who is more intolerant?

the choice is yours.

i'm voting for the middle ground.

perhaps, but i thought i'd have a left vs. right smackdown.

AgentWood wrote: perhaps, but i thought i'd have a left vs. right smackdown.

Its too feckin blurred over here anyway. I prefer 'stealth taxing 'its financially better to be on benefits' c___s' vs 'war mongering titled 'fuck the poor' c___s'..

Christ, even those descriptions are highly blurred..

they are both mad. sorry no vote.

Kinda like asking which is more dead, the dead horse over here or the dead cow over there. Both dead and off their rockers.

do we really have socialists in the United States anymore? maybe senior citizens, i dunno... they expect everything to be given to them, lazy old people- get a job at Walmart, c'mon!

what do you mean by intolerant? intolerant of others opinions? neo-conservatives are not even tolerant of the concept of trying to be objective and looking at issues from multiple angles... at least cliched-hippie types will make an effort at the right of having discussion even if they have decided the results beforehand

intolerant of others...? the dirty little secret which people have major denial is that religion is the main fuel and rationalization for racism and hatred, intolerance of "others" . of course most people have a tendency for being self righteous assholes... it's the universal human condition, so it's best to just say fuck to all people because cause they suck.

I don't trust hard core leftists because I don't think, on the whole, they are rational or even particularly honest people. But neo-conservatives are almost all quite nasty, with very hypocritical notions about human decency.

LIAM

Frads :)

Thanks for putting the options in langauge we can understand Mike and Mick!

Snorri xxx

I think you made a faux-pas, Agent Wood...

ME, cos my intolerance would offend a Dalek, and it's never been rooted in one place, aimed at one thing, for more than seconds. I just hate, randomly, fairly, and based on momentary parameters like, who's spokesman looks sneakiest on the news( something you learn in NI ), or precisely what is causing the noise that is preventing me sleeping.

I'm actally incapable of a genuine bigotry, cos I'd forget what it was I was meant to hate.....I require constant annoyance to spew constant bile.

As a great Scots philosopher once said.....

I don't actually hate everything! I only hate 2 things.... Living things, and objects.

(Oh and Misc in case I left anything out)

Snorrimon wrote: Thanks for putting the options in langauge we can understand Mike and Mick!

Snorri xxx

Was rather thinly veiled was'nt it?

it's an honest question. in the words of political scientist richard betts, politics is a circle, not a straight line. therefore, the far left and the far right have more in commom than they'd like to believe (such as authoritarianism and intolerance towards others beliefs). hence, why i asked the question.

AgentWood wrote: it's an honest question. in the words of political scientist richard betts, politics is a circle, not a straight line. therefore, the far left and the far right have more in commom than they'd like to believe (such as authoritarianism and intolerance towards others beliefs). hence, why i asked the question.

I would go further to say, that unfortunately we NEED both sides of extremists (as long as their numbers are tolerable). Don't get me wrong, they should NOT be in power, but on either side of the table they actually create a balance within the system. Each side has their time and place for need, but not head of the table.

EdelBrock wrote:

AgentWood wrote: it's an honest question. in the words of political scientist richard betts, politics is a circle, not a straight line. therefore, the far left and the far right have more in commom than they'd like to believe (such as authoritarianism and intolerance towards others beliefs). hence, why i asked the question.

I would go further to say, that unfortunately we NEED both sides of extremists (as long as their numbers are tolerable). Don't get me wrong, they should NOT be in power, but on either side of the table they actually create a balance within the system. Each side has their time and place for need, but not head of the table.

i doubt you'd find a right time nor place for the nazis!

AgentWood wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

AgentWood wrote: it's an honest question. in the words of political scientist richard betts, politics is a circle, not a straight line. therefore, the far left and the far right have more in commom than they'd like to believe (such as authoritarianism and intolerance towards others beliefs). hence, why i asked the question.

I would go further to say, that unfortunately we NEED both sides of extremists (as long as their numbers are tolerable). Don't get me wrong, they should NOT be in power, but on either side of the table they actually create a balance within the system. Each side has their time and place for need, but not head of the table.

i doubt you'd find a right time nor place for the nazis!

Germany 1933

AgentWood wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

AgentWood wrote: it's an honest question. in the words of political scientist richard betts, politics is a circle, not a straight line. therefore, the far left and the far right have more in commom than they'd like to believe (such as authoritarianism and intolerance towards others beliefs). hence, why i asked the question.

I would go further to say, that unfortunately we NEED both sides of extremists (as long as their numbers are tolerable). Don't get me wrong, they should NOT be in power, but on either side of the table they actually create a balance within the system. Each side has their time and place for need, but not head of the table.

i doubt you'd find a right time nor place for the nazis!

Well, in all fairness, Nazis was not on the list.
Although the extreme leftists and rightists in the US hate each other, there isn't about to be a bloody war over it.....whereas the Nazi party would require this. Also, the both sides agree, in theory, on the basics of our government.....whereas the Nazis would want a complete revamping of it; making them incapable of working within our system.

We need OUR extremeists,but only at balancing levels.

Boatraceface wrote:

Snorrimon wrote: Thanks for putting the options in langauge we can understand Mike and Mick!

Snorri xxx

Was rather thinly veiled was'nt it?

It was: the lass don't do subtle. Or humility.

As with most things round here, the answer to the question is Liam.

If it's a choice between giving up the rights of wearing a cross...well let the them wear a fucking veil over their face.Doesn't bother me in the slightest. But when a teacher is trying to command respect and attention from a classrooom full of pupils who are not as politically correct as most adults.....errm."HERE SHE IS .......IT'S THE DARK LORD OF THE SITH!!" Reality check!

DJ MONTY and His Wheels Of Steel wrote: If it's a choice between giving up the rights of wearing a cross...well let the them wear a fucking veil over their face.Doesn't bother me in the slightest. But when a teacher is trying to command respect and attention from a classrooom full of pupils who are not as politically correct as most adults.....errm."HERE SHE IS .......IT'S THE DARK LORD OF THE SITH!!" Reality check!

lol.. wrong thread Monty.

AHH THANK YOU!!

Fucking good points though!

DJ MONTY and His Wheels Of Steel wrote: If it's a choice between giving up the rights of wearing a cross...well let the them wear a fucking veil over their face.Doesn't bother me in the slightest. But when a teacher is trying to command respect and attention from a classrooom full of pupils who are not as politically correct as most adults.....errm."HERE SHE IS .......IT'S THE DARK LORD OF THE SITH!!" Reality check!

Aye, they are all the same thing to me. Crosses( with or without a little dead tin messiah on them), skull caps, veils. All just symbols of a lack of education, and all as good or bad as each other. All should be treated the same, all allowed, or all banned.

Doctor? wrote:

DJ MONTY and His Wheels Of Steel wrote: If it's a choice between giving up the rights of wearing a cross...well let the them wear a fucking veil over their face.Doesn't bother me in the slightest. But when a teacher is trying to command respect and attention from a classrooom full of pupils who are not as politically correct as most adults.....errm."HERE SHE IS .......IT'S THE DARK LORD OF THE SITH!!" Reality check!

Aye, they are all the same thing to me. Crosses( with or without a little dead tin messiah on them), skull caps, veils. All just symbols of a lack of education, and all as good or bad as each other. All should be treated the same, all allowed, or all banned.

Hey, just because someone is religious, doesn't make them a fanatic....or show a lack of education.

I don't think that was your message, but just making sure.

Doctor? wrote:

DJ MONTY and His Wheels Of Steel wrote: If it's a choice between giving up the rights of wearing a cross...well let the them wear a fucking veil over their face.Doesn't bother me in the slightest. But when a teacher is trying to command respect and attention from a classrooom full of pupils who are not as politically correct as most adults.....errm."HERE SHE IS .......IT'S THE DARK LORD OF THE SITH!!" Reality check!

Aye, they are all the same thing to me. Crosses( with or without a little dead tin messiah on them), skull caps, veils. All just symbols of a lack of education, and all as good or bad as each other. All should be treated the same, all allowed, or all banned.

oi! don't diss the skullcap (kippah, yarmukle), matey! ;)

OK not a lack of education....a lack of....hmm, hard to define.

It amuses me that Christians (for instance) believe the Earth is 6000 years old, yet burn oil in their cars that can be proven to be hundreds of thousandds of times older than that. Or that there are Christian and Muslim WEBSITES...all using a device that was the product of an "evil" homosexual. It pisses me off that these folks take all the benefits of modern scientific life and love them while doing their utmost to decry all science at every turn[1]. In terms of damage done, Islam is a new player, it was always Christianity that fucked the human race over (it wasn't Muslims who torched all the great libraries, and set us back 500-1000 years).

Let me be clear, if that is possible for me.

I have no problem with folks who have a faith, or a belief in something greater than themselves.FFS, even I have my ideas in that direction But what boils my blood is those who let the letter and detail of a religion, come between them and the actual core values of that religion. They're fuckin everywhere. "kill a queer for jesus" says it all. It's why I have special extra bitter bile on tap for Christians, I was raised as one, by some fairly good people (and a few not)....I know what JC talked about, I know what he was trying to say (son of God or not), yet everywhere I look, I see his followers behaving contrary to his every word, judging, hating, killing, hording wealth. And ALWAYS with some twisted justification (they aren't real people....or....it's a just cause..or....they are agaisnt god..or such tripe) For all my rantings, I always approach persons of faith with respect on a personal level, on the off chance that they are genuine, usually only to end up dissappointed. If they happen to BE genuine, I will never be rude to them about their silly notions. If they aren't ....like for example...30secs into a conversation they say "well actually I'm a Christian so,,,," or worse "have you found God yet friend?"...well, then it's fucking game on!

A fave question of mine, nicked from Richard Dawkings, that always gets them hopping (takes a bit of "Paxmanship")....ask yourself it..

What makes you so sure that your religion is the True Faith, did you try lots of others first and see which had the nicest stained glass windows or domes, which had the prettiest hyms, and maybe even which one most closely matched how you inwardly FEEL about reality? Or did you just pick up the first religion your parents left lying around?

Spirituality, faith, whatever, good. Religion, blind adherence,hypocracy,bad.

To be a bit more ON topic, intolerence is an inbuilt human problem, each of us has it within them to some extent. What marks it out in some folks but, what makes it dangerous, is when it is fanned, fueled and re-enforced by extreme views. Looney lefties, Evil Right wingers, Jesus nuts, spasticide bombers, flat earther's, moon conspiracists, and bloody saucer nuts. All the same. Anyone with whacky, out there views, is WIDE open to letting the flames of intolerence rip through their human nature. Look at me for instance

Oh, Agent, I just dind't want to be accused of being an anit-semite for leaving you out ;) I have a soft spot for The Jews for 2 main reasons....

1. Everyone else has, historically, been cunts to them, rather unfairly if you ask me.
2. They tell, by far, the best Jewish jokes.

[1]remember that if the "evolution is on a theory" line of reasoning, based on the fundy's definition of theory, as opposed to the actual scientific definition, becomes accepted, then virtually all science is reduced to "unsopported nice ideas"....instead of "less than perfect but bloody useful explanations" for instance, quantum physics is a largely theoretical science, yet we have semiconductor products all around us.

cambo cack on his hobby horse again. lol note to cambo. only a tiny propotion of christans these days take the biblical creation stories as literal.