No Lives Matter
If someone supports SSM being legal but does not approve of it or the lifestyle, that would be tolerant. But when someone crosses the line from opinion to the restriction of rights, intolerance is there.
I'm intolerant of many things. Why can't people just admit that they are intolerant of gay people. What's the big psychological brain-fart here? Since when did universal tolerance become a virtue?!
LinkZafirovski, (2010) argues that The Enlightenment is the source of critical ideas, such as the centrality of freedom, democracy, and reason as primary values of society – as opposed to the divine right of kings or traditions as the ruling authority. This view argues that the establishment of a contractual basis of rights would lead to the market mechanism and capitalism, the scientific method, religious tolerance, and the organization of states into self-governing republics through democratic means. In this view, the tendency of the philosophes in particular to apply rationality to every problem is considered the essential change. Later critics of The Enlightenment, such as the Romantics of the 19th century, contended that its goals for rationality in human affairs were too ambitious to ever be achieved.
Hmmmm, fair market competition, religious tolerance, free and pluralistic societies like the one we created based on these very principles, opposition to the divine right of kings, the intellectual capacity of all of humanity...sounds like tolerance was a big part of this kind of thought.
No Lives Matter
I'm the dumb guy that votes for the wrong option at every poll (the asterisk next to the results). I put always, but meant some. I'm pretty intolerant of child abuse, rape, murder, and genocide.
Ted Cruz is the dumbest person alive.
In certain areas we have taken tolerance way too far. In others not far enough. Tolerance is not inherently a good thing.
Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates