Well, for starters, you are literally quoting me out of context. How about quoting me properly instead of making yourself look ridiculous? > Of course, you are

Well, for starters, you are literally quoting me out of context. How about quoting me properly instead of making yourself look ridiculous? > Of course, you are completely entitled to your opinions, but I'm not going to engage them because I don't think you're really interested in having an open discussion about this. I feel like I shouldn't need to point out how this disproves your implication that I'm not tolerant of other people's opinions. But maybe I actually do. Yikes. Acknowledging that someone else holds a differing view but choosing not to engage with it is something I consider completely reasonable. Maybe you don't, and hey, that's cool! It's your opinion after all :) In case it wasn't obvious though, due to my forceful tone, I do want to state unequivocally for the record that not only do I respect that you might hold opinions that are incompatible with my own, but I also accept your conflicting opinions are 100% valid. If I then come up with rebuttals (even if they're worded as angry internet justice warrior rants), it's not because I think you're fundamentally an idiot, but because what you're saying makes me angry enough that I want to try and get you to look at things a different way. That's not intolerance. That's social discourse. > So far these people interfering with the airport operations have been compared to India fighting the British for independence, African Americans fighting for their civil rights and people hiding Jews from the Nazis. And you want people to take your arguments seriously? Actually, I didn't make those comparisons. So why are you making strawmans of other people's arguments and using them to discredit me?