Tolerance being intolerant
- Thread starter cieply
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Agreed to both quoted posts. There is a latin phrase "Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus", it translates to "We are slaves of the law in order that we may be able to be free.".Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Let me get to the heart of the pointless semantic rigmarole. Being tolerant doesn't mean you tolerate everything and everyone. No one tolerates murderers, or people who take too long at stop lights. What it does mean is that you tolerate others within reason, which is usually interpreted to include people with more or less melanin than you, people of the opposite sex, whatever. Not putting up with a racist or a sexist would fall under the same category as not being okay with someone stealing your car, because it's not something you believe should be accepted.
In a nutshell, everyone's tolerant of certain specific things, and intolerant of others, so it's folly to give a specific meaning to "tolerant" without any context.
In a nutshell, everyone's tolerant of certain specific things, and intolerant of others, so it's folly to give a specific meaning to "tolerant" without any context.
Yup but I would like to hear their reasoning. Sometimes if my arguments are not good enough, we can work on yours instead. The problem is people just "support" their ideas not really knowing much about them.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Based on my examples I know this seems pretty generic but I'm really meaning tolerance. In my country there was a case of "child molesting". Gypsies tend to marry their wives young. This one was married around 12 and the problem appeared when she had to give birth while 13. Now, this is gypsie way of life they practiced it for many centuries. Should we tolerate it or not? Government doesn't, which does not go well with "respecting other cultures". Not saying disrespecting this is bad, but people branding themselves tolerant drop their tolerance when it doesn't suit them. And still there is no problem talking with countries where a man can have multiple wives around the same age as gypsie girl.
We are tolerant of people insulting Christianity, but when someone insults Islam, it's like kicking a bee hive. And it's not only a problem of violent muslim response. I hate to see how government in Britain succumbs to muslim claims so much that it gets comical.
In Germany there are places where police cannot enter. Some government communal flats inhabited by scum (mostly criminals, far left punks). Yet noone does anything about it. In the meantime, some bald idiot beat someone and we have a nation wide skinhead hunt. How can goverment tolerate one group while both should be delt with.
I just want to show that people are tolerant when it suits them, just masking their own agendas and prejeduces.
Now I can see you wrote about many more things but It's been an entire day for me filled with sitting in front of the computer playing working and studying and being on heavy antibiotics I have a hard time mounting up some serious arguments and not falling into trap of rephrasing my former statements. I shall try later or when I'll get strength.
In point of fact, my analogy is perfect. Criticizing YOUR hypocrisy on YOUR philosophy is not incumbent on MY philosophy in any way, shape or form. Either you are applying it consistently or you are not. (all pronouns used in this paragraph are for the exclusive purpose of differentiating between two divergent viewpoints and should in no way be construed to implicate any specific person's philosophy)Cheeze_Pavilion said:
By contrast, your analogy falls down in that it ascribes to the kidnapper the same philosophy: that he thinks he as a person has a right to liberty. He is acting inconsistently with his own philosophy. That analogy assumes both men share the same philosophy and one is applying it with a morally superior inconsistency. My point is that there does not need to be an agreement on philosophy in order to see that the other person is not applying it consistently.
Don't confuse an accusation of hypocrisy with a demand to be treated by rules you do not acknowledge.
TheSchaef said:
This is all an irrelevant sideshow.TheSchaef said:
If you'd followed from the OP, you'd see I am making a point that an argument made (tolerant people are intolerant) was semantic in nature, and that the paradox applies more widely. As such it's all a nice logical game, but it's not necessarily much use at all resolving real life situations of how to deal with bigots.
That's very cynical. I'm not sure why you're intent on trying to show the worst in people, whether that's how you feel about your fellow men or whether it's part of an ideological structure. At any rate, I think it is overlooking a more obvious probability: that goodness, consideration, altruism etc. are at least as strong in humanity as hate, greed, desire for power etc. are.cieply said:
Member of North American Man-Boy Love Association: All these men wanted was love from a young boy. There is nothing wrong with love. Why are we discriminated against? The blacks, the gays, they all have exemptions, well why not us?cieply said:
Kyle: Dude, you have *sex* with *children*.
Stan: Yeah, you know, we believe in equality for everybody, and tolerance, and all that gay stuff, but dude, fuck you.
Kyle: Seriously.
Do you see what I'm getting at here? Just because you do something different and offensive to a societal norm does not automatically grant you a free pass on the basis of "Political Correctness Gone Mad".
South Park nailed tolerance, you have to put up with it, says nothing about liking it.
I feel your pain, I tolerate a lot of things, including customers saying my stupid country has stupid laws, almost shouted he should go back to where-ever shit hole he came from, but I'd lose my job doing that, aaaaah Britain, how the Greatness is gone.
I feel your pain, I tolerate a lot of things, including customers saying my stupid country has stupid laws, almost shouted he should go back to where-ever shit hole he came from, but I'd lose my job doing that, aaaaah Britain, how the Greatness is gone.
It's not irrelevant to the people who are having their entirely reasonable viewpoints shouted down under the guise of Tolerance and Political Correctness.Agema said:
I have been. If you, on the other hand, had followed my thoughts from the OP, you'd see both his point and mine are that the extremes are being used to define the middle: the kind of uncivil behavior, condescension and rudeness that supposedly are a necessary evil for "dealing with bigots" has grown beyond a necessary evil into a cathartic, even vindictive experience, and has grown beyond the dangerously irrational margins into people with reasonable but divergent viewpoints. This kind of behavior poisons the well and destroys rational discourse in this country, and it's disgusting; even more so because it drags reasonable people in to defend it on the premise that the margins can't be left to run rampant and wreak havoc.
The reason it "doesn't apply" is because the premise is wrong to begin with. This is not a case of the intolerant *demanding* tolerance because of his own philosophy, but noting a lack of tolerance inconsistent with the *other's* philosophy. "What we hold to be right, and good, and true IS right and good and true for all men. Otherwise we're just another robber tribe."Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Because the situation he's describing is not reflective of the reality of the problem.
I am not doing this at all. I in fact seem to be the only one making it a point to *separate* the two.
You guys smell funny, but it's ok because you don't stink up my house. There is my tolerance.The_root_of_all_evil said:
You have a point, but your point is slightly misguided, in my opinion. I agree that tolerance can be used as a weapon, because domineering people sometimes end up going with the general moral persuasion, i.e. A person may be an utter, controlling bully, but they could also be a police officer. They intimidate, and crush, but they enforce the law etc.cieply said:
There's a place for everything and everyone in this world, and I would rather that "tolerance" against people who are, by definition, intolerant of others who are different, was the new mob-control, than "discrimination".
I'd rather the KKK were lynching each other than the KKK lynching everyone else, to use an extreme analogy.
[sup]DISCLAIMER: I do not support violence in any shape or form except self defense, the above is an extreme example to illustrate my point.[/sup]
*hasn't smoked for 4 months now, but still remembers the near-apartheid against them*L33tsauce_Marty said:
/epicfacepalm
Unfortunately, tolerance is a compounding idea, so it's easiest and makes the most sense to draw the line at the first occurrence.
Unfortunately, tolerance is a compounding idea, so it's easiest and makes the most sense to draw the line at the first occurrence.
To me, equal rights = equal responsiblities.
If someone is disrespectful of others for how they are born, why should I respect them.
I'll take being fair over being tolerant.
If someone is disrespectful of others for how they are born, why should I respect them.
I'll take being fair over being tolerant.