NationStates Jolt Archive

After reading the Why Do Atheists Hate Religious People tread, and the reactions to said thread. I have decided to pose the question of whether the people of NSG are tolerant people or not.

In my opinion, the slant of the forum is clearly to the left, and since the majority of members are liberal, they naturally find it easy to be tolerant of those with the same views as them, but find it difficult to be tolerant of the views of those to the right of them.

Since the majority of the forum is clearly atheist, it is easier for those in the forum to be tolerant of fellow atheists, but intolerant of people of religious convictions.

I think we tolerate all sorts of nonsense here.

I think we tolerate all sorts of nonsense here.

Whose nonsense?

In this vein, I'm going to repeat something I said earlier about "tolerance". To those who would say we must be "tolerant" of their views fundamentally misunderstands what tolerance means. To tolerate means only to allow without prohibiting or opposing. In a free society, tolerance of ones views means only that another does not seek to prohibit the free expression of those views.

I can be said to tolerate the views of people like, say, Fred Phelps because I do not seek to prohibit the vocalization of his viewpoints. As much as I abhore what he stands for, I would rather live in a society where he is free to speak his hate, than one where he is not.

That is all tolerance means, and that is all that is required of me to be tolerant of ones beliefs. That I do not seek to prohibit or oppose the expression of those beliefs.

The idea that somehow, under the mantle of "tolerance", I must respect, honor, agree with, or remain silent in my disagreement, of others viewpoints is absurd. I don't have to respect, agree, or understand your position in order to tolerate it, I need only not seek to prohibit your free exercise thereof.

Likewise while I tolerate your viewpoint, I am also free to vocalize, to the fullest extent, my disrespect, disbelief, and disagreement with those beliefs. Those who would scream that if I dare to disparage or voice my disapproval of their beliefs that I am being "intolerant" not only fundamentally misunderstand the term, they are guilty of the very thing they say they are opposing. For they are the ones who wish to have free reign to speak their beliefs, but would quash any opposition against them.

Tolerance demands only that I respect your right to express your beliefs. It does not demand that I remain silent in the face of beliefs I disagree with. I tolerate all beliefs, I make no efforts to prohibit you from believing them, or from expressing them. But to say that tolerance requires I can not exercise the very rights that I recognize you hold is, at its very core, the height of intolerance.

If free society demands that I tolerate your opposing views, and your right to express those views, it likewise requires that you tolerate mine. Any attempts therefore to try to force, coerce, or shame me into not voicing them due to my supposed "intolerance" renders you the only intolerant one amongst us.

Whose nonsense?

Nonsense mongers.

In this vein, I'm going to repeat something I said earlier about "tolerance". To those who would say we must be "tolerant" of their views fundamentally misunderstands what tolerance means. To tolerate means only to allow without prohibiting or opposing. In a free society, tolerance of ones views means only that another does not seek to prohibit the free expression of those views.


Sir, it is in fact you who misunderstands "tolerance."

According to the dictionary it is the capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tolerance), not simply allowing it to be said.

Before you try and give me a English lesson on the meaning of a word, check your facts, please.

Sir, it is in fact you who misunderstands "tolerance."

According to the dictionary it is the capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tolerance), not simply allowing it to be said.

...or you could use the second dictionary's first definition:

"the quality of accepting other people's rights to their own opinions, beliefs, or actions"

Or you could look up the verb (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tolerate), whose meaning has been less clouded by politically correct misuse:

"To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit."

And the second dictionary:

"to allow something to exist or happen, even although one does not approve of it"

Note that the other definitions of the word (both noun and verb) suggest endurance: we tolerate pain, we tolerate hardship. Similarly, we might tolerate something we despise and disrespect.

Sir, it is in fact you who misunderstands "tolerance."

According to the dictionary it is the capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tolerance), not simply allowing it to be said.

Before you try and give me a English lesson on the meaning of a word, check your facts, please.

The very page you quote from has on it "the quality of accepting other people's rights to their own opinions, beliefs, or actions".

And that comes from the Collins English Dictionary (apparently), which I'd hold in a higher regard than whatever the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language is.

You should probably fully read the page next time.

Before you try and give me a English lesson on the meaning of a word, check your facts, please.

...or you could use the second dictionary's first definition:

"the quality of accepting other people's rights to their own opinions, beliefs, or actions"

Or you could look up the verb (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tolerate), whose meaning has been less clouded by politically correct misuse:

"To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit."

And the second dictionary:

"to allow something to exist or happen, even although one does not approve of it"

Note that the other definitions of the word (both noun and verb) suggest endurance: we tolerate pain, we tolerate hardship. Similarly, we might tolerate something we despise and disrespect.

That will do far better than I can do.

After reading the Why Do Atheists Hate Religious People tread, and the reactions to said thread. I have decided to pose the question of whether the people of NSG are tolerant people or not.

In my opinion, the slant of the forum is clearly to the left, and since the majority of members are liberal, they naturally find it easy to be tolerant of those with the same views as them, but find it difficult to be tolerant of the views of those to the right of them.

Since the majority of the forum is clearly atheist, it is easier for those in the forum to be tolerant of fellow atheists, but intolerant of people of religious convictions.
I tolerate all but a very few extreme viewpoints. But tolerating various viewpoints doesn't mean I have to like, endorse or agree with them. It doesn't even mean I have to stop thinking they're stupid.
So I say we're a mostly tolerant bunch.

*snip*

Yeah, what he said!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eijhloJjg50&feature=user (1st minute)

or we will make you.

Why is there no online OED?

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=83592&dict=CALD

You should probably fully read the page next time.

I did, I just chose the one that best fit the situation, and my own agenda, just as you and Soheran have done yourselves.

Of course, we all know that people use "tolerance" in the sense of (a particular kind of) "respect" all the time.

But the reasons for that kind of "tolerance" are just not as compelling as the reasons we might have for a minimal sort of "tolerance." No one should go to jail for stupidity or ignorance. But why should we respect it?

Someone made a nice post in one of the religious threads along the lines of:

A scientist cannot accept the difference between water and holy water in the same way that a priest cannot accept there's no real difference.

I couldn't explain why this is relevant to many debates on NSG but it is.

I'll go find the actual post and link, partly because I haven't quoted it correctly and partly because due credit where due.

It was ConanTonkin:

Originally Posted by ConanTokin

It is just as difficult for a scientist to understand the difference between water and holy water as it is for a priest to understand that there is no difference.

I tolerate all but a very few extreme viewpoints. But tolerating various viewpoints doesn't mean I have to like, endorse or agree with them. It doesn't even mean I have to stop thinking they're stupid.
So I say we're a mostly tolerant bunch.

So those who have claimed that those with a religious conviction are less intelligent that those who deny any spirituality are being tolerant, right.:rolleyes:

I am not meaning to say that those on the right side of the forum are any more tolerant, sheesh, just look at that n00b who said that atheists hate religious people, he is one of the most intolerant of the whole lot of us, I even told him that it is people like him that cause people to question the intelligence of theists as a whole.

I did, I just chose the one that best fit the situation, and my own agenda, just as you and Soheran have done yourselves.

How could you possibly have any knowledge of my "agenda"? How can you possibly even claim that I have an "agenda" for a definition to fit? Absurd.

You also nicely ignored my point about Collins being a dictionary I'd actually heard of before, whereas the source for the first definition is not one I'm familiar with.

I did, I just chose the one that best fit the situation, and my own agenda, just as you and Soheran have done yourselves.

Ah, but you also said this:

According to the dictionary it is the capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others, not simply allowing it to be said.

Thus you didn't just choose per your agenda, you tried to explicitly exclude contextually valid definitions from your own source.

So, if you wish, eschew language lessons from Neo Art. But you're declining one of the most fecund fertilities of the forum.

You also nicely ignored my point about Collins being a dictionary I'd actually heard of before, whereas the source for the first definition is not one I'm familiar with.

Perhaps you need to read dictionaries more. What makes you think that your awareness has some sort of ethos to it?

I did, I just chose the one that best fit the situation, and my own agenda, just as you and Soheran have done yourselves.

so your agenda is to claim I used a word improperly and I should "check my facts" even though you admit that the definition I used was perfectly valid?

That's an....interesting agenda you have there. Although I don't necessarily call it an "agenda".

I call it trolling.

So, if you wish, eschew language lessons from Neo Art. But you're declining one of the most fecund fertilities of the forum.

....did you just call me shit?

Someone, George Bernard Shaw I think, once said you only have to respect a man's religious beliefs to the extent you respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart. That puts it nicely.

....did you just call me shit?

Uh, yes, I believe he just did... I would sigg that if I were you:tongue:

Perhaps you need to read dictionaries more. What makes you think that your awareness has some sort of ethos to it?

In the same way that I would pay more attention to a definition from the OED than I would to a definition from Collins, and in the same way I would pay more attention to a news report from the BBC than from Sky News, I would pay more attention to a definition from Collins than from the American Hedritage Dictionary. It's a simple matter of reputation.

Anyhow, how about a definition of "tolerance" from a more neutral source, Mirriam-Webster; "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own"

....did you just call me shit?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fecund

Perhaps you need to read dictionaries more. What makes you think that your awareness has some sort of ethos to it?

Yes, obviously, your self-admitted agenda has far more ethos to it than his awareness when it comes to something as broad as language.

Just like admonishing others to read more when you've stipulated to your own ulterior selectivity...

....did you just call me shit?

As a fundamentalist Shittist, Hammurab has the highest regard for shit as the the nurturing point in the circle of life - rich in nutrients, the natural fertiliser of our humble earth, bed of seeds from which the food that food eats grows, shit is the mother of nature - it's the highest compliment he can offer.

I have decided to pose the question of whether the people of NSG are tolerant people or not.

we've got fascists and anarchists occupying the same space and nobody has actually gotten killed yet. so, fairly, yes.

Someone, George Bernard Shaw I think, once said you only have to respect a man's religious beliefs to the extent you respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart. That puts it nicely.

I prefer another quote:

I contend we are both atheists; I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours

Uh, yes, I believe he just did... I would sigg that if I were you:tongue:

Since you JUST exhorted others to read the dictionary more, look up "fecund".

Why is there no online OED?

Errr... What's this: http://www.oed.com/?

As a fundamentalist Shittist, Hammurab has the highest regard for shit as the the nurturing point in the circle of life - rich in nutrients, the natural fertiliser of our humble earth, bed of seeds from which the food that food eats grows, shit is the mother of nature - it's the highest compliment he can offer.

it's the CIRCLE of LIIIIIIIIIFE!

Yes and no...The forum itself is quite tolerant, you can say or do pretty much what you want, hell, there was recently a significant argument in defense of rape...

but, as far as the posting goes, its an individual thing, It goes to what i said in the aforementioned thread, Its Human Nature to divide up and fight eachother...especially when there are no consequences, short of banning, or reprimand by a moderator, but, still no personal consequences...

Since you JUST exhorted others to read the dictionary more, look up "fecund".

you shut up you piece of fecund matter.

it's the CIRCLE of LIIIIIIIIIFE!

Or, as Shittists put it, shit happens.

Yes, obviously, your self-admitted agenda has far more ethos to it than his awareness when it comes to something as broad as language.

Just like admonishing others to read more when you've stipulated to your own ulterior selectivity...

As I said before, Soheran chose a definition that fit his agenda better, as did I.

But let's stop nitpicking about definitions and get to the actual debate here.

Do the people of NSG respect the opinions of others or dismiss them as n00biness and stupid because they differ from theirs?

As I said before, Soheran chose a definition that fit his agenda better, as did I.

But let's stop nitpicking about definitions and get to the actual debate here.

Do the people of NSG respect the opinions of others or dismiss them as n00biness and stupid because they differ from theirs?

I think all you need to do to find an answer for this question is re-read this thread.

In this vein, I'm going to repeat something I said earlier about "tolerance". To those who would say we must be "tolerant" of their views fundamentally misunderstands what tolerance means. To tolerate means only to allow without prohibiting or opposing. In a free society, tolerance of ones views means only that another does not seek to prohibit the free expression of those views.

I can be said to tolerate the views of people like, say, Fred Phelps because I do not seek to prohibit the vocalization of his viewpoints. As much as I abhore what he stands for, I would rather live in a society where he is free to speak his hate, than one where he is not.

That is all tolerance means, and that is all that is required of me to be tolerant of ones beliefs. That I do not seek to prohibit or oppose the expression of those beliefs.

The idea that somehow, under the mantle of "tolerance", I must respect, honor, agree with, or remain silent in my disagreement, of others viewpoints is absurd. I don't have to respect, agree, or understand your position in order to tolerate it, I need only not seek to prohibit your free exercise thereof.

Likewise while I tolerate your viewpoint, I am also free to vocalize, to the fullest extent, my disrespect, disbelief, and disagreement with those beliefs. Those who would scream that if I dare to disparage or voice my disapproval of their beliefs that I am being "intolerant" not only fundamentally misunderstand the term, they are guilty of the very thing they say they are opposing. For they are the ones who wish to have free reign to speak their beliefs, but would quash any opposition against them.

Tolerance demands only that I respect your right to express your beliefs. It does not demand that I remain silent in the face of beliefs I disagree with. I tolerate all beliefs, I make no efforts to prohibit you from believing them, or from expressing them. But to say that tolerance requires I can not exercise the very rights that I recognize you hold is, at its very core, the height of intolerance.

If free society demands that I tolerate your opposing views, and your right to express those views, it likewise requires that you tolerate mine. Any attempts therefore to try to force, coerce, or shame me into not voicing them due to my supposed "intolerance" renders you the only intolerant one amongst us.

Well said Sir. There's nothing more that I can add to this really. Tolerance doesn't mean laying down.

I think all you need to do to find an answer for this question is re-read this thread.

Then my original contention stands affirmed....no.

Do the people of NSG respect the opinions of others or dismiss them as n00biness and stupid because they differ from theirs?

Not stupid or n00bness...But Challenges to be Broken and Conquered, lol...

Do the people of NSG respect the opinions of others or dismiss them as n00biness and stupid because they differ from theirs?

False dichotomy.

I respect lots of opinions that differ from mine. I also think that some other opinions that differ from mine are ludicrous nonsense unworthy of respect.

Do the people of NSG respect the opinions of others

depends on whether the opinions are worthy of respect. creationists get laughed at, for example, while the anarchos and liberts have been going at it for years and overall still seem to be on fairly good terms - despite thinking the other side is fundamentally wrong about fucking everything and that their ideas, if implemented, would cause massive misery and destruction

Then my original contention stands affirmed....no.

if you think "tolerance" means people who will remain silent when they think you're wrong, then no, we're not tolerant.

Nor should we ever be.

That brand of "tolerance" has been responsible for more atrocities than I can count.

False dichotomy.

I respect lots of opinions that differ from mine. I also think that some other opinions that differ from mine are ludicrous nonsense unworthy of respect.

Examples of both please.

depends on whether the opinions are worthy of respect. creationists get laughed at, for example, while the anarchos and liberts have been going at it for years and overall still seem to be on fairly good terms - despite thinking the other side is fundamentally wrong about fucking everything and that their ideas, if implemented, would cause massive misery and destruction

Even though some would argue that libertarianism is controlled anarchism?

As I said before, Soheran chose a definition that fit his agenda better, as did I.

But let's stop nitpicking about definitions and get to the actual debate here.

Do the people of NSG respect the opinions of others or dismiss them as n00biness and stupid because they differ from theirs?

Let's see, who was it that started nitpicking definitions:

Sir, it is in fact you who misunderstands "tolerance."

According to the dictionary it is the capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others, not simply allowing it to be said.

Before you try and give me a English lesson on the meaning of a word, check your facts, please.

So YOU start mincing words, YOU start referencing the dictionary, lose at it, then say lets not nitpick. Nice.

if you think "tolerance" means people who will remain silent when they think you're wrong, then no, we're not tolerant.

Nor should we ever be.

That brand of "tolerance" has been responsible for more atrocities than I can count.

I asked for reasoned discussion, and in the course of this thread, little tolerance has been shown by those involved--myself included

Even though some would argue that libertarianism is controlled anarchism?

those people are wrong

Sir, it is in fact you who misunderstands "tolerance."

According to the dictionary it is the capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tolerance), not simply allowing it to be said.

Before you try and give me a English lesson on the meaning of a word, check your facts, please.

All I must do to "respect" your views is support the idea that you can hold those views. It doesn't mean I cannot tell you I think you are batshit crazy. Respect means I let you have your beliefs and do not cause you harm for holding them. Let's give an example: Tolerance of Gay people means you respect their right to live and love as they wish. You do not have to agree with their lifestyle and can speak out against it all you want. Intolerance of this lifestyle would be placing them in work camps, killing them, or forcing them to wear a scarlet G. Get it?

Christians supporting Tolerance....Whats this world coming to?...


Its Chaos I tell you!!! ;)

The very page you quote from has on it "the quality of accepting other people's rights to their own opinions, beliefs, or actions".

And that comes from the Collins English Dictionary (apparently), which I'd hold in a higher regard than whatever the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language is.

You should probably fully read the page next time.

NO!!!!!! He said the only definition that is right is the one he quoted. Stop being so damn intolerant!

Then my original contention stands affirmed....no.

You presented needlessly (and ironically) narrow options in your "or" question.

Do you really not see the false dichotomy?

NO!!!!!! He said the only definition that is right is the one he quoted. Stop being so damn intolerant!

stop being intolerant of Nadkor's intolerance!

God no, NSG is unbelievably intolerant and "hateful" to anything out of the norm...

NO!!!!!! He said the only definition that is right is the one he quoted. Stop being so damn intolerant!

Actually, by recognizing my own agenda and Soheran's I was trying to show the intolerance of this place, because I knew the majority of you would side with Soheran and Neo-Art, since people prefer to think of themselves as tolerant people.

I did, I just chose the one that best fit the situation, and my own agenda, just as you and Soheran have done yourselves.

Well shit, at least you admit it. That's good enough for me. Now do you accept that using one limited definition is not entirely fair?

God no, NSG is unbelievably intolerant and "hateful" to anything out of the norm...

What do you consider to be "out of the norm"?

Actually, by recognizing my own agenda and Soheran's I was trying to show the intolerance of this place, because I knew the majority of you would side with Soheran and Neo-Art, since people prefer to think of themselves as tolerant people.

so your "agenda" was basically to show that we're really intollerang, by saying that we're intolerant?

riiiiight.

I asked for reasoned discussion, and in the course of this thread, little tolerance has been shown by those involved--myself included

Asking for a reasoned discussion in an Anonymous Internet Forum...

Is like asking the Rain not to be Wet...

I asked for reasoned discussion, and in the course of this thread, little tolerance has been shown by those involved--myself included

So, if we dare illustrate your contradictions, needing only your own quotes as evidence, we're being intolerant?

To respect you, I have to hold silent when your argument is demonstrably unsound?

If thats what need to feel tolerated, you have crafted yourself to be intolerable.

People here have simply (and cogently) disagreed with you, and with less "Don't give ME lessons, sir!" attitude then what you've shown.

so your "agenda" was basically to show that we're really intollerang, by saying that we're intolerant?

riiiiight.

No, your opinion that your definition and only your definition showed your intolerance, just as my insistence that my definition and only my definition was authoritative showed my own intolerance.

So, if we dare illustrate your contradictions, needing only your own quotes as evidence, we're being intolerant?

To respect you, I have to hold silent when your argument is demonstrably unsound?

If thats what need to feel tolerated, you have crafted yourself to be intolerable.

People here have simply (and cogently) disagreed with you, and with less "Don't give ME lessons, sir!" attitude then what you've shown.

when the fuck did YOU become serious?

hey CR, what should tolerant people do when they encounter someone who proclaims that 2+2 equals 5?

No, your opinion that your definition and only your definition showed your intolerance

My opinion that my definition and only my definition showed my intolerance?

Using a definition is intolerance?

I suggest that you may need those english lessons more than I had original thought.

hey CR, what should tolerant people do when they encounter someone who proclaims that 2+2 equals 5?

There'd be a dictionary debate over the definition of 'equals'.

There'd be a dictionary debate over the definition of 'equals'.

which of course would be a very intolerant thing to do.

No, your opinion that your definition and only your definition showed your intolerance, just as my insistence that my definition and only my definition was authoritative showed my own intolerance.

Well, technically, under Neo Art's favoured definition, he was being perfectly tolerant. In accepting your right to believe what you wish he in no way acted intolerantly by claiming that you were incorrect.

hey CR, what should tolerant people do when they encounter someone who proclaims that 2+2 equals 5?

Tell them that according to your calculations it equals four, however,

if you use a TI-83 calculator, and you adjust your settings to round to the nearest one and add 2.4 to 2.4 your computer will add it as 2+2 and represent the sum as a 5.

Go try it, its pretty neat.

Actually, by recognizing my own agenda and Soheran's I was trying to show the intolerance of this place, because I knew the majority of you would side with Soheran and Neo-Art, since people prefer to think of themselves as tolerant people.

Ah, so you "knew" what the majority of us would do...

Gotta love those preconceived notions about groups of other people, goes well with advocating tolerance...

Good thing you've already admitted to your own intolerance while having JUST chided everybody else for showing you "little" tolerance.

One more and you've got the hypocrisy hat-trick!

stop being intolerant of Nadkor's intolerance!

Damn it, If I can't be intolerant about others' intolerance then what good is tolerance? Wait... what were we talking about again?

So those who have claimed that those with a religious conviction are less intelligent that those who deny any spirituality are being tolerant, right.:rolleyes:

I am not meaning to say that those on the right side of the forum are any more tolerant, sheesh, just look at that n00b who said that atheists hate religious people, he is one of the most intolerant of the whole lot of us, I even told him that it is people like him that cause people to question the intelligence of theists as a whole.As long as I don't do anything to harass or stop them from living by their beliefs. Something apparently most of them can't allow non-believers. I have to live by their rules, accept religiously based laws in a supposedly secular nation. But they scream "persecution" if they are told no organized prayer in public schools. So yeah, I find most of them annoying to say the least.

Examples of both please.

I respect economics-based defenses of free-market capitalism, because I think they have real merit even if they're wrong.

I tolerate (but do not respect) various kinds of sloppy thinking, like the libertarian insistence that the society they advocate is obviously the most free.

I don't really tolerate racism, sexism, and homophobia at all.

But, really, "examples" can be misleading because it really depends on the specifics of the discussion... there are lots of views I think are totally wrong, and which usually are defended rather poorly, that at times can be defended well in a way worthy of respect.

Tolerate. To allow so as not to hinder; to permit as something not wholly approved of; to suffer; to endure. Gregory v. U. S., 17 Blatchf. 330, FedCas.No. 5,803

The definition debate has been pwnd.

NS/Jolt is no better than anywhere else as far as tolerance is concerned, but it's not any worse either. I have seen people complain that disagreement = intolerance, and I have seen reasoned discussion. Since this is a forum populated by citizens of many countries and of many different ages, there is inevitable conflict but it seems to be fairly well contained (Maybe the mods need a thank-you?) and considerable lenience was shown to Andaras before his flaming and plagiarism finally crossed the line.

Tell them that according to your calculations it equals four, however,

if you use a TI-83 calculator, and you adjust your settings to round to the nearest one and add 2.4 to 2.4 your computer will add it as 2+2 and represent the sum as a 5.

Go try it, its pretty neat.

That's stupid.

You tell them that they are fucking wrong, because they objectively are.

That's stupid.

You tell them that they are fucking wrong, because they objectively are.

Just saying, the truth can be what you wish to make it.

Tell them that according to your calculations it equals four, however,

if you use a TI-83 calculator, and you adjust your settings to round to the nearest one and add 2.4 to 2.4 your computer will add it as 2+2 and represent the sum as a 5.

Go try it, its pretty neat.

2.4 != 2, so it doesn't help.

Now, for sufficiently large values of 2, 2 + 2 does equal five.

And the algorithm you're describing isn't all that neat, it can be coded in very, very few lines without much thought.

Actually, by recognizing my own agenda and Soheran's I was trying to show the intolerance of this place, because I knew the majority of you would side with Soheran and Neo-Art, since people prefer to think of themselves as tolerant people.

No, I chose to side with them because I think you are wrong. I respect your right to hold any opinion you wish. I also reserve the right to say I think your opinions are totally wrong. You seem to think tolerance means I have to accept your opinions as true.

since people prefer to think of themselves as tolerant people.

To the contrary, I have no particular problem with being called "intolerant." That which I do not tolerate (in either sense), I think I have good reasons not to tolerate.

I just thought your choice of definitions was rather dishonest.

Just saying, the truth can be what you wish to make it.

There's a word for this, follow your own advice and read the dictionary until you find it.

And, sigged with attribution for cautionary example.

Just saying, the truth can be what you wish to make it.

Truth is not what you want it to be, it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie.-- Musashi.

Something is not true or false based on your desire for it to be so.

No, your opinion that your definition and only your definition showed your intolerance, just as my insistence that my definition and only my definition was authoritative showed my own intolerance.

You can hold any view you want I I will accept that you can hold those views. That is all the tolerance you are owed. I will not call for you being banned for having such views. I will not ask that you be deleted for holding a view that I may think is plain stupid. I will continue to allow you to hold whatever views you wish to have. I will also continue to disagree with you if I wish. I say again, "tolerance doesn't mean laying down."

Just saying, the truth can be what you wish to make it.

in that case, everybody is tolerant, even as they tie people to stakes and light the fires

The OP wants to define "tolerance" as essentially meaning to accept without protest or disagreement. I accept that as a valid definition. It is, however, a worthless definition for the purposes of the discussion. If we are discussing whether NSG is a "tolerant" place, to use the definition of "tolerance" to be "to accept without protest or disagreement" than the discussion becomes moot, because there isn't a tolerant person on the planet.

Everyone, even the OP, would disagree with certain statements. Everyone, including the OP, by his own admission would point out where he believes there to be errors in one's thinking.

The problem is then, not that we should use an unrealistic guidepost of "tolerance", but a rather hypocritical belief of some people that while they can point out where they believe others to be in error, and still believe themselves tolerant, they content that their beliefs are unassailable and unattackable, if one wishes to be "tolerant". People like the OP would have no problem pointing out that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 5, that the sun does not rise in the west, that female humans do not have a penis, and mount everest is higher than five feet.

And just as they are not "intolerant" when people like the OP point out what they think are errors in what others believe to be true, I likewise am not "intolerant" for pointing out what I perceive to be flaws in what they believe to be true. To hold your views immune from criticism, when you engage in the same critiques that all of us do, doesn't make me intolerant, it makes you a hypocrite.

when the fuck did YOU become serious?

One of the dead ancient masters came to me and said to me something along the lines of "a satirist who only writes satire should write little, lest his caustic barbs be thought merely the product of his own hateful nature" or something like that. I'm trying to find the quote so I can attribute it properly.

The OP wants to define "tolerance" as essentially meaning to accept without protest or disagreement. I accept that as a valid definition. It is, however, a worthless definition for the purposes of the discussion. If we are discussing whether NSG is a "tolerant" place, to use the definition of "tolerance" to be "to accept without protest or disagreement" than the discussion becomes moot, because there isn't a tolerant person on the planet.

Everyone, even the OP, would disagree with certain statements. Everyone, including the OP, by his own admission would point out where he believes there to be errors in one's thinking.

The problem is then, not that we should use an unrealistic guidepost of "tolerance", but a rather hypocritical belief of some people that while they can point out where they believe others to be in error, and still believe consider themselves tolerant, they content that their beliefs are unassailable and unattackable, if one wishes to be "tolerant". People like the OP would have no problem pointing out that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 5, that the sun does not rise in the west, that female humans do not have a penis, and mount everest is higher than five feet.

And just as they are not "intolerant" when people like the OP point out what they think are errors in what others believe to be true, I likewise am not "intolerant" for pointing out what I perceive to be flaws in what they believe to be true. To hold your views immune from criticism, when you engage in the same critiques that all of us do, doesn't make me intolerant, it makes you a hypocrite.

One time, I saw a guy take the hearts out of a deuce card while it was up in the air, from the hip, with a Colt python.

Until you're post, that was the most starkly and beautiful accurate things I've seen.

You Jew.

Tell them that according to your calculations it equals four, however,

if you use a TI-83 calculator, and you adjust your settings to round to the nearest one and add 2.4 to 2.4 your computer will add it as 2+2 and represent the sum as a 5.

Go try it, its pretty neat.

It's actually not "neat" or pertinent to the point he was making. 2.4+2.4 clearly equals 4.8, which rounded is 5. As for choice of mathmatical instruments, the TI-83 is limited and outdated. I suggest a TI-89 Titanium for anything above an algebra course. Why did I take Finite Math, Discrete Math, and Advanced Physics again even though they were not required for my major? Oh right, because I am a masochist down to my very core. Adviser: "No, take some easy electives to fulfill your requirements." Me: "F you lady, i don't want to be bored."

edit: bah they broke my image

Just saying, the truth can be what you wish to make it.

No, at some point there are things that are true and can be shown as such. Differing opinion on whether chocolate is the best topping for ice cream are subjective. Whether the world is billions of years old or not is not really the same. New Earth creationists may espouse their beliefs even though I think they are wrong. It's still my right to show them scientifically that their premise is holier than Swiss cheese. Ha ha, I use holier to describe a religious belief as being without factual basis. Damn I'm in love with myself today. ;) i don't even know how much longer I'll be able to tolerate myself.

One time, I saw a guy take the hearts out of a deuce card while it was up in the air, from the hip, with a Colt python.

Until you're post, that was the most starkly and beautiful accurate things I've seen.

You Jew.

I'm a little foggy on this one. What does a "Jew" have to do with accuracy again?

Why is there no online OED?

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=83592&dict=CALD

There is, if you want to PAY for it....
http://www.oed.com/

I'm a little foggy on this one. What does a "Jew" have to do with accuracy again?

Cause if i want accuracy i definitely go with the Jewish people...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fecund

Fecund fertilities, was the phrase.

Since one could say that the most fertile fertilities is manure...

I think it could fit.

Cause if i want accuracy i definitely go with the Jewish people...

Fair enough. I can be tolerant of your generalization regarding the Jewish faith. Now it's time for bed where I can dream of all the other ways to be intolerant. Good night all.

Btw, I'm a little intolerant of all the testosterone in this thread. I must inject some of my intolerant estrogen, in order to right the imbalance.

Since one could say that the most fertile fertilities is manure...

I think it could fit.

True, but that would probably be carrying the metaphor too far.

Edit: Your avatar is awesome.

True, but that would probably be carrying the metaphor too far.

Edit: Your avatar is awesome.

Danke, I wear that shirt during 'nilla sex.

Yeah, I don't credit the author of the phrase in question with that much intelligence. But I liked the way it went anyway.

I am a reasonably tolerant moderate. I, however, do not tolerate idealogues with equanimity. Nor do I tolerate well the anti-intellectual maunderings of someone who says "I'm intelligent, I have papers that prove it" (as if it were a pedigree of some sort) and then proves, by his discourse that the papers lie.

I tolerate atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, bad grammar, poor spelling, Communists, knee-jerk liberals, reactionaries and celebrity-hounds all equally. I do not easily tolerate poor logic and bombast as a substitute for thought and facts. I try, though, because we're all guilty of poor logic and bombast on occasion.

Yep. Like babies on crack

well its not like we are all going to be respectful or anything, in fact you should expect outright rude behavior, whether u deserve it or not. ;)

Why is there no online OED?

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=83592&dict=CALD
There is. OED.com

Actually, by recognizing my own agenda and Soheran's I was trying to show the intolerance of this place, because I knew the majority of you would side with Soheran and Neo-Art, since people prefer to think of themselves as tolerant people.
Would me agreeing with you make me intolerant of Soheran and Neo-Art's positions?

Just saying, the truth can be what you wish to make it.
"truth" perhaps. Not reality, however.
There is, if you want to PAY for it....
http://www.oed.com/

Or if you happen to have a recent college grad looking for reasons to use his free subscription while he still can :)
1. a. The action or practice of enduring or sustaining pain or hardship; the power or capacity of enduring; endurance. Obs.

b. Phys. The power, constitutional or acquired, of enduring large doses of active drugs, or of resisting the action of poison, etc.; hence diminution in the response to a drug after continued use. Also const. to. Cf. TOLERANT a. c, TOLERATE v. 1b, TOLERATION 1b.

c. Forestry. The capacity of a tree to endure shade. More widely in Biol., the ability of any organism to withstand some particular environmental condition. Const. to. Cf. TOLERANT a. d. orig. U.S.

d. Biol. The ability of an organism to survive or to flourish despite infection with a parasite or an otherwise pathogenic organism.

e. Immunol. The ability to accept without an immunological reaction an antigen that normally produces one.

2. The action of allowing; licence, permission granted by an authority. Obs.

3. The action or practice of tolerating; toleration; the disposition to be patient with or indulgent to the opinions or practices of others; freedom from bigotry or undue severity in judging the conduct of others; forbearance; catholicity of spirit.

4. Technical uses. a. Coining. The small margin within which coins, when minted, are allowed to deviate from the standard fineness and weight: also called allowance. (Cf. TOLERATION 5, REMEDY n. 4.)

b. In Mech., an allowable amount of variation in the dimensions of a machine or part. More widely, the allowable amount of variation in any specified quantity.

5. attrib. and Comb.: tolerance dose Med., a dose, esp. of radiation, believed to be received or taken without harm; tolerance level, the level that can be tolerated or is acceptable; spec. in Med. = tolerance dose above; tolerance limit, a limit laid down for the permitted variation of a parameter of a product.

Yeah, what he said!
Yeah, what SHE said!

After reading the Why Do Atheists Hate Religious People tread, and the reactions to said thread. I have decided to pose the question of whether the people of NSG are tolerant people or not.

In my opinion, the slant of the forum is clearly to the left, and since the majority of members are liberal, they naturally find it easy to be tolerant of those with the same views as them, but find it difficult to be tolerant of the views of those to the right of them.

Since the majority of the forum is clearly atheist, it is easier for those in the forum to be tolerant of fellow atheists, but intolerant of people of religious convictions.

I'm fairly left wing (democratic environmentalist pagan), but yes, I would agree. NSG is not a tolerant place.

So those who have claimed that those with a religious conviction are less intelligent that those who deny any spirituality are being tolerant, right.:rolleyes:

Firstly, the argument was about correlations between intelligence and religious belief within a population.

Secondly, there's nothing intolerant in discussing the hypothesis "believers are cleverer/less clever than non-believers": as a hypothesis the statement will either be true or false, but it's not inherently intolerant.

NSG is tolerant of anyone with thick skin.

if you can take it you can stay.

In this vein, I'm going to repeat something I said earlier about "tolerance". To those who would say we must be "tolerant" of their views fundamentally misunderstands what tolerance means. To tolerate means only to allow without prohibiting or opposing. In a free society, tolerance of ones views means only that another does not seek to prohibit the free expression of those views.

I can be said to tolerate the views of people like, say, Fred Phelps because I do not seek to prohibit the vocalization of his viewpoints. As much as I abhore what he stands for, I would rather live in a society where he is free to speak his hate, than one where he is not.

That is all tolerance means, and that is all that is required of me to be tolerant of ones beliefs. That I do not seek to prohibit or oppose the expression of those beliefs.

The idea that somehow, under the mantle of "tolerance", I must respect, honor, agree with, or remain silent in my disagreement, of others viewpoints is absurd. I don't have to respect, agree, or understand your position in order to tolerate it, I need only not seek to prohibit your free exercise thereof.

Likewise while I tolerate your viewpoint, I am also free to vocalize, to the fullest extent, my disrespect, disbelief, and disagreement with those beliefs. Those who would scream that if I dare to disparage or voice my disapproval of their beliefs that I am being "intolerant" not only fundamentally misunderstand the term, they are guilty of the very thing they say they are opposing. For they are the ones who wish to have free reign to speak their beliefs, but would quash any opposition against them.

Tolerance demands only that I respect your right to express your beliefs. It does not demand that I remain silent in the face of beliefs I disagree with. I tolerate all beliefs, I make no efforts to prohibit you from believing them, or from expressing them. But to say that tolerance requires I can not exercise the very rights that I recognize you hold is, at its very core, the height of intolerance.

If free society demands that I tolerate your opposing views, and your right to express those views, it likewise requires that you tolerate mine. Any attempts therefore to try to force, coerce, or shame me into not voicing them due to my supposed "intolerance" renders you the only intolerant one amongst us.
This.

People who post on this forum tolerate each other, because otherwise you get banned. It's just that simple.

The OP appears to be repeating the standard whine about how atheists/liberals/whoever are "intolerant" when they speak their objections about religion/conservatives/whatever.

Meh.

Tolerance doesn't require that I let your views stand unchallenged. Tolerance doesn't require that we all make sure to never hurt your poor feelings. Tolerance doesn't mean, "I get to say whatever I want and everybody else has to shut up and not argue because if they do they're a big meanie-head intolerant jerk!"

If you are a religious/conservative person who wants to be coddled and have your views blindly parroted by everybody around you, just turn on any mainstream American TV news broadcast and sit back with a nice cuppa.

Largely, although right-wing viewpoints do tend to get slammed pretty often, and if you point out that some Muslims have done some pretty bad things in the last ten or so years, you can expect to get called a bigot by at least three posters, which sort of kills any debate by putting you on the defensive completely.

Honestly, it depends on the person. I think some people here are pretty tolerant, others kind of forget that you are a certain thing instead of tolerating your views, and then you have the jag holes who hate everyone who disagrees.

I won't say any names, but I can think of plenty of people to fit into anyone of those categories.

Honestly, it depends on the person. I think some people here are pretty tolerant, others kind of forget that you are a certain thing instead of tolerating your views, and then you have the jag holes who hate everyone who disagrees.

I won't say any names, but I can think of plenty of people to fit into anyone of those categories.
everyone is going to have some people who dont like them. every position is going to get slammed now and then. if you cant take the occasional hit from an asshole, you dont belong on nsg.

you seem to me to be an excellent example of the kind of person who is "tolerated". you have strong religious beliefs that get more than their allotted ration of shit. because you dont shrink under the criticism, you are a valued member of the community. a weaker person doesnt last here because they cannot take the constant dis to their beliefs.

that is tolerance, nsg style.

After reading the Why Do Atheists Hate Religious People tread, and the reactions to said thread. I have decided to pose the question of whether the people of NSG are tolerant people or not.

In my opinion, the slant of the forum is clearly to the left, and since the majority of members are liberal, they naturally find it easy to be tolerant of those with the same views as them, but find it difficult to be tolerant of the views of those to the right of them.

Since the majority of the forum is clearly atheist, it is easier for those in the forum to be tolerant of fellow atheists, but intolerant of people of religious convictions.

I bet to differ on the last part. I don't have a problem with the religious views of others, and I'm quite liberal in my approaches. Besides, there's no use in arguing either politics or religion, with anyone. Those are beliefs that are far too personal.

Sorry, sorry I still can't look at this thread title on the main page without a smile coming to my face.

NSG is as tolerant as it needs to be. People are not silenced for having opposing viewpoints. That is all the tolerance that anyone need be afforded. If your definition of tolerance is that all viewpoints need to be equally respected and heard, and cannot be disagreed with or dismissed, then this is not the place for you. You have the right to post your viewpoint and we have the right to disagree or dismiss it; that is your tolerance. Anything more is just pandering.

Go to Stormfront, where they outright delete accounts that post contrary opinions, and tell me if you still feel NSG is intolerant.

NSG is startlingly tolerant. We don't shut down virtually any viewpoints, ranging from the most innocuous to the most absurd. Perhaps our acceptance of the absurd is because we are, as a group, quite absurd, but we do let 'em speak.

There are plenty of forums and web boards that are heavily censored, and sponsor semi-organized group-think (See: Stormfront, or that "Gorgon Poisons" blog of the silly, silly person who wrote the Joss Whedon hates women article). We have a neurotic and free environment, that, even in its degenerated state, is still one of the best forums on the internet.

After reading the Why Do Atheists Hate Religious People tread, and the reactions to said thread. I have decided to pose the question of whether the people of NSG are tolerant people or not.

In my opinion, the slant of the forum is clearly to the left, and since the majority of members are liberal, they naturally find it easy to be tolerant of those with the same views as them, but find it difficult to be tolerant of the views of those to the right of them.

Since the majority of the forum is clearly atheist, it is easier for those in the forum to be tolerant of fellow atheists, but intolerant of people of religious convictions.

What a load of crap.

Uh, what the fuck are you trying to say anyway?

Never mind. It's a load of crap.

You're some kind of atheist liberal tolerant blah-blah let's-chat-about-it apologist-for-Crime Republican.

The hivemind of NSG isn't entirely defenceless to your evil machinations. We have defences.

*uses the Ignore switch*

What a load of crap.

Uh, what the fuck are you trying to say anyway?

Never mind. It's a load of crap.

You're some kind of atheist liberal tolerant blah-blah let's-chat-about-it apologist-for-Crime Republican.

The hivemind of NSG isn't entirely defenceless to your evil machinations. We have defences.

*uses the Ignore switch*
If that was satire, it was funny, if it wasn't, n00b!

What a load of crap.
I dunno, as an atheist, and what would be considered liberal leftie in the States, he is essentially right. People with right-wing viewpoints have a harder time of it here than centrists or leftists, not because of some kind of 'leftist hive-mind' or such crap, but because they are simply outnumbered. There may be bickering between socialists and communists, but we do all kind of unite against anyone particularly right-wing.

I dunno, as an atheist, and what would be considered liberal leftie in the States, he is essentially right. People with right-wing viewpoints have a harder time of it here than centrists or leftists, not because of some kind of 'leftist hive-mind' or such crap, but because they are simply outnumbered. There may be bickering between socialists and communists, but we do all kind of unite against anyone particularly right-wing.

It doesn't help that we have some people *cough* Isla Techno *cough* who completely disregard the teachings of Jesus in their own made up intolerant version of Christianity.

It doesn't help that we have some people *cough* Isla Techno *cough* who completely disregard the teachings of Jesus in their own made up intolerant version of Christianity.
I have no beef at all with religious types so long as they're not being very stupid and/or very rude. You Christians are largely an alright bunch, as are most Sikhs, Muslims, Jews etc. etc.

I have no beef at all with religious types so long as they're not being very stupid and/or very rude. You Christians are largely an alright bunch, as are most Sikhs, Muslims, Jews etc. etc.

See, I am really growing tired of some of the people on here who claim Jesus as their savior, yet have not picked up a Bible in years.

They are not hot, they are not cold, they are lukewarm so He spits them out.

See, I am really growing tired of some of the people on here who claim Jesus as their savior, yet have not picked up a Bible in years.

They are not hot, they are not cold, they are lukewarm so He spits them out.
Fair enough etc.

Fair enough etc.

by the way, I was quoting Him, I am just to lazy to go grab the Good Book, it is in the Letters of Rev.

See, I am really growing tired of some of the people on here who claim Jesus as their savior, yet have not picked up a Bible in years.

They are not hot, they are not cold, they are lukewarm so He spits them out.
what does the bible have to do with it?

i dont recall "reading the bible" as having anything to do with being saved as outlined IN THE BIBLE.

by the way, I was quoting Him, I am just to lazy to go grab the Good Book, it is in the Letters of Rev.
I see. I come from a country with a different standard bible, but there we go.

I've been here two years, and I'm Mad Left. I rant and rave mad impractical shit about my ideal society ...

(think me and my mom, on Mars, with both of us permanently pregnant with irradiated mutants, trying to build the Perfevt Society, subsisting on Foetus Stew and our own urine)

... and note that of the dozen or so threads I started, I think perhaps one has gone to 114 posts.

Take this bonus post, kid. May it serve you well.

EDIT: Kudos to Yootopia for the dignified Avatar. Amiga? Or Atari? In any case, cyber-primitivism, and gracious.

what does the bible have to do with it?

i dont recall "reading the bible" as having anything to do with being saved as outlined IN THE BIBLE.

I am not saying that reading the Bible has anything to do with being saved (though if you do read it you will see that the Lord calls upon you to pray without ceasing, and a form of prayer is the study of his word), to be saved you must be cleansed through the holy waters of Baptism. Anyways, what I am trying to say is I am sick and tired of people who put words in His mouth to fit their own worldview, rather that fitting their worldview around his Words.

... and note that of the dozen or so threads I started, I think perhaps one has gone to 114 posts.
If you want them to go higher, find an old, old article from the days when the Palestinians were killing loads of Israelis via suicide bombings. For one thing, you'll have a couple of pages of people going "that's from 1994, yawn", and you'll also get a bunch saying "WE SHOULD DESTROY PALESTINE IN RETURN", thus creating an Israel/Palestine debate, made better nowadays as a Fatah/Hamas split in the Palestinians has emerged, so people can pick sides in that, too!

I am not saying that reading the Bible has anything to do with being saved (though if you do read it you will see that the Lord calls upon you to pray without ceasing, and a form of prayer is the study of his word), to be saved you must be cleansed through the holy waters of Baptism. Anyways, what I am trying to say is I am sick and tired of people who put words in His mouth to fit their own worldview, rather that fitting their worldview around his Words.
Oh the ironing.

I see. I come from a country with a different standard bible, but there we go.

You're a Brit, right?

As an Aussie, I'm proud to say we share the same standard bible.

Wisden. Wherein is recorded all the times we whipped ya!

After reading the Why Do Atheists Hate Religious People tread, and the reactions to said thread. I have decided to pose the question of whether the people of NSG are tolerant people or not.

In my opinion, the slant of the forum is clearly to the left, and since the majority of members are liberal, they naturally find it easy to be tolerant of those with the same views as them, but find it difficult to be tolerant of the views of those to the right of them.

Since the majority of the forum is clearly atheist, it is easier for those in the forum to be tolerant of fellow atheists, but intolerant of people of religious convictions.

Well, I don't think it makes sense to be tolerant of intolerance. I'm fine with those to the right of me, but it seems that the farther right (and left) you go, the more likely you are to meet people who genuinely wish the world would be purged of those with whom they disagree, or those whom their religion (sacred or secular) tells them to abhor.

Personally, I think you're choosing to see persecution where there is mainly disagreement. Some people are jerks, and they live on both sides of the range of opinions.

In this vein, I'm going to repeat something I said earlier about "tolerance". To those who would say we must be "tolerant" of their views fundamentally misunderstands what tolerance means. To tolerate means only to allow without prohibiting or opposing. In a free society, tolerance of ones views means only that another does not seek to prohibit the free expression of those views.

I can be said to tolerate the views of people like, say, Fred Phelps because I do not seek to prohibit the vocalization of his viewpoints. As much as I abhore what he stands for, I would rather live in a society where he is free to speak his hate, than one where he is not.

That is all tolerance means, and that is all that is required of me to be tolerant of ones beliefs. That I do not seek to prohibit or oppose the expression of those beliefs.

The idea that somehow, under the mantle of "tolerance", I must respect, honor, agree with, or remain silent in my disagreement, of others viewpoints is absurd. I don't have to respect, agree, or understand your position in order to tolerate it, I need only not seek to prohibit your free exercise thereof.

Likewise while I tolerate your viewpoint, I am also free to vocalize, to the fullest extent, my disrespect, disbelief, and disagreement with those beliefs. Those who would scream that if I dare to disparage or voice my disapproval of their beliefs that I am being "intolerant" not only fundamentally misunderstand the term, they are guilty of the very thing they say they are opposing. For they are the ones who wish to have free reign to speak their beliefs, but would quash any opposition against them.

Tolerance demands only that I respect your right to express your beliefs. It does not demand that I remain silent in the face of beliefs I disagree with. I tolerate all beliefs, I make no efforts to prohibit you from believing them, or from expressing them. But to say that tolerance requires I can not exercise the very rights that I recognize you hold is, at its very core, the height of intolerance.

If free society demands that I tolerate your opposing views, and your right to express those views, it likewise requires that you tolerate mine. Any attempts therefore to try to force, coerce, or shame me into not voicing them due to my supposed "intolerance" renders you the only intolerant one amongst us.

This.

Neo, your eloquence gets me physically aroused sometimes, I swear.

Oh the ironing.

Like what I did to my shirt? lol

You're a Brit, right?
Actually, yo soy español, but SSHHHHH, I've lived here so long I speak perfect English.
As an Aussie, I'm proud to say we share the same standard bible.
HUZZAH FOR THE EMPIRE!
Wisden. Wherein is recorded all the times we whipped ya!
Heh.

Some people are jerks, and they live on both sides of the range of opinions.

Me! Me! I live on both sides of the range of opinions. I'm a jerk!

*goes to bed, jerking like a jerk*

*Has wet dream about Neon Fart*

No, absolutely not, there is a prevailing dislike and non acceptance of a lot of things, especially religion and Christianity specifically.

Is NSG tolerant?

Look up some threads by Dark Shadowy Nexus. If those were allowed then I think this forum will allow any belief to be propogated.

I am not saying that reading the Bible has anything to do with being saved (though if you do read it you will see that the Lord calls upon you to pray without ceasing, and a form of prayer is the study of his word), to be saved you must be cleansed through the holy waters of Baptism. Anyways, what I am trying to say is I am sick and tired of people who put words in His mouth to fit their own worldview, rather that fitting their worldview around his Words.
that doesnt seem to be what you said:

"See, I am really growing tired of some of the people on here who claim Jesus as their savior, yet have not picked up a Bible in years.

They are not hot, they are not cold, they are lukewarm so He spits them out."

and furthermore EVERYONE takes the words of jesus and fits them to their own world view whether they read the bible or not.

even fred phelps *shudder* does it that way. even those "god wants you to be rich" televangelist preachers do it that way.

After reading the Why Do Atheists Hate Religious People tread, and the reactions to said thread. I have decided to pose the question of whether the people of NSG are tolerant people or not.

In my opinion, the slant of the forum is clearly to the left, and since the majority of members are liberal, they naturally find it easy to be tolerant of those with the same views as them, but find it difficult to be tolerant of the views of those to the right of them.

Since the majority of the forum is clearly atheist, it is easier for those in the forum to be tolerant of fellow atheists, but intolerant of people of religious convictions.

NSG is incredibly tolerant. Tolerant to the point where unacceptable behaviors are accepted. As Neo Art stated earlier people can post what they want but others are free to post their opposition to whatever is posted. They are also free to troll, flame, bait, and make personal attacks. Those behaviors which should be cracked down on have been tolerated since 2006. This place is an incredibly mean spirited place. And I weep this day that I had to state the obvious.

Well they have to be when they let things like this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=562403) go unadressed. :)

Uh, yes, I believe he just did... I would sigg that if I were you:tongue:

Check your dictionary.

As I said before, Soheran chose a definition that fit his agenda better, as did I.

But let's stop nitpicking about definitions and get to the actual debate here.

Do the people of NSG respect the opinions of others or dismiss them as n00biness and stupid because they differ from theirs?

Actually, from what I've seen, when one's posts are treated as n00bish, it usually is because the posts are actually n00bish.

So, if we dare illustrate your contradictions, needing only your own quotes as evidence, we're being intolerant?

To respect you, I have to hold silent when your argument is demonstrably unsound?

If thats what need to feel tolerated, you have crafted yourself to be intolerable.

People here have simply (and cogently) disagreed with you, and with less "Don't give ME lessons, sir!" attitude then what you've shown.

when the fuck did YOU become serious?

When parody is substituted for reality, even a die-hard parodist has to stop and say What the....?

In this vein, I'm going to repeat something I said earlier about "tolerance". To those who would say we must be "tolerant" of their views fundamentally misunderstands what tolerance means. To tolerate means only to allow without prohibiting or opposing. In a free society, tolerance of ones views means only that another does not seek to prohibit the free expression of those views.

I can be said to tolerate the views of people like, say, Fred Phelps because I do not seek to prohibit the vocalization of his viewpoints. As much as I abhore what he stands for, I would rather live in a society where he is free to speak his hate, than one where he is not.

That is all tolerance means, and that is all that is required of me to be tolerant of ones beliefs. That I do not seek to prohibit or oppose the expression of those beliefs.

The idea that somehow, under the mantle of "tolerance", I must respect, honor, agree with, or remain silent in my disagreement, of others viewpoints is absurd. I don't have to respect, agree, or understand your position in order to tolerate it, I need only not seek to prohibit your free exercise thereof.

Likewise while I tolerate your viewpoint, I am also free to vocalize, to the fullest extent, my disrespect, disbelief, and disagreement with those beliefs. Those who would scream that if I dare to disparage or voice my disapproval of their beliefs that I am being "intolerant" not only fundamentally misunderstand the term, they are guilty of the very thing they say they are opposing. For they are the ones who wish to have free reign to speak their beliefs, but would quash any opposition against them.

Tolerance demands only that I respect your right to express your beliefs. It does not demand that I remain silent in the face of beliefs I disagree with. I tolerate all beliefs, I make no efforts to prohibit you from believing them, or from expressing them. But to say that tolerance requires I can not exercise the very rights that I recognize you hold is, at its very core, the height of intolerance.

If free society demands that I tolerate your opposing views, and your right to express those views, it likewise requires that you tolerate mine. Any attempts therefore to try to force, coerce, or shame me into not voicing them due to my supposed "intolerance" renders you the only intolerant one amongst us.

Amazingly well explained.

Some people (particularly those who have deep religious belief, in my experience) seem to confuse criticism with intolerance.

We don't want to forbid your religions...we just find them dumb.

See, I am really growing tired of some of the people on here who claim Jesus as their savior, yet have not picked up a Bible in years.

They are not hot, they are not cold, they are lukewarm so He spits them out.

by the way, I was quoting Him, I am just to lazy to go grab the Good Book, it is in the Letters of Rev.

:D
The irony, it burns.

They are also free to troll, flame, bait, and make personal attacks. Those behaviors which should be cracked down on have been tolerated since 2006. This place is an incredibly mean spirited place. And I weep this day that I had to state the obvious.


Right, because people never lose their nations for doing this, are never banned for doing this, are never warned for doing this, are never declared Delete on Sight...

I weep this day that *I* had to state the obvious.
:rolleyes:

Amazingly well explained.

Some people (particularly those who have deep religious belief, in my experience) seem to confuse criticism with intolerance.

We don't want to forbid your religions...we just find them dumb.

don't forget we don't like having their own beliefs forced on us.

i means seriously, i'm sure we're all tired of having someone walk up to you and harass you about "knowing Christ's love". being polite to those people gets reeeeeeal hard sometimes

don't forget we don't like having their own beliefs forced on us.

i means seriously, i'm sure we're all tired of having someone walk up to you and harass you about "knowing Christ's love". being polite to those people gets reeeeeeal hard sometimes

YOU DONT LIVE NEXT DOOR TO A WATCHTOWER CENTRE!!!!!!

If there is a heaven I have already earn it for my tolerance and patience.

YOU DONT LIVE NEXT DOOR TO A WATCHTOWER CENTRE!!!!!!

If there is a heaven I have already earn it for my tolerance and patience.

wow, u have my sypathies. :eek:

<snip>
you seem to me to be an excellent example of the kind of person who is "tolerated". you have strong religious beliefs that get more than their allotted ration of shit. because you don't shrink under the criticism, you are a valued member of the community. a weaker person doesn't last here because they cannot take the constant dis to their beliefs.

that is tolerance, nsg style.

I agree. NSG is full of abuse, personal insults, dissing of others beliefs and finding ways to generally deride and ridicule the opposing view. However the mods generally allow all those views to be expressed. It is, in fact, extremely tolerant, which is entirely unrelated to it being either respectful, or even adhering to basic standards of courtesy, spelling and grammar.

Me! Me! I live on both sides of the range of opinions. I'm a jerk!

*goes to bed, jerking like a jerk*

*Has wet dream about Neon Fart*

Ah, another Knight of the Order of the Crispy Sock.

NSG is incredibly tolerant. Tolerant to the point where unacceptable behaviors are accepted. As Neo Art stated earlier people can post what they want but others are free to post their opposition to whatever is posted. They are also free to troll, flame, bait, and make personal attacks. Those behaviors which should be cracked down on have been tolerated since 2006. This place is an incredibly mean spirited place. And I weep this day that I had to state the obvious.

:rolleyes:

"Wah! I was out-debated and told my posts lacked substance and were rife with generalizations and inconsistency!" It's far from mean-spirited, and you only perceive it as such because you appear to be chronically incapable of separating the vessel (your posts) from the potter (you), and therefore see attacks everywhere.

Sorry, pal, not NSG's fault.

After reading the Why Do Atheists Hate Religious People tread, and the reactions to said thread. I have decided to pose the question of whether the people of NSG are tolerant people or not.

In my opinion, the slant of the forum is clearly to the left, and since the majority of members are liberal, they naturally find it easy to be tolerant of those with the same views as them, but find it difficult to be tolerant of the views of those to the right of them.

Since the majority of the forum is clearly atheist, it is easier for those in the forum to be tolerant of fellow atheists, but intolerant of people of religious convictions.

Fail. The forum is tolerant, but tolerance doesn't mean neglecting to call bullshit when it is seen. Seriously though, this is one of the more civilised "places" on the web.

Seriously though, this is one of the more civilised "places" on the web.
And ironically -- the mods are told that we are too tolerant at the same time AND simultaneously (;)) as we're being told we're too harsh and crack down on people too much.

The forum is tolerant. It's just some of the people may not be.

I agree. NSG is full of abuse, personal insults, dissing of others beliefs and finding ways to generally deride and ridicule the opposing view. However the mods generally allow all those views to be expressed. It is, in fact, extremely tolerant, which is entirely unrelated to it being either respectful, or even adhering to basic standards of courtesy, spelling and grammar.
yeah, i am expected to "tolerate" the abuse as long as it doesnt get too personal.

its a pretty hard line to draw. they want a popular site where people can say what they want but if it gets too abusive people will leave. the mods here do a pretty good job of keeping a balance. all you need is a thick skin.

I am not saying that reading the Bible has anything to do with being saved (though if you do read it you will see that the Lord calls upon you to pray without ceasing, and a form of prayer is the study of his word), to be saved you must be cleansed through the holy waters of Baptism. Anyways, what I am trying to say is I am sick and tired of people who put words in His mouth to fit their own worldview, rather that fitting their worldview around his Words.

Lets start a "posters whose words get twisted by circle jerk posters club" Your not the only one who gets their words twisted.

Here have a cookie.

Fail. The forum is tolerant, but tolerance doesn't mean neglecting to call bullshit when it is seen. Seriously though, this is one of the more civilised "places" on the web.

maybe he is one of those who thinks that religion deserves some kind of special treatment in that u can't say anything bad about it.

No, absolutely not, there is a prevailing dislike and non acceptance of a lot of things, especially religion and Christianity specifically.
Non-acceptance does not equal intolerance. I tolerate religion, despite the fact that I don't accept it.
Similarly, dislike does not equal intolerance. I dislike my cousin-in-law, but I tolerate him at family gatherings.


by the way, I was quoting Him, I am just to lazy to go grab the Good Book, it is in the Letters of Rev.
Then you wern't quoting.


Seriously, people. Words have different definitions for a reason.

This thread is akin to holding up a blue pen and screaming "The pen in my hand is red!"

yeah, i am expected to "tolerate" the abuse as long as it doesn't get too personal.

its a pretty hard line to draw. they want a popular site where people can say what they want but if it gets too abusive people will leave. the mods here do a pretty good job of keeping a balance. all you need is a thick skin.

Agreed. The mods do a good job (realised this sounded a bit ranty at them, which it wasn't meant to be). I'd rather have some of the personal attacks and dissing than no meaningful debate. It'd be better if people could be civilized though...

Agreed. The mods do a good job (realised this sounded a bit ranty at them, which it wasn't meant to be). I'd rather have some of the personal attacks and dissing than no meaningful debate. It'd be better if people could be civilized though...
agreed. im always surprised when people i respect turn into dicks over certain topics.

If telling people I think they're wrong is intolerant then I don't want to be tolerant. Where's the fun in that?

Is NSG A Tolerant Place?

Why would we desire for it to be?

If telling people I think they're wrong is intolerant then I don't want to be tolerant. Where's the fun in that?

Bingo.

If telling people I think they're wrong is intolerant then I don't want to be tolerant. Where's the fun in that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3LSZetkNSE (looped)


They would disagree with you :p

We kind of have to be tolerant, because we're on an Internet forum. It's not as if I can jail any of you for dissenting opinions, or even physically harm you. Maybe if I were cleverer I could steal your identity or something, but that's about it.

If, by tolerant, you mean polite towards and respectful of others' opinions, then no, NSG is not tolerant. But that's part of its beauty. If I wanted to have a pleasant conversation, I would talk to real people. If I want to have a lively discussion that won't get me kicked out of a public building, I can come here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3LSZetkNSE (looped)


They would disagree with you :p

*shoots the fucking buddy bears*

...or you could use the second dictionary's first definition:

"the quality of accepting other people's rights to their own opinions, beliefs, or actions"

Or you could look up the verb (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tolerate), whose meaning has been less clouded by politically correct misuse:

"To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit."

And the second dictionary:

"to allow something to exist or happen, even although one does not approve of it"

Note that the other definitions of the word (both noun and verb) suggest endurance: we tolerate pain, we tolerate hardship. Similarly, we might tolerate something we despise and disrespect.

Or we can forget all this crap and remember that words can and almost always do have multiple meanings, and recognise that it's quite obvious in the context of a discussion forum that what Crimean Republic meant by the word is the definition he posted.

*shoots the fucking buddy bears*
Now THAT was intolerant. *nod*

Or we can forget all this crap and remember that words can and almost always do have multiple meanings, and recognise that it's quite obvious in the context of a discussion forum that what Crimean Republic meant by the word is the definition he posted.

I don't think anyone is capable of accurately making that assertion besides CR himself. He's been confronted several times with what seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable definition of tolerance. If he disagrees with that definition, it's incumbent upon him to realize that as he debates. Also, the preponderance of lexicographic evidence suggests that Soheran's definition is the correct one.

Using "words can have multiple meanings" to hide behind shoddy arguments is disingenuous.

Do the people of NSG respect the opinions of others or dismiss them as n00biness and stupid because they differ from theirs?
When they're really stupid, why should I?

Doesn't mean I don't respect the person - but hell, when you're talking BS IMHO I'll say so. :eek:

Besides, you'll have to keep in mind that many of these "discussions" are like reruns of bad television shows. You don't wanna watch'em, but hell - there's nothing else on...

In that respect, there are topics that will come up again. And again. And again. And again. And again...

agreed. im always surprised when people i respect turn into dicks over certain topics.

It's always so distressing when that happens.

I don't think anyone is capable of accurately making that assertion besides CR himself. He's been confronted several times with what seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable definition of tolerance. If he disagrees with that definition, it's incumbent upon him to realize that as he debates. Also, the preponderance of lexicographic evidence suggests that Soheran's definition is the correct one.

Using "words can have multiple meanings" to hide behind shoddy arguments is disingenuous.

Just think about this logically, it would be absurd to ask: "do people of NSG actively try to prohibit certain viewpoints from being expressed?" because the answer is of course - no, since they are incapable of doing so and unless CR has some sort of severe brain defect, or believes that the rules of NSG are decided by some sort of democratic vote, it's very silly to think that CR actually meant that use of tolerance. But even the fact that he clearly disagreed with Neo Arts definition of tolerance itself and explicitly stated that his definition is about respect means that, unless you believe someone for that brief period of time hacked into his account and pretended to be him, that's the definition he meant.