Tolerance.

Remove all ads!

Yes, I agree. Svy, referring to those on the "left or libertarians as totalitarian" was the same as saying those on the right are fascist - there is little difference there, if any. That is one of the reasons why such generalizations and name calling are against the rules - so that the debate does not dissolve to such a level.

 

Quick question from "lurking guy who's staying out of this thread" (and no, that isn't my Indian name):

Can someone be called a fascist on these boards (or elsewhere, for that matter) without it being seen as a negative? I've always thought of fascism as a specific ideologal bent rather than as a negative term, generally. Said in context, it shouldn't be any more offensive than calling someone a socialist or communist when they are not, as has been done many times here on the boards without admin intervention. Perhaps it could be narrowed down to calling someone a fascist as a mode of attack? Or is that what you're getting at?

Just trying to understand what is or isn't cool with regards to labeling other posters - ill intent or no.

 

This left be befuddled. What do you mean by leftist? Someone who is one the left politically? I can't quite follw how 98% of people with political leanings to the left (and I count myself amongst them on most issues) are criminals. Do you have any form of proof at all or is this a crass over-generalisation? Just to clarify - by your statements you are proclaiming that a great deal of teachers, most sociologists and an unspecified amount of churchmen are criminals.

 

Hmmm - okie dokie.

 

Hmm, how shall I start?
If (modern) tolerance is abandoned, that means that we start telling others about our views, so we must think we're right and they're wrong. This means we must disagree on the issue. So no, there doesn't have to be a single truth. Abandoning (modern) tolerance just means actually believing that you are right and other people are wrong, and it also requires that you care enough about them to tell them they're wrong. The problem comes when you try to force them to believe you or act according to your beliefs.
There is no single truth? Here we come to, perhaps, the single greatest example of human arrogance: "If I don't know it, or can't prove it, it must be unknowable or unprovable, and therefore non-existant." Wow, what pride, what arrogance, what self-assurance these humans must have to make such a blatently illogical claim. They must think they know everything!

 

In most cases where there is a conduct or point of view that we disagree with, there is squat all we can do to prevent this. The third part is the truly difficult part of this equation. To separate the person from the opinion or actions that we don't like is a real problem for some. For an example of this, see the "God Hates Gays" thread...

But is it wrong to have certain things that we do not wish to tolerate? Are there some things that we tolerate against their wishes?

Well, if there is no truth, then it's not hard to know everything then. But really, I believe that what I say in these threads is true, but know that it cannot be proven at this time.

 

That is an interesting point. I think I can only trust in the ability of mankind to draw distinctions and show moderation in thought and deed.

When the pursuit of happyness and economic freedom of a minority, such as homosexuals for example, is placed in opposition to the accustomed pursuit of happyness and economic freedom of a majority, such as religious dogmatists, a social structure that allows for the most equity must be found.

To deny the minority the right to equity is to say they do not exist or do not deserve recognition; my personal belief, in relation to homosexuals, is that this is an intolerant position as it is they, the homosexuals, whom by mere demonstration of their numbers show existence, and by support among the population at large, show their recognition.

If an equitable solution can be found that does not unreasonably infringe upon the rights of the majority, it should be allowed.

 

I dont mean leftist leaning. I mean people who support socialist regimes, which are all crimial - URSS used to be, China, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia. There is not a single socialist/communist Nation that is not criminal or totalitarian; thus, I dont call it generalisation, but historical fact and proof.
As to the average person, as I said, leftist leaning does not make you a criminal - although it is the first step to the allowance of a totalitarian state. However, those beyound the mere leaning - by that I mean people who actively support the afore mentioned states - are morally criminals. Actually, they are also legally criminals, because there is an international law that holds supporters of totalitarian states, which violate human rights and practice murder and torture, to be criminals as well.
I hope I cleared that up, if not, feel free to PM me.
As for Toleance, I think Chevalier already put it better than me. There is not tolerance for the intolerant, although that is an oxymoron. Not only that, but people are called intolerant by the mere behaviour that allows the existance of such a concept as tolerance: by disagreeing with.
Regardless all that, I am also curious if being intolerant makes you a bad person necessarily? I mean, I tend to stick with like minded people. I really dont have the wish to hang out with people whose behaviours, opinions, actions are outrightly wrong to me.
I dont think this is a bad thing at all. Just a natural reaction.

 

@ Svyatoslav

You have to precisely define what intolerant means to you. I have defined intolerant as one who wishes to impose their behavior upon another. I am not sure if that is your definition as well.

 

While you guys are agreeing on what intolerant means, I'll just sneak in to ask a little question of LNT. With regard to:

Does it also include a person who wants to legalise tolerance and force others to be more tolerant of others than they are?

 

I belive so , you get no real benefit if you force people to be tolerant , you will create more intolerance I belive that real and durable benefits in this case come from taking the long road.

 

How are they criminal? Please elaborate.

Anarchism is a leftist wing, and so is Syndicalism, therefore your claim is false.

 

I believe that if a person says no belief should be enforced, the person automatically deprives himself of the claim to enforce that very belief. That means if you believe no belief should be enforced, then your own belief that no belief should be enforced can't be enforced, either.

In short: tolerance brainwashing can be as bad as any ideological brainwashing kids or generally people can be served. Sure, it does rely on some principles that are good and noble to people who preach them. In case of tolerance for gay unions, the noble principle is treating other people like equals and responsible adults and respecting their freedom. I also believe in that principle, but my other principle -- to stand up for the right thing, let alone my religious convinctions, are even more important to me. How to solve the dilemma without compromising tolerance?

 

I dont think I fit in your description of intolerant. I just dont care for people who have a different behaviour to me. I stick with my own.

The regimes? They practice torture and murder. The people who support them? I mentioned an international law for one, and that they are morally criminals because they support criminal regimes as well.

First of all, your syndicalist claim is just BS. Pure socialism wrapped in a different plastic.
Anarchism is indeed not totalitarian, but it was never trully implemented for any ammount of real time, thus it should be disregarded.
Plus, although anarchism is essencially libertarian, most of it theorics supported the use of force to attain it, which is a totalitarian measure - Godwin, Stirner, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkine. I do not mean all of them...
PS: Check your PM box later on, because I will reply to your response in the thread which was locked.

[ September 27, 2005, 20:55: Message edited by: Svyatoslav ]

 

Define impose. Many "tolerance activists" I see claim I am trying to impose my beliefs on them just for verbally disagreeing. Is that really imposing?

 

Chev, as a heterogeneous society, we must enforce tolerance upon those whom society has decided their intolerance is no longer acceptable. Just because Joe Six-Pack-of-Pabst believes whites and blacks should not be allowed to intermingle, if he is an employer, he is not allowed to discriminate and not hire black people. The government will enforce tolerance upon him.

Intolerance can also be good! For example, as a society, we are intolerant of child rapist, murderers, and men who wear spandex. These are good things!

The trick is deciding what we should be intolerant of! That is where we have to trust in humanities ability to draw distinctions and employ moderation in thought and deed. It just seems that the majority of people in modern Western societies are coming to the conclusion that homosexual union is to be tolerated; once granted, it is the domain of the government to not allow you to personally prevent that through non-democratic means.


Edit...

No, of course not. And could you please describe what a tolerance activist looks like? I am imagining a funny hat or perhaps a rainbow parka...

 

But whence the imperative? I could say as children of God we need to uphold His laws and ban homosexuality.

I fully agree, but on what do we base the decision?

What if the majority is against and gay environments still want their "rights"?

 

Hey Chev, you are the law student...what does your schooling tell you?

I have to study...I'll be back later...

 

So, USA is criminal too? I mean, since they practice torture and murder, and they support criminal regimes as well.

Either;
A. You don't know what Syndicalism is.
B. You don't know what Socialism is.
C. You don't know what either of them are.
D. You are just messing with my head, since the above statement is just simply not true.

So, revolution against an oppresive government, is that wrong or right? You have mentioned Franco several times as a force of good, but he used a revolution against a(legal) government, ie he used force to attain his fascist rule.

(Note: I did NOT call you a fascist there. It's pretty clear that what Franco had was very fascist, no debate about that.)

What the majority wants is not always the best. I know I am going to sound like some kind of government-lover, but remember the 50's and the black movement. If the majority would have had their will, then the blacks would still not be equal to the others.