What Do We Want 3

nonsense

Is what ur existence is

Never miss a chance to shit on Christians, hey zionist?

Jsut sying makes no sense ythey force ppl into there religion

Would you care to provide an example of Christians “forcing people into their religion”?

Jehovah’s Witness is a sect if Christainity right???

Generally deemed unorthodox if not outright heretical, but sure.

Ok they have come to my door saying stuff LIKE accept christ or go to hell not to be mean but just cuz that’s what the believe im wich is fine but I don’t like when ppl try to convert me or use the bible as a way to be homophobic an just generally assholes

That's called persuasion, not force. You're not terribly bright.

Nope, not what the Inquisition was about. Learn some actual history, you dumbass.

"During the European colonization of the Americas, forced conversion of the continents' indigenous, non-Christian population was common, especially in South America and Mesoamerica,"

"In Portugal, following an order for their expulsion in 1496, only a handful were allowed to leave and the rest were forced to convert.[18] Muslims were expelled from Portugal in 1497, and they were gradually forced to convert in the constituent kingdoms of Spain. The forced conversion of Muslims was implemented in the Crown of Castile from 1500–02 and in the Crown of Aragon in the 1520s.["

"During World War II, Orthodox Serbs were forcibly converted to Catholicism."

"In 2009, the Assam Times reported that a group of Hmar militants with about 15 members calling themselves the Manmasi National Christian Army, tried to force Hindu residents of Bhuvan Pahar, Assam to convert to Christianity.["

The paradox of intolerance. Simply put, the left disagrees with racism, fascism and nationalism. The only thing the left does not tolerate within their ideal society, is intolerance itself. But good strawman though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

So if you claim we misunderstand the left and their tolerance, wouldn't it be fair to say you do not understand Christians? And to be even more fair, each side as their extremes that make the others look bad.

Right, so you "tolerate" everyone except people you actually disagree with. That is, you get to feel virtuous for agreeing with people you agree with. What a crock of shit.

The mental gymnastics of these leftist sheep.

"If you're not supporting Trump 100% you're a radical leftist." Fixed that for you.

I don't agree with Trump 100%. I know many people who don't agree with Trump 100% and I would not deem them "a radical leftist" nor would any of my friends.

This is yet more evidence of what Jonathan Haidt found: The right understands how the left thinks to some degree; the left completely fails to understand the right.

https://theindependentwhig.com/haidt-passages/haidt/conservatives-understand-liberals-better-than-liberals-understand-conservatives/

You understand that both sides fail to understand eachother, right? The root of the issue is where their moral compasses lie. (I am speaking very generally here)

Why do you hate science, bro? I just showed you the science.

Yeah! It's great! I do not tolerate people who practice intolerance. This includes racists, xenophobes, homophobes, anti-semites and so on. These people that are hated against are human beings that have not initiated hate, only reactionary. When you express hate for people simply being who they are, you're less than a person in my book.

"When you express hate for people simply being who they are, you're less than a person in my book."

For instance by saying that all white people are racist.

I would denounce someone who said that all whites are racist.

That is a perfectly routine, unremarkable statement on the left today. A leftist will say it and no one will so much as blink an eye. And I'd bet my life if you were in a group where this was spoken, you'd keep your mouth shut for fear of being attacked yourself.

I don't dabble in what-ifs. That's extreme logical fallacy and not worth discussing. You also haven't pointed at anyone for me to denounce so I can't speak to that and you're making responses before I even say anything with regards to issues that you haven't raised.

Keep trying though.

So you denounce Ashleigh Shackelford and the people who pay her to preach anti-white hatred, right?

I don't know her, I haven't heard her speeches/works. I couldn't say. I would have to hear them first as I listen to people before passing my own judgement. Perhaps you could share some links?

This walking case study of obesity related illness.

Okay, that's a picture, a good start. But how about some of what she's said?

Also? Tolerating someone who I disagree with, and tolerating someone who commits hate crimes are two separate things.

Who's committing hate crimes? Am I committing a hate crime?

Ooh! Here's one: If "hate crime" is a meaningful category (it's really not), then Jussie Smollett should be charged with a hate crime.

I'm speaking in the broad context, I did not have a subject in mind when entering this conversation.

Also, I beg to differ, hate crimes are recognized by the United States Government as a specific type of crime: "A hate crime law is a law intended to deter bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech: hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct which is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech."

I also condemn and do not tolerate hate speech.

And hate speech is any speech you don’t agree with. That makes it nice and easy. “There is no such thing as hate speech, only speech you disagree with”

"I also condemn and do not tolerate hate speech."

Right. People should only be allowed to say things you agree with. That's what "tolerance" means, right?

Hate speech does not equal what I do not agree with. Are you so simple to have such a binary way of thinking? Are you truly incapable of analogous thinking?

You allow disagreement on inconsequential things: What's the best topping for pizza. But on questions of consequence, disagreement is "hate speech" and should be punished. And this makes you "tolerant". Quite talmudic thinking.

I suppose I need to define this for you:
hate speech
noun
abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

I do not tolerate or agree with this.

We can disagree on other politics, but that doesn't make it hate speech. For instance, we could disagree on the issues of how the government spends our taxes, our trade/foreign policy, etc. That doesn't make it hate speech.

That being said, people who exercise hate speech don't deserve to be in America. I think this is one instance where there is too much freedom within the first amendment. This country was built by immigrants, immigrants and diversity have always made this country stronger. That is the mountain I will die on.

So, for instance, you condemn Sarah Jeong's hateful speech against white people, right?