Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Roman Catholics :D

yea except that by default virtually nothing you say can be taken at face value because it comes on the one way choo-choo from fantasyland. it has to be put through the bullshit filter first, and usually im just too lazy.

aaaand

plus, wouldn't saying that about people who disagree with you be admitting you are intolerant?

you shouldn't be, because you think the answer to intolerance is intolerance.

Thank you for telling me what I think.

Really, though, that's a ridiculous argument... universal tolerance is next to impossible, nor is it neccessarily a good thing. Tolerance for other people's beliefs/views/ideals/etc. is all well and good, and it is certainly something I believe in... but not at the expense of other people's rights.

Example: Kas might believe that homosexual marriage is wrong. Tolerating that belief is all well and good - tolerating that belief's denial of people's rights is not good.

if that's where you want the line in the sand. but don't act like its a moral absolute when someone wants it somewhere else.


btw - i like how we're still copping the lines off of me.

Who said anything about absolutes, though? To use your analogy... on a governental/social level the line in the sand can go anywhere as long as it doesn't cut anyone off who doesn't deserve to be cut off...

(I through that out there because their are certainly some people who don't deserve certain rights, i.e. some criminals)

On a personal level you can believe anything you want. But society has a responsibility to balance your belief with my rights.

i'm not sure how educated you are in terms of philosophy because i dont know how old you are, but i would have to point out that that is very obviously a weak philosophy. anything that requires so many qualifying statements and ambiguous modifiers is probably fundamentally just a subjective belief -- which isn't wrong, except that you simultaneously try to distinguish "personal beliefs" from seemingly immovable tenets of social justice.

an example would be the statement, "anyone who doesn't deserve to be cut off". well, who doesn't deserve to be cut off? gun owners? rapists? gay people? how about if i want to beat my kids? isn't that the entire difference between a conservative and a liberal in the western sense? that basic philosophy is ambiguous enough that it could be attributed to virtually everyone, across the entire political spectrum.

the point is that you establish a framework for your beliefs, but that framework doesn't necessitate all of the things you believe -- which means that a good portion of what you consider to be "essential morality" is just arbitrary. randomly drawn lines in the sand if you will.

furthermore.

smoke cigarettes.