Would you always respect other's opinions even it's ridiculous and non-sense?

Avatar image for ccthor
CCThor

2466

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Poll: Would you always respect other's opinions even it's ridiculous and non-sense? (35 votes)

Yes. 3%
No. 51%
Depends on their attitudes. 46%
 • 
Avatar image for abstractraze
AbstractRaze

3298

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Respect has to be earned through productive contributions and not otherwise, why one should respect counterproductive things by common criteria?

One chooses the best from the best and one discard the garbage in order to improve, just natural selection.

Avatar image for life_without_progress
Life_Without_Progress

26502

Forum Posts

5395

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

Ask retail people.

Avatar image for ccthor
CCThor

2466

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By CCThor

@abstractraze:

Then why me sometime don't agree with other and they didn't earn my respect either, but still another guy would jump in and says I should respect other's opinions?

By your statement, this doesn't make sense.

Avatar image for abstractraze
AbstractRaze

3298

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By AbstractRaze

@ccthor said:

@abstractraze:

Then why me sometime don't agree with other and they didn't earn my respect either, but still another guy would jump in and says I should respect other's opinions?

By your statement, this doesn't make sense.

Humanity is all about socialization, what you individually might think doesn't really matter, but if your mindset suits in part to a large amount of population or is compatible with predominant ideologies, the ods to be respected and accepted by your kind, is likely to be higher, for example, today we see globalists interests vs nationalists interests, things are rigged on that area, only the strongest side shall win, globalism or an international collective nationalist preservation.

The Soviets and the Nazis tried to eradicate independent nations, but independent free nations, real nationalists won against them.

Today we appreciate how the European Union is trying to abolish the sovereignty of some European Nations, but patriotic European people are holding on and things are only escalating, till natural selection comes, which will result in a savage internal armed conflict, the weaker side dies and the strongest side obtains the right to establish their vision.

Avatar image for rikuyamaha
RikuYamaha

2626

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

no, if your saying something that is factually wrong or spreading misinformation, i will not respect that. i will and hopefully a lot of people here, will call you out on your statements.

and respect is earned, not a privilege.

Avatar image for kingofwakanda
KingOfWakanda

3632

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

It's hard to respect an opinion that you know to be rooted in misinformation or ignorance. You can still be respectful of the person while disagreeing though.

Avatar image for Penguin-Dust
PenguinDust

10108

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

It depends on how they present their unique opinions for most part, but I would find it challenging to respect their beliefs if I found them to be evil.

Avatar image for iron_tiger
Iron_Tiger

1743

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

No. No one is obligated to respect all opinions. Respect is earned, not instantly given.

Avatar image for takenstew22
TakenStew22

6939

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

It depends but if the opinion in question is too stupid then no.

Avatar image for wut
Wut

7708

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

No. Always hated the 'Its my choice, so you have to respect it.' No. I don't. I don't have to respect crap. I can't, and won't, stop it because why bother? Won't bring it up. Won't talk about it unless you do, but I don't have to respect anything you do or believe unless I want to.

Avatar image for rockette
Rockette

6835

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11  Edited By Rockette
Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

28355

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#12 Lunacyde  Moderator

I will always respect your right to an opinion, but I do not have to respect the opinion itself.

Avatar image for itouchedtheboat
ITouchedTheBoat

3921

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I respect the right for everybody to have an opinion, but nah I'm not gonna respect people's opinion if it's something stupid

Ask retail people.

LOL this post is underrated

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

28355

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#14 Lunacyde  Moderator
@ccthor said:

@abstractraze:

Then why me sometime don't agree with other and they didn't earn my respect either, but still another guy would jump in and says I should respect other's opinions?

By your statement, this doesn't make sense.

Humanity is all about socialization, what you individually might think doesn't really matter, but if your mindset suits in part to a large amount of population or is compatible with predominant ideologies, the ods to be respected and accepted by your kind, is likely to be higher, for example, today we see globalists interests vs nationalists interests, things are rigged on that area, only the strongest side shall win, globalism or an international collective nationalist preservation.

The Soviets and the Nazis tried to eradicate independent nations, but independent free nations, real nationalists won against them.

Today we appreciate how the European Union is trying to abolish the sovereignty of some European Nations, but patriotic European people are holding on and things are only escalating, till natural selection comes, which will result in a savage internal armed conflict, the weaker side dies and the strongest side obtains the right to establish their vision.

The Nazis were the very definition of nationalists.

Avatar image for wrathofthebrad
Wrathofthebrad

1456

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@lunacyde said:

I will always respect your right to an opinion, but I do not have to respect the opinion itself.

Avatar image for abstractraze
AbstractRaze

3298

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By AbstractRaze

@lunacyde said:
@abstractraze said:
@ccthor said:

@abstractraze:

Then why me sometime don't agree with other and they didn't earn my respect either, but still another guy would jump in and says I should respect other's opinions?

By your statement, this doesn't make sense.

Humanity is all about socialization, what you individually might think doesn't really matter, but if your mindset suits in part to a large amount of population or is compatible with predominant ideologies, the ods to be respected and accepted by your kind, is likely to be higher, for example, today we see globalists interests vs nationalists interests, things are rigged on that area, only the strongest side shall win, globalism or an international collective nationalist preservation.

The Soviets and the Nazis tried to eradicate independent nations, but independent free nations, real nationalists won against them.

Today we appreciate how the European Union is trying to abolish the sovereignty of some European Nations, but patriotic European people are holding on and things are only escalating, till natural selection comes, which will result in a savage internal armed conflict, the weaker side dies and the strongest side obtains the right to establish their vision.

The Nazis were the very definition of nationalists.

No, both the Soviets and the Nazis were imperialists, they wanted to create a mega-estate, and globally expand, while violating or dismissing the sovereignty of other nations.

Nazis weren't nationalists, they were imperialists and globalists.

True Nationalists from the free world cooperated with each other in order to defeat Nazism and stick together against Communism´, those winning the cold war.

Minute 2:32

Loading Video...

Avatar image for cocacolaman
CocaColaMan

1973

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

If I can't respect your opinion, it probably means it either goes against my religious beliefs or it is not even an opinion moreso than just being wrong. Otherwise, I can respect opinions, whether I agree or even like them or not.

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

28355

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#18  Edited By Lunacyde  Moderator

@abstractraze: You're acting like nationalism and imperialism are mutually exclusive when it is evident that they are not. One can be both nationalist and imperialist, they are not opposites.

Nationalism- "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."

Imperialism-"a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force."

One can both love their country and support its interests and support that country extending its power through diplomacy and military force. Saying that being imperialist means you cannot be nationalist just highlights that you don't know what the two things mean.

As for the Nazi Party, they were clearly nationalist, being one of the most blatant and textbook demonstrations of nationalism in world history. Their primary reason for existing was praising their German identity and supporting the German nation to the detriment of non-Germans. Just because they wanted to conquer land for resources to augment their people does not mean they were not nationalists.

Here are a few tenets of the Nazi Party, laid out in their 25 points.

  • We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples.
  • Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed.
  • The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens.
  • Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since the 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leavethe Reich.
  • We demand substitution of a German common lawin place of the Roman Law
  • In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned.

These tenets are clearly nationalist, putting one's nation first, the very most fundamental principle of nationalism. Love of country and loyalty to the nation defined Nazism as a belief system, to ignore that is to ignore reality itself.

Avatar image for abstractraze
AbstractRaze

3298

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19  Edited By AbstractRaze

@lunacyde said:

@abstractraze: You're acting like nationalism and imperialism are mutually exclusive when it is evident that they are not. One can be both nationalist and imperialist, they are not opposites.

Nationalism- "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."

Imperialism-"a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force."

One can both love their country and support its interests and support that country extending its power through diplomacy and military force. Saying that being imperialist means you cannot be nationalist just highlights that you don't know what the two things mean.

As for the Nazi Party, they were clearly nationalist, being one of the most blatant and textbook demonstrations of nationalism in world history. Their primary reason for existing was praising their German identity and supporting the German nation to the detriment of non-Germans. Just because they wanted to conquer land for resources to augment their people does not mean they were not nationalists.

Here are a few tenets of the Nazi Party, laid out in their 25 points.

  • We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples.
  • Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed.
  • The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens.
  • Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since the 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leavethe Reich.
  • We demand substitution of a German common lawin place of the Roman Law
  • In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned.

Well, to begin with, a lot of those arguments are made up and are falsifications of history, and no again, Nazis aren't legit nationalists, is was never the case, they had some nationalist aspects, but neither truly nationalists, it was mixture of everything, but they were less nationalist than anything else, the simple fact they were imperialists is an act of going against their own national roots, culture, traditions and so on.

They were mainly imperialists and globalists, they advocated for socialists tendencies as well and they nationalized a huge bunch of companies, but they as well kept many private companies untouched. they encouraged a strict gun-law and so on.

They executed around the 5.5-6 million Jews in Europe, but the Soviets executed around the 12-13 million Christians in eastern Europe and North Asia, that doesn't make them nationalists at any moment, just subjective...

In fact, there were Slavs, Asians, African and even Muslims in their divisions, they were even black people in the Waffen SS, the highest rank one could obtain by the Third Reich.

Empirical proof (images only):

Loading Video...

Bruno Sutkus was a Lithuanian and a very honored sniper division by the Third Reich, he had the rank of an Obergefreiter and was honored by the first-class Iron Cross.

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

28355

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#20 Lunacyde  Moderator

@abstractraze:

Well, to begin with, a lot of those arguments are made up and are falsifications of history

What is made up? Please point out specifically what points were falsifications.

no again, Nazis aren't legit nationalists

You say this without a shred of evidence to support your point. They fit the very definition of nationalist, which I have already provided. Unless you are making up a completely different meaning for nationalist beyond the one that is commonly accepted then you are by definition wrong.

but they we less nationalist than anything else, the simple fact they were imperialists is an act of going against their own national roots, culture, traditions and so on.

This is just a weak "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Again, nationalism and imperialism are not mutually exclusive, that is a false dilemma fallacy. You can be both nationalist and imperialist. Being one does not make you less of the other.

If you don't want to take my word for it how about Robert D. Kaplan, Chief Geopolitical Analyst For Stratfor? Considered to be one of the top national security thinkers by Foreign Policy Magazine, Kaplan is a well-respected thinker and analyst in the field.

"The two views [nationalism and imperialism] are not mutually exclusive and could be combined in several ingenious formulations." - Robert D. Kaplan.

They executed around the 5.5-6 million Jews in Europe, but the Soviets executed around the 12-13 million Christians in eastern Europe and North Asia, that doesn't make them nationalists at any moment, just subjective...

This a.) Is nonsensical. b.) has absolutely nothing to do with my point.

In fact, they were Slavs, Asians, African and even Muslims in their divisions, they were even black people in the Waffen SS, the highest rank one could obtain by the Third Reich.

Just because they let someone fight for them doesn't mean that they were down with the Jews, or the Slavs, or Asians, etc. They just saw them as pawns to help win a war for the Fatherland. The tenets of Nazi ideology are very clear about the central role of German National Identity. You are in denial of the facts.

Avatar image for abstractraze
AbstractRaze

3298

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21  Edited By AbstractRaze

Yes,exactly as you said, the Nazis used them as pawns such as the globalists do today with illegal and unqualified immigration, those triggering wage dumping, cheap workforce for free while dismissing the native population, (national interests).

Nazis were mainly imperialists and globalists, they advocated for socialists tendencies as well and they nationalized a huge bunch of companies, but they as well kept many private companies untouched, but they nationalized way more than anything else, so they turned private companies into public ones, they evidently and blatantly dismissed private property, they encouraged a strict gun-law and so on.

I already provided you the views from the Prager University, stick with your biased information base, I already provided empirical evidence, black people were even allowed to marry with Germans that was not even a problem, but of course, you didn't watch the entire video, nothing else to expect, laziness behind every corner, but I'm done, I don't see any reason to keep any conversation with you.

National Chauvinism =/= Nationalism

Avatar image for thesuperor
TheSuperor

7159

Forum Posts

1266

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

No. There are people who think Ronaldo is better than Messi.

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

28355

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#23  Edited By Lunacyde  Moderator

@abstractraze:

Yes,exactly as you said, the Nazis used them as pawns such as the globalists do today with illegal immigration, those triggering wage dumping, cheap workforce for free while dismissing the native population, (national interests).

Dude, why is it so hard for you to stay on track? This point has nothing to do with my argument, its a red herring. All you're doing is throwing out fallacies left and right to try and draw the debate off track.

Nazis were mainly imperialists and globalists, they advocated for socialists tendencies as well and they nationalized a huge bunch of companies, but they as well kept many private companies untouched, but they nationalized way more than anything else, they encouraged a strict gun-law and so on.

The central tenet of Nazism was the superiority of the German people and the German nation. Their primary focus was the exaltation of the german nation. Again, none of your ramblings are addressing the point.

I already provided you the views from the Prager University, stick with your biased information base, I already provided empirical evidence, black people were even allowed to marry with Germans that was not even a problem, but of course, you didn't watch the entire video, nothing else to expect, laziness behind every corner, but I'm done, I don't see any reason to keep any conversation with you.

First of all, Prager University is just a mouthpiece for Dennis Prager to voice his political views. It is political propaganda, not measured and reasonable discourse. Second, I just proved the video wrong. They said wrongly that nationalism and imperialism are mutually exclusive, which I have proved conclusively is incorrect. Not only have I proved it, but I supported it with evidence from a top foreign policy expert.

National Chauvinism =/= Nationalism

National Chauvinism is a form of nationalism, it is not a separate entity. National chauvinism is merely nationalism in its most extreme form. National chauvinism is, therefore, a subsection of nationalism.

"Chauvinism is a form of extreme patriotism and nationalism" - Global Politics by Andrew Heywood

What you are proposing is like saying "Bob doesn't have cancer, he has Mesothelioma." See how that is nonsense? Mesothelioma is by definition cancer, just like chauvinism is by definition nationalism. It may be a more extreme version, just like mesothelioma is a more extreme cancer, but it still falls under the same umbrella.

Nationalism definitions:

"identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations." - Oxford

"exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations" - Merriam Webster

"Ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests." - Encyclopedia Britannica

"the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations." - Dictionary.com

"An ideological movement for attaining and maintaining autonomy, unity, and identity for a population which some of its members deem to constitute an actual or potential 'nation'". - Anthony D. Smith, Nationalism: Theory, Ideology, History

"The term “nationalism” is generally used to describe two phenomena: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity, and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination." - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

You cannot simply make up your own definition of nationalism for your own purposes and use it as you wish. Nazism fits every common and accepted meaning of nationalism both in academe and general use. You don't get to bend definitions to fit your argument.

black people were even allowed to marry with Germans that was not even a problem

Wrong again. While some blacks and Germans may have married each other in secrecy, or married after the Nazi regime fell, or before they put the Nuremberg Laws into place, it was indeed illegal for Germans to marry jews, blacks, and romani (gypsies) from 1935 to the end of the war.

No Caption Provided

-From the Holocaust Memorial Museum

but of course, you didn't watch the entire video

First of all, yes I didn't have time to watch a poorly made 30-minute long video that is essentially a slideshow with no sources or context. However, I scanned the video for the parts with text and I did not see a single mention of Germans marrying blacks in the video. Perhaps you could post the screenshot?

Back to the use of racial minorities in the service, it was a calculated ploy by the Nazis because they needed more soldiers, they even allowed Jews to serve in military positions. Are you going to tell me now that the Nazis were down with the Jews? This is where your ridiculous argument is leading us, to you making progressively more ridiculous claims.

"In Nazi Germany, the 1935 Military Service Law stated that one had to be Aryan to be eligible for military service, although in certain limited circumstances, non-Aryans qualified for service. "Mischlinge" were banned from the army in 1940, but "second-degree Mischlinge" were not. Jews were not allowed to become officers. However, as the war progressed, and as the Nazi state needed more army officers, Hitler granted exceptions to this rule. In 1944 alone, he personally signed documents for seventy-seven high-ranking army officials "of mixed Jewish race or married to a Jew," declaring that they were of German blood."

- Racial Purity Laws in the United States and Nazi Germany: The Targeting Process by Judy Scales Trent

Jews, blacks and others who were persecuted by the Nazis sometimes fought for them because the Nazis needed them and promised a select few citizenship and rights. It is as simple as that, but that has nothing to do with whether Nazism is nationalistic, which you seem to be forgetting a lot. Maybe your argument style is to throw so much nonsense at the screen that it obscures the very easy and simple fact that you are wrong.

laziness behind every corner

The only person who has been lax in their argument and lazy in their research is you. Posting random youtube videos with no sources is not effort, nor real research. Simply swallowing the mindless drivel that PragerU shovels in your mouth is not critical thought or free-thinking. Your entire argument exemplifies intellectual laziness with its abundant use of logical fallacies and woeful lack of legitimate evidence.

Avatar image for joviolma
JOVIOLMA

8302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 JOVIOLMA  Online
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

5847

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#25  Edited By dshipp17

The person's opinion is separate from the person himself/herself. Thus, I can respect the person if I didn't respect their opinion, depending on how separated from reality their opinion deviates. It's important to make the distinction between respecting the person versus respecting their opinion(s).

But, if they have an honest belief in their opinion that could reasonably be acceptable, even though it's wrong, I can respect the opinion (e.g. I can respect a physical scientist's opinion that the universe is approximately 14 billion years old, even though I disagree, provided that person doesn't disparage Christians and is flexible that he could be wrong, versus a life scientist who thinks that evolution is a fact and paints Christians with a broad brush of ignorance, while refusing to become informed of all of the latest findings by the scholarly Christian community; the scholarly Christian community would need to do a lot more acrobatics to go against the physical scientist who thinks that the universe is 14 billion years old versus the life scientist who insists that evolution is a fact; the possible explanation for the scholarly Christian community is that the earth was under the influence of an event horizon, during the creation of the universe by God; thus, both points of view can be correct at the same time, as the rest of the universe was not under the influence of the event horizon; but, the event horizon explanation is somewhat an acrobat of physics, but could still be true and a very logical explanation for the difference, as both views can still hold true).

Avatar image for killbilly
KillBilly

3570

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Considering I don't respect most of yours that'd be a no.

Avatar image for beyond_dreams
Beyond_Dreams

459

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27  Edited By Beyond_Dreams

No I would not. For example, I don't respect peoples opinion when they say that they are a woman (Born as a man) and can give birth to a child. It's just ridiculous. That's just 1 out of 1000 more examples I could give.

Respecting things that is completely illogical makes you look like a social justice warrior

Avatar image for ccthor
CCThor

2466

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@beyond_dreams:

So it means you would straight attack a person if he says something non-sense/illogical?

Avatar image for ccthor
CCThor

2466

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29  Edited By CCThor
Avatar image for nucleon
Nucleon

4449

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Absolutely. And never will it prevent me from thinking they're stupid - to the contrary. =)

Avatar image for legacy6364
LEGACY6364

7555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Depends on their attitude. So long as they don't force their opinions on me I don't care.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

7707

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Never respect any opinion from anyone. Always ridicule anyone who offers their opinion to you.

Avatar image for beyond_dreams
Beyond_Dreams

459

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@ccthor: Just because I don't respect something doesn't it mean i have to attack them...

Avatar image for ccthor
CCThor

2466

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for the_wspanialy
the_wspanialy

4482

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 the_wspanialy  Online

I respect the right for everybody to have an opinion, but nah I'm not gonna respect people's opinion if it's something stupid

This, plus I'm not gonna respect people behind that opinion.

Avatar image for lowmagekage
LowMageKage

375

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Depends on their attitude.

Avatar image for kevd4wg
Kevd4wg

14712

Forum Posts

266

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37  Edited By Kevd4wg

I respect people rather then opinions typically. I could respect someone with a stupid opinion and have no respect for someone with opinions similar to my own.

Avatar image for anthp2000
ANTHP2000

31819

Forum Posts

150

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 ANTHP2000  Online

Not if they're insulting, harmful or pretentious, no. Everything else, sure, why not? That's the point of a society.