showing a respectful, fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward all people whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc. are foreign to one's own.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
tolerance
- Thread starter NeTrips
- Start date
showing a respectful, fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward all people whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc. are foreign to one's own.
What does "showing a permissive attitude towards" entail precisely?
Who determines what is fair?
How do we discern respect?
How can a subjective being possibly have an objective attitude?
Upvote
0
Have I said anything to that effect? And what does that have to do with anything? Any good reason to change the subject?
Btw., the paradox you apparently are trying to establish here is again based on an equivocation (using two different meanings of the same word, and then conclude as if the statement about one of them must be true about the other. It´s lame and boring.)
Upvote
0
Just using the same tactics as your previous post.
If you do not understand a term and cannot comprehend a definition from a dictionary, then maybe you should sit back and watch rather than continue with obfuscatory posts.
The term being discussed is tolerant. You are apparently displeased with the definition provided. How would you wish to define the term?
Upvote
0
Which happen to be which tactics? I am not aware I used any tactics at all. I asked questions of understanding. Are you sure you are not projecting?
You changed the topic, asked me a completely unrelated question, and I asked you why.
Pointing out a logical fallacy is by no means tactics, but a completely valid means of discussion and actually a service brought to the person who fell for it.
I was assuming that you were at least as interested in making your argument understood as I am in understanding it.
If you have lost interest in your own topic in the mean time, that´s fine with me.
I would like to see it defined in a way that is sufficiently precise to enable us to meaningfully discuss your hypothesis based on this definition.
I have given a definition that I think is useful, reasonable and workable as well as commonly meant in post #42, btw. As far as I can see the problem your OP is meant to establish isn´t there if using this definition.
Upvote
0
Lynden1000
Senior Veteran
- Nov 6, 2005
- 2,454
- 196
- 54
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
(emphasis mine)
I know of no one who uses the word "tolerance" to describe someone who takes a permissive attitude toward every behavior. I know plenty of people I would describe as tolerant, but I imagine they draw the line at permitting or condoning sex with children or animals, for example.
Upvote
0
But if they are intollerant of these behaviors, then how can they be considered tolerant?
If anyone has a definition of 'tolerant' that is inclusive enough to accept 'intolerance' while maintaining intellectual honesty, I'd love to see it.
Upvote
0
?? If there was a defintion in #42, I'm missing it. Can you paste the complete defintion into a new post? Thank you.
Upvote
0
ChristianCenturion
Veteran / Tuebor
- Feb 9, 2005
- 14,207
- 576
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I have a little frustration or peeve in some contexts with the 'tolerance' bit.
The whole 'embrace tolerance' thing is just PC mumbojumbo to me. A typical person (I am tempted to say everyone) is intolerant of something and at times, and rightly so when it is right.
I believe that I would answer your OP's question with the only person that I consider able to claim tolerance in the manner the term is abused today would be a dead person.
When I witness someone trying to use the term tolerance, more times than not, they are abusing it and implying or pretending that they are AS tolerant as they are insisting others to be. It then makes it a hypocrisy issue. In fact, I've seen people try pull a "your personal prejudice" commentary while giving a most blatant display of prejudice (as well as a few other things).
When it comes to tolerance of intolerance, intolerance of intolerance, or whatever the combination might be, thank God for grace not needing to be deserved, another cheek is available and offered, a forgiveness is given, or simply patience is the reply. Blessed is the peacemaker.
Upvote
0
- Jan 26, 2007
- 14,535
- 1,054
- 53
- Faith
- Calvary Chapel
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Tolerance means being permissive of others' actions? Well then, I guess I wouldn't be tolerant by man's standards. I disgree with what the Bible calls Sin. I am not permissive of those actions. I will speak my mind, but I won't condemn a person for their actions, even if I disgree. If that means I'm intolerant, so be it. I refuse to be "politically correct" just because that's what the world says.
Upvote
0
Lynden1000
Senior Veteran
- Nov 6, 2005
- 2,454
- 196
- 54
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Again, I'm not understanding why a person who is generally tolerant must *always* be so.
Ok, let's try a different approach and see if that gets us anywhere. Let me know your thoughts on these two questions:
If someone is described as a "generally happy-go-lucky person" does this mean they can't ever be sad?
If someone is described as a "generally outgoing, social person" does this mean they can't ever feel shy around a certain person?
Upvote
0
kind of off topic, the OP wasn't asking about being "generally" tolerant. By defintion a person is tolerant or intolerant. Kind of like being a little bit pregnant. KWIM?
Upvote
0
Phred
Junior Mint
- Aug 12, 2003
- 5,373
- 998
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I like to try and be tolerant of other people's beliefs so that they'll tolerate mine. But I can't be tolerant of your belief if it contradicts my morality. Example... if your belief requires you to sacrifice a chicken... ok, I can tolerate that. If your belief requires you to sacrifice a person... no, I can't tolerate that even though there's an apparent contradiction in that I'm tolerant of one belief yet not of another.
If your belief requires you to violate a law in some way ... well, it depends upon the law. For example. Native Americans use peyote in their ceremonies. I have no problem with this, I can tolerate it. If, however, as part of your faith you harm a child - say the way some Mormons marry young girls. I cannot tolerate that.
The world isn't black and white. My tolerance, in this case of faith, is dependent upon how I view the act based upon my personal morality. There are no free passes to entire flavors of acts just because...
Upvote
0
Yes, you are correct: It was - formally - not a definition. I think of "definition" as everything that explains what a word means (to someone). I felt (and feel) it was a good explanation.
So, which part did you not understand? Which part requires further elaboration? Which part is unsufficient?
Upvote
0
I wonder how you managed to read that from the definition you provided. I actually doubt that "tolerant/intolerant" are good words to describe persons - I think they are better suited to describe certain actions, statements and attitudes.
Upvote
0
Lynden1000
Senior Veteran
- Nov 6, 2005
- 2,454
- 196
- 54
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Then I'll rephrase. If I describe my friend as a "happy go lucky" person, does that mean she is never, ever sad?
If I describe my secretary as an "outgoing" person, does that mean she is never reserved or shy?
I think you're simply being unreasonable in claiming that one cannot use an adjective unless it always applied 100% of the time. It's ridiculous.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
