[DonHopkins]

This is not a forum for accusing people of being sinners. Don't you have something braver to do than standing up for bigotry, even after the bigot has been politely and repeatedly asked by a moderator to stop his religious harangue, but was argumentative in response [1], found it "somewhat discomforting" to have his own words quoted back to him, and has declared he won't stop [2], regardless of how discomforted his own words make other people feel?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13246410

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14187168

[davepm]

yet you argue against bigotry with our own bigotry?

bigotry: intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

seems you may be a sufferer too.....

[DonHopkins]

You are wrong to tolerate intolerance, and wrong to accuse me of bigotry for standing up against bigotry. It doesn't work that way.

And the fact that you're standing up against my stand against bigotry, without bothering to stand up against the original bigotry itself, means you're tacitly supporting that bigotry yourself, which is unethical.

And you're also violating the rules of this forum by continuing to post off-topic unsubstantive comments and baseless personal attacks. So stop it.

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

Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1.

"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

He concluded that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance: "We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."