The nature of intolerance isn't what makes it bad - everything you say about the idea of tolerance is of course correct. The problem is with the content - in this case, the ridiculous idea that it is somehow ok to be "offended" by a persons natural sexuality. Its as ridiculous as being offended by a persons race.
In a similar fashion, someone who disagrees with (or is offended by) Homosexuality is not necessarily a bigot; it depends on how they act on it that would define whether they were a bigot or not.
So a person who disagrees with and is offended by black people but says nothing of it is not necessarily a bigot? Somehow I don't think so. Someone will probably call this a false analogy, but it really isn't. Race and sexuality are both natural qualities that should have no bearing on how a person is treated by others.
I fail to see why we should tolerate bigotry just because it is popular.
Bigot or not, people are still entitled to a point of view. If you are intolerant of intolerance, are you any better than them?
Yes, you are. There is a marked difference between being intolerant of someone's natural sexuality (or rather any quality they are born with) and being intolerant of fools. Are you trying to tell me there is a moral error in condemning the KKK?
Well obviously then you do not know anything about Astronomy.
I dont even know where to begin with your post. Like someone earlier said, its like you are saying that chemists know more about how organisms work than a biologist does. It is an astronomers job to understand how a star (among many other things) works, and the study of plasma, nuclear fusion, and quantum physics all must be used to do this. It's not like Astronomers don't study other areas of science - they have to, because Astronomy is nothing more than a variety of branches of science (physics, chemistry, etc) applied to the study of the universe at large. The Astronomers that study the lives of stars are probably 'plasma scientists' as well, and those that are merely physicists (i jest) are more than likely in close communication with experts in that field.
Also, the postulated dark matter/energy has less to do with spiral galaxy formation than with the way that our universe is expanding. A lot of current data shows that our universe seems to be expanding faster than it should be based on how much mass we can observe. Therefore there must be some mass, or energy, that we cannot observe. This could take the form of halo's of brown dwarfs around galaxies, WIMP's (weakly interacting massive particles) or higher numbers of neutron stars than we currently know of.
Don't get caught up with the mysterious 'dark matter' label.
As for that link, well I just have this to say. Scientific conclusions are overwhelmingly adopted by the scientific community only when they have been tested to their limit and undergone criticism and analysis by a variety of experts. There is a reason Astronomers have come to the conclusions that they have, and it is not a grand conspiracy, and it is not to gang up on the team behind 'thunderbolts'.
Slashdot Mirror
So a person who disagrees with and is offended by black people but says nothing of it is not necessarily a bigot? Somehow I don't think so. Someone will probably call this a false analogy, but it really isn't. Race and sexuality are both natural qualities that should have no bearing on how a person is treated by others.
I fail to see why we should tolerate bigotry just because it is popular.
Sometimes, when searching for something, I instinctively reach to my upper right and want to type 'socks' into spotlight.
New meaning to the word crash? The blue sea of death? Luckily it sprung no security leaks? /got nothin.
Well obviously then you do not know anything about Astronomy.
I dont even know where to begin with your post. Like someone earlier said, its like you are saying that chemists know more about how organisms work than a biologist does. It is an astronomers job to understand how a star (among many other things) works, and the study of plasma, nuclear fusion, and quantum physics all must be used to do this. It's not like Astronomers don't study other areas of science - they have to, because Astronomy is nothing more than a variety of branches of science (physics, chemistry, etc) applied to the study of the universe at large. The Astronomers that study the lives of stars are probably 'plasma scientists' as well, and those that are merely physicists (i jest) are more than likely in close communication with experts in that field.
Also, the postulated dark matter/energy has less to do with spiral galaxy formation than with the way that our universe is expanding. A lot of current data shows that our universe seems to be expanding faster than it should be based on how much mass we can observe. Therefore there must be some mass, or energy, that we cannot observe. This could take the form of halo's of brown dwarfs around galaxies, WIMP's (weakly interacting massive particles) or higher numbers of neutron stars than we currently know of.
Don't get caught up with the mysterious 'dark matter' label.
As for that link, well I just have this to say. Scientific conclusions are overwhelmingly adopted by the scientific community only when they have been tested to their limit and undergone criticism and analysis by a variety of experts. There is a reason Astronomers have come to the conclusions that they have, and it is not a grand conspiracy, and it is not to gang up on the team behind 'thunderbolts'.