A lesson in political correctness...
 

That cartoon is lame on so many levels. It makes me think of the love child of AAA and Archaea.

What is it about liberalism that causes the humor gene to disappear?

"Robin" has no humor.

Thank you for your "contribution." Don't act surprised when we think we may not want to see more of it.

This is no contribution AAA. You are only a diversion to me anymore. There are some people on this board who I care about, and will attempt to treat with respect. Back in the day, when I saw this board as 'community,' I had hoped to build bridges with all of you. When you were an asshole then, I attempted to mend fences. Now that I see this board as the 'semi-anonymous' ramblings of a bunch of sports fans (thanks Creekster), I have no expectation or desire of ever 'developing a relationship of trust' with you.

If it is any consolation, you are only the second most horrible person on the board. Archaea takes the cake. His anti-gay bigotry is evil, and needs to be called out. It is WAY more than toeing the church's line. He is an anti-gay bigot, and it is obvious to most people. Tooblue toes the church line on the issue. I can respect that to a point. Archaea's rhetoric would make Hitler proud. Some day, if you are really bored, you will read some of these old posts, and you will be ashamed for not calling out Archaea for his bigotry. If 'no bigotry' is the only firm rule of the board, I would say that Archaea is breaking it. Between that and his accusation that choosing to live in South Central and going to Burning man are equal to serious child abuse, Archaea exceeds your detestability by several powers.

So why are you here, then? To call us to repentance, to pester us, or because you can't help yourself to keep away?

Hey Archaea,

be cool and translate that into Italian, Spanish, German, Japanese, Chinese, French and Latin, you pathetic piece of pseudo-intellectual crap. And BTW, every time you go off on a bigoted anti-gay diatribe, and suggest that REASON is on your side, you come off as a total mo-tard... cause you is very much mo' 'tarded.

You might have faith, and conviction on your side, but in a world where you support the freedom to pursue many other rewards through risky behavior, gay sex is not a 'reasonable' concern.

Mostly for diversion. I don't know the entire answer to that question, but I will let you know when I figure it out. I'm sure the resident psychiatrist can put in his two cents as to why I left the church and why I am here, all from behind the comfort of the crypt door.

For someone who claims to be so tolerant, you're rather intolerant of Archaea's thoughts. Would you rather he parrot the "enlightened" left like you do?

BTW, in Italian it would be "Robin non sa quello che sarebbe buffo." Or something like that. It's been over 20 years but that's how I remember iut.

It is one of the most tired arguments from the right, that liberals are hypocritical because they are not tolerant of intolerance.

It is NOT inconsistent to be intolerant of intolerance.

And since when do I parrot the enlightened left?

A tired argument? Perhaps it is. But it's also accurate. And how is it not intolerant to be intolerant of intoleance? That's the tired argument of the left to make themselves feel as if they have a higher moral stance on anything and everything. Your rant about Archaea is no different than how you perceive him to feel about gays. How is that different?

You parrot the left every time you post in this political category. If we wanted to take the time, we could go to any political forum and the things you say here are no differnt than those who lean left say anywhere else. It also applies to the right.

There really is no individual thought. The difference between you and I, as I see it, is that I'm willing to admit that.

The funniest part of any of Robin's quotes and remarks is he actually feels he's championing some forms of higher thoughts and causes. He's determined to show us Mormons a thing or two about moral issues. He's deliberately polarizing and knows psychologically in this forum, that is dominated by those of the LDS faith , just what to say to get the reaction that gives him the inner satisfaction that someone of his ilk requires.

Assholes like him know they're educated and intelligent, but don't understand that because he's such an incredible example of walking fertilizer that no one will ever take what he has to say seriously on this board. He's so desperate to be the board's liberal version of Michael Savage that he doesn't realize that or really even care that his words have become synonymous with my bowel movement after having chile verde at a local Mexican restaurant. Preferably La Puente.

In other words in forums like this he's here to try and leave his mark with his own degree of satisfaction, yet leaving everyone knowing what they already knew before he joined the board and after he supposedly "left" the board.

That it's a better place without him and he's insignificant. But then again, maybe that's just me.

Look at in one of two ways.

1. Intolerance of intolerance is axiomatic for people who value tolerance.

2. The terms 'tolerant' and 'intolerant' have several meanings, and when we talk about intolerance of intolerance we are actually using two nuanced variations of the same word. Mormons sought (and still seek) religious tolerance. On the other hand, Mormons would never support tolerance for a religion that sexually abuses minors (that distinction goes to conservative Utah politicians). I don't think the LDS faith is hypocritical because of this stand. I tried to make the distinction between Tooblue's views, which seem to toe the Church's line, and Archaea's views, which go WAY beyond the church's official line, and often show levels of bigotry and hatred that register for MANY people on this board, even if many of those people are not willing to call it straight the way I am doing.

In the issue of homosexuality, Archaea is a monster. In many other areas, he is merely an asshole.

Isn't about time for another one of your grand exits? I do so enjoy the exit itself together with the inevitable return with no apparent sense of irony.

It is the distinction between 'community' and 'diversion.' I can accept posting here as the diversion that Creekster and Outlier described. I have given up on the idea of finding community here, and without the weight of 'community building,' I can call assholes like AAA and Archaea exactly what they are.

Don't defend Archaea's views on homosexuality. Some day you will be ashamed you didn't call him on it more openly.

Archaea's cynicism is rubbing off on you! Of course there is individual thought. To say otherwise would be to say that you accept every single premise and belief of the conservatives, something I very much doubt is true.

Don't be dismissive of someone's viewpoint simply because you have heard it somewhere else. It doesn't mean he is "parroting" anybody. It could just as logically mean he has intellectually considered the issues and come to a conclusion that other intelligent people have arrived at.

In French, it's « Robin » n'a pas le sens de l'humour.

In Japanese, it's "Robin" niwa yu-moa no kankaku ga amari nai desu, wa.

I liked the cartoon.

:D

Sorry, but this just doesn't make any sense. How can anyone profess that we should be tolerant of intolerance? If that were the case, nobody would have any moral authority to speak out on intolerance- something I am sure you don't believe. What are we to think when President Hinckley preaches tolerance of others? Are we to accept that he is simply being intolerant of those who are not tolerant of others?

Well, the definition of tolerance being that one respects and allows those who believe differently to do so tells me that even if I believe that another's actions or beliefs are wrong or evil, in order to be tolerant, I have to allow that person to have his beliefs.

As for the having the moral high ground to speak out on intolerance, who decides what is or isn't tolerant? I believe it's subjective and therefore nobody really can claim the moral high ground.

No, when President Hinkley preaches tolerance of others, I beleive that he means we are to be just that - tolerant of others. It seems rather clear to me.

One can be intolerant of acts of intolerance but tolerant of ideas of intolerance. IOW, process is equal but result is not. That being said, moral high ground does not come from tolerance, especially if you mean tolerance of the ideas you find tolerant but intolerance of the ideas you find intolerant. That's rather circular. Moral high ground comes from factors extrinsic to the concept of tolerance, although tolerance may be a manifestaton of the moral system you follow, so that operationally tolerance is eveidnce of a moral approach.

As to the languages, I could only help with French and that has been done. I could ask my wife for Maori, but that was not on the origianal request list.

Here is what it means to be tolerant:

It means to actively support and work toward a world in which many different ideas can compete on a level playing field for the hearts and minds of the people.

It means that so long as an action or belief does no REAL harm to anyone but the individual who holds that belief or performs that act, then society should be a laboratory in which we can present such ideas.

Tolerance does not mean we have to agree. We can even actively SPEAK out against other ideas, in an attempt to win people to our own way of thinking. We can call the actions of others for what they are.

Example: I call Archaea a bigot and an asshole, because he is both. I am tolerant because I support and sustain a world in which bigots and assholes like Archaea can make their case for bigotry, and try to win people to his bigoted cause. Ergo I am tolerant.

Archaea is intolerant, because (regarding homosexuality) he seeks to change the laws so that homosexuals can not 'preach homosexuality' on a level playing field. His laws would continue to encourage reckless behavior in the gay community by making it impossible for gay couples to prove that homosexual couples can act responsibly within the bounds of marriage.

Of course some ideas and actions inherently destroy the level playing field for other ideas and actions. When behavior causes real-world harm to people other than the acting agent, that kind of behavior needs to be controlled. This idea is summed up in the idea that 'YOUR freedom stops at the tip of MY nose.'

Archaea seeks laws which change the level playing field? That is rich.

One I have not donated one dime specifically for any laws. I make arguments on an Internet Board, too forcefully for your week minded soul, but that makes me a bigot. Enjoy.

The only laws advocated in words by me are those which seek to recognize the existing status of marriage. There is no change there. You sir, are an unadulterated liar.

You live how you wish, then seek to find some high sounding philosophy to justify it. But guess what, unlike the fantasy world in which you live, others have studied philosophy, have studied law. You've studied architecture. Great, go design a building.

There are Renaissance men, but you sir are no Renaissance man. You're a rebel without a cause, looking to justify yourself.

Fine, but behave otherwise. It is an interesting ad hominem device of the left to attack personally anyone who doesn't share their agenda. I share nobody's agenda, but my own.

I don't give a damn for the gay agenda, but treat all people humanely. I intellectually disagree with it, and have not heard one intellectual argument in favor of it.

Seattle Ute, somebody you be well advised to emulate, only could come up with, "Enlightened world is on gay's side," and "I am cruel" for intellectually finding a gay man's desire to emulate marriage a repugnant idea.

If being right is cruel, then I'll err on the side of cruelty when I am intellectually compelled.

The Germans wrote prolifically about the balances of Ehre, Honor, and Pflicht, Duty. They didn't know much about compassion.

Even though you profess to be near thirty, you sound more and more like a child of 13, puerile and infantile. Grow up or get a life son.

Okay, I will grant you one point. You support the status quo, and what we have now is a playing field that discriminates against gays. So I support leveling the playing field. There you go.