tolerance

[NeTrips]

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

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Explain.

 

[NeTrips]

Explain.

Chris belongs to a group of purple folks.
Pat belongs to a group of green folks.

Purple folks believe that green folks are wrong on an issue and act in a manner the green folks find offensive.

Can Pat be considered tolerant if Pat is intolerant of Chris and his beliefs?

Are Chris and Pat any different from each other?

(CT - I actually think it was clearer in the OP)

 

[ChaliceThunder]

I meant could you please provide a concrete example. (i.e. one from real life)

Please and thank you.

 

[NeTrips]

I meant could you please provide a concrete example. (i.e. one from real life)

It shouldn't matter on the circumstances unless one truly doesn't embrace tolerance, right? Either one embraces tolerance and is tolerant of all ideas or they are do not embrace tolerance.

 

[Nithavela]

The only tolerance one should not embrace is the one which limits tollerance of others, just like the only freedoms taken from someone should be the ones which hurt other peoples freedom. So someone who is intollerant to intollerance is in fact more tolerant then someone who tolerates intolerance (and now try saying this 3 times)

 

[ChaliceThunder]

The only tolerance one should not embrace is the one which limits tollerance of others, just like the only freedoms taken from someone should be the ones which hurt other peoples freedom. So someone who is intollerant to intollerance is in fact more tolerant then someone who tolerates intolerance (and now try saying this 3 times)

^
What he said!

 

[Lynden1000]

I don't think an all-or-nothing approach to tolerance is particularly useful. Certainly a person who generally quite tolerant might find that he *isn't* tolerant of, say, proponents of adult-child sex or neo-nazis.

I usually consider someone to be a tolerant person if he or she takes a "live and let live" approach to other peoples' beliefs and behaviors provided there is no harm to others.

 

[kopilo]

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

Can God make a rock that is so heavy he can't lift it?

 

[NeTrips]

I usually consider someone to be a tolerant person if he or she takes a "live and let live" approach to other peoples' beliefs and behaviors provided there is no harm to others.

(not replying to any one person, just the last post)

So from what I've read so far in this thread:

1. a person can claim to be tolerant while being intolerant of some things

2. a person can said to be intolerant if they are intolerant of some things



so

 

[jayem]

It shouldn't matter on the circumstances unless one truly doesn't embrace tolerance, right? Either one embraces tolerance and is tolerant of all ideas or they are do not embrace tolerance.

Well what do you mean exactly by tolerance? I might disagree with someone's opinion, even find it offensive, but I respect their right to their beliefs and opinions, and respect their right to voice them. And in a republican government, they have a right to try to convince their elected representatives to enact laws in conformity with their positions. They don't have a right to act lawlessly.

Does that constitute tolerance?

 

[NeTrips]

Can God make a rock that is so heavy he can't lift it?

I'll ask Him when I see Him and see if I can get word back to you.

 

[NeTrips]

I might disagree with someone's opinion, even find it offensive, but I respect their right to their beliefs and opinions, and respect their right to voice them. And in a republican government, they have a right to try to convince their elected representatives to enact laws in conformity with their positions. They don't have a right to act lawlessly.

(bold highlighting added by me)



Love it. Yes that is exactly how I view it as well. Best definition I've seen. Thank you!

But is this what is being promoted as tolerance? It appears to differ from the other posts I've read so far in this thread. If you disagree with this definition, why and what parts?

 

[MooCar93]

Personally, I like Mr. Garrison's definition of tolerance, as explained on South Park. To paraphrase, tolerating something isn't the same as embracing something. Tolerating is how you deal with a crying child sitting next to you on the airplane, or a bad cold, etc. "It can still p*** you off."

So yes, I tolerate intolerance.

 

[levi501]

Simply ridiculous...
The freedom you have to swing your fist ends at my face.

When Group A's intollerance infringes on the freedoms of Group B without a compelling reason, Group B isn't being intollerant when they ask Group A to stop.

 

[Lynden1000]

(not replying to any one person, just the last post)

So from what I've read so far in this thread:

1. a person can claim to be tolerant while being intolerant of some things

2. a person can said to be intolerant if they are intolerant of some things



so

What's the problem. I'm often described as an "outgoing person" but that doesn't mean i don't sometimes feel out of place or shy. A person can be considered a "generally shy" person but be a little more extroverted in certain circumstances.

If your family describes you as "happy and full of life" does that mean you can't sometimes be sad over something?

What if someone describes you as "a very gentle, nonviolent person", does that mean you don't ever get mad? that you'd never hit anybody?

You're taking the all-or-nothing approach that is useless in describing real humans.

 

[NeTrips]

You're taking the all-or-nothing approach that is useless in describing real humans.

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?

 

[Futuwwa]

The only tolerance one should not embrace is the one which limits tollerance of others, just like the only freedoms taken from someone should be the ones which hurt other peoples freedom. So someone who is intollerant to intollerance is in fact more tolerant then someone who tolerates intolerance (and now try saying this 3 times)

So, at times, intolerance is tolerance and tolerance is intolerance? That's like saying that war is sometimes peace and peace is sometimes war. The fact that military action can sometimes lead to peace in the long run doesn't change the fact that war is war and peace is peace.

Don't redefine tolerance as "approving everything I think is ok" and intolerance as "having something against something I think is ok".

 

[Futuwwa]

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.

Kudos to you for realizing how it is, rather than redefining tolerance like some people nowadays seem fond of doing.

It really seems like, since nowadays there seems to be an unwritten rule that tolerant=good, people will conclude that they are tolerant, and from that premise redefine tolerance.

I do find it amusing though, that those who subscribe to certain beliefs that apparently justify their intolerance are the first to point out that they're not recieving the equal treatment and tolerance they feel they are entitled to recieve, but not give.

I'd say it's more an issue of the intolerant pointing out the hypocrisy of those who call themselves tolerant.

 

[christalee4]

From a well-known Christian Reconstructionist, on the current religious liberty of the United States: "

So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God. Gary North, "The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right" in Christianity and Civilization: The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, No. 1 (Spring, 1982), p. 25. "

http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/liberty.htm

So tolerance is good only while it allows the intolerant to gain ground. Then when they gain power, they will use the arm of oppression to make sure that other's freedoms are quashed.
​