tolerance

[NeTrips]

So tolerance is good....

But is tolerance a good thing? It is politically correct, but is it a good thing?

 

[christalee4]

But is tolerance a good thing? It is politically correct, but is it a good thing?

Tolerance is not only good, but wonderful.

Until the devious use it to impose their intolerance upon others. Like Ralph Reed once said, " I want to be invisible. I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag." --Ralph Reed, Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, 11/9/91"

 

[NeTrips]

Tolerance is not only good, but wonderful.

Can I safely assume from your post that you are not tolerant of the intolerant and are thus intolerant yourself?

 

[Lynden1000]

as opposed to describing fake humans???

So a person can rightly claim to be tolerant and still be a wee bit intolerant? Who gets to decide how much before the claim can be classified as hypocritical?

There's no standard. Thus anyone can dispute another's claim to being tolerant..or pretty..or sexy...or smart..or outgoing...or shy. Which is precisely why people don't always agree on who does or does not possess any of the above attributes.

 

[JAS4Yeshua]

Tolerance is a word that is completely abused in today's society. It is being used to describe anyone with a conflicting viewpoint. "Joe disagrees with X. Therefore he's intolerant."

I don't tolerate SIN. I'm completely against what the Bible says is SIN. I will still tolerate and respect the one who sins or believes the sin is OK. I will disagree with them, and tell them what I believe. I will RESPECT them, but I will not TOLERATE the sin.

 

[quatona]

Can I safely assume from your post that you are not tolerant of the intolerant and are thus intolerant yourself?

I think you are a little too obsessed with fake paradoxes due to limitations of language. You seem to work from a definition of "tolerance" that is uncommon and that I am not familiar with. Or you are simply equivocating.

 

[xapis]

I am tolerant to those who are tolerant of others and their beliefs.

I am intolerant and have no respect for those who are intolerant of others and their beliefs.

I have no tolerance for intolerance. If that makes me an intolerant person, I could care less, since no person is universally tolerant of all things.

There's gotta be an infinite regress in there somewhere...

 

[quatona]

There's gotta be an infinite regress in there somewhere...

That´s what you get when you try to stretch contextually meaningful words into absolutes, and then try to deconstruct their original meaning by pointing out that your newly created absolute is a paradox.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Perhaps we should leave the word "tolerant" out of our lexicon.

Jesus could not be accurately described as tolerant - even towards the Pharisees.

It would be better for us to live like Jesus: welcoming one another with open arms, minds and hearts.

 

[strikerchris0411]

Can one claim to embrace tolerance if they are intolerant of people or groups who do not embrace tolerance?

If one is not tolerant of everybody, then said person is intolerant

 

[quatona]

If one is not tolerant of everybody, then said person is intolerant

And if one person is not intolerant of everybody then said person is tolerant. So a person can be tolerant and intolerant at the same time which violates the law of non-contradiction.

What semantics trickery can do for you!

 

[strikerchris0411]

And if one person is not intolerant of everybody then said person is tolerant. So a person can be tolerant and intolerant at the same time which violates the law of non-contradiction.

What semantics trickery can do for you!

You said two negative words so you said

not intolerant of everybody

not intolerant=tolerant of everybody

I can't see how you came to your conclusion, but then again, I am not good at semantics. Maybe I took this too seriously.....lol

 

[quatona]

You said two negative words

Yup

so you said


not intolerant=tolerant of everybody

Do I have really to explain the difference between "not intolerant of everybody" and "tolerant of everybody"?

I can't see how you came to your conclusion, but then again, I am not good at semantics.

Maybe I took this too seriously.....lol

Ok, I won´t take your initial statement seriously and you don´t take mine seriously. Deal?

 

[strikerchris0411]

Yup

Do I have really to explain the difference between "not intolerant of everybody" and "tolerant of everybody"?


Ok, I won´t take your initial statement seriously and you don´t take mine seriously. Deal?

I don't see the difference though..

If you are not intolerant, then you aren't not tolerant, and if you aren't tolerant, then you have to be either indifferent or tolerant, and I think that indifferent fall in the category of tolerant, as it isn't intolerent

Hope that made sense!

 

[MooCar93]

I don't tolerate SIN. I'm completely against what the Bible says is SIN. I will still tolerate and respect the one who sins or believes the sin is OK. I will disagree with them, and tell them what I believe. I will RESPECT them, but I will not TOLERATE the sin.

See, this is where I, as an English major nerd, think we might do best to find another word besides tolerance here. Perhaps acceptance, or approval. The word "tolerate" just doesn't sound right here, since what I presume you're saying is not that you don't "tolerate" sinful behavior, but that you don't accept it as right or good. As far as I know, tolerance simply means you put up with something. For example, I could say you "tolerate" homosexuality in that you're not out rounding up gays and beating them up. Does that make any sense?

Anyway, hopefully that didn't derail the thread too much. Just wanted to put that out there

 

[strikerchris0411]

See, this is where I, as an English major nerd, think we might do best to find another word besides tolerance here. Perhaps acceptance, or approval. The word "tolerate" just doesn't sound right here, since what I presume you're saying is not that you don't "tolerate" sinful behavior, but that you don't accept it as right or good. As far as I know, tolerance simply means you put up with something. For example, I could say you "tolerate" homosexuality in that you're not out rounding up gays and beating them up. Does that make any sense?

Anyway, hopefully that didn't derail the thread too much. Just wanted to put that out there

I see where you are coming from, but I also think it deals with the mindset. I mean if you hate homosexuals, but don't do anything about it, I really wouldn't call it tolerant. Idk though

 

[Paulos23]

Tolerance is a virtue, but tolerance tied to passivity is a vice.

 

[quatona]

I don't see the difference though..

If you are not intolerant, then you aren't not tolerant, and if you aren't tolerant, then you have to be either indifferent or tolerant, and I think that indifferent fall in the category of tolerant, as it isn't intolerent

Hope that made sense!

Well, took me a while to sort it out.

If you are not intolerant, then you aren't not tolerant

OK.

and if you aren't tolerant, then you have to be either indifferent or tolerant


and I think that indifferent fall in the category of tolerant, as it isn't intolerent

Indifference is a whole nother sort of category than tolerance/intolerance. Actually, I see no need at all to introduce it into this discussion.

The fallacy that I meant to point out in my first response to you:
People are tolerant of some things and intolerant of others. To call a person who doesn´t tolerate one particular thing but tolerates 99% of all things is "intolerant" is a common but nonetheless highly unprecise use of language. You cannot call a whole person "intolerant".
We would get better and more precise results (although they would probably not match the intentions of some posters here who would like to equate initial intolerant behaviour and the intolerant response to it) if we would accurately label certain behaviours or viewpoints "intolerant towards [insert precise trait/behaviour]".

And I am pretty sure confusion and most misconclusions and fake paradoxes could have been avoided if the OP had given his definition of "tolerance" along with his reasoning, anyways.

 

[strikerchris0411]

Well, took me a while to sort it out.

If you are not intolerant, then you aren't not tolerant

OK.

and if you aren't tolerant, then you have to be either indifferent or tolerant


and I think that indifferent fall in the category of tolerant, as it isn't intolerent

Indifference is a whole nother sort of category than tolerance/intolerance. Actually, I see no need at all to introduce it into this discussion.

The fallacy that I meant to point out in my first response to you:
People are tolerant of some things and intolerant of others. To call a person who doesn´t tolerate one particular thing but tolerates 99% of all things is "intolerant" is a common but nonetheless highly unprecise use of language. You cannot call a whole person "intolerant".
We would get better and more precise results (although they would probably not match the intentions of some posters here who would like to equate initial intolerant behaviour and the intolerant response to it) if we would accurately label certain behaviours or viewpoints "intolerant towards [insert precise trait/behaviour]".

And I am pretty sure confusion and most misconclusions and fake paradoxes could have been avoided if the OP had given his definition of "tolerance" along with his reasoning, anyways.

OK i see what you mean, you would have been happier if i said wasn't completely tolerant no matter what.....lol

 

[quatona]

OK i see what you mean, you would have been happier if i said wasn't completely tolerant no matter what.....lol

Yes, if that was what you meant, I would have been happier if you had said so.
Mainly because it would have prevented me from the impression that you were trying to point out a self-contradiction. People who plead for tolerance usually don´t mean "tolerance no matter what", after all.

I can´t speak for everyone, but I am inclined to think that usually a line is drawn between interfering in things that aren´t your business (since they don´t affect you directly) and trying to prevent others from interfering with in things that are not their business.
Like: If I want to dictate you what sort of music to hear that´s called "intolerant", and if you want you to stop me from minding your business in matters of musical taste this is not considered "intolerant".
This seems to be at least a usable and meaningful distinction to me.