: This is the part of of demonstrating the hypocrisy of Liberals/Leftists/Socialists/Economic Democrats/Anarchist and what ever else they call themselves that I enjoy most.
: You insist on diversity (there's a word that deserves to be deep sixed) but limit that diversity to what you approve of.
Horseshit. If something limits my actions, then it requires my consent to do so, or it is merely an imposed state. In "laws" like "murder is bad", I can see the sense in them. I hope you can too.
: If another's sincerly held opinions do not fit their views, 'diversity' suddenly becomes 'stupidity'.
Exactly what happens to life on Earth if we render Earth barren?
Tolerance is two-way; I would be quite prepared to let people do what they wanted if it didn't affect me. However, planetary devastation does affect me, regardless of my consent or lack of it; thus the two-way implicit compact is broken.
Oh; some people also believe sincerely that the world is flat; are you suggesting that all viewpoints are equally qualified, regardless of how much evidence they are based on?
: It's like they say, 'scratch a Liberal and you'll find a fascist.'
*they*? This would be another of your precisely-defined groups of people who happen to think exactly as you do, yes?
You might as well say "It's like they say - Frenchy *is* an idiot"; both are uncontestable, as there are always *some* people who will hold this to be true.
: Even you can see the problem with your position, I'm sure. But pride will prevent you from agreeing with me.
Tolerance and intolerance? I'll tolerate a far larger amount than most; but if it damages the planet, lowers my chances of survival or acts in direct contravention of human rights or freedom of speech, I'm against it.
: Hey, I'm gonna make a McDonald's run, anyone want me to bring back a double cheese-burger?... Fries?... Bag of Diversity?
You're perfectly welcome to abuse yourself in whatsoever way you choose; but is it fair of you to impose your choices on the rest of the world? - is that your "tolerance"?
You still haven't come up with any compelling evidence to defend your stance on the environment - is it so difficult for you to admit that you are uninformed on the subject?