"Everyone welcome" is now unacceptable.

[NolanVoyd]

I'm not mistaken?

No. Not at all. Your choice.

Then it's a fact I'm intolerant of pistachio ice cream.

Yep.

No problem.

However, my family is tolerant of my intolerance.

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.

 

[RF667799]

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.

I need nothing more to refute your earlier claim that what I gave, and what you have now agreed with. No need to take your race bait.

 

[NolanVoyd]

I need nothing more to refute your earlier claim that what I gave,

what you gave doesnt refute my earlier claim in any way, shape or form..

and what you have now agreed with. No need to take your race bait.

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

Seriously dude, think it through.

 

[RF667799]

what you gave diesnt refute my earlier claim in any way, shape or form..

Sure it does.

Tolerating your intolerance for pistachio ice cream is part of what it is to be tollerant.

You even agree. Your original claim though:
If tolerance required tolerance of intolerance it would be self contradictory

Yet here I give an example of intolerance being tolerated, and you agree with it.

Tolerating intollerance of black people is NOT part of being tollerant, in fact it contradicts the notion of tolerance

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

I know right, thou shalt not kill is such a imposition on leftists..

 

[NolanVoyd]

You even agree.

Of course i do.

Think for Christ's sake.

Your original claim though:
If tolerance required tolerance of intolerance it would be self contradictory

Yet here I give an example of intolerance being tolerated, and you agree with it.

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?

 

[NolanVoyd]

I know right, thou shalt not kill is such a imposition on leftists..

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.

 

[RF667799]

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?

You must think your repetition of something makes a difference. Looks like baiting to me.

Your claim is refuted. It had nothing in it about minorities, and nothing in my response referred to minorities.

I refuted your claim as you wrote it, and you've agreed with my refutation.

Game over.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.” ...

Why would those bother you?

All unconstitutional.

Bullshit - read the 1st sometime, I know it's prohibited by your party, but just for fun...

Not to mention that the 1st disallowed establishing a religion.

So a passive display is the establishment of religion. What happens if you just ignore it?

Does the idea that others are allowed to believe differently from you, outrage you? I mean, they didn't even ask permission from the party....

 

[NolanVoyd]

Your claim is refuted. It had nothing in it about minorities, and nothing in my response referred to minorities.

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.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Why would those bother you?

They contradict the constitution

Bullshit - read the 1st sometime, I know it's prohibited by your party, but just for fun...

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.

So a passive display is the establishment of religion.

Yes a display from one religion and not thr others in government schools is an establishment of religion.

What happens if you just ignore it?

I dont ignore violations of the constitution of the USA.

Does the idea that others are allowed to believe differently from you, outrage you?

Not at all, that's the whole point of the establishment clause.

 

[RF667799]

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.

The definition of intolerance doesn't limit it's use in that way.

Regardless, your statement was refuted, and you agreed. End of story.

 

[NolanVoyd]

The definition of intolerance doesn't limit it's use in that way.

Oh my god.

that is what this conversation in this tnread is about.

Regardless, your statement was refuted, and you agreed. End of story.

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?

 

[RF667799]

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?

I gave an example of intolerance being tolerated and you agreed with it. That's all she wrote.

 

[NolanVoyd]

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?

 

[RF667799]

Right.

Way to miss the point

Seriously, are you trolling or do you genuinely not understand?

I understand I refuted your statement, you even agreed, but you just can't let it go.

 

[Uncensored2008]

They contradict the constitution

In what way? Cite the specific element of the constitution that prohibits display of religious ideas in public?

The 1st prohibits establishing a religion.

Including Atheism. Prohibiting the free exercise of competing religions is the establishment of religion. Passive displays of ideals most people view as basic morality and the underpinnings of law compels no behavior, much less belief.

Posting a document from one religion and not the others in government schools is what it means to establish a religiin.

How bigotedly ignorant.

No, that certainly is not what establishment of religion is. Iran, the darling of Joe Biden, has an established religion. It means when the Muslim call to prayer is blasted through the streets 5 times a day, ANYONE who does not turn to Mecca with head bowed will be arrested. Any child who doesn't kowtow in submission will be taken and publicly beaten with a whip. Any Jew who questions Islam will be imprisoned. Any Muslim who questions Islam will be beheaded. THAT is establishment of religion.

You simply demand that you have the power to silence religious ideas that you don't agree with.

Yes a display from one religion and not thr others in government schools is an establishment of religion.

How bigotedly ignorant.

We have freedom OF religion. You are free to believe any damned thing you like, take Mao as your savior, believe Obama walks on water, whatever. You won't be arrested, fined, taxed, followed by police - nothing.

What you demand is POWER to outlaw religions you oppose. Just like the Mullahs in Iran, you want to use civil authorities to silence those who hold beliefs that differ from your own. The establishment clause is to protect us from those like you that would use the implied force of government to suppress beliefs other than their own.

I dont ignore violations of the constitution of the USA.

You do commit them, though.

Not at all, that's the whole point of the establishment clause.

Yet here you are demanding that your faith be established - that is enforced on others through the power of the state. You seek to prohibit those Jewish ideas - which Christians and Muslims also subscribe to.

 

[MAGAnificent]

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.

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.

 

[AZRWinger]

If tolerance required tolerance of intolerance it would be self contradictory

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.

 

[j brown's body]

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 suspect the school system welcomes illegals. Many do. After all, the alternative is having them run the streets all day while their parents are at work. Would you prefer that?

Especially considering that immigration is a federal matter, its logical for state programs to do this.

You all think that since Trump is obsessed with illegal immigrants, everyone else must be. But that's just not the case. Most people don't notice it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

 

[j brown's body]

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.

The feelings of those who don't welcome everyone in a school and support banning books that describe other people's lives and banning a curriculum that honestly covers Jim Crow must be protected.

They have a lot of needs.

 

[BrotherFease]

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.

Is the Make America Great Again an anti American slogan? It implies that American is not great.

 

[MAGAnificent]

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.

 

[j brown's body]

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.

The sinister conspiracy behind accepting people as they are.