do you have proof that he was fucking?
Ah yes, because physical violence is the answer to everything.
That Monkey’s not only got a gun, the dude’s got a brain! Esprix, I (and the rest of the viewing public) would love a direct response from you on this.
Oh, wait, you’re expecting me to say I wouldn’t be considerate, right?
:rolleyes:
Try reading my response above.
Esprix
Your response above does not address the point A Monkey with a Gun raised (and I re-raised).
Why are you dodging this issue, Esprix? Does the natural consequence of your espoused philosophy hit a little to close to home?
I see your :rolleyes: and raise you another: :rolleyes:
taxguy, monkey:
The one thing a tolerant group or society cannot abide is intolerance.
Your suggestion re: Esprix is an intolerant one.
To repeat:
Without any further details of your hypothetical, you can apply the above to it.
Esprix
You are normally not this bad about reading comprehension, Scylla. Reread my post. My suggestion to esprix that constant appeasement isn’t a good thing is “intolerant”? Excuse me, but how the fuck do you figure that one? He might have had a point about it being a bit hyperbolic, but intolerant? Fuck off, Scylla.
I found this link on hate speech:
http://www.peacefire.org/BaitAndSwitch/definitions.html
It was interesting to me because apparently some consider hate speech to include speech against disabilities and others do not. Some also consider speech that is sexist to be hate speech.
I am satisfied that when people use the term “hate speech” now they are generally referring to speech against certain races or nationalities. Maybe that will change.
I do agree with the ACLU that the answer to hate speech is more speech, not less. (They oppose hate speech regulation on campus.)
Monkey:
It seemed like you had a point until the “fuck off.” Can’t think why my rebuttal merited that.
Allright, maybe the “fuck off” was a bit strong, but you implied that I was intollerant. On second thought, “fuck off” probably wasn’t too strong. I took umbrage that you seem to have written me off as “intollerant” without actually reading my arguments. I am not saying prejudice is OK. I am calling for perspective, common sense, spine, and an end to incessant whining.
I’ll give you a second chance to either defend or retract your statement. Where is the intollerance in my suggestion that esprix’s appeasement strategy is deeply flawed?
One other thing. Esprix, regarding taxguy’s claim that you tried to duck my original question. He’s wrong. For what it’s worth, I thought you did address it, at least from a personal point of view.
And to answer your question ("Hyperbole much?). Hey, everybody needs a hobby. 
For what it’s worth, I have seen no evidence that Esprix is offering an “appeasement strategy”. I would tend to suspect that any characterisation of what he’s said as such might well be taken as inflammatory; I wouldn’t be surprised if Scylla were responding to the perceived slam in that particular choice in words.
“I choose to not persist in behaving like an ass” is not fairly or accurately characterised as “appeasement”. Note that Esprix has explicitly stated that he is applying his brain to the question of whether or not he is behaving like an ass, not caving at the first cry of “Donkey!”
I would. The word “appeasement” is neither intollerant nor “inflamatory”. There is nothing wrong with it on any level. I am allowed to disagree with the guy, and that word choice is in no way a “slam”.
How does my thinking that esprix may be just a bit too polite for his own good akin to intollerance? It’s not, and I am almost positive that Scylla didn’t actually think about his remark, or bother to read any of what I wrote.
Monkey:
I think the rational stance is a pretty simple one. I was not accusing you of intolerance, but suggesting that your example of esprix censoring himself vis a vis his sexuality would be an intolerant stance if you were suggesting it seriously.
But back to the simple and rational stance.
A tolerant person would be one that does not look to take umbrage at other people and does not look to offer umbrage, and is only intolerant to those that do.
I try not to take offense unless I’m certain it’s being offered. On the other hand, I don’t particularly censor myself for other people’s benefit, especially when it’s to my detriment in terms of comunication or thinking.
I do happen to think that your use of “fuck you,” and the demand that I have one chance to alter, explain, or defend myself, is a somewhat intolerant stance on your part.
You have chosen to take offense where none was meant, and now you place demands on me because of this offense.
I would not characterize that as tolerant.
Why not simply choose to forgo the offense and (dare I say,) histrionics and simply attempt to communicate in good faith?
Allright, fine. Shake hands?
Sure. No problem here.
You gonna let him get away with that? Only a wussy would let him get away with that.
psst, Scylla . . . he called your momma a ho. I heard him. Kick his ass.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.