This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Glacian's Profile

Glacian's Avatar Joined over 7 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Glacian

More Discussions by Glacian

Latest Comments by Glacian

Go to: Swiss ban on minarets was a vote for tolerance and inclusion

Glacian's Avatar Jump to comment 117 by Glacian

[So now you've switched from reality to a hypothetical world where you want me to imagine of Klan members and supporters that are not racist.]

No, I didn't "switch". Reread my original question. It used the word IF. Do you know what the word IF means, you dumbass? I swear you morons with your inability to understand HYPOTHETICALS are beyond my comprehension.

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:22:00 UTC | #422141

Go to: Swiss ban on minarets was a vote for tolerance and inclusion

Glacian's Avatar Jump to comment 32 by Glacian

root2squared, I wasn't aware the Klan had a mind-reading device. Thanks for informing me...

Two points

1. I would find it implausible that there weren't at least 1 member or supporter of the Klan that wasn't racist. Do you feel differently?

2. Good job dodging the question though, because you totally ignored the ESSENCE of the question. IF the Klan ostensibly asked for racist members but accepted non-racist supporters who were, for instance, pro-America to the extent that they were anti-foreigner, that is, IF the Klan were slightly different than it is assuming it requires racism, THEN would you have mountains of respect for it?

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:31:00 UTC | #421895

Go to: Swiss ban on minarets was a vote for tolerance and inclusion

Glacian's Avatar Jump to comment 29 by Glacian

root2squared, if only 90% of Klan members hated all non-whites, and the other 10% didn't but tacitly supported them anyway, would you suddenly become orders of magnitude more tolerant and respectful of the Klan?

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:17:00 UTC | #421890

Go to: Swiss ban on minarets was a vote for tolerance and inclusion

Glacian's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by Glacian

Why are MUSLIMS allowed in the country, much less their stupid minarets and buildings? Frankly, I'd PREFER if the public were directly and explicitly intolerant of Islam. Islam doesn't deserve tolerance, and it is grotesquely morally negligent and ignorant to tolerate that which is inherently intolerant, abusive, sexist, and prone to inducing people to acts of extraordinary violence - that is, Islam. Fuck Islam, may it be driven out of Europe with all the hatred and vitriole it so richly deserves.

I, for one, don't give a damn about "tolerance", which makes it all the more bizarre to me that those who do are so insistent upon calling for "tolerance" of that which is opposed to tolerance. This is as senseless as standing passively while your neighbor makes a bomb they've promised to drop on your home out of a sense of "keeping the peace". Stupid, stupid, stupid. If you're pro-tolerance, it only makes sense to be intolerant of that which is itself intolerant, otherwise, your cause is self-defeating.

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:22:00 UTC | #421819

Go to: Stand up, stand up, against Jesus

Glacian's Avatar Jump to comment 23 by Glacian

My only concern is there reluctance to say that religion can be eradicated - I don't think this is an unrealistic goal, just one that's unrealistic to expect to come to fruition any time soon. I'm confident that if and when we engage in the sorts of transhumanistic practices that will modify us beyond recognition, through genetic engineering, cognitive enhancement drugs, cybernetics, etc. that people will simply become too smart to be religious anymore. Here's to hoping we don't destroy civilization before then.

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:20:00 UTC | #411837

More Comments by Glacian