No. Not at all. Your choice.I'm not mistaken?
Yep.Then it's a fact I'm intolerant of pistachio ice cream.
Sure. They tolerate your intolerance of pistachio ice cream.However, my family is tolerant of my intolerance.
No. Not at all. Your choice.
Yep.
No problem.
Sure. They tolerate your intolerance of pistachio ice cream.
Why wouldnt they?
Now if you were intolerant of black people, said those people arent welcome at this school, you wouldnt expect your tollerant family to tolerate that would you?
Because doing so would be a contradiction.
what you gave doesnt refute my earlier claim in any way, shape or form..I need nothing more to refute your earlier claim that what I gave,
Tolerating your intolerance for pistachio ice cream is part of what it is to be tollerant.and what you have now agreed with. No need to take your race bait.
what you gave diesnt refute my earlier claim in any way, shape or form..
Tolerating your intolerance for pistachio ice cream is part of what it is to be tollerant.
Tolerating intollerance of black people is NOT part of being tollerant, in fact it contradicts the notion of tolerance
I bet you are fine with the 10 Commandments being posted in classrooms, yet have no concern for non Christian children who may view them.
Of course i do.You even agree.
Your original claim though:
If tolerance required tolerance of intolerance it would be self contradictory
My God dude.Yet here I give an example of intolerance being tolerated, and you agree with it.
That one isnt the problemI know right, thou shalt not kill is such a imposition on leftists..
You must think your repetition of something makes a difference. Looks like baiting to me.Of course i do.
Think for Christ's sake.
My God dude.
Put on your thinking cap.
Tolerating people who are lactose intolerant (or dont like pistachio ice cream), does not contradict the notion of tolerance.
Tolerating people who are intolletant of minorities and want to exclude them DOES contradict the notion of tolletance..
Seriously are you just trolling as usual or do you really not understand such a basic concept?
That one isnt the problem
Its these ones that contradict the constitution.
- Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” ...
- “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.” ...
- “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” ...
- “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” ...
- “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” ...
All unconstitutional.
Not to mention that the 1st disallowed establishing a religion.
Utter nonsense.Your claim is refuted. It had nothing in it about minorities, and nothing in my response referred to minorities.
They contradict the constitutionWhy would those bother you?
The 1st prohibits establishing a religion.Bullshit - read the 1st sometime, I know it's prohibited by your party, but just for fun...
Yes a display from one religion and not thr others in government schools is an establishment of religion.So a passive display is the establishment of religion.
I dont ignore violations of the constitution of the USA.What happens if you just ignore it?
Not at all, that's the whole point of the establishment clause.Does the idea that others are allowed to believe differently from you, outrage you?
Utter nonsense.
And of course it has to do with intollerance of people (minorities, homosexuals etc.)
That is what we have been talking about the entire time.
How did you lose sight of it?
Review.
Oh my god.The definition of intolerance doesn't limit it's use in that way.
My statement was on no way shape or form refuted and you are lying if you say I acknowledged it's refutation.Regardless, your statement was refuted, and you agreed. End of story.
Oh my god.
that is what this conversation in this tnread is about.
My statement was on no way shape or form refuted and you are lying if you say I acknowledged it's refutation.
Are you trolling or do you genuinely not understand?
Right.I gave an example of intolerance being tolerated and you agreed with it. That's all she wrote.
Right.
Way to miss the point
Seriously, are you trolling or do you genuinely not understand?
They contradict the constitution
The 1st prohibits establishing a religion.
Posting a document from one religion and not the others in government schools is what it means to establish a religiin.
Yes a display from one religion and not thr others in government schools is an establishment of religion.
I dont ignore violations of the constitution of the USA.
Not at all, that's the whole point of the establishment clause.
I would not go that far. If she meant the poster as a welcome mat for illegals, and I suspect that she did, she should have removed the poster when told to and left it down. She was right to resign or get fired. I would not call her a traitor or have her arrested. She is just a politicized teacher.That is a horrible sign for young kids to see because it implies that only her classroom is safe and that America is a horrible place.
I would have had this traitor arrested if it were up to me.
If she hates America so bad she can get the **** out.
Another word salad post where you ignore the definition of tolerance. Just like the teacher with her sign proclaiming everyone is welcome wouldn't accept a student in a MAGA hat or a John 3:16 t-shirt. Leftist attempt to excuse their blatant intolerance by perverting the meaning of tolerance.If tolerance required tolerance of intolerance it would be self contradictory
I would not go that far. If she meant the poster as a welcome mat for illegals, and I suspect that she did, she should have removed the poster when told to and left it down. She was right to resign or get fired. I would not call her a traitor or have her arrested. She is just a politicized teacher.
I would not go that far. If she meant the poster as a welcome mat for illegals, and I suspect that she did, she should have removed the poster when told to and left it down. She was right to resign or get fired. I would not call her a traitor or have her arrested. She is just a politicized teacher.
Exactly. Whether we agree or disagree with the sign, the school board that was elected by parents said to take it down. Personally I would have ignored it, but the representatives of the voters in that district found it politically motivated and divisive. She is required to follow the orders of the school administration and the board.
Is the Make America Great Again an anti American slogan? It implies that American is not great.That is a horrible sign for young kids to see because it implies that only her classroom is safe and that America is a horrible place.
I would have had this traitor arrested if it were up to me.
If she hates America so bad she can get the **** out.
Agreed. I think the sign itself was innocuous, but then she may have been teaching the children in the classroom completely open borders and that illegal immigration is fine. If she was an activist for illegal immigration, she should not be teaching in public schools.Exactly. Whether we agree or disagree with the sign, the school board that was elected by parents said to take it down. Personally I would have ignored it, but the representatives of the voters in that district found it politically motivated and divisive. She is required to follow the orders of the school administration and the board.
Agreed. I think the sign itself was innocuous, but then she may have been teaching the children in the classroom completely open borders and that illegal immigration is fine. If she was an activist for illegal immigration, she should not be teaching in public schools.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?