"TOLERANCE" is the virtue of a man without convict

[muy_thaiguy]

this is what I hate about animal rights activists, feminists and vegetarians.

they oppress by being oppressed.

and now it seems i can add christians to the list.

EDIT: ok maybe not vegetarians so much, i just stuck it in for the power of three.

Not vegetarians as a whole, but you can add PETA and Vegans.

[jay_a2j]

this is what I hate about animal rights activists, feminists and vegetarians.

they oppress by being oppressed.

and now it seems i can add christians to the list.

EDIT: ok maybe not vegetarians so much, i just stuck it in for the power of three.

The difference being that those for the "ethical treatment of animals" are usually the same people lining up in the pro-choice marches. Showing the bewildering desire to protect animals and not giving a darn about killing humans. Feminists are, in extreme cases, trying to oppress men. A "We really don't need you men at all, so just go away." The effects of which will be seen in our children.

[muy_thaiguy]

this is what I hate about animal rights activists, feminists and vegetarians.

they oppress by being oppressed.

and now it seems i can add christians to the list.

EDIT: ok maybe not vegetarians so much, i just stuck it in for the power of three.

The difference being that those for the "ethical treatment of animals" are usually the same people lining up in the pro-choice marches. Showing the bewildering desire to protect animals and not giving a darn about killing humans. Feminists are, in extreme cases, trying to oppress men. A "We really don't need you men at all, so just go away." The effects of which will be seen in our children.

Feminists, Feminazis, whatever happened to the women who just wanted a vote and better wages, and not trying to make men out to be nothing more then cavemen with automobiles?

[vtmarik]

The difference being that those for the "ethical treatment of animals" are usually the same people lining up in the pro-choice marches. Showing the bewildering desire to protect animals and not giving a darn about killing humans. Feminists are, in extreme cases, trying to oppress men. A "We really don't need you men at all, so just go away." The effects of which will be seen in our children.

Oooooh, ominous. Our children will respect women as equals and not people who should be silent or subservient. What a travesty!

[heavycola]

this is what I hate about animal rights activists, feminists and vegetarians.

they oppress by being oppressed.

and now it seems i can add christians to the list.

EDIT: ok maybe not vegetarians so much, i just stuck it in for the power of three.

The difference being that those for the "ethical treatment of animals" are usually the same people lining up in the pro-choice marches. Showing the bewildering desire to protect animals and not giving a darn about killing humans. Feminists are, in extreme cases, trying to oppress men. A "We really don't need you men at all, so just go away." The effects of which will be seen in our children.

I've noticed that too. People who march for animal rights have no problem killing people. The statistics back that right up. They are also all atheists and liberals to boot. And evolutionarianismists.
How many pro-abortion marchers / animal rights activists did you poll, jay?

[jay_a2j]

The difference being that those for the "ethical treatment of animals" are usually the same people lining up in the pro-choice marches. Showing the bewildering desire to protect animals and not giving a darn about killing humans. Feminists are, in extreme cases, trying to oppress men. A "We really don't need you men at all, so just go away." The effects of which will be seen in our children.

Oooooh, ominous. Our children will respect women as equals and not people who should be silent or subservient. What a travesty!

No, our children will grow up hating their dads because of the ultra feminist crap that has been fed them from an early age. Men are a way to reproduce, nothing else. "Women unite! Let us show the world we can raise our kids better than if their dads were contributing to their upbringing!"


The soft echo's of "Your father is a no good loser" serve as a constant reminder that men are less qualified to raise their kids then their mother.

[MeDeFe]

for everyday language and when used as an adverb I'll grant that you're right, however, 'absolute' (whether as an adjective or a noun) and 'complete' are not synonymous, and when jumping from definition of one word to an other all you end up with is a nice little pun that doesn't do anything to 'prove' that there are any absolutes (noun) whatsoever.

If you really want to discuss this you can join me and daddy1gringo in the "universal good evil"-thread, though we're somewhat beyond this point in our discussion already.

Since I didn't make the claim of using it as a synonym the rest of what you said wouldn't apply. I do notice that when people want to avoid being accountable for their actions they try to redefine language to mean what they want it to mean. When our own former president, Bill Clinton, got caught telling a lie about an extra-marital affair he tried to redefine the word "is". You were keen enough to see where I was going with my post, so you attempted to dissect the word "absolute" instead of dealing with the point I was making. If we're going to play a semantics game then what's the point of a discussion.

This also applies to how the world is trying to redefine the word "tolerance" in order to justify the acceptance of behaviors that were once deemed wrong.

Thanks for the comparison to Bill Clinton, from what I've heard he did an overall good job as a president, managed to keep a balanced budget and was respected and popular among the "traditional" allies of the USA.

For the record, I don't give a wet fart about his or any other persons extra-marital affairs as long as I'm not directly involved in them. I'm still amazed that things got blown so far out of proportion, yet statements like "We know Iraq has weapons of mass destruction", "We know Saddam Hussein has ties to al Qaeda", "We know Saddam Hussein has tried to obtain enriched Uranium" have received no more than a raised eyebrow. But I digress, this topic would probably need a thread of its own, seeing how it's already had approximately half a dozen.


So what was initially argued went along the lines of "There are no absolutes." - "Are you absolutely sure of that?" answer yes or no and you're screwed, and let's hurry on and pretend that this has proven that there are absolutes of whatever kind. That's what I meant by "jumping from one definition to an other", I haven't redefined anything, I'm merely trying to point out that a pun won't hold for long once serious discussing begins.

[vtmarik]

No, our children will grow up hating their dads because of the ultra feminist crap that has been fed them from an early age. Men are a way to reproduce, nothing else. "Women unite! Let us show the world we can raise our kids better than if their dads were contributing to their upbringing!"


The soft echo's of "Your father is a no good loser" serve as a constant reminder that men are less qualified to raise their kids then their mother.

Oh ok, I thought you were just being a sensationalist idiot.

[spurgistan]

No, our children will grow up hating their dads because of the ultra feminist crap that has been fed them from an early age. Men are a way to reproduce, nothing else. "Women unite! Let us show the world we can raise our kids better than if their dads were contributing to their upbringing!"

The soft echo's of "Your father is a no good loser" serve as a constant reminder that men are less qualified to raise their kids then their mother.

Honestly, you should be extremely happy of the fact that women have been so tolerant of our demeaning and priggish attitude toward them for so long. The fact that a tiny proportion of women that go completely the other way should only surprise us by what a small minority it really is.

Also, dude, the fact that women are seen as more qualified to raise children is because that's the role society has assigned them traditionally. Not saying that's right (it isn't, unfair to the woman and man) but to argue that radical feminism has anything to do with that is, well, dumb.

[luns101]

Thanks for the comparison to Bill Clinton, from what I've heard he did an overall good job as a president, managed to keep a balanced budget and was respected and popular among the "traditional" allies of the USA.

I'm sure to people who have a Keynesian view of economics or a liking to socialist programs he would be viewed in that light. So I'll use an example from a conservative US president, Richard Nixon. Nixon tried to redefine the meaning of the words 'executive privilege' in order to avoid his own sins. I think if you're honest, you would admit that people try to redefine words when they are caught doing something wrong as a way of avoiding punishment.

A funny way of illustrating this is when Jeff Spicoli tried to redefine what class time meant in Fast Times at Ridgemont High. People always try to play fast and loose with words when it suits their behavior.

For the record, I don't give a wet fart about his or any other persons extra-marital affairs as long as I'm not directly involved in them. I'm still amazed that things got blown so far out of proportion, yet statements like "We know Iraq has weapons of mass destruction", "We know Saddam Hussein has ties to al Qaeda", "We know Saddam Hussein has tried to obtain enriched Uranium" have received no more than a raised eyebrow. But I digress, this topic would probably need a thread of its own, seeing how it's already had approximately half a dozen.

I already addressed these points in various Iraq War threads. Nobody has given me any credible evidence to the contrary.

So what was initially argued went along the lines of "There are no absolutes." - "Are you absolutely sure of that?" answer yes or no and you're screwed, and let's hurry on and pretend that this has proven that there are absolutes of whatever kind. That's what I meant by "jumping from one definition to an other", I haven't redefined anything, I'm merely trying to point out that a pun won't hold for long once serious discussing begins.

Well, that's the point of my post (what you refer to as a pun). Of course I'm going to point out what I believe to be flawed logic when I see it. In order for the statement - "there is no absolute right or wrong" to be correct, it would rely on the absolute rightness/correctness of the statement itself. That's a fallacy!

You recognized that immediately and tried to pick apart the meaning of the word 'absolutely' instead of dealing with the point. If you're going to be this picky about what I write, then I expect you to use the same standard for everyone else posting here...including Backglass' numerous puns.

So I'll try to put forth why I think "tolerance", as it's been redefined in today's culture, is not a correct way of thinking. Under the new definition, every point of view would be considered equally valid. That would mean the witch doctor's voodoo is just as respectable as someone who's been to medical school. The student's opinion of being disrespectful towards a teacher is just as valid as the teacher who wants to maintain order in a classroom. The lawbreaker has equal credibility as the law enforcer. I personally do not believe that two directly contradictory views can both have equal validity at the same time. In short, nothing is wrong or right...everything is acceptable.

[jay_a2j]

No, our children will grow up hating their dads because of the ultra feminist crap that has been fed them from an early age. Men are a way to reproduce, nothing else. "Women unite! Let us show the world we can raise our kids better than if their dads were contributing to their upbringing!"


The soft echo's of "Your father is a no good loser" serve as a constant reminder that men are less qualified to raise their kids then their mother.

Oh ok, I thought you were just being a sensationalist idiot.

Sensationalist? I have to be in order to stir the pot!

[radiojake]

this is what I hate about animal rights activists, feminists and vegetarians.

they oppress by being oppressed.

and now it seems i can add christians to the list.

EDIT: ok maybe not vegetarians so much, i just stuck it in for the power of three.

The difference being that those for the "ethical treatment of animals" are usually the same people lining up in the pro-choice marches. Showing the bewildering desire to protect animals and not giving a darn about killing humans. Feminists are, in extreme cases, trying to oppress men. A "We really don't need you men at all, so just go away." The effects of which will be seen in our children.

Wow, sounds like people who send people off to war!

Pro-Choice is exactly that... pro-CHOICE. No-one at those marches are saying 'ABORT YOUR FETUS', but f*ck, sometimes people get pregnant who shouldn't have (i.e young teenagers, rape victims etc) and sometimes it's probably better to terminate an unborn fetus than to bring it up into this shitty world.

And yes, some feminists are anti-male which makes it a paradox, but on the whole this patriarch society is still heavily male biased/influenced, so there's a long way to go before true gender equality.


To the core of this thread, tolerance.

"TOLERANCE" is the virtue of a man without convict

TOLERANCE
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.


So you're saying, Jay, that a MAN (apparently womyn are exempted? or you just forgot to acknowledge?) is without conviction if they cannot accept someone else's lifestyle that differs from their own

Please explain how that doesn't make you a bigot?

[unriggable]

radiojake, aside from the fact that you spelled woman with a 'y', i agree with that post.

[CrazyAnglican]

b-o-l-l-o-c-k-s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollocks

Hey,

That's the dogs bollocks!

thanks mate!

[radiojake]

We can't search the middle eastern guy boarding the plane (even though he has a trench coat on in JULY!) because that would be intolerant and PI. (politically incorrect)

Bullshit. I was at an airport once where there was a fairly long line going through security. The one guy in this long line they pulled aside for their 'random' TNT powder search besides me was the guy with the turban. REALLY RANDOM. I also felt sorry this guy as he ended up boarding the same plane as me, but was one of the last on. Everyone on the plane started whispering and the whole mood on the plane changed when everyone saw him come on. An entire race has been typecast since this war on terror, it's bullshit.


Also Jay, isn't it the Christian way to be tolerant and to turn the other cheek? Hypocrite

[jay_a2j]

Wow, sounds like people who send people off to war!

Pro-Choice is exactly that... pro-CHOICE. No-one at those marches are saying 'ABORT YOUR FETUS', but f*ck, sometimes people get pregnant who shouldn't have (i.e young teenagers, rape victims etc) and sometimes it's probably better to terminate an unborn fetus than to bring it up into this shitty world.

And yes, some feminists are anti-male which makes it a paradox, but on the whole this patriarch society is still heavily male biased/influenced, so there's a long way to go before true gender equality.


To the core of this thread, tolerance.

"TOLERANCE" is the virtue of a man without convict

TOLERANCE
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.


So you're saying, Jay, that a MAN (apparently womyn are exempted? or you just forgot to acknowledge?) is without conviction if they cannot accept someone else's lifestyle that differs from their own

Please explain how that doesn't make you a bigot?

First of all "man" is used here as all inclusive... like "dawn of man", "the world was fine until man messed it up", and "man has discovered many new technologies in recent years".

And yes, with explanation. Abortion is a good example. For a (wo)man to say abortion is wrong PERIOD. They are speaking from a stance of conviction. For a person to say either, "To each their own" or "I think it's wrong but I will accept others beliefs that it is not wrong". Is a person without conviction. They have no concrete foundation of which to form their belief. We are now entering the realm of the absence of absolute right and wrong. Anything goes, its all an opinion. This takes us to a Godless state of being. Who says what is right and what is wrong? Surely not man, we can't agree on much of anything and if we humans DO dictate what is right and wrong we take God out of the equation.

When most people housebreak a puppy and it defecates on our couch, we yell at it, say "No!', rub his nose in it and take him outside. Why? Because it is wrong for the dog to do that? Who says? Maybe the dog believes it is right to do that. We set what is right and wrong for the puppy and God sets what is right and wrong for us.


btw nice choice of definition...... that is what it has come to mean. I'm sure you had other choices.

Question: was Jesus tolerant?

[got tonkaed]

just thought id chime in....

i dont know if its necesarily wrong that a person says to each their own on something that doesnt necesarily relate to them immediatly. Im never going to have to decide if i should abort a baby that id be carrying. Simple genetics really, but thats why i dont feel like i should necesarily to tell women in an absolute stance whether or not they should. IF someone was to ask my personal advice about an abortion...or any other hotbed issue, i may chime in with how i feel depending on whether or not i feel like sharing or what i know. But to take philosophical stances on something that doesnt relate to me like abortion....i dont feel one has to take that absolute stance....which often leads to a live and let live.

To answer your question....clearly jesus wasnt tolerant about things which were of great concern to him, but he was excessively tolerant about things that people thought were important. Its a trick question.

You could spin it around and say, well should we be tolerant of things which will in all likely not be related to us, like gay marriage or abortion, or should we consider those our lines in teh sand as jesus did with the individuals in the temple.

[btownmeggy]

*blah blah* (...) as a constant reminder that men are less qualified to raise their kids then their mother.

Tell me, jay.

Do you lactate?

[radiojake]

First of all "man" is used here as all inclusive... like "dawn of man", "the world was fine until man messed it up", and "man has discovered many new technologies in recent years".

Thanks jay for highlighting another of my points about us living in a patriarchal and male dominated society. But that's another issue.

And yes, with explanation. Abortion is a good example. For a (wo)man to say abortion is wrong PERIOD. They are speaking from a stance of conviction. For a person to say either, "To each their own" or "I think it's wrong but I will accept others beliefs that it is not wrong". Is a person without conviction. They have no concrete foundation of which to form their belief. We are now entering the realm of the absence of absolute right and wrong. Anything goes, its all an opinion. This takes us to a Godless state of being. Who says what is right and what is wrong? Surely not man, we can't agree on much of anything and if we humans DO dictate what is right and wrong we take God out of the equation.

You really are an arrogant one, hey. Having convictions is one thing, but to force one's convictions onto someone else (because God says so) is absurd. How can I (as a male who has never gotten anyone pregnant) say with any conviction what is wrong or right for someone else to do with their unborn child?? Their decision (one way or the other) will not affect my life adversely. If the unborn child was half mine, that's a different story, and would be between myself and my partner (AND NO-ONE ELSE) Your self-righteous view of the world is the reason why religions do not work well together. You take God's word as absolute, and the irony being that YOU have no conviction's of your own. You've taken on what God apparently spoke, totally trusted the Bible for all evidence, and now choose to push your token belief's onto everyone else. Who is to say what is right or wrong? Well I'll trust my own judgment on how to treat my fellow human and non-human animals. I consider myself a good person, and I don't think my absence of faith makes me any less of a good samaritan. I look forward to this 'Godless state of being', as you call it, because hopefully people will start thinking for themselves.

When most people housebreak a puppy and it defecates on our couch, we yell at it, say "No!', rub his nose in it and take him outside. Why? Because it is wrong for the dog to do that? Who says? Maybe the dog believes it is right to do that. We set what is right and wrong for the puppy and God sets what is right and wrong for us.

Again, arrogant. The reason someone would scold the puppy for taking a dump on the couch isn't because it is 'wrong'. It is because the human does not want dog crap on their couch. It is an entirely authoritative act. The human is bigger, stronger (generally) and is pulling rank on the dog. I'm not saying I wouldn't do the same, but it is entirely the dog owner's interest that they scold the dog, not because of what is 'right' or 'wrong'

Question: was Jesus tolerant?

Now not being a religious man I'm not the best person to ask this question, as reading the Bible for quotes (like all Christian's seem to like doing) isn't going to be happening. But I do happen to have a girlfriend who grew up in a Christian house and went to church and all that jazz. She has informed me that apparently Jesus forgave the people who put him on the cross and crucified him. He also ate and dined with prostitutes and whores at his own table and bathed the feet of those less worthy of him. Now I'm pretty certain Jesus wouldn't have liked what the prostitutes and whores were doing for a living, but he didn't care, one could even say he tolerated and turned the other cheek, as all good Christian's are supposed to do.

[jay_a2j]

Jesus never tolerated anything. He loves everyone, shown many times in scripture. But when He forgave people, he often said, "Go, and sin no more." He wasn't indifferent to sin, he hates sin, but loves us. Again, Jesus didn't "tolerate" the tax collectors in the temple.... he flipped tables! Jesus did forgive his crucifiers, but this has nothing to do with tolerance.

"If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him also the other." Is not tolerance but forgiveness.


I'm not sure where you are getting "arrogance" from. Is it because I believe in absolute right and wrong that makes me arrogant? I'm not "forcing" my beliefs on anyone. "Do not stand in the way of sinners." So you won't find me protesting in front of abortion clinics, strip clubs, casinos, porn shops and the like. But I do have convictions that these thing are/can be sinful. Do, I judge the person who walks into these kind of places? No, and I don't run up to them and "force" my convictions on them. This is a forum, by your own free will you came to this site, came into this thread, read my posts and replied to them. Where is the "force" you claim I have done?

[reverend_kyle]

We can't search the middle eastern guy boarding the plane (even though he has a trench coat on in JULY!) because that would be intolerant and PI. (politically incorrect)

Bullshit. I was at an airport once where there was a fairly long line going through security. The one guy in this long line they pulled aside for their 'random' TNT powder search besides me was the guy with the turban. REALLY RANDOM. I also felt sorry this guy as he ended up boarding the same plane as me, but was one of the last on. Everyone on the plane started whispering and the whole mood on the plane changed when everyone saw him come on. An entire race has been typecast since this war on terror, it's bullshit.


Also Jay, isn't it the Christian way to be tolerant and to turn the other cheek? Hypocrite

This reminds me of an english teacher who talked about how she got violent feelings and wanted to attack every middle eastern looking person she's ever seen on a plane since 9/11. And said that pirelli tires was behind 9/11.

[DangerBoy]

Pro-Choice is exactly that... pro-CHOICE. No-one at those marches are saying 'ABORT YOUR FETUS'

Well not in those exact words:

[Neutrino]

I think he meant no-one sane.

[Skittles!]

Call me sick, but I agree with the last person in the last picture.

Human death is necessary for the continuation of life. We're near 6.5 + billion. That's a fucking lot of un-needed shit and use of resources.

I hate humans, a lot. But I tolerate them every single fucking day. I may just one day snap and kill a whole lot, but I won't because killing a whole lot won't make a difference, because if I kill 10, in about 5 minutes we'll have 10 new humans to replace the ones I just killed.

It's fucking sick. We're worst than a plague of rabbits.

[muy_thaiguy]

Call me sick, but I agree with the last person in the last picture.

Human death is necessary for the continuation of life. We're near 6.5 + billion. That's a fucking lot of un-needed shit and use of resources.

I hate humans, a lot. But I tolerate them every single fucking day. I may just one day snap and kill a whole lot, but I won't because killing a whole lot won't make a difference, because if I kill 10, in about 5 minutes we'll have 10 new humans to replace the ones I just killed.

It's fucking sick. We're worst than a plague of rabbits.

So, a nuke I guess would be the best option there, going by your thinking.