"TOLERANCE" is the virtue of a man without convict

[Syzygy]

There is no such thing as absolute right or wrong.

I see you stated that as an absolute.

Absolutely.

[mr. incrediball]

BOLLUX

*holds sharpened carrot to jay's throat*

NEVER... USE... BRITISH... WORDS... AGAIN!

[Norse]

this is one time i feel happy to agree with norse

I don't want your poxy endorsement, you turd-burger.

[mr. incrediball]

this is one time i feel happy to agree with norse

I don't want your poxy endorsement, you turd-burgler.

oh, so i burgle this ONE turd, and that makes me a turd burgler

[jay_a2j]

jeez, jay, you don't have to be a full-time reactionary bigot.....you could take a year off and stop torturing us w/ these posts.....

Hey, hey Heavycola was gettin bored... I was just trying to entertain him. (See his "argument" thread)

[mandalorian2298]

RELATIVIST is a person who is aware that he could be wrong and is honest enough to admit it.

ABSOLUTIST is either:

1. A perfect all-knowing being

2. A person who is more interested in convincing other people that he is right then he is in learning the truth.

[MeDeFe]

There is no such thing as absolute right or wrong.

I see you stated that as an absolute.

Absolutely.

In fact, he didn't. It just seems like he did to people who don't distinguish between "absolutely" and "completely".

[jay_a2j]

There is no such thing as absolute right or wrong.

I see you stated that as an absolute.

Absolutely.

In fact, he didn't. It just seems like he did to people who don't distinguish between "absolutely" and "completely".

Aside from spelling there is little difference.


and he used the word "absolutely" not "completely". (one defines the other, eh)

[MeDeFe]

No it doesn't. But I'm really not sure if I want to carry that discussion over here as well.

[reverend_kyle]

All this argueing going on and I'm still trying to figure out

We must not have the Pledge in our schools for it may offend the atheist when saying, "In God we Trust".

where we say in god we trust in the pledge

[muy_thaiguy]

All this argueing going on and I'm still trying to figure out

We must not have the Pledge in our schools for it may offend the atheist when saying, "In God we Trust".

where we say in god we trust in the pledge

Think he meant "Under God, idivisible, with Liberty and Justice, For all." In God we Trust is on the currency.

[jay_a2j]

All this argueing going on and I'm still trying to figure out

We must not have the Pledge in our schools for it may offend the atheist when saying, "In God we Trust".

where we say in god we trust in the pledge

Yeah, I noticed that....I was seeing how long before someone figured it out. "One nation under God".

You win a cookie!

[spurgistan]

BULL and OX = Those two animals can't couple.

Maybe if we were more tolerant they could.

What are ya, a interspecies pimp?

Doesn't matter, a bull ain't got the necessary 'equipment' for coupling.

Tolerance doesn't alter reality.

Err... bulls of any species couple. It's what they do.

[luns101]

In fact, he didn't. It just seems like he did to people who don't distinguish between "absolutely" and "completely".

Are you really going to be that picky? When used as an adverb as I was doing...

Definitely and completely; unquestionably.

without exception; completely; wholly; entirely

completely

(1) totally and definitely; without question. (2) completely and without qualification

without exception; completely; wholly; entirely

So both are used interchangeably. In order for his statement "there is no absolute right or wrong" to be correct...it would have to rely on the absolute rightness (or correctness if you want to pick on that one) of the statement itself. That would negate the claim.

[Neutrino]

Even knowing this is a jay-spawned thread, I am still suprised at the amount of hypocrisy exhibited here.

I'm sure Jay or any of those supporting him have complained of "Christian Bashing" in one of the numerous religion threads. How can you be pro-tolerance there, yet anti-tolerance here? Hell, how would early Christians, as a small, persecuted sect, have felt about tolerance?

All this hypocrisy exposed, even while ignoring the fact that tolerance was one of the main things your 'greatest nation in the world' was founded on.

[jay_a2j]

Even knowing this is a jay-spawned thread, I am still suprised at the amount of hypocrisy exhibited here.

I'm sure Jay or any of those supporting him have complained of "Christian Bashing" in one of the numerous religion threads. How can you be pro-tolerance there, yet anti-tolerance here? Hell, how would early Christians, as a small, persecuted sect, have felt about tolerance?

All this hypocrisy exposed, even while ignoring the fact that tolerance was one of the main things your 'greatest nation in the world' was founded on.

Oh, so many things wrong with this post.

Persecution is commonly more visible to the persecuted rather than the unaffected. A friend of the family recently was flying back to the US from Germany. She was told by airport security that she could NOT bring her Bible on board. There have been countless news articles which substantiate the persecution of Christians. From women being told that they could not wear their cross necklace to work (or had to put it UNDER their shirt so it couldn't be seen). To PRE-class Bible studies being baned because someone was "offended". I could go on and on. Why? Because the persecution/intolerance of Christians hits home for me....and I take notice when these things happen. I am aware that this persecution is minute compared to other places in the world.... but it exists. And to say it doesn't is merely incorrect.


I'm not pro-tolerant on anything. I have a set of values witch I believe are ABSOLUTE.


The USA was not founded on "tolerance" but rather equality and multiculturalism. (and it took us a long time to even begin to get that right)

[MeDeFe]

In fact, he didn't. It just seems like he did to people who don't distinguish between "absolutely" and "completely".

Are you really going to be that picky? When used as an adverb as I was doing...

[a lot of dictionary entries saying "absolutely"="completely"]

So both are used interchangeably. In order for his statement "there is no absolute right or wrong" to be correct...it would have to rely on the absolute rightness (or correctness if you want to pick on that one) of the statement itself. That would negate the claim.

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.

[Neutrino]

Oh, so many things wrong with this post.

Persecution is commonly more visible to the persecuted rather than the unaffected. A friend of the family recently was flying back to the US from Germany. She was told by airport security that she could NOT bring her Bible on board. There have been countless news articles which substantiate the persecution of Christians. From women being told that they could not wear their cross necklace to work (or had to put it UNDER their shirt so it couldn't be seen). To PRE-class Bible studies being baned because someone was "offended". I could go on and on. Why? Because the persecution/intolerance of Christians hits home for me....and I take notice when these things happen. I am aware that this persecution is minute compared to other places in the world.... but it exists. And to say it doesn't is merely incorrect.

Ummm, in case you didn't notice, CHRISTIANS ARE A MAJORITY! How can you descriminate against a majority in a fair Democracy?

Anyway, all your examples are merely examples of the stupidity of this PC culture. Talk to anyone who displays their beliefs obviously and you will hear a host of similar stories.

I'm not pro-tolerant on anything. I have a set of values witch I believe are ABSOLUTE.

How can there be absolutes? The majority of Iraqis probably view the American armed forces as 'evil' as they came and destroyed most of their infrastrucure, while you very obviously believe them to be 'good'. Everything is SUBJECTIVE. I may be going into "Is there an ultimate Good and Evil" territory here, but meh.

The USA was not founded on "tolerance" but rather equality and multiculturalism. (and it took us a long time to even begin to get that right)

And how can you have equality and multiculturalism without tolerance?

[Simonov]

Tolerance, the much called for liberal notion that everyone and everything MUST be accepted to celebrate our diversity as people. As my English brethren would say, BULLOX! To tolerate all things makes you a weak person that does not think for yourself! "Tolerance" means there is NO absolute right and wrong. Everything is relative. I again say, bullox!

i pro-tolerance but tolerance has it's threshold. once someone breaks it you should react.

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)

this should be done but without this turning into harassment of every middle-eastern passenger, you should have a reasonable doubt to do it.

We must not have the Pledge in our schools for it may offend the atheist when saying, "In God we Trust".

this is easy every should choose what he wants to say in his pledge.

[Syzygy]

There is no such thing as absolute right or wrong.

I see you stated that as an absolute.

Completely.

In fact, he didn't. It just seems like he did to people who don't distinguish between "absolutely" and "completely".

Aside from spelling there is little difference.


and he used the word "absolutely" not "completely". (one defines the other, eh)

Liar.

[vtmarik]

Oh, so many things wrong with this post.

Persecution is commonly more visible to the persecuted rather than the unaffected. A friend of the family recently was flying back to the US from Germany. She was told by airport security that she could NOT bring her Bible on board. There have been countless news articles which substantiate the persecution of Christians. From women being told that they could not wear their cross necklace to work (or had to put it UNDER their shirt so it couldn't be seen). To PRE-class Bible studies being baned because someone was "offended". I could go on and on. Why? Because the persecution/intolerance of Christians hits home for me....and I take notice when these things happen. I am aware that this persecution is minute compared to other places in the world.... but it exists. And to say it doesn't is merely incorrect.

First off, the woman should have sued for the right to wear her cross. She didn't. This is not persecution, but a capricious company being idiotic. Instead of whining about how you're being persecuted, why don't you do what everyone else does when they're discriminated against? Sue the bastards for violation of free speech, then you can wear whatever cross you want.

I hear it now: "But the witches can wear their pentacles, and the Jews can wear the Star of David but Christians can't wear their crosses, it's not fair!"
You're right, it isn't. Do you know why those other groups got the option to wear them? They sued and won.

It just seems to me that if the Christians want the right to wear their crosses, that maybe instead of whining about being persecuted they should stand up for their rights. That's what everyone else does when they're discriminated against.

Just a thought.

I'm not pro-tolerant on anything. I have a set of values witch I believe are ABSOLUTE.

Good for you, the rest of us are capable of adapting to changing social mores and the times. Have fun with your outdated and archaic ideas about what is right and wrong, we'll keep on keeping on.

The USA was not founded on "tolerance" but rather equality and multiculturalism. (and it took us a long time to even begin to get that right)

Nor was it founded on solely Christian ideology. You can't have it both ways.

It's not OK to discriminate against anyone's religious beliefs, be they Christian, Muslim, or Pagan. However, if such discrimination takes place, you take their ass to the Supreme Court.

Don't go whining to Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, or some other media fathead. Get a lawyer, call the ACLU, and go to court. You'll win, trust me.

[jay_a2j]

How can there be absolutes? The majority of Iraqis probably view the American armed forces as 'evil' as they came and destroyed most of their infrastrucure, while you very obviously believe them to be 'good'. Everything is SUBJECTIVE. I may be going into "Is there an ultimate Good and Evil" territory here, but meh.

Because, assuming God is. He sets what is right or wrong, good or evil. Not man. Many people find nothing wrong with getting drunk, yet God says in His word, "Do not get drunk". It's an absolute. I can see God now asking, "Which part do you not understand, the "Do" or the "not"?"

I don't believe anything or anyone to be "good" except God.

The USA was not founded on "tolerance" but rather equality and multiculturalism. (and it took us a long time to even begin to get that right)

And how can you have equality and multiculturalism without tolerance?

Hmm we didn't do a good job "tolerating" the British and their taxes.



Tolerance is not acceptance. It is the state of being neutral on any given topic. Just because one tolerates something does not mean they agree with it. This is treasonous against self. "Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions"

[luns101]

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.

[vtmarik]

Tolerance is not acceptance. It is the state of being neutral on any given topic. Just because one tolerates something does not mean they agree with it. This is treasonous against self. "Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions"

Conversely to your statement, just because you disagree with someone doesn't make you right and them wrong.

I don't care what anyone else does with their own bodies or behaviors as long as it doesn't infringe on the basic human rights of others. Maybe that is acceptance, maybe not.

Perhaps if people spent less time complaining about the bad parts of life and more time finding ways to deal with them, we'd have a lot more well-adjusted people in the world.

Welcome to America. This is a free society. In a free society you don't need a reason to make something legal or allowed, you need a reason to make something illegal.

[mr. incrediball]

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.