Do you get homicidal urges when you see/hear Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Bush, et al?

I do not see how. As long as the intolerant are not harming anyone why not leave them to their own devices? Tolerance does not mean one must accept their views, I see it as a "Live and Let Live" kind of policy.

clayron

I'm not saying that we shouldn't necessarily tolerate the views of the intolerant; I didn't mean it in that way, but when it comes to what is more hypocritical, intolerance of the intolerant or the intolerant expecting tolerance for intolerance, I'd say the latter wins out. Like for example, I'd say the extreme religious leader who constantly demonizes homosexuals and yet complains about intolerance when someone constructively criticizes his views about God is being a bit more hypocritical than the pluralistic, multicultural liberal who opposes the KKK having a march in his neighborhood.

The only thing that would make me even remotely that angry is this.

[QUOTE="clayron"]

I do not see how. As long as the intolerant are not harming anyone why not leave them to their own devices? Tolerance does not mean one must accept their views, I see it as a "Live and Let Live" kind of policy.

-Sun_Tzu-

I'm not saying that we shouldn't necessarily tolerate the views of the intolerant; I didn't mean it in that way, but when it comes to what is more hypocritical, intolerance of the intolerant or the intolerant expecting tolerance for intolerance, I'd say the latter wins out. Like for example, I'd say the extreme religious leader who constantly demonizes homosexuals and yet complains about intolerance when someone constructively criticizes his views about God is being a bit more hypocritical than the pluralistic, multicultural liberal who opposes the KKK having a march in his neighborhood.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Intolerance of intolerance is the worst kind of hypocrisy. -Sun_Tzu-

Because while a person has no reason to hate black people, I have all the reason in the world to hate himmrbojangles25

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Intolerance of intolerance is the worst kind of hypocrisy. Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Intolerance of intolerance is the worst kind of hypocrisy. Vandalvideo

Well hold on now, bigotry in of itself is not a bad thing. If I'm intolerant of senseless violence or arbitrary prejudice or intellectual dishonesty, then I might be doing a good thing . . . fat_rob

[QUOTE="fat_rob"] Well hold on now, bigotry in of itself is not a bad thing. If I'm intolerant of senseless violence or arbitrary prejudice or intellectual dishonesty, then I might be doing a good thing . . . Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="fat_rob"] Well hold on now, bigotry in of itself is not a bad thing. If I'm intolerant of senseless violence or arbitrary prejudice or intellectual dishonesty, then I might be doing a good thing . . . Vandalvideo

Sure. A hater of people who commit senseless violence, arbitrary prejudice, and intellectual dishonesty. To hate a person because of her actions is (i dare say) better than to hate a person because of the color of her skin.

With Beck and Bush they seem like nice enough people.With Gleen Beck he seems to be alittle bit coco for coco puffs now, With Palin and Limbaugh, not sure about Palin, she seems to be putting on an act; but hey it is making her a bunch of money. Limbaugh is just in it for the money.

[QUOTE="clayron"]

I do not see how. As long as the intolerant are not harming anyone why not leave them to their own devices? Tolerance does not mean one must accept their views, I see it as a "Live and Let Live" kind of policy.

-Sun_Tzu-

I'm not saying that we shouldn't necessarily tolerate the views of the intolerant; I didn't mean it in that way, but when it comes to what is more hypocritical, intolerance of the intolerant or the intolerant expecting tolerance for intolerance, I'd say the latter wins out. Like for example, I'd say the extreme religious leader who constantly demonizes homosexuals and yet complains about intolerance when someone constructively criticizes his views about God is being a bit more hypocritical than the pluralistic, multicultural liberal who opposes the KKK having a march in his neighborhood.

Well as long as they don't harm anyone they have the right to freedom of speech. As hateful and ugly their speech is they still have the right to speak it. It would be dangerous to abridge those rights, because it would set a pretty dangerous precedent.

So people are not allowed to be intolerant of any behavior or idea, even if that idea or behavior has proven to be detrimental to society? Hi there sociopath :P j/k But seriously, not allowing for intolerance of bad and detrimental ideas and behaviors is outright silly. Maybe people should stop calling themselves "tolerant." Maybe "tolerance" isn't an actual virtue that we believe it to be . . . If I don't claim to be tolerant, my intolerance is no longer hypocrisy. fat_rob

Sure. A hater of people who commit senseless violence, arbitrary prejudice, and intellectual dishonesty. To hate a person because of her actions is (i dare say) better than to hate a person because of the color of her skin.Lab392

[QUOTE="fat_rob"] So people are not allowed to be intolerant of any behavior or idea, even if that idea or behavior has proven to be detrimental to society? Hi there sociopath :P j/k But seriously, not allowing for intolerance of bad and detrimental ideas and behaviors is outright silly. Maybe people should stop calling themselves "tolerant." Maybe "tolerance" isn't an actual virtue that we believe it to be . . . If I don't claim to be tolerant, my intolerance is no longer hypocrisy. Vandalvideo

I found this wonderful new innovation to silence people on the air that you don't want to listen to, it's called the remote control.:|

So I come to you with a theory that says describes a geocentric universe and I want it to be taught in the school district where you send your kids. You also just so happen to be the chair of the board. I present my theory to you. If you decide not to teach my theory in class, how do you escape my charge that you are "intolerant" of my view by not allowing it to be taught in the classroom. fat_rob

[QUOTE="fat_rob"] So I come to you with a theory that says describes a geocentric universe and I want it to be taught in the school district where you send your kids. You also just so happen to be the chair of the board. I present my theory to you. If you decide not to teach my theory in class, how do you escape my charge that you are "intolerant" of my view by not allowing it to be taught in the classroom. Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] he also took action against them. i think people who hate the free market either dont know what it is or are as smart as salmon, but till the day i start cracking open these peoples heads to see if i can find a salmon brain there is nothing wrong with my view. there is nothing wrong with an opinion no matter how unfounded, taking action can and often is vary wrong.surrealnumber5

For one, the assertation that people who don't buy into this total free market mentality hate the free market is absolutely ludacris. Many communists don't even hate the free market, Marx even had a grudging respect for Adam Smith and based some of his theories on free market thought. The free market is good for some things, but there are limits to its application. There are instances in which it can be abused, there are commodities which are vital to people's well-being that shouldn't be controlled by profiteers, there are concerns of long-term damage caused through profiteering methods e.g. the Gulf spill, and there are some theories that are simply untrue like the idea that vendors will always sell at the lowest price possible or that profits will naturally trickle down. I don't hate the free market, it's great for creature comforts like televisions and computers and such, I just don't think it can be entrusted with the operation of industries that have such far-reaching effects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrTsaSUFfpo

Wow, there is so much wrong with that I don't know where to begin. For one, you're saying this in defense of people like Beck who are attacking the government for holding BP to a large liability, isn't that exactly what I was just saying, that people like Beck are horrible representatives even of free market philosophy?

Second, here are a few things; comparing the market from the 1800's to today's market is a complete and utter fallacy. Corporations have been developing their methods for cornering markets since then and are now supremely powerful entities in America. Single lawsuits do not get anywhere against large entities anymore, cla$$ action suits are pretty much required for something like the oil spill. Corporations have unilimited amounts of money to spend on defense lawyers, little old ladies have to rely on cla$$ action to get anything done, and even then the amount of money a corporation can spend on legal fees is probably still much more.

Next, the oil spill is an example of where you can actually see the damage being done and who's doing it, there are plenty of examples where people might not even know the damage being done to their property. One example is Love Canal, where toxic waste dumping resulted in birth defects and health problems for many of the residents. none of them knew what was going on until independent reporters decided to do their own investigation. Furthermore, suing on a case by case basis does not prevent things like this from happening again, if the cost of lawsuits is less than the cost of finding a safer method of disposal, then there's no reason for companies not to repeat these hazardous actions. Lastly, everyday citizens do not have the time or the resources to keep current on all the different events that affect their well-being, they need an organized entity, like the EPA or other government agencies, to monitor such things, set regulations to prevent coprorations from taking such actions, and to look out for these citizens' GENERAL WELFARE.

Citizens do not have the resources to continually be on the lookout for these types of things, nor do they have the resources to sue large corporations for each and every offense. Furthermore, being sued will not automatically deter corporations from taking such actions in the future. Lastly, these incidents are not always reversible. Money helps, but can it restore deformed children to the state they were in before a corporation ruined their health? Can it restore the livelihoold to a fisherman who can't fish the Gulf now because of pollution? Can it undo the damage done to the Gulf by the BP spill? No, it can't. We need to prevent these disasters, and relying on property rights alone will simply not do that.

I'm also not speaking just to environmentalism. Why should some people starve while some people eat themselves to death? Why should some people freeze on the street while others have twenty rooms and don't use half of them? Trickle down theory is flawed, it simply never works in practice like it does in theory.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="fat_rob"] So I come to you with a theory that says describes a geocentric universe and I want it to be taught in the school district where you send your kids. You also just so happen to be the chair of the board. I present my theory to you. If you decide not to teach my theory in class, how do you escape my charge that you are "intolerant" of my view by not allowing it to be taught in the classroom. fat_rob

Even if the decision itself is not based on intolerance or prejudice, the outcome is intolerance/prejudice. Again, my only point is that these labels, inofthemselves, are not bad or good. It takes CONTEXT. Based on available evidence, we accept some ideas and behaviors, while excluding others. The natural process of choice is inherently intolerant, because something is always excluded. Nobody can accept all things at all times. It's just impossible. fat_rob

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] i said "hate the free market either dont know what it is or are as smart as salmon" now salmon are great they can find their birthplace from anywhere in the world. i cant do that and i am in mensa, there is also nothing wrong with not understanding the free market especially the idea of property rights and more so our lack there of.surrealnumber5

dang

[QUOTE="fat_rob"] Even if the decision itself is not based on intolerance or prejudice, the outcome is intolerance/prejudice. Again, my only point is that these labels, inofthemselves, are not bad or good. It takes CONTEXT. Based on available evidence, we accept some ideas and behaviors, while excluding others. The natural process of choice is inherently intolerant, because something is always excluded. Nobody can accept all things at all times. It's just impossible. Vandalvideo

Suppose is not a role of the dice. The decision the board makes will be based on an evaluation of the evidence. The evaluation practice itself has it's own internal logic. Any logical framework is inherently biased. You cannot escape intolerance. fat_rob

[QUOTE="rlake"][QUOTE="fat_rob"] Even if the decision itself is not based on intolerance or prejudice, the outcome is intolerance/prejudice. Again, my only point is that these labels, inofthemselves, are not bad or good. It takes CONTEXT. Based on available evidence, we accept some ideas and behaviors, while excluding others. The natural process of choice is inherently intolerant, because something is always excluded. Nobody can accept all things at all times. It's just impossible. fat_rob

[QUOTE="fat_rob"] Suppose is not a role of the dice. The decision the board makes will be based on an evaluation of the evidence. The evaluation practice itself has it's own internal logic. Any logical framework is inherently biased. You cannot escape intolerance. Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

For one, the assertation that people who don't buy into this total free market mentality hate the free market is absolutely ludacris. Many communists don't even hate the free market, Marx even had a grudging respect for Adam Smith and based some of his theories on free market thought. The free market is good for some things, but there are limits to its application. There are instances in which it can be abused, there are commodities which are vital to people's well-being that shouldn't be controlled by profiteers, there are concerns of long-term damage caused through profiteering methods e.g. the Gulf spill, and there are some theories that are simply untrue like the idea that vendors will always sell at the lowest price possible or that profits will naturally trickle down. I don't hate the free market, it's great for creature comforts like televisions and computers and such, I just don't think it can be entrusted with the operation of industries that have such far-reaching effects.

theone86

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrTsaSUFfpo

Wow, there is so much wrong with that I don't know where to begin. For one, you're saying this in defense of people like Beck who are attacking the government for holding BP to a large liability, isn't that exactly what I was just saying, that people like Beck are horrible representatives even of free market philosophy?

Second, here are a few things; comparing the market from the 1800's to today's market is a complete and utter fallacy. Corporations have been developing their methods for cornering markets since then and are now supremely powerful entities in America. Single lawsuits do not get anywhere against large entities anymore, cla$$ action suits are pretty much required for something like the oil spill. Corporations have unilimited amounts of money to spend on defense lawyers, little old ladies have to rely on cla$$ action to get anything done, and even then the amount of money a corporation can spend on legal fees is probably still much more.

Next, the oil spill is an example of where you can actually see the damage being done and who's doing it, there are plenty of examples where people might not even know the damage being done to their property. One example is Love Canal, where toxic waste dumping resulted in birth defects and health problems for many of the residents. none of them knew what was going on until independent reporters decided to do their own investigation. Furthermore, suing on a case by case basis does not prevent things like this from happening again, if the cost of lawsuits is less than the cost of finding a safer method of disposal, then there's no reason for companies not to repeat these hazardous actions. Lastly, everyday citizens do not have the time or the resources to keep current on all the different events that affect their well-being, they need an organized entity, like the EPA or other government agencies, to monitor such things, set regulations to prevent coprorations from taking such actions, and to look out for these citizens' GENERAL WELFARE.

Citizens do not have the resources to continually be on the lookout for these types of things, nor do they have the resources to sue large corporations for each and every offense. Furthermore, being sued will not automatically deter corporations from taking such actions in the future. Lastly, these incidents are not always reversible. Money helps, but can it restore deformed children to the state they were in before a corporation ruined their health? Can it restore the livelihoold to a fisherman who can't fish the Gulf now because of pollution? Can it undo the damage done to the Gulf by the BP spill? No, it can't. We need to prevent these disasters, and relying on property rights alone will simply not do that.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] A person who does not like the idea of a free market could formulate just as reasonable and credible an argument as anyone else could in favor of it. Just because you disagree does not make that person stupid. Was all i was saying...Ninja-Hippo

dang

[QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="rlake"] The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is that you equate exclusion with intolerance. rlake

No, Just when I hear Nancy Pelosi, Obama etc..;)

No, Just when I hear Nancy Pelosi, Obama etc..;)

Snipes_2

Just Palin. She is a complete idiot (look at her academic record if you can't tell by her speeches and professional record), and it scares the crap out of me that she is so popular. Is America really this dumb?

No, Just when I hear Nancy Pelosi, Obama etc..;)

No, Just when I hear Nancy Pelosi, Obama etc..;)

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Isn't that just really partisan though? Ninja-Hippo

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

No, Just when I hear Nancy Pelosi, Obama etc..;)

Ninja-Hippo