A lesson in political correctness...

[Robin]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

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?

[il Padrino Ute]

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.

[RockyBalboa]

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.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

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.

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.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Robin

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.

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.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

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.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

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.

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.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

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.

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.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

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.

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?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

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.

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.

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?

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.