ravana:For now poll is undicided .

"Undecided"? There is clearly a bias to one side over the other, and I'm sure you can tell which one.

Polaris:

It is important not to paint with too broad of a brush, however, and to remember that just as Esperanto can be used to put forth views that are leftist, communist, anti-religious, or politically liberal, etc., the same language can be used to put forth ideas that are right-wing, free-market, religious, tradition-honoring, and conservative.

Unless such use is not allowed.

orthohawk:

Polaris:

It is important not to paint with too broad of a brush, however, and to remember that just as Esperanto can be used to put forth views that are leftist, communist, anti-religious, or politically liberal, etc., the same language can be used to put forth ideas that are right-wing, free-market, religious, tradition-honoring, and conservative.

Unless such use is not allowed.

That makes no sense. Even in some hypothetical world where Esperanto is banned, the language would still have the capacity to express ideas on all sides.

And why are you saying that anyway? What's the point of giving hypothetical scenarios?

TheRealFlenuan:

orthohawk:

Polaris:

It is important not to paint with too broad of a brush, however, and to remember that just as Esperanto can be used to put forth views that are leftist, communist, anti-religious, or politically liberal, etc., the same language can be used to put forth ideas that are right-wing, free-market, religious, tradition-honoring, and conservative.

Unless such use is not allowed.

That makes no sense. Even in some hypothetical world where Esperanto is banned, the language would still have the capacity to express ideas on all sides.

And why are you saying that anyway? What's the point of giving hypothetical scenarios?

No, I mean ideas that are right-wing, free-market, religious, tradition-honoring and conservative.

It is the same thing like vegetarianisam . It is for white women . How much black men you know that are vegans ?

Regarding the issue that orthohawk and Polaris have alluded to: It is somewhat perplexing whether "tolerant" should include or exclude "tolerant of intolerance". We see a similar self-referential paradox arise in universals like "Everything is meaningless" (a statement which, if true, would also be meaningless) or "Everything in moderation" (does that include moderation itself?).

Unfortunately, this curious philosophical/ethical puzzle will be totally ignored in the following inevitable food fight. So have at it.

It is the same thing like vegetarianism . It is for white women . How much black men you know that are vegans ?

Is there statistical evidence for this assertion? I'm curious, because this is a stereotype that I've heard a lot, but I'm a bit sceptical.

Also, there's a difference between vegetarianism being popular among one category of people, and being "for" that category of people.

ravana:It is the same thing like vegetarianisam . It is for white women . How much black men you know that are vegans ?

That's...really pushing the boundaries. I know this thread is based on broad generalizations, but I'd rather you didn't say things like this about any ethnicity.

To answer your prompt, though, I believe you'd consider me to be a social liberal. Economically, I fall somewhere around socialist, though I've just started to read The Communist Manifesto out of interest. Whether my stances have a bearing on my interest in la internacia lingvo, I'm not sure. I'd like to think I'd gravitate towards the concept anyway.

Here in croatia i know only one black woman who is vegetarian and that is becouse she is a member of hare krishna movement . I did not want to ofence anybody but you can also be honest and say how many of your black friends are vegan . Forget the friendess for now .

Tempodivalse:It is somewhat perplexing whether "tolerant" should include or exclude "tolerant of intolerance". We see a similar self-referential paradox arise in universals like "Everything is meaningless" (a statement which, if true, would also be meaningless) or "Everything in moderation" (does that include moderation itself?).

I've heard this philosophical "problem" raised before - usually by conservative bigots attempting to expose tolerant people as hypocrites - but I never really saw it as any kind of problem. When we speak of tolerance we're not talking about an absolute that applies to everything. Just as when we speak of freedom of speech, we understand that is within limits and we're not allowed to slander and defame, or when living in a free society we understand we're not free to commit crimes. So "tolerant" just refers to a general outlook or sensibility, it's not a descriptor of every position you can take on any subject that exists. As such it's no problem if the tolerant person is intolerant of some things - particularly if it's the one thing diametrically opposed to tolerance itself!

Polaris:
It is important not to paint with too broad of a brush, however, and to remember that just as Esperanto can be used to put forth views that are leftist, communist, anti-religious, or politically liberal, etc., the same language can be used to put forth ideas that are right-wing, free-market, religious, tradition-honoring, and conservative.

I'd just like to point out that there are politically left-wing people who are religious and right-wing people who are atheists.

Free-market as a concept is something I don't bother much with, as one of the tenets of the religion of fundamentalist capitalism. It;s a utopian pipe dream that has never and will never be realised.