Is it Intolerant to be Intolerant of Intolerance? #2

There's so much bullshit in this, I have to copy and make comments as it goes along

Let's take a different perspective on this.

Many conservatives have been arguing in the name of freedom of speech in light of the recent Duck Dynasty fiasco. It's a fake fiasco b/c liberals are intolerant
1520767_184570461738933_1560839622_n.jpg


However, let's take this from another perspective - the notion of objective morality versus work ethic. Some conservatives believe they're entitled to subjectively judge others as lazy because others aren't doing what some conservatives want. out and out lie. people that don't work, is who gets judged. Some conservatives focus on what others do rather than how they do it. They are intolerant of what other people do. like the knock out game? yea, we are against that.If others are violated in the course of what they're doing, some conservatives say they're not going to prosecute criminals because some conservatives are intolerant of their victims. you need to meet an actual conservative instead of taking the opinions of liberals about conservatives as fact.

On top of this, these same conservatives argue in the name of the free market. They believe that people should be entitled to do what they will without interference...yea, duh

...so basically, on one hand, they want protection of their own efforts, but on the other, if they judge someone as lazy because of being incompatible, they don't believe others deserve protection of their efforts. On one hand, they oppose collectivized central planning, but on the other, they insist upon collectivized tradition.lots of blithering here.

In sum, those conservatives who are clamoring for how it's intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance and believe in work ethic should try living in a communist dystopia where they're not tolerated to make their own lifestyle decisions, but instead, have to conform to others who are intolerant of how they want the freedom to choose how they live their lives.you mean like here in America? Can my kids pray in school? Wear a t-shirt with a gun pic on it? Likewise, they should be victimized by criminals and realize what it's like to not have justice upheld in their name because law enforcers are intolerant of what said conservatives do.like when obama had the irs fuck over conservative groups?


you're not very smart or a good liar.
 
As for Duck Dynasty guy, I am only peripherally aware of the situation. Some guy I never heard of before all this broke said something about blacks and homosexuals that was outside his job description, and so he lost his job. His comments were only made known to the public because of the notoriety that comes with his job. Therefore, his comments are connected to his employer. Every media figure has a clause in their contract which covers this kind of thing.

That makes it his employer's perogative to fire him, as far as I'm concerned.

It's still a free country. You can say what you want, but that does not mean your boss has to keep you on the payroll if it reflects badly on the company.

We had a similar article in the UCMJ. Do or say anthing that disgraces the uniform, and you will pay a price.

He disgraced his corporate uniform.

Now he's free to tour with Sarah Palin.

[MENTION=34052]g5000[/MENTION]

Please post his job description so we can all read it too.

Not possible as this would take away from the far left Obama drone rant.
 
As for Duck Dynasty guy, I am only peripherally aware of the situation. Some guy I never heard of before all this broke said something about blacks and homosexuals that was outside his job description, and so he lost his job. His comments were only made known to the public because of the notoriety that comes with his job. Therefore, his comments are connected to his employer. Every media figure has a clause in their contract which covers this kind of thing.

That makes it his employer's perogative to fire him, as far as I'm concerned.

It's still a free country. You can say what you want, but that does not mean your boss has to keep you on the payroll if it reflects badly on the company.

We had a similar article in the UCMJ. Do or say anthing that disgraces the uniform, and you will pay a price.

He disgraced his corporate uniform.

Now he's free to tour with Sarah Palin.

[MENTION=34052]g5000[/MENTION]

Please post his job description so we can all read it too.

He is a corporate asset. He marred his reputation, and thus damaged the corporate asset. It really isn't that difficult to understand.
 
another poor attempt at bashing conservatives, the author's numerous premises are all wrong.

I would go as far to say that the author is stereotyping people thus all of the authors assertions are false.

Where did I stereotype? I said "many conservatives" not "all conservatives".

Using far left talking points does not help your point as you (the far left) see only conservatives of such things.

Just because I see many conservatives doesn't mean I exclude everyone else.

I only focused on many conservatives here because they're the ones with the issue at hand.
 
There's so much bullshit in this, I have to copy and make comments as it goes along

Let's take a different perspective on this.

Many conservatives have been arguing in the name of freedom of speech in light of the recent Duck Dynasty fiasco. It's a fake fiasco b/c liberals are intolerant
1520767_184570461738933_1560839622_n.jpg


However, let's take this from another perspective - the notion of objective morality versus work ethic. Some conservatives believe they're entitled to subjectively judge others as lazy because others aren't doing what some conservatives want. out and out lie. people that don't work, is who gets judged. Some conservatives focus on what others do rather than how they do it. They are intolerant of what other people do. like the knock out game? yea, we are against that.If others are violated in the course of what they're doing, some conservatives say they're not going to prosecute criminals because some conservatives are intolerant of their victims. you need to meet an actual conservative instead of taking the opinions of liberals about conservatives as fact.

On top of this, these same conservatives argue in the name of the free market. They believe that people should be entitled to do what they will without interference...yea, duh

...so basically, on one hand, they want protection of their own efforts, but on the other, if they judge someone as lazy because of being incompatible, they don't believe others deserve protection of their efforts. On one hand, they oppose collectivized central planning, but on the other, they insist upon collectivized tradition.lots of blithering here.

In sum, those conservatives who are clamoring for how it's intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance and believe in work ethic should try living in a communist dystopia where they're not tolerated to make their own lifestyle decisions, but instead, have to conform to others who are intolerant of how they want the freedom to choose how they live their lives.you mean like here in America? Can my kids pray in school? Wear a t-shirt with a gun pic on it? Likewise, they should be victimized by criminals and realize what it's like to not have justice upheld in their name because law enforcers are intolerant of what said conservatives do.like when obama had the irs fuck over conservative groups?


you're not very smart or a good liar.

I never said all conservatives. Many conservatives make sense and care about upholding the rule of law objectively in that they care about how things are done rather than what is done.

All do not however. Many are pragmatists who judge others' lifestyles as useless in their opinion, so when they're victimized by criminals, they don't make the effort to uphold justice because it would be intolerant of intolerance.

Those conservatives who believe in objectively upholding the rule of law need to be separated from those who are pragmatists.
 
Last edited:
There's a catch 22 of sorts to the conservative side of this tolerance argument.

They claim that it's liberals who are the ones who champion tolerance, but in saying that they are implying that, hey, we conservatives aren't the ones who claim to be tolerant,

so all they're really doing is trying to attack liberals for not adhering to a principle that conservatives don't even embrace in the first place.
 
I never said anything about that.

Many conservatives interpret others who are lazy who really aren't. They just live differently.

If they live differently, isn't that their choice? Why should I subsidize what is a choice for them? Will you give me part of your savings so I can have a broader choice of vacation spots?

Are you saying law enforcement is a subsidy because it has to be afforded?

Last I checked, law enforcement is a base of any civil society. It's not redistributive justice. It's retributive justice. Everyone contributes because everyone's automatically vulnerable to crime.

WTF are you talking about??
 
Where did I stereotype? I said "many conservatives" not "all conservatives".

Using far left talking points does not help your point as you (the far left) see only conservatives of such things.

Just because I see many conservatives doesn't mean I exclude everyone else.

I only focused on many conservatives here because they're the ones with the issue at hand.

And thus shows your partisan "hackery"
 
There's a catch 22 of sorts to the conservative side of this tolerance argument.

They claim that it's liberals who are the ones who champion tolerance, but in saying that they are implying that, hey, we conservatives aren't the ones who claim to be tolerant,

so all they're really doing is trying to attack liberals for not adhering to a principle that conservatives don't even embrace in the first place.

Says the far left Obama drone.
 
If they live differently, isn't that their choice? Why should I subsidize what is a choice for them? Will you give me part of your savings so I can have a broader choice of vacation spots?

Are you saying law enforcement is a subsidy because it has to be afforded?

Last I checked, law enforcement is a base of any civil society. It's not redistributive justice. It's retributive justice. Everyone contributes because everyone's automatically vulnerable to crime.

WTF are you talking about??

I'm talking about how justice doesn't come for free. Some conservatives turn a blind eye to people who are victimized that they don't like. They don't want to pay taxes for policing, they don't want to hire lawyers for those who are victimized because it's too difficult to be bothered, or maybe they don't want to spend the time, energy, or attention themselves to testify or organize.

For example, some white boys are victimized by feminism and multiculturalism every year in public schools whether from getting bullied by girls and ethnic minorities, or by being scheduled behind girls and ethnic minorities.

Is there a widespread "war on feminism and multiculturalism" by conservatives to eliminate these influences from our public schools? No. Many conservatives judge this as being too difficult to be bothered.

Many ordinary children are bullied regularly from the breakdown of objective morality and substitution of it by emotivism and relativism where even peers from the same demographics abuse them for not fitting in.

Is there a widespread direct intervention by conservatives to eliminate emotivism and relativism from our schools? No. All they do is complain about it. They don't actively prosecute it out of schools, courthouses, the media, or whathaveyou.

Heck, many conservatives themselves are the ones who subscribe to this bullying because they're anti-intellectually stuck in their ways. They refuse to think before they act. They insist on imposing commonsensical lifestyles instead along with folk community and tradition that's existed for a long period of time. They don't care about objective morality themselves, and concede to the liberal ideas of emotivism and relativism instead of contesting them.

Those who are judging this as purely being a matter of free speech are very shortsighted. There are much deeper issues at hand.

If you wish to believe that intolerance of intolerance is intolerant, then you basically believe that ordinary people should be obligated to endure being victimized by criminals. You don't believe in objective morality. You believe in might makes right emotivist relativism where it's OK to blame the victim and tell the victim to stop blaming the world for refusing to expect the criminal to change one's mind and start treating others with respect.
 
Last edited:
Are you saying law enforcement is a subsidy because it has to be afforded?

Last I checked, law enforcement is a base of any civil society. It's not redistributive justice. It's retributive justice. Everyone contributes because everyone's automatically vulnerable to crime.

WTF are you talking about??

I'm talking about how justice doesn't come for free. Some conservatives turn a blind eye to people who are victimized that they don't like. They don't want to pay taxes for policing, they don't want to hire lawyers for those who are victimized because it's too difficult to be bothered, or maybe they don't want to spend the time, energy, or attention themselves to testify or organize.

For example, some white boys are victimized by feminism and multiculturalism every year in public schools whether from getting bullied by girls and ethnic minorities, or by being scheduled behind girls and ethnic minorities.

Is there a widespread "war on feminism and multiculturalism" by conservatives to eliminate these influences from our public schools? No. Many conservatives judge this as being too difficult to be bothered.

Many ordinary children are bullied regularly from the breakdown of objective morality and substitution of it by emotivism and relativism where even peers from the same demographics abuse them for not fitting in.

Is there a widespread direct intervention by conservatives to eliminate emotivism and relativism from our schools? No. All they do is complain about it. They don't actively prosecute it out of schools, courthouses, the media, or whathaveyou.

Heck, many conservatives themselves are the ones who subscribe to this bullying because they're anti-intellectually stuck in their ways. They refuse to think before they act. They insist on imposing commonsensical lifestyles instead along with folk community and tradition that's existed for a long period of time. They don't care about objective morality themselves, and concede to the liberal ideas of emotivism and relativism instead of contesting them.

Those who are judging this as purely being a matter of free speech are very shortsighted. There are much deeper issues at hand.

Oh my the far left propaganda in that post.
 
Sorry. Are you being sarcastic?

Last I checked, feminism and multiculturalism are far left ideas.

When I complain that conservatives aren't declaring a war on feminism and multiculturalism, how is that far left propaganda?

Last I checked, opposing objective morality is a far left idea.

When I complain that conservatives aren't upholding objective morality, how is that far left propaganda?

If this was far left propaganda, I would be going along with the limp noodle perspective that far leftists have towards simply forgiving criminals rather than confronting them.

If you wish to believe "intolerance of the intolerant is intolerant", then you're a far-leftist, not me. You're the one who believes in tolerating crime because criminals are intolerant.

That's what this issue about homosexuality is really about. Homosexuals are just one group among others that aren't tolerated because they live alternative lifestyles.

Well guess what?

There are lots of ordinary people who live alternative lifestyles, but emotivist relativism that denies objective morality is taken as an excuse to not be tolerant of them nor to uphold justice in their name when they're not tolerated.
 
Last edited:
As for Duck Dynasty guy, I am only peripherally aware of the situation. Some guy I never heard of before all this broke said something about blacks and homosexuals that was outside his job description, and so he lost his job. His comments were only made known to the public because of the notoriety that comes with his job. Therefore, his comments are connected to his employer. Every media figure has a clause in their contract which covers this kind of thing.

That makes it his employer's perogative to fire him, as far as I'm concerned.

It's still a free country. You can say what you want, but that does not mean your boss has to keep you on the payroll if it reflects badly on the company.

We had a similar article in the UCMJ. Do or say anthing that disgraces the uniform, and you will pay a price.

He disgraced his corporate uniform.

Now he's free to tour with Sarah Palin.

[MENTION=34052]g5000[/MENTION]

Please post his job description so we can all read it too.

He is a corporate asset. He marred his reputation, and thus damaged the corporate asset. It really isn't that difficult to understand.

Well, that's the funny thing. I don't see how he marred his reputation amongst DD viewers.
 
There's so much bullshit in this, I have to copy and make comments as it goes along

Let's take a different perspective on this.

Many conservatives have been arguing in the name of freedom of speech in light of the recent Duck Dynasty fiasco. It's a fake fiasco b/c liberals are intolerant
1520767_184570461738933_1560839622_n.jpg


However, let's take this from another perspective - the notion of objective morality versus work ethic. Some conservatives believe they're entitled to subjectively judge others as lazy because others aren't doing what some conservatives want. out and out lie. people that don't work, is who gets judged. Some conservatives focus on what others do rather than how they do it. They are intolerant of what other people do. like the knock out game? yea, we are against that.If others are violated in the course of what they're doing, some conservatives say they're not going to prosecute criminals because some conservatives are intolerant of their victims. you need to meet an actual conservative instead of taking the opinions of liberals about conservatives as fact.

On top of this, these same conservatives argue in the name of the free market. They believe that people should be entitled to do what they will without interference...yea, duh

...so basically, on one hand, they want protection of their own efforts, but on the other, if they judge someone as lazy because of being incompatible, they don't believe others deserve protection of their efforts. On one hand, they oppose collectivized central planning, but on the other, they insist upon collectivized tradition.lots of blithering here.

In sum, those conservatives who are clamoring for how it's intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance and believe in work ethic should try living in a communist dystopia where they're not tolerated to make their own lifestyle decisions, but instead, have to conform to others who are intolerant of how they want the freedom to choose how they live their lives.you mean like here in America? Can my kids pray in school? Wear a t-shirt with a gun pic on it? Likewise, they should be victimized by criminals and realize what it's like to not have justice upheld in their name because law enforcers are intolerant of what said conservatives do.like when obama had the irs fuck over conservative groups?


you're not very smart or a good liar.

I never said all conservatives. Many conservatives make sense and care about upholding the rule of law objectively in that they care about how things are done rather than what is done.

All do not however. Many are pragmatists who judge others' lifestyles as useless in their opinion, so when they're victimized by criminals, they don't make the effort to uphold justice because it would be intolerant of intolerance.

Those conservatives who believe in objectively upholding the rule of law need to be separated from those who are pragmatists.

I didn't say all cons either.

The only useless lifestyle is living on welfare for years and years

"Many are pragmatists who judge others' lifestyles as useless in their opinion, so when they're victimized by criminals, they don't make the effort to uphold justice because it would be intolerant of intolerance."

Who doesn't want the law upheld when they are a victim of a crime? I've never heard of this except in abuse cases.
 
There's so much bullshit in this, I have to copy and make comments as it goes along

Let's take a different perspective on this.

Many conservatives have been arguing in the name of freedom of speech in light of the recent Duck Dynasty fiasco. It's a fake fiasco b/c liberals are intolerant
1520767_184570461738933_1560839622_n.jpg


However, let's take this from another perspective - the notion of objective morality versus work ethic. Some conservatives believe they're entitled to subjectively judge others as lazy because others aren't doing what some conservatives want. out and out lie. people that don't work, is who gets judged. Some conservatives focus on what others do rather than how they do it. They are intolerant of what other people do. like the knock out game? yea, we are against that.If others are violated in the course of what they're doing, some conservatives say they're not going to prosecute criminals because some conservatives are intolerant of their victims. you need to meet an actual conservative instead of taking the opinions of liberals about conservatives as fact.

On top of this, these same conservatives argue in the name of the free market. They believe that people should be entitled to do what they will without interference...yea, duh

...so basically, on one hand, they want protection of their own efforts, but on the other, if they judge someone as lazy because of being incompatible, they don't believe others deserve protection of their efforts. On one hand, they oppose collectivized central planning, but on the other, they insist upon collectivized tradition.lots of blithering here.

In sum, those conservatives who are clamoring for how it's intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance and believe in work ethic should try living in a communist dystopia where they're not tolerated to make their own lifestyle decisions, but instead, have to conform to others who are intolerant of how they want the freedom to choose how they live their lives.you mean like here in America? Can my kids pray in school? Wear a t-shirt with a gun pic on it? Likewise, they should be victimized by criminals and realize what it's like to not have justice upheld in their name because law enforcers are intolerant of what said conservatives do.like when obama had the irs fuck over conservative groups?


you're not very smart or a good liar.

I never said all conservatives. Many conservatives make sense and care about upholding the rule of law objectively in that they care about how things are done rather than what is done.

All do not however. Many are pragmatists who judge others' lifestyles as useless in their opinion, so when they're victimized by criminals, they don't make the effort to uphold justice because it would be intolerant of intolerance.

Those conservatives who believe in objectively upholding the rule of law need to be separated from those who are pragmatists.

I didn't say all cons either.

The only useless lifestyle is living on welfare for years and years

"Many are pragmatists who judge others' lifestyles as useless in their opinion, so when they're victimized by criminals, they don't make the effort to uphold justice because it would be intolerant of intolerance."

Who doesn't want the law upheld when they are a victim of a crime? I've never heard of this except in abuse cases.

I mean many conservatives are very practically traditional, and if other people don't conform to their traditions, then they won't uphold justice in their name because they don't like them.

Many conservatives don't understand that the value of tradition is to uphold ideals that apply regardless of the particular practice at hand. They get stuck in their ways, and anti-intellectually refer to common sense as an excuse to be intolerant of creative thinkers or problem solvers who are trying to live alternative lifestyles.

When those creative thinkers or problem solvers become victimized, many conservatives don't uphold justice in their name because they didn't conform to the tradition they liked. They view having to afford justice in that way as communist and denying their rights to privacy or freedom of assembly because they're forced to afford justice for others they don't approve of.

My family and neighborhood were loaded with conservatives like that. They didn't care about the ideas behind tradition. They only cared about the practice.

If you believed in objective morality, they would say intolerance of the intolerant is intolerant. You weren't tolerating their emotivist relativism. Your objective morals were just an opinion.

When I got abused, they didn't stand by my side. They told me to pull myself up by my bootstraps and stop blaming the world or playing the victim since everyone supposedly gets abused, nobody's special, and it's still possible to become successful.
 
Last edited:
There's a catch 22 of sorts to the conservative side of this tolerance argument.

They claim that it's liberals who are the ones who champion tolerance, but in saying that they are implying that, hey, we conservatives aren't the ones who claim to be tolerant,

so all they're really doing is trying to attack liberals for not adhering to a principle that conservatives don't even embrace in the first place.

That's not even a good lie


libs lie about being tolerant. The conformist hive mind demands that any freedoms not approved by your leaders is to be called intolerance and therefore stamped out.

A man says homo sex is a sin; liberals lose their fucking minds and demand he be fired

A child makes a finger gun and gets suspended; liberals demand the teacher be protected from pissed parents

See how fucking dumb you people are?

How twistedly intolerant you've become?
 
If they live differently, isn't that their choice? Why should I subsidize what is a choice for them? Will you give me part of your savings so I can have a broader choice of vacation spots?

Are you saying law enforcement is a subsidy because it has to be afforded?

Last I checked, law enforcement is a base of any civil society. It's not redistributive justice. It's retributive justice. Everyone contributes because everyone's automatically vulnerable to crime.

WTF are you talking about??

He's pulling shit outta his ass. He's got nothing but lies, spin and subject changes now
 
I mean many conservatives are very practically traditional, and if other people don't conform to their traditions, then they won't uphold justice in their name because they don't like them.

Many conservatives don't understand that the value of tradition is to uphold ideals that apply regardless of the particular practice at hand. They get stuck in their ways, and anti-intellectually refer to common sense as an excuse to be intolerant of creative thinkers or problem solvers who are trying to live alternative lifestyles.

When those creative thinkers or problem solvers become victimized, many conservatives don't uphold justice in their name because they didn't conform to the tradition they liked. They view having to afford justice in that way as communist and denying their rights to privacy or freedom of assembly because they're forced to afford justice for others they don't approve of.


To save time, I bolded your lies.

In the future, don't use your family, it's a disgusting shield to hide behind.
 
There's a catch 22 of sorts to the conservative side of this tolerance argument.

They claim that it's liberals who are the ones who champion tolerance, but in saying that they are implying that, hey, we conservatives aren't the ones who claim to be tolerant,

so all they're really doing is trying to attack liberals for not adhering to a principle that conservatives don't even embrace in the first place.

Try not to overtax your ability to think with more posts. 'Kay?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top