You posted a thread on a forum on the internet. OH MY, MALES ARE RESPONDING TO ME, THEY MUST HAVE IT OUT FOR ME
No. Not at all. And this is exactly what I'm talking about - if you're not a pacifist, you must be a fascist. Extremist thinking. Very simplistic.
Could you Fe a little bit louder?
Just curious - where do you lie on that spectrum?
Hard to compete with you, Marm. No one can say you lack conviction. umpyouup:
It isn't ironic. You do have a choice, Marmie. You don't have to engage them back. You bite every time.Does anyone else see the irony of this person "advising" me to stop engaging in arguments with people whilst repeatedly trying to personally engage me, thereby pulling himself into a conflict?
Oh Internet.
I consider myself a political moderate. I think war is a pragmatic and necessary evil, and that people have a right to maintain their own culture in their own nation, and shouldn't be asked to make outlandish exceptions for the New World Order or Globalism, which reduces culture to a pathetic shared interest in the same corporations. On the other hand, I think it's good for people to have peaceful relations with other nations and cultures, and that diplomacy should always be employed as a strategy before war. I think people should be free to immigrate wherever they choose, but be expected to assimilate to a degree. I actually am appalled that anyone thinks it's okay to move to France, for example, and not respect their culture and speak French, etc. I would never do such a thing, and I think it's blatant ...well it's pretty much a form of invasion of another nation's culture to think you can go there and TAKE OVER with your own culture. There's a line between being able to keep your own history, and just thinking you can waltz in and move the furniture around in your host's house.
I don't include the U.S. in this *as much* because we are built on immigration and multi-culturalism as a nation, but I still apply some of the same pragmatic standards to this country as well involving self-defense, etc.
I also, think, for example, that private institutions should be allowed to make their own rules, within reason - like religious institutions shouldn't be mandated by the government to do this or that that violates their religion, like for example a Christian school shouldn't be expected to run with the same specifications as a public school in terms of whom they hire and what they tolerate.
There of course has to be a basic framework for what is unacceptable (murder, rape, child abuse, etc.) but I think private interests should be allowed to maintain their own morality, as long as belonging to that private interest is voluntary.
I believe in capitalism without corporatism, and personal responsibility without preposterous unreasonable cruelty, and I think any all corporate welfare should end, I think the government really needs to get out of bed with big business.
Just kidding.
It isn't ironic. You do have a choice, Marmie. You don't have to engage them back. You bite every time.
The irony here is you bring up tolerance by oppression, while trying to oppress those that display intolerance of you.
Please take it back a notch or two, it was a interesting subject you brought up.
[MENTION=1592]Gish[/MENTION] oh you mean that interesting subject you wanted to piss all over, troll?
Tolerance is not the same as acceptance or agreement. Open-mindedness similarly requires a willingness only to consider different ideas. Like the famous quote from Aristotle, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.". Blind, uncritical acceptance of everything that comes your way is not tolerance, it is spinelessness or gullibility.
Tolerance means only "live and let live", as you put it, like the highlighted above. If after entertaining an unfamiliar idea we find it sensible or appealing, we can move from tolerance to agreement, acceptance, or even appreciation.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, I was just following the pace you set with the first response you posted to your own thread.
I think Qlip, Orangey, and Coriolis all made very strong points at various spots in this thread but you chose to ignore them and instead pick whatever fight you saw come over the horizon. Even when Jennifer made an attempt at providing some input your first response was to insult her.
I only pissed where you had placed the toilet, sunshine.
Blah blah typo blah
In this case, tolerance is a means to an end, not the end itself. That's the problem with the term, and I think that's the point of this thread; that tolerance in and of itself is too slippery a concept to serve as a normative value by which to evaluate specific behaviors, and when it is used that way, it becomes a (frankly, rather despicable) topos. A rhetorical ploy.