This wonderful essay from American Thinker, that racist, poorly written but incredibly spot on collection of articles of intelligent opinions against which liberals who visit here have never been able to argue, is timely considering recent posts of mine such as “Poor Baby”. There has been a lot of whining over “respecting” the opinions of others, allowing that other opinions “have merit” and generally boo-hooing when I dare to call what I think is a crappy opinion…well…crap. As I continue to maintain, everyone is free to believe what they choose, but I’m not in any way obliged to respect those beliefs.

As the article submits, respecting the person is the important thing, but to respect a poor idea, opinion or position does no one any good. That I continue to welcome opinions of all sorts shows the obvious point that I respect those people (except for maybe Feodor—he seems to demand far less and who am I to refuse a visitor?). But to just automatically tolerate those opinions as equal to mine? Not a chance. One must make one’s case. Some call me stubborn for this. Standing firm for what I believe to be true is not stubborness. It’s integrity. It’s being principled. And as poor an example of either that I may be, I do the best I can.

Consider: I believe, nay, I know that poop is stinky. Let’s say someone, say, Feodor, shows up with a smattering of poop behind each ear. He loves the smell so much he wears it like perfume. Though it may match perfectly his personality, I will not tolerate him wearing that scent in my presence. What the hell! It stinks! No matter how he tries to explain it otherwise, it plainly stinks! I haven’t even gotten to whether or not I like him even showing up, but his opinion of delightful odors is crappy and so obvious is it that I cannot be persuaded otherwise. I’m not being stubborn. I’m stating the plainly permeating truth.

Most opinions aren’t quite so obvious, but without an argument that persuades the result is the same. That my opponents are offended by my, uh, opinion of their opinion is really too bad. I care too greatly to be put off by the slings and arrows of those with so sensitive a nature. Frankly, I don’t understand the sensitivity. It’s pretty obvious that my opponents don’t agree with me, but you don’t see me crying about being offended. Imagine if some Druid left comments here. There’s no way I’m going to respect their beliefs about oak trees and mistletoe. Am I being unChristian to allow them to continue believing such nonsense? I don’t think so. Tolerating such leads to chaos. From the obvious to the subtle, I will continue to reject opinions contrary to mine if I find them to be foolish, mistaken or out and out crappy (interchangable adjectives all) and do so in the same way I always have: by offering evidence to support my opinion or refute the other. Whichever side can no longer return volley will usually be the side with the lame opinion. Whichever side picks up their ball and goes home will usually be the side with the lame opinion. Whichever side pleads for civility, just because the other says the opinion is crappy will usually be the side with the lame opinion.

The tolerance demanded is intolerable.