The tenor and tone of your responses and dictates on this particular thread are of one who is intollerant of anyone whose opinions differ in the slightest from your own. This behavior appears to indicate contempt for any and all who do not meet your particular standards of religious "purity". Hence, the Taliban analog.
Calling you a Nazi would be intellectually lazy and inappropriate. I suspect that the term "Taliban" will become an label in the future for any and all people who take their religion to aggressive extremes.
As to who you hate, I would, from your numerous postings on this thread, suspect that the list would include all non-Christians, Protestants, and Roman Catholics in particular who do not meet your rigid standards of "purity of thought".
Now, have I answered your question in a civil enough manner, or will your inquisition continue to the logical conclusion of purification in fire after the requisite time on the rack and in the iron maiden?
How nice. A call for an end to contempt for those who hold a different religion.
Now, have I answered your question in a civil enough manner, or will your inquisition continue to the logical conclusion of purification in fire after the requisite time on the rack and in the iron maiden?
How nice. Because a Catholic asks you questions, you make oh so clever "inquisition" remarks. If only you saw the contempt you yourself show.
SD
I see. My tenor and tone. I asked you what in particular and it is clear you can’t point to any actual words. Have I called someone an idiot? Called names, etc.? No, I used sarcasm once in response to a silly post. I said someone was acting like a liberal protestant. Neither of those demonstrate “hatred” nor living “in a dark world of fear and loathing.” If what I am doing leads you to conclude I hate all these people you must conclude the vast majority of Free Republic's posters hate constantly, as this is rather mild by local standards."Can I ask what in particular makes you think I hate, and what or who it is that I hate?"The tenor and tone
of your responses and dictates on this particular thread are of one who is intollerant of anyone whose opinions differ in the slightest from your own. This behavior appears to indicate contempt for any and all who do not meet your particular standards of religious "purity".I hardly have contempt for any one whose opinions differ slightly from mine. I’ve been around here for a while now and get along quite well with quite a variety of folks. From Catholics to Orthodox to numerous different Protestants to Atheists. I also disagree with and argue with a wide variety of folks, from Catholics, etc.
Taliban style intolerance would indicate that I tell people to stop posting, or try to shut them down. I don’t do that. Nor do I force women to wear burkas, shoot them when they don’t, incarcerate people of different faiths for teaching theirs, push walls of bricks over on petty thieves, etc. Actually, I don’t ask anyone to live in the fashion I do. I will give my opinion, but your choices are up to you. But of course, my posting here on free republic is so much worse then shooting a woman for leaving the house with her eyes showing, you must think she deserved that after all. As you say, my posting here “make[s] the Taliban laid-back and compassionate by comparison to your vitrol.”
What a silly reference, it is exactly the equivalent of the oh so common nazi reference. You call me a Taliban, but then you in particular seem to be using your assault on me to try to shut me down. Forget about it, its not going to happen.
Hence, the Taliban analog.Actually the name Taliban is intellectually lazy and inappropriate. You have called me more names on this thread then I have called anyone else, and yet it is you assaulting my civility.Calling you a Nazi would be intellectually lazy and inappropriate.
I suspect that the term "Taliban" will become an label in the future for any and all people who take their religion to aggressive extremes.Heck, I’m not even at the aggressive extremes of my religion. Orual, one of my combatants here, is far more conservative then I am.
As to who you hate, I would, from your numerous postings on this thread, suspect that the list would include all non-Christians, Protestants, and Roman Catholics in particular who do not meet your rigid standards of "purity of thought".(1)Since you coined the term here, what do you mean by my “rigid standards of ‘purity of thought’”. What in my posts did you consider to be my rigid standards. Please, be specific and actually quote the language that caused you to use this term.
(2) How have I hated non-Christians on this thread? I don’t think I have even referred to them.
(3) How have I hated Catholics who don’t meet my “rigid standards of ‘purity of thought’” as you define the term. The only Catholic I’m arguing with is, if anything, more of a purist then I am.
(4)How have I hated Protestants, when the only comment I made was specifically worded to be so outlandish no one of ordinary intelligence could take it seriously?
Now, have I answered your question in a civil enough manner, or will your inquisitionThere you go again. Stick in a little dig re the inquisition.
continue to the logical conclusion of purification in fire after the requisite time on the rack and in the iron maiden?And yet more. But I’m the Taliban right?
patent +AMDG