You said: “You only say it because Mormons do have some curious theological views, and you think they are not empowered to fight back.” How do you justify this statement? Mormons are just as free as others to post; how could anyone think otherwise?
You said: “One wonders if you replaced “Jews” with “Mormon” if you would feel so comfortable condemning them?” I doubt that you really wonder. Reductio ad Hitlerum is always the sign of a losing argument.
Once again, you are the one openly condemning the “whiners” while hand-wringing over how ugly all of this “intolerance” is. You, yourself, are the one who brought the First Amendment into this; you are the one claiming that it requires the people to be “tolerant,” by which you mean silent! You have no understanding of what actual oppression is, or you wouldn’t compare this thread to the Taliban with a straight face.
You still have your head, sir, and your hands with which to type your self-indulgent tut-tutting. This is tolerance. You would not receive the same from the Taliban.
“How do you justify this statement? Mormons are just as free as others to post; how could anyone think otherwise?”
Easy. This thread doesn’t represent a request for dialog. There is a wolfpack mentality from several posters. They, of course have every right to do so, but your statement that there is any dialog capable other than hate is disingenuous.
“Reductio ad Hitlerum is always the sign of a losing argument.”
I never said anything about Hitler - you did. So you lose by that measure.
“you are the one openly condemning the “whiners””
Based on the condemnations on this thread, anything I have said about “whiners” doesn’t rise to “condemnation”. Interesting that you would try to equivalence that. You have lost all sense of proportion.
“You, yourself, are the one who brought the First Amendment into this;”
No I did not bring this into the discussion.
“you are the one claiming that it requires the people to be “tolerant,” by which you mean silent!”
It does require tolerance from people (not enforced by law, but by custom) - it was why it was put in place. I never said anyone had to be silent. Again interesting that you say this, because that is what this thread requires of Mormons. Anyone that speaks up is pounced upon, preached to, researched, and failing a response the wolfpack expects - twisted reasoning, such as your post is used to imply some ill motive other than an argument for religious tolerance.
“You have no understanding of what actual oppression is”
I have a pretty good idea, actually, of what it would be like if folks on this thread represented governance in this country. It will never happen, of course.
“You still have your head, sir, and your hands with which to type your self-indulgent tut-tutting. This is tolerance.”
I get your logic now, and that of the wolfpack. You are being fair and tolerant because you have not called for my beheading or maiming.
You are a scary group of folks.