Thanks. I agree. I'm tired of the wishy washy contradictions.

Well said Zen.

You are exactly correct NMA. This is why I have repeatedly said that we need to point out contradictions when we see them else we give them a tacit endorsement.

Well done on the intentionally vague. You nailed it. lol.

Thank you for the welcome. Glad I got it right.

Part of the inspiration for the "tolerance" post was "Satire. Well-deserved" from you, PapaPossum. It was time.

"Oh. Thank you, I think." That made this entire post worthwhile, CG.

Zenphamy, this post turned out exactly the way I wanted it to turn out. Consider it my way of declaring that even I, someone who chooses to fight a few battles well rather than many battles poorly, have a tipping point at which I say, "Enough".

Welcome back, RMP. Your interpretation of my post was spot on.

Tolerance should not be necessary as a general life skill. It is only necessary because most of the world tolerates error way too frequently.

+ 100 for "I do not agree that I need to tolerate public stupidity or ignorance. That's condoning it, which is the same as agreeing with it."

I got precisely the reaction I wanted from CG. "Thank you, I think." That was worth the entire blog post.

This is that rare time when I have chosen to "find fault with someone's statements that are contradictory to their own previous statements or the basics or principles of Objectivism". Not to you, Zenphamy, but to CG, for precisely your reasons. Know that I reject any errant statements even if I try to be polite most of the time (but definitely not this time). If I got angry, bitter, or vindictive every time that I disagreed with someone, I would have died of a heart attack long ago. I simply choose which battles I want to fight. At this time, I have become weary of CG and have chosen to no longer tolerate him.

No, I intentionally left that comment vague. I fully intended for "People's attitudes toward you, CG, are part of why I posted the Tolerance post." to have two meanings. I tried to be polite while being intolerant. It had the desired effect. Read my comments to others today for more details, because you were far from the only person to have this reaction.

j; you are the epitome of getting along in order to go along. You seldom find fault with someone's statements that are contradictory to their own previous statements or the basics or principles of Objectivism. Tolerance is something that CG needs to earn from us. We are more than willing to be tolerant of people that are trying and willing to learn. But CG has long ago passed the point where he might be perceived as someone investigating Objectivism.

You just don't get Objectivism, or the reality of living as an independent human.

You're wrong a lot because you fail to understand or accept that you have a mind that has the ability to rationally and logically determine the reality of the life a human being. And the humans you're around and interact with have the same capability.

People do NOT have the right to be stupid and expect me to be tolerant of them or help support them.

Tolerance does NOT mean refraining. Tolerance is a positive action that has to be earned. The 'price' of living in society is that of agreeing or not agreeing. If you agree, live there--if you don't, then live somewhere else. Getting along to go along is slavery to those around you.

Where do you come up with this BS?

Something I learned as a child in a place and time when living was not easy, was a disdain for fools and their attempts to take up your time. Fools to me were those that didn't or wouldn't learn, had nothing to teach, promised things not in their control or which they couldn't do, tried to figure out what was expected to be said rather than what was thought or believed in, cared more for the appearance than the substance, etc. Those people don't deserve tolerance, my time, nor my politeness. They deserve to be ignored and even humiliated enough to get the message to don't waste my time.

Tolerance and politeness are things that cost you. They take time, energy, and distractions from logicical, rational thought. In order to obtain tolerance from me, one has to earn it.

No. I'm confused also, but I commented based on my interpretation of his intent. It doesn't change my comment, but clarity would be appreciated.

Yes. People have a right to be stupid, and people have a 1st Amendment right to point it out.

I just choose not to point it out unless asked. Plus I'm wrong a lot, so my energy is better directed there, unless the someone is asking for my opinion.

This is vague. Please clarify your intent. Your tolerance, or intolerance, is showing but I can't tell which it is. You have seven points for this comment... am I the only one confused?

Same as you :-)

Very good NMA. Just busy. You?