Paradox of Tolerance?

rambot · Apr 3, 2023

I would love to be able to take credit for this but I cannot. I will post the meme below as it states things succintly and clearly.

However, I remember the first time I saw this. It was a few days after a discussion here on CF highlighted the idea for me:

Sadly, this didn't solve any kind of problems for me in my head. It was comforting to know that it was "a thing" but it didn't help me create an appropriate approach for dealing with intolerant people.

I realized though (after reading the meme below) that maybe we need to not be looking at tolerance as a moral construct. And really, why should it be a moral construct? There's nothing INHERENTLY moral about being tolerant any "everything". Not only that but tolerating something truly awful can very easily put ourselves in morally compromised positions. So maybe it isn't a moral construct...But then what is it....

And then.....

Thoughts?

public hermit · Apr 3, 2023

rambot said:
I would love to be able to take credit for this but I cannot. I will post the meme below as it states things succintly and clearly.

However, I remember the first time I saw this. It was a few days after a discussion here on CF highlighted the idea for me:
View attachment 329750

Sadly, this didn't solve any kind of problems for me in my head. It was comforting to know that it was "a thing" but it didn't help me create an appropriate approach for dealing with intolerant people.

I realized though (after reading the meme below) that maybe we need to not be looking at tolerance as a moral construct. And really, why should it be a moral construct? There's nothing INHERENTLY moral about being tolerant any "everything". Not only that but tolerating something truly awful can very easily put ourselves in morally compromised positions. So maybe it isn't a moral construct...But then what is it....

And then.....
View attachment 329751

Thoughts?

Well, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you for sharing.

HTacianas · Apr 3, 2023

rambot said:
I would love to be able to take credit for this but I cannot. I will post the meme below as it states things succintly and clearly.

However, I remember the first time I saw this. It was a few days after a discussion here on CF highlighted the idea for me:
View attachment 329750

Sadly, this didn't solve any kind of problems for me in my head. It was comforting to know that it was "a thing" but it didn't help me create an appropriate approach for dealing with intolerant people.

I realized though (after reading the meme below) that maybe we need to not be looking at tolerance as a moral construct. And really, why should it be a moral construct? There's nothing INHERENTLY moral about being tolerant any "everything". Not only that but tolerating something truly awful can very easily put ourselves in morally compromised positions. So maybe it isn't a moral construct...But then what is it....

And then.....
View attachment 329751

Thoughts?

There are two gaping holes in the logic attempted. One, there is no concrete definition of either tolerance or intolerance. It's completely arbitrary. So it establishes a purely arbitrary standard.

The second hole is the idea of a "social contract". There is no such thing as a social contract. A contract is an agreement reached for the mutual exchange of consideration. There is no agreement. It is also entirely one-sided. Someone arbitrarily states that an agreement exists, arbitrarily states that consideration exists, arbitrarily defines what the consideration is, and arbitrarily states that everyone is bound by it. It is naïve and juvenile.

rambot · Apr 3, 2023

HTacianas said:
There are two gaping holes in the logic attempted. One, there is no concrete definition of either tolerance or intolerance. It's completely arbitrary. So it establishes a purely arbitrary standard.

Well, these arguments are being put forward by academics who are well aware of a solid working definition of tolerance. They don't bother providing it because most people understand what tolerance means. EDIT: Just quick...there was no logic "attempted". It was logical and you have not proven otherwise.

The idea that the definition for "tolerance" is completely arbitrary is silly. ANYONE can play with their own definitions of words but that is just pseudointellectual preoccupations to keep oneself from thinking deeper. It's choosing to play in your own sandbox all alone right next to the beach where everyone is having a great time together. Why not just work with the ACTUAL definition of a word?

HTacianas said:
The second hole is the idea of a "social contract". There is no such thing as a social contract. A contract is an agreement reached for the mutual exchange of consideration. There is no agreement. It is also entirely one-sided. Someone arbitrarily states that an agreement exists, arbitrarily states that consideration exists, arbitrarily defines what the consideration is, and arbitrarily states that everyone is bound by it. It is naïve and juvenile.

"There is no such thing as a social contract"
Well that's just so totally misinformed it's hard to know where to start with this one. I mean, have you heard of John Locke? Do you understand the concept of a "social contract because it appears that you don't. Which is fine of course....

Did, did you understand what the initial post was talking about?
Because there is a LOT of points you make that have nothing to do with the argument being put forward.

HTacianas · Apr 3, 2023

rambot said:
Well, these arguments are being put forward by academics who are well aware of a solid working definition of tolerance. They don't bother providing it because most people understand what tolerance means.

The idea that the definition for "tolerance" is completely arbitrary is silly. ANYONE can play with their own definitions of words but that is just pseudointellectual preoccupations to keep oneself from thinking deeper. It's choosing to play in your own sandbox all alone right next to the beach where everyone is having a great time together. Why not just work with the ACTUAL definition of a word?

"There is no such thing as a social contract"
Well that's just so totally misinformed it's hard to know where to start with this one. I mean, have you heard of John Locke? Do you understand the concept of a "social contract because it appears that you don't. Which is fine of course....

Did, did you understand what the initial post was talking about?
Because there is a LOT of points you make that have nothing to do with the argument being put forward.

You are making the very mistake you claim that I am making. You assume that some definition of tolerance exists because someone has arbitrarily created it. The "academics" you offer as experts are merely "choosing to play in [their] own sandbox".

And I understand completely what a social contract is because I understand the meaning of both words. All you need to do is point out for us who precisely wrote the social contract, who agreed to it, and who signed it.

rambot · Apr 3, 2023

public hermit said:
Well, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you for sharing.

I thought so too!

timothyu · Apr 3, 2023

No wonder they took out Jesus

rambot · Apr 3, 2023

timothyu said:
No wonder they took out Jesus

Elaborate please?

Soyeong · Apr 3, 2023

rambot said:
I would love to be able to take credit for this but I cannot. I will post the meme below as it states things succintly and clearly.

However, I remember the first time I saw this. It was a few days after a discussion here on CF highlighted the idea for me:
View attachment 329750

Sadly, this didn't solve any kind of problems for me in my head. It was comforting to know that it was "a thing" but it didn't help me create an appropriate approach for dealing with intolerant people.

Tolerance is not treating all ideas as through they are equally valid, but rather it is treating people with respect even when we disagree with their ideas. Some are pretty good while others are really awful, so not all ideas should be treated as being equally valid, but we can tolerate people by treating them with respect in spite of their awful ideas. We can only tolerate people with ideas that we disagree with, so if someone gets along with the people with ideas that they agree with and mistreats those who are intolerant of their ideas, then they are not defending tolerance, but rather they are promoting it while pretending to be tolerant.

rambot said:
I realized though (after reading the meme below) that maybe we need to not be looking at tolerance as a moral construct. And really, why should it be a moral construct? There's nothing INHERENTLY moral about being tolerant any "everything". Not only that but tolerating something truly awful can very easily put ourselves in morally compromised positions. So maybe it isn't a moral construct...But then what is it....

And then.....
View attachment 329751

Thoughts?

So what exactly is the content of the social contract? Do we all agree to treat the ideas of the others as being equally valid, the contract is voided by not doing that, and that the members are free to treat the ideas of the non-members as not being equally valid? Or is the contract voided by not treating the ideas of others being equally valid and that the member are free to mistreat the non-members? Or are we agreeing to treat people with respect regardless of whether or not they agree with our ideas, this contract is voided by not doing that, and the members are free to mistreat the non-members? The problem is with people trying to justify their freedom to mistreat others for being intolerant of their ideas while considering themselves to be tolerant.

public hermit · Apr 3, 2023

I think there's a fairly simple way to think about the notion of social contract in regard to tolerance given the OP. So long as one accepts (tolerates) the beliefs and practices of others, they have agreed to the contract and deserve for their own practices and beliefs to be tolerated. Once they refuse to so tolerate, they have abrogated the contract and have no right to have their own tolerated. "Beliefs and practices " in this case would only include those that cause no harm and fall within the bounds of law. Any outside those bounds are not to be tolerated in any case. There might be some nuance here to navigate such as the idea of "cause no harm" can't be specific to one's idiosyncrasies of belief and practice but applicable to all cases; nonetheless, in general, it makes good sense. I'm certainly on board.

timothyu · Apr 3, 2023

rambot said:
Elaborate please?

He was seen as intolerant to the ways of man, but then again man wseen as intolerant to Him.

rambot · Apr 3, 2023

timothyu said:
He was seen as intolerant to the ways of man, but then again man wseen as intolerant to Him.

Your comment was "that's why they killed him".
While a Roman passed the judgement, it was due to the shouts of Jewish people.

No. He was killed by other people who believed in the same God as him but saw his way of mercy, love and forgiveness as distasteful and against the law.

Other Roman citizens likely barely gave Jesus half a glance. He was reviled most against his own in His time.

timothyu · Apr 3, 2023

Still seen as intolerant. He didn't represent the will of man.

Whyayeman · Apr 3, 2023

Should we perhaps get down to cases?

Should straight people tolerate other sexualities? What are the consequences of tolerance here? I can't think of any, but I am confident that others can!

Neutral Observer · Apr 3, 2023

public hermit said:
I think there's a fairly simple way to think about the notion of social contract in regard to tolerance given the OP. So long as one accepts (tolerates) the beliefs and practices of others, they have agreed to the contract and deserve for their own practices and beliefs to be tolerated. Once they refuse to so tolerate, they have abrogated the contract and have no right to have their own tolerated.

But in essence doesn't this amount to no social contract at all?

You're saying that if I tolerate your beliefs then you'll tolerate mine and vice versa. Doesn't that mean that you have to tolerate my idiosyncrasies, and I have to tolerate yours, therefore absolutely everything is permitted.

Hence the social contract would seem to end at "I won't do anything to interfere with your behavior so long as you don't do anything to interfere with mine." I suppose that that is a social contract of sorts, but it's completely paradoxical, because your behavior, founded upon your beliefs, may by its very nature be intolerant of my beliefs and my behavior. How can they possibly be harmonized?

It would seem that you either end up with, everything is permissible, because to object to it is intolerant, or nothing is permissible because to allow is intolerant. A Catch-22 if I ever saw one.

eleos1954 · Apr 3, 2023

rambot said:
I would love to be able to take credit for this but I cannot. I will post the meme below as it states things succintly and clearly.

However, I remember the first time I saw this. It was a few days after a discussion here on CF highlighted the idea for me:
View attachment 329750

Sadly, this didn't solve any kind of problems for me in my head. It was comforting to know that it was "a thing" but it didn't help me create an appropriate approach for dealing with intolerant people.

I realized though (after reading the meme below) that maybe we need to not be looking at tolerance as a moral construct. And really, why should it be a moral construct? There's nothing INHERENTLY moral about being tolerant any "everything". Not only that but tolerating something truly awful can very easily put ourselves in morally compromised positions. So maybe it isn't a moral construct...But then what is it....

And then.....
View attachment 329751

Thoughts?

Man attempts to control morals (standardize them) .... in reality .... man can put whatever they want in place by attempting to govern (standardized) morals .... but people may or may not abide by what they put in place. Tolerance/intolerance
varies from one person to another ... it's an individual thing. One might be tolerant with some things .... other things not.

This is the reality of our world.

Promote kindness.

Be kind to one another, don't hurt one another (mentally or physically) ..... help one another .... simple .... yet..... unachievable by mankind.

I wish people would promote kindness overall .... why isn't kindness towards all people being taught? Can it be taught? Seems to me
if kindness to all were taught at an early age (at home and through the school systems) .... things overall would be better .... even so ..... some would choose to not be kind .... you can't force someone to be kind.

I'll be so glad when the Lord returns and ends this mess. Amen.

timothyu · Apr 3, 2023

Thus is the failure of man to correctly use the knowledge of good and evil.

rambot · Apr 3, 2023

Walking Contradiction said:
But in essence doesn't this amount to no social contract at all?

You're saying that if I tolerate your beliefs then you'll tolerate mine and vice versa. Doesn't that mean that you have to tolerate my idiosyncrasies, and I have to tolerate yours, therefore absolutely everything is permitted.

Hence the social contract would seem to end at "I won't do anything to interfere with your behavior so long as you don't do anything to interfere with mine." I suppose that that is a social contract of sorts, but it's completely paradoxical, because your behavior, founded upon your beliefs, may by its very nature be intolerant of my beliefs and my behavior. How can they possibly be harmonized?

It would seem that you either end up with, everything is permissible, because to object to it is intolerant, or nothing is permissible because to allow is intolerant. A Catch-22 if I ever saw one.

I think it's simpler than that.

If you are willing to tolerate my beliefs the social contract dictates I must tolerate yours.

public hermit · Apr 3, 2023

Walking Contradiction said:
Doesn't that mean that you have to tolerate my idiosyncrasies, and I have to tolerate yours, therefore absolutely everything is permitted.

No, not if your idiosyncrasies cause harm or break the law.

SavedByGrace3 · Apr 3, 2023

All this depends on who is currently the established "norm." They are the ones who declare and define what the standard is, and therefore who is deemed tolerable and who is not. Just be forewarned tomorrow YOU and your group may be the outsiders looking in. YOU may be the ones who are considered the intolerants that the "norms" refuse to allow in (tolerate) because of YOUR intolerance of others. Everyone who disagrees with the "normies" will always be deemed "intolerant" and therefore not tolerated.
This is all just blah-blah gobbledygook for the easily bamboozled. Typical sophomoric tripe. Toss it out with the garbage.

Paradox of Tolerance?

Senior Member

social troglodyte

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

social troglodyte

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

God is Love

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

social troglodyte

Jesus is Lord of ALL! (Not asking permission)

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency