Tyr wrote:actually i was pointing out the fact that most people who preach tolerance are not very tolerant of opposing veiws
if thats what you meant then yes
Pretty much. We were illustrating the hypocricy the squealing leftist cactus smokers attitude.
Ha. But you do realise that if you weren't intolerant in the first place, then we would have nothing to argue against. (if, by leftist cactus smokers you are referring to people who have an opposing view of your own)
There is a difference between Intelligence and stupidity. While, some racist's (like yourself, Naps) can be intelligent, there's no denying that racist's are indeed stupid, or have stupid ideas.
Tyr wrote:maybe napoleon is intolerant or what ever but i couldnt care less what anyone else thinks about god, politics and so on so dont lump me in there
Napoleon Ier wrote:Precisely, I do claim there are moral absolutes, i don't claim I'm their litmate dispensor, nor do I have he arrogance to pretend I believe anyone with a differening opinion is "stoopidz".
I was more interested in your thoughts on racial hierarchy. (Your absolute morality nonsense is now officially tiresome. As well as wrong.)
I dont believe in it.
The absolute morality is only tiresome because you have no answers to it.
No, it's tiresome because it's a boring argument.
As i have said now more than once, I am more interested in your thoughts on racial hierarchy. What characteristics do you use to establish this hierarchy? Who measures them? Which race is at the top? Who is at the bottom?
Napoleon Ier wrote:Precisely, I do claim there are moral absolutes, i don't claim I'm their litmate dispensor, nor do I have he arrogance to pretend I believe anyone with a differening opinion is "stoopidz".
I was more interested in your thoughts on racial hierarchy. (Your absolute morality nonsense is now officially tiresome. As well as wrong.)
I dont believe in it.
The absolute morality is only tiresome because you have no answers to it.
No, it's tiresome because it's a boring argument.
As i have said now more than once, I am more interested in your thoughts on racial hierarchy. What characteristics do you use to establish this hierarchy? Who measures them? Which race is at the top? Who is at the bottom?
Napoleon Ier wrote:Precisely, I do claim there are moral absolutes, i don't claim I'm their litmate dispensor, nor do I have he arrogance to pretend I believe anyone with a differening opinion is "stoopidz".
I was more interested in your thoughts on racial hierarchy. (Your absolute morality nonsense is now officially tiresome. As well as wrong.)
I dont believe in it.
The absolute morality is only tiresome because you have no answers to it.
No, it's tiresome because it's a boring argument.
As i have said now more than once, I am more interested in your thoughts on racial hierarchy. What characteristics do you use to establish this hierarchy? Who measures them? Which race is at the top? Who is at the bottom?
I don't believe in it.
But you don't believe the idea behind it is stupid?
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
Napoleon Ier wrote:Precisely, I do claim there are moral absolutes, i don't claim I'm their litmate dispensor, nor do I have he arrogance to pretend I believe anyone with a differening opinion is "stoopidz".
I was more interested in your thoughts on racial hierarchy. (Your absolute morality nonsense is now officially tiresome. As well as wrong.)
I dont believe in it.
The absolute morality is only tiresome because you have no answers to it.
No, it's tiresome because it's a boring argument.
As i have said now more than once, I am more interested in your thoughts on racial hierarchy. What characteristics do you use to establish this hierarchy? Who measures them? Which race is at the top? Who is at the bottom?
I don't believe in it.
But you don't believe the idea behind it is stupid?
Not necessarily, no. However most of its proponents often are.