The debate "The tolerant cannot be tolerant because they are intolerant to those that are intolerant." was started by
March 7, 2018, 6:03 pm.
8 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 9 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Nemiroff posted 5 arguments to the disagreers part.
batmanfan777 and 7 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, chemikilsm0ke and 7 visitors disagree.
I am in no way claiming you are intolerant or throwing any disrespect at you. this is a popular tagline used by many on the right and I do not believe 1/3 of our population is intolerant.
it is my belief, and please correct me if wrong, that you simply saw this logic on some media. it seemed reasonable, and it was a nice jab against those leftist libtards, so you accepted it. I may consider that foolish, but am in now way insinuating you are one of those who are intolerant. just one take by the propaganda of the intolerant.
regarding squeezing out alot from 14 words. your statement was quite poetic and philosophical. The implications are quite huge from that simple statement.
I can apply this statement to any part of history from now, to the civil war, to the Nazis, to Rome, Greece, the japanese, any religious conflict.
would it be right to tolerate Roman intolerance of Christians? Nazi intolerance of everyone? American slavery? Japanese self superiority? should the people just tolerated all these intolerances? stood quite while people were murdered?
none of these have to do with modern american politics, nothing to do with our 2 parties, and yet in any example, will you really support the tolerance of the intolerant? tell me true and do not dodge please.
also, is that the only thing you plan to say on the thread you yourself started? a few words about how I said something but nothing to respond to what I said?
I never mentioned parties. you brought up 2 sides, the tolerant and the intolerant. those are the only 2 "parties" I spoke of.
you inserted the party names on your own in your head.
You sure squeezed a lot out of a fourteen word sentence. I wasn't even talking about the parties
I think right wing narratives are twisting terms again.
no one is banning their views, there is no government action limiting their speech. they are being tolerated. what the right apparently expects is to block people from responding to those opinions. thus it is the right seeking to block free speech.
and although one side may be intolerant of the intolerant, that would conclude that the other side is trully intolerant by default rather than in response. with that in mind, which side would be seen as the divisive one functioning based on identity? and which one is fighting for the good and the right?
do you still wish to attack those who respond to intolerance?
tolerating intolerance is cowardice.
like the old saying, evil wins when good men do nothing.