quote:
Originally posted by Swampboy:
. . . falsely accuses others of trying to claim a moral high ground for simply pointing out that morals matter . . . claiming for himself the moral high ground of "tolerance" while comparing those who disagree with him to puritans and nazis (yeah, THAT's tolerant).
Got a question for you, CPLZ. Since you don't accept any concept of morals, what is your basis for asserting that "tolerance" is a virtue and being so eager to claim it for yourself and accuse others of lacking it? Why is your self righteous attitude about tolerance okay, but other people's less evident self-righteousness about morals not okay?
In spite of the observation that it seems you are itching for a fight in this, I'll answer as best I can, without being baited by the goading.
Your assumption that I don't accept any concept of morals is incorrect. I don't accept the concept that someone elses morality should be put out as the only right. Ethics and morals are individual and should be kept that way. I have standards, ethics and morals. In most cases I choose to keep those to myself. What they are is right for me. Doesn't make them right or wrong, just makes me, me. My intolerance is for others that think they have the right to judge morality. That is what happened when Bluedog said...
quote:
Originally posted by BlueDog:
This young man has some immorality issues to change, that's for sure....
That is why I posed the question, is being intolerant of intolerance a bad thing.
I claim no higher moral ground because I don't measure mine against anyone elses...but that's been done here by others. All I did was state that I have patience, tolerance and hope.
Twisting what a person says is usually a sign of argumentative desperation. I never compared a person to Nazi's. I used the absurd example of Nazi's being right by being the majority to show the absurdity of using being part of the majority to be right. It also seems that you are trying to portray the use of the word puritanical to some negative connotation. It is not. It is expressive of a person, and was accurate. You have not been around very long. Bluedog has. The use of the word puritanical is no more negative than the word nondenominational. They are simply expressive, but you don't want to see that, you want to use them to fuel some non existent fire.
I doubt you'll actually take what I've said in the context it is meant, because you've yet to do that. I'd suggest picking another target to fight with, because I don't bait that well.
In spite of what I believe, I hope that I am wrong, and you and I can discuss and behave more civilly and without so much venom.
Have a happy new year.