nationality, etc. You can't control where you were born, who you were born to, what color skin, etc. |
Is this limited to "uncontrollable" things? How would you define "uncontrollable?" For exmple, I'm assuming you would "tolerate" the disabled. What if that disabled person intentionally disabled himself (e.g. via a failed suicide attempt)? Would this person still be worthy of "tolerance?" Would that then require you to respect people with certain controllable aspects? Liberals seem to respect Muslims. That is controllable. So is "tolerance" required to extend to those people as well?
| quotison wrote: | | An example of tolerance, hmm could be as simple as making friends with someone of a different race. An example of intolerance, first thing that comes to mind is the murder of Matthew Shepard, because he was gay. |
If someone was friends with, say, a black person, yet did not like black people in general...would he be tolerant or intolerant? Are there degrees of tolerance? Must you like everyone equally in order to be considered "tolerant?" If so, then by my question above, must every intolerant person like accept every other person?
| quotison wrote: | | How far should tolerance extend? Difficult question. I can tolerate people who think differently then me, but I can't tolerate people who think its okay to go out and kill someone, for example. Tolerance should defintely extend to the 'uncontrollable' aspects of life. Past that, its hard to judge. |
Are you saying that tolerance may also extend into beliefs? e.g., you would not tolerate someone who thinks murder is OK. Would it then be intolerant of you to be intolerant towards others who believe that murder is OK? From here, and above, I gather that there must be tolerance of ideas as well as mere race, etc., so I think it would follow that finding someone's acceptance of murder unacceptable would itself be intolerant. Is this correct?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
icebreaker
Luke Warm
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 396
|
|
Posted: 12/13/03 - 19:22 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
the funniest thing about liberals is they preach tolerance openmindedness yet are extremely intolerant of those that don't share their own political views... elitest snob hypocrytes is the term that most comes to mind
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
quotison
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 1594
|
|
Posted: 12/13/03 - 19:23 Post subject: Re: Liberals
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | Is this limited to "uncontrollable" things? How would you define "uncontrollable?" For exmple, I'm assuming you would "tolerate" the disabled. What if that disabled person intentionally disabled himself (e.g. via a failed suicide attempt)? Would this person still be worthy of "tolerance?" Would that then require you to respect people with certain controllable aspects? Liberals seem to respect Muslims. That is controllable. So is "tolerance" required to extend to those people as well? |
Tolerance should defintely extend to uncontrollable things, but shouldn't stop there. However, it becomes a grey area after that. I would still tolerate a disabled person, if his disability was his own fault. I would show respect and sympathy and all that good stuff.
Controllable aspects, it really depends on how much that 'controllable aspect' of your life interferes with the lives of others. Islam is by definition a peaceful religion. Although I don't agree with their religion, I do tolerate it because your average Muslim isn't a terrorist. For those Muslims who aren't peaceful, no they're not tolerated, because they f**k around with the lives of other people. I think Muslims in general should be tolerated, but certainly not all Muslims.
| WheresNWS wrote: | | If someone was friends with, say, a black person, yet did not like black people in general...would he be tolerant or intolerant? Are there degrees of tolerance? Must you like everyone equally in order to be considered "tolerant?" If so, then by my question above, must every intolerant person like accept every other person? |
The intolerance comes from the fact that person dislikes blacks, with the reason being that they're black. You don't have to like all blacks to be tolerant. For example, I can't stand Al Sharpton. But my dislike is because of his character, not of his color. Ask that person why he doesn't like 'blacks in general' and he'll come up with some reason that stereotypes all blacks into having the same, negative characteristic. That's being intolerant. There is no same, negative characteristic that all blacks have.
There are defintely degrees of tolerance. A person might tolerate those of a different skin color, but might not tolerate gays for religious reasons, where I tolerate both gays and those of different race. Being tolerant of nothing is bad, and being tolerant of everything is bad too, since there are some things that shouldn't be tolerated.
There's also a degree into how much tolerance you have for a certain type of person. Person A might have no problems with gays at all and feel they should be given 100% the same rights as straight people. Person B might feel homosexuality is a sin, but will tolerate them enough to simply ignore them. Person C also feels homosexuality is a sin, but he commits violent acts against gays. For me personally, the type of tolerance person A shows is prefered, the type of tolerance person B shows is acceptable, and the type of tolerance person C shows is unacceptable.
| WheresNWS wrote: |
Are you saying that tolerance may also extend into beliefs? e.g., you would not tolerate someone who thinks murder is OK. Would it then be intolerant of you to be intolerant towards others who believe that murder is OK? From here, and above, I gather that there must be tolerance of ideas as well as mere race, etc., so I think it would follow that finding someone's acceptance of murder unacceptable would itself be intolerant. Is this correct? |
Tolerance does extend into believes to a certain extent. I might tolerate someone who thinks murder is OK because its just an opinion, a thought, but considering the number of a******s in the world, I would imagine that person would have murdered someone, making him not tolerable. But going back to my degrees comment above, I would tolerate this strange person enough that I wouldn't beat him up, but I certainly wouldn't associate or be friendly with this guy.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
scrotum
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 828
|
|
Posted: 12/13/03 - 19:28 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
you're getting worse every day NWS. you sad person, you.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/13/03 - 19:30 Post subject:
|
|
|
| scrotum wrote: | | you're getting worse every day NWS. you sad person, you. |
Stop being intolerant. I'm simply seeking a definition of it. Quotison's is good because he's thinking it through. You're an ignorant Norwegian fuckup, so that's all you can say.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4345
Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: 12/13/03 - 19:31 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | scrotum wrote: | | you're getting worse every day NWS. you sad person, you. |
Stop being intolerant. I'm simply seeking a definition of it. Quotison's is good because he's thinking it through. You're an ignorant Norwegian fuckup, so that's all you can say. |
It was actually a civil discussion until f*****g scrotum shoved himself into it.
Why do you have to ruin shit?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
scrotum
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 828
|
|
Posted: 12/13/03 - 19:35 Post subject:
|
|
|
no, its just sad.
youre just taking shots at liberals, but hiding it in a "wannabe(read:spitulski) legit question. go f**k yourself.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Xenden
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 1532
|
|
Posted: 12/13/03 - 19:43 Post subject:
|
|
|
PENIS, PENIS, PENIS.
VAGINA, VAGINA, VAGINA.
WHEN THE DOG SAID, " STEVE U RETARD" THE ICE CREAM SANDWICH MAN WENT, "FABULOUS."
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 12/13/03 - 19:44 Post subject:
|
|
|
Any discussion precipitated by WheresNWS invariably turns into a thread like this one is turning into.
As for my definition, nothing else needs to be said, and Kbarr, if you think those qualities you bolded are "funny", well, then I don't know what to say. You're a little farther out there than I had imagined.
I'm not ashamed to say that I believe in the principles of that definition. Everyone should fit that definition, to an extent. The extent may vary but the concept is universal, and those who shun those properties are the antithesis of everything that has allowed us to rise from a primitive hunter-gatherer existance to the one we now enjoy as we type these meaningless paragraphs of drivel.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
GruntingCod
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 6399
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4345
Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: 12/13/03 - 19:54 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | Any discussion precipitated by WheresNWS invariably turns into a thread like this one is turning into.
As for my definition, nothing else needs to be said, and Kbarr, if you think those qualities you bolded are "funny", well, then I don't know what to say. You're a little farther out there than I had imagined.
I'm not ashamed to say that I believe in the principles of that definition. Everyone should fit that definition, to an extent. The extent may vary but the concept is universal, and those who shun those properties are the antithesis of everything that has allowed us to rise from a primitive hunter-gatherer existance to the one we now enjoy as we type these meaningless paragraphs of drivel. |
What you consider "rising", some consider "pussyish".
We can be kind and nice and caring and sharing and all that b******t, but sooner or later we're going to have to realize that feeding the hungry, keeping the dying alive and all that is just adding more f*****g people to an already highly populated planet.
I'd be surprised if many people still want to feed the hungry and care for the dying when there's 20 billion people on the planet.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 12/13/03 - 20:00 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | Any discussion precipitated by WheresNWS invariably turns into a thread like this one is turning into.
As for my definition, nothing else needs to be said, and Kbarr, if you think those qualities you bolded are "funny", well, then I don't know what to say. You're a little farther out there than I had imagined.
I'm not ashamed to say that I believe in the principles of that definition. Everyone should fit that definition, to an extent. The extent may vary but the concept is universal, and those who shun those properties are the antithesis of everything that has allowed us to rise from a primitive hunter-gatherer existance to the one we now enjoy as we type these meaningless paragraphs of drivel. |
I bolded them because I see these virtues added to the definition of "liberal" as a joke. Its not so much the idea as it is the choice of words.
I wonder where that "definition" came from.
I got this one from Merriam-Webster online. I also find the "lacking moral restraint" part is right on target.
liberal[1,adjective]liberal[2,noun]liberal artslimousine liberal
Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date: 14th century
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE <a liberal translation>
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
========================================
Main Entry: 2liberal
Function: noun
Date: 1820
: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways b capitalized : a member or supporter of a liberal political party c : an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights
=========================================
Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1819
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/13/03 - 20:43 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | Any discussion precipitated by WheresNWS invariably turns into a thread like this one is turning into.
As for my definition, nothing else needs to be said, and Kbarr, if you think those qualities you bolded are "funny", well, then I don't know what to say. You're a little farther out there than I had imagined.
I'm not ashamed to say that I believe in the principles of that definition. Everyone should fit that definition, to an extent. The extent may vary but the concept is universal, and those who shun those properties are the antithesis of everything that has allowed us to rise from a primitive hunter-gatherer existance to the one we now enjoy as we type these meaningless paragraphs of drivel. |
Why do you have to be so intolerant? Please preclude yourself from this discussion if you have nothing to add but unelaborated dictionary definitions and a self-righteous attitude. I'm asking legitimate questions and desire legitimate answers. It seems that you either can't answer my questions or you're simply too afraid. I figured you would at least understand the ideology that drives your way of thinking...guess not.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
hitachi
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1507
Location: Maryland
|
|
Posted: 12/13/03 - 20:48 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | Any discussion precipitated by WheresNWS invariably turns into a thread like this one is turning into.
As for my definition, nothing else needs to be said, and Kbarr, if you think those qualities you bolded are "funny", well, then I don't know what to say. You're a little farther out there than I had imagined.
I'm not ashamed to say that I believe in the principles of that definition. Everyone should fit that definition, to an extent. The extent may vary but the concept is universal, and those who shun those properties are the antithesis of everything that has allowed us to rise from a primitive hunter-gatherer existance to the one we now enjoy as we type these meaningless paragraphs of drivel. |
yea but it didnt become this way until scrotum and now you posted.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/13/03 - 21:04 Post subject: Re: Liberals
|
|
|
| quotison wrote: | Tolerance should defintely extend to uncontrollable things, but shouldn't stop there. However, it becomes a grey area after that. I would still tolerate a disabled person, if his disability was his own fault. I would show respect and sympathy and all that good stuff.
Controllable aspects, it really depends on how much that 'controllable aspect' of your life interferes with the lives of others. Islam is by definition a peaceful religion. Although I don't agree with their religion, I do tolerate it because your average Muslim isn't a terrorist. For those Muslims who aren't peaceful, no they're not tolerated, because they f**k around with the lives of other people. I think Muslims in general should be tolerated, but certainly not all Muslims. |
If possible, can you elaborate further? It seems you are uncertain how far a behavior must go before considered intolerable. Could it be when it causes someone harm? When it causes someone an inconvenience? When is causes a sense of unpleasantness in others?
| quotison wrote: | | The intolerance comes from the fact that person dislikes blacks, with the reason being that they're black. You don't have to like all blacks to be tolerant. For example, I can't stand Al Sharpton. But my dislike is because of his character, not of his color. Ask that person why he doesn't like 'blacks in general' and he'll come up with some reason that stereotypes all blacks into having the same, negative characteristic. That's being intolerant. There is no same, negative characteristic that all blacks have. |
Naturally no single characteristic is shared by every single person of any particular group, so I intend to speak only in generalities. Let's take Louis Farrakan's Nation of Islam as an example. It's fair to say that those of this religion share certain common views, such as their distaste for white America. Is it intolerant of me to harbor negative views of this group? If so, what groups may I harbor negative attitudes for whilst remaining "tolerant"? If not, am I required to accept the fact that I am inherently evil, since I am a white American?
| quotison wrote: | There are defintely degrees of tolerance. A person might tolerate those of a different skin color, but might not tolerate gays for religious reasons, where I tolerate both gays and those of different race. Being tolerant of nothing is bad, and being tolerant of everything is bad too, since there are some things that shouldn't be tolerated.
There's also a degree into how much tolerance you have for a certain type of person. Person A might have no problems with gays at all and feel they should be given 100% the same rights as straight people. Person B might feel homosexuality is a sin, but will tolerate them enough to simply ignore them. Person C also feels homosexuality is a sin, but he commits violent acts against gays. For me personally, the type of tolerance person A shows is prefered, the type of tolerance person B shows is acceptable, and the type of tolerance person C shows is unacceptable. |
Given that I'm assuming tolerance to be a personality trait, I had already assumed that there would be verying degrees of it. For example, one person may be strong and the other very strong, just as with tolerance. However, I don't believe the fact a person's level of tolerance may vary really contributes to the definition of tolerance, which is my goal. So far my understanding is that tolerance, in the socratic sense, is the acceptance of everyone for everything regardless of origin, beliefs, actions, etc. I admit that I may be wrong at this point, though, which is why I continue to ask questions.
| quotison wrote: | | Tolerance does extend into believes to a certain extent. I might tolerate someone who thinks murder is OK because its just an opinion, a thought, but considering the number of a******s in the world, I would imagine that person would have murdered someone, making him not tolerable. But going back to my degrees comment above, I would tolerate this strange person enough that I wouldn't beat him up, but I certainly wouldn't associate or be friendly with this guy. |
To what extent does tolerance extend into beliefs? It seems that there is no limit if it is considered tolerant to accept someone's views on murder being such as these. What if this person were your next door neighbor and believed killing children was OK and you had some of your own? What if those views are potentially actionable? I would like to know more specifically how far tolerance extends into a belief.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
Posted: 12/13/03 - 22:58 Post subject:
|
|
|
It's fundamentally impossible to tolerate and treat everyone equally. Anybody will tell you that. I've never seen Democrats or liberals in general claim otherwise, but they do claim to be more tolerant.
WNWS is trying to angle towards his hypocrisy fetish, but again I've never heard of anyone claiming everyone should be treated equally. Mutual exclusivity of personal goals comes into play. You can't treat a child f****r the same way you treat the 6 year-old he raped.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/14/03 - 04:29 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | It's fundamentally impossible to tolerate and treat everyone equally. Anybody will tell you that. I've never seen Democrats or liberals in general claim otherwise, but they do claim to be more tolerant.
WNWS is trying to angle towards his hypocrisy fetish, but again I've never heard of anyone claiming everyone should be treated equally. Mutual exclusivity of personal goals comes into play. You can't treat a child f****r the same way you treat the 6 year-old he raped. |
Stop being so intolerant, you f**k. I asked to what extent should someone be tolerant in an ideal situation. If you're too ignorant of your own f*****g ideologies to give a reasonable response, shut the f**k up.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 12/14/03 - 05:38 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I'm appalled with the way the liberals are treating you NWS, they are so intolerant, disgusting bigots!!! And knowing you have some spanish? blood in you, I would venture to say they are also racists.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/14/03 - 05:39 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Kbarr wrote: | | I'm appalled with the way the liberals are treating you NWS, they are so intolerant, disgusting bigots!!! |
I'm just trying to open up and have an honest interchange of ideas. I don't know why they have to be so bigotted. 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
ATM Banana
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 8575
|
|
Posted: 12/14/03 - 05:45 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Kbarr wrote: | | I'm appalled with the way the liberals are treating you NWS, they are so intolerant, disgusting bigots!!! And knowing you have some spanish? blood in you, I would venture to say they are also racists. |
i would venture to say you're a moron, although i shouldn't speak because your post is the only one i read.
nws being mexican, who gives a flying f**k.
liberals being intolerant, thats spactacular.
it doesn't make republicans worhty of giving half a f**k for.
i swear, i'd rather be a liberal, if i had to choose
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 12/14/03 - 05:48 Post subject:
|
|
|
| ATM Banana wrote: | | Kbarr wrote: | | I'm appalled with the way the liberals are treating you NWS, they are so intolerant, disgusting bigots!!! And knowing you have some spanish? blood in you, I would venture to say they are also racists. |
i would venture to say you're a moron, although i shouldn't speak because your post is the only one i read.
nws being mexican, who gives a flying f**k.
liberals being intolerant, thats spactacular.
it doesn't make republicans worhty of giving half a f**k for.
i swear, i'd rather be a liberal, if i had to choose |
Disgusting!!!
So offensive!!!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
