Richard Dawkins, a militant atheist, hell bent on destroying religion, will not listen to their opinion and constantly discredits religion, he is as bad any religious fanatic. Dawkins, blindly opposes religion. He doesn't even try to understand what he opposes because thinks it isn't worth understanding. His fame comes from being the most arrogant and biased biologist in the world which attracts his many fanboys.

Dawkins is arrogant enough to discredit any scientist in this time if they believe in religion. He claims a real scientist does not believe in religion.

Omni-Wrath

I would not say he blindly opposes religion. He has some actual points that make sense, unlike most of the extreme religious folks who just follow blind faith. I would blame many of the wolrd's prblems on religion. Just look how much racial differences set everyone apart and have been responsible for some atrocious acts in history. Religion is just another excuse to set people apart to de-humanize them.

That being said, I do not personally seek to discredit religion, and I do not agree with Dawkin's goals. However, his opinion is founded. I say live and let live; as long as no ones trying to convert me, I have no reason to fight with them. Dawkins takes every opportunity start conflict.

Well seeing as half of california is asian (:P) I really don't think you will have ahard time fitting in. In most of the US minorities are treated pretty much equally.

[QUOTE="Calvin079"]

No. Its a product of standing up for what is right.

chaoscougar1

Based upon a 2,000 year old book that he thinks should dictate modern daypolicy making :roll:

When it all boils down, you can have any opinion of gay marriage that you like. However, there is no political precedent to keep it illegal, so thus any personal morals based upon religion should have no effect. Sadly, they do and a minority is still refused civil rights. See how nowadays we are appalled that people once were in favor of segregation? well, within the next fifty years we will feel the same for those who were anti-gay.

Id rather go to hell and chill with satan. I would go crazy in a perfect universe.

Hakarie

Humans naturally reject a perfect world. Humans' reality is defined by pain and suffering.

That's why the first matrix was a failure :P

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well actually I had separated beliefs from group. But...in many cases the intolerance to an idea leads to an intolerance of a group....which the initial post did do...in fact. So you can't unilaterally state that it doesn't lead to intolerance of a group. In some individuals....of course.LJS9502_basic

Where exactly did you seperate intolerance of an individual/group from intolerance of a idea? Didn't you say that intolerance of an ideology by extension is intolerance of the individual? Didn't you say that there is no difference between intolerance of an idea and intolerance of an individual?

I agree that in many cases intolerance of an idea leads to intolerance of a group, but it doesn't always.

I didn't state that intolerance of an idea doesn't lead to intolerance of a group. In some cases, it does. In some cases, it doesn't.

As an aside....and because you've done this in the past....when I post an idea...it does NOT automatically mean I'm accusing you of stating it.;)

I have friends who are pretty stongly anti-gay. I respect them, I just don't respect that specific opinion that they have.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Yes, one can not tolerate homosexuality and still tolerate the person since homosexuality is not all there is to a homosexual person.LJS9502_basic

Excpet that this intolerance of homosexuality also becomes intolerance of homosexuals. Why? because they deny them the right to marry. Thus, their intolerance has gone way beyond mere ideological conflict. This takes us back tomy initial argument- I am not denying civil rights to homophobes, so I am not intolerant of them as people per se.

What do you mean? Same-sex marriage is only legal in a few states, because of people who are against it. Anti-gay peopel still vote against laws that would legalize it, so yes, their intolerance is hurting people, even if they are not verypolitically active. If most people didn;t concern themselves with it, then same-sex marriage would be legal across the country.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Because that person/=/their ideology.

Yes, the two are connected, but not inseperably so.

For instance, I can love a family member to death, but still fervently be against their ideology. Thus, I am tolerating them while not "tolerating" their ideas.

Also, it's perfectly possible to find an individual intolerant, but still tolerate them. Many people might say, "I hate this person's ideas, but I still like them as a person." This is mainly because someone's ideology is not all there is to them.

GreySeal9

Yes, one can not tolerate homosexuality and still tolerate the person since homosexuality is not all there is to a homosexual person.

Excpet that this intolerance of homosexuality also becomes intolerance of homosexuals. Why? because they deny them the right to marry. Thus, their intolerance has gone way beyond mere ideological conflict. This takes us back tomy initial argument- I am not denying civil rights to homophobes, so I am not intolerant of them as people per se.

EDIT: this post is directed more towards LJ Basic than you.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Ah well one can be intolerant of a specific lifestyIe for instance...and yet accept that people live that lifestyIe. So I don't think you can automatically say that all people who disagree with you are intolerant of a group of people if we use your logic....now can we?

LJS9502_basic

I replaced two words in your first sentence.

Ah well one can be intolerant of a specificopinion for instance...and yet accept that people(have) that opinion

Yes, it shows that your argument can be used to apply to what we are debating... in otehr words, in essence you have just said yourself that one can be intolerant of a person's opinions but yet not intolerant of the person themselves.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I'm not assuming anything. You called into question the opinion of others as wrong etc. To paraphrase. Which I said was ironic due to the way your worded your post as to display intolerance to said opinion. LJS9502_basic

Yes I am intolerant of their opinion. They, on the other hand, are intolerant of people themselves. They are intolerant because of something thatsaid people cannot control and that is an inherent part of their way of life, while I am intolerant of this opinion, and opinions are changeable andare not aspects of a person; they are intangible and independent.You cannot deny that these are way different "forms of intolerance". Anyway, this debate is getting nowhere.

I replaced two words in your first sentence.

Ah well one can be intolerant of a specificopinion for instance...and yet accept that people(have) that opinion

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No intolerance is intolerance. There is no difference. One cannot castigate person A for intolerance while displaying intolerance for person A. That would be a contradiction to use a mild adjective. In both cases opinions were called into play. Not orientation....not actions. But differing opinions. Not that I find intolerance to matter materially how it's applied...but in this case it was a difference of opinion. And thus....the same thing.LJS9502_basic

So then everyone is guilty of intolerance, so it is not a uniquely bad thing. Once again you reduce a word to being almost meaningless.

The way you define it, all humans are inherently guilty of it.