Is There Such Thing As Too Much Tolerance?

[Corinthian™]

Hug him. HUG HIM!!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

heh
















you will.

 

[American Male]

"I tolerate the liberal ideology that I hear at work (in that I let people have their say and don't try to keep them from speaking up or complain to the boss that they're making me feel "uncomfortable"), but I don't accept it."

wait.. what?!?! I don't understand you

Sorry, man, if I wasn't clear. I typed that in haste. What I meant was that people at work say stuff all the time that I don't agree with. But, I let them have their say, and then I may debate it. I don't insist that they change to meet me. I tolerate them and don't complain when they say stuff that I disagree with. But, I don't accept what they have to say as being truthful or in any way correct.

Let me put it another way. I believe that sex should be limited to marriage between a man and a woman. Clearly, there are a LOT of people that disagree with me, both in belief and in practice. I don't go around mistreating people that do that . . . I "tolerate" their behavior. But, I'll never accept it as being OK.

I hope this makes more sense. Feel free to let me know if it doesn't.

 

[Corinthian™]

Sorry, man, if I wasn't clear. I typed that in haste. What I meant was that people at work say stuff all the time that I don't agree with. But, I let them have their say, and then I may debate it. I don't insist that they change to meet me. I tolerate them and don't complain when they say stuff that I disagree with. But, I don't accept what they have to say as being truthful or in any way correct.

Let me put it another way. I believe that sex should be limited to marriage between a man and a woman. Clearly, there are a LOT of people that disagree with me, both in belief and in practice. I don't go around mistreating people that do that . . . I "tolerate" their behavior. But, I'll never accept it as being OK.

I hope this makes more sense. Feel free to let me know if it doesn't.

acceptance is not tolerance...

 

[Webmistress]

tol·er·ance

1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
2.
1. Leeway for variation from a standard.
2. The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent.
3. The capacity to endure hardship or pain.


acceptance n.

1: the mental attitude that something is believable and should be accepted as true; "he gave credence to the gossip"; "acceptance of Newtonian mechanics was unquestioned for 200 years" [syn: credence]
2: the act of accepting with approval; favorable reception; "its adoption by society"; "the proposal found wide acceptance" [syn: adoption, acceptation, espousal]
3: the state of being acceptable and accepted; "torn jeans received no acceptance at the country club" [ant: rejection]
4: (contract law) words signifying consent to the terms of an offer (thereby creating a contract)
5: banking: a time draft drawn on and accepted by a bank [syn: banker's acceptance]
6: a disposition to tolerate or accept people or situations; "all people should practice toleration and live together in peace" [syn: toleration, sufferance]
7: the act of taking something that is offered; "her acceptance of the gift encouraged him"; "he anticipated their acceptance of his offer"

 

[American Male]

acceptance is not tolerance...

Exactly. It's more than tolerance.

 

[dcbmp]

It is wrong to suggest that a lifestyle is immoral simply because you consider it immoral. Tolerance all around, people.

Well, THAT'S S T U P I D. What about WWII? People considered the Nazis lifestyle immoral. By YOUR logic we should have let the Nazis keep on killing jews, blacks, and the disabled.

 

[TheAlmightyFuzz]

Yes there's such a thing as too much tolerance. Check out the ACLU, doesn't matter what you do. It doesn't matter if you rape a goat and drink it's blood, they'll surely defend you.

 

[Kritish]

 

[dcbmp]

^ Good one. You could set off a nuke in LA or Washington DC and they'll defend you.

 

[Kritish]

^ Good one. You could set off a nuke in LA or Washington DC and they'll defend you.

Me or almightyfuzz ?

 

[TheAlmightyFuzz]

They'll just say that society pressured you to do it and that since you see so much crime in those areas, you were trying to get rid of the problem because you have a heart of gold.

 

[Kritish]

They'll just say that society pressured you to do it and that since you see so much crime in those areas, you were trying to get rid of the problem because you have a heart of gold.

I actually heard about a dude that raped his neighbors dog and the ACLU defended him in court.

 

[dcbmp]

They'll just say that society pressured you to do it and that since you see so much crime in those areas, you were trying to get rid of the problem because you have a heart of gold.

And if the terrorist was MEern or black they'll have the extra ammo of racism.

 

[dcbmp]

I actually heard about a dude that raped his neighbors dog and the ACLU defended him in court.

They'll be there with Cindy when she chains herself to the White House gate.

 

[Kritish]

And if the terrorist was MEern or black they'll have the extra ammo of racism.

Hey, what can you expect from an organization that defends pedophiles in court from chemical castration .

 

[ScottyBBadd]

I'm going to agree...stupidity can't be tolerated. Other than that? Peace, love, and free food.

Tolerance is a case by case situation. Stupidity can never tolerated.

 

[dcbmp]

But it is

 

[maxwell's demon]

no there's no such thing as being too tolerant. for any idealogy to be true to itself it must be true to the propagation of itself.
i.e.: tolerance breeds tolerance.
therefore, as long as you are breeding tolerance you cannot be too tolerant.

The reason the aforementioned 'tricky' examples, like the persecution of homosexuals or um...animal sex , wouldn't apply here is because in those examples one would be 'accepting' behavior that would be damaging to tolerance as a whole.

In the case of persecution of homosexuals, one would be allowing intolerance to prosper.
With animals there can't be any tolerance between the two parties, because as 'willing' as the animal might appear, there is no way of saying that that animal consciously and verbally consented. in other words, the person was not tolerating the animals 'free will', which brings us back to the beginning.



...sigh...why does it always have to come down to homosexuality and animal sex in threads like this??

 

[blind_fury]

Yes there's such a thing as too much tolerance. Check out the ACLU, doesn't matter what you do. It doesn't matter if you rape a goat and drink it's blood, they'll surely defend you.

The ACLU has to be extreme in order to counter the extremist on the right. If you don't like the freedom of speech or the your right to equal protection under the law regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin go join the taliban.

 

[maxwell's demon]

They'll just say that society pressured you to do it and that since you see so much crime in those areas, you were trying to get rid of the problem because you have a heart of gold.

Fuzz- can you provide me with links and evidence to some of these "extreme" cases the ACLU defends? I'm not saying they dont' exist, it's just that i've never seen them, but i've often heard the ACLU railed against as evil.

If you could provide some hard evidence i'd appreciate it.

 

[blind_fury]

no there's no such thing as being too tolerant. for any idealogy to be true to itself it must be true to the propagation of itself.
i.e.: tolerance breeds tolerance.
therefore, as long as you are breeding tolerance you cannot be too tolerant.

The reason the aforementioned 'tricky' examples, like the persecution of homosexuals or um...animal sex , wouldn't apply here is because in those examples one would be 'accepting' behavior that would be damaging to tolerance as a whole.

In the case of persecution of homosexuals, one would be allowing intolerance to prosper.
With animals there can't be any tolerance between the two parties, because as 'willing' as the animal might appear, there is no way of saying that that animal consciously and verbally consented. in other words, the person was not tolerating the animals 'free will', which brings us back to the beginning.



...sigh...why does it always have to come down to homosexuality and animal sex in threads like this??

You can't tolerate cruelty to humans and animals. That's against the social contract or the golden rule. Treat others the way you would like to be treated in return.

 

[maxwell's demon]

right.

see- acceptance is about letting things happen as they may.
Tolerance is about allowing everyone to live as they want AND about NOT imposing your will on others. That includes men, women, chidren, animals, etc.

So all the examples used to trip the idealogy up are kind of ...not valid to start with.


except maybe the stupidity one...hmmn....

 

[bored]

no there's no such thing as being too tolerant. for any idealogy to be true to itself it must be true to the propagation of itself.
i.e.: tolerance breeds tolerance.
therefore, as long as you are breeding tolerance you cannot be too tolerant.

The reason the aforementioned 'tricky' examples, like the persecution of homosexuals or um...animal sex , wouldn't apply here is because in those examples one would be 'accepting' behavior that would be damaging to tolerance as a whole.

In the case of persecution of homosexuals, one would be allowing intolerance to prosper.
With animals there can't be any tolerance between the two parties, because as 'willing' as the animal might appear, there is no way of saying that that animal consciously and verbally consented. in other words, the person was not tolerating the animals 'free will', which brings us back to the beginning.



...sigh...why does it always have to come down to homosexuality and animal sex in threads like this??

because it's easy. some people just have to associate the general idea of tolerance with one group (the aclu) and a few of the more extreme things it's done, so they can pass that off as tolerance, and give it a bad spin. why this happens i don't know, it just always tends to.

 

[TheAlmightyFuzz]

Fuzz- can you provide me with links and evidence to some of these "extreme" cases the ACLU defends? I'm not saying they dont' exist, it's just that i've never seen them, but i've often heard the ACLU railed against as evil.

If you could provide some hard evidence i'd appreciate it.

Are you under the impression that the things I was just talking about were real? What do you consider "hard" evidence because most of the time when people post a url, someone complains about it being biased. I just typed "ACLU supporting ridiculous causes" in google and got some hits. "The ACLU sent a letter to the Boy Scouts of America in February threatening legal action against public schools and other governmental agencies that charter Boy Scout groups on grounds that their sponsorship amounts to religious discrimination and violates the separation of church and state. " I saw that one a while ago. http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=88380&p=1, http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/16/123428.php (disturbing). Since they believe that there should be no censorship, they believe that child porn is wrong to make but ok to distribute, nice. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46985 tell me if you want more examples of their ridiculousness.

The ACLU has to be extreme in order to counter the extremist on the right. If you don't like the freedom of speech or the your right to equal protection under the law regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin go join the taliban.

You don't have to defend extremely unlawful people. If the person is mentally handicapped, that's a whole different story. Where exactly did I suggest that I didn't like freedom of speech? I'll save you the time, I didn't. Stop crying, they're ridiculous and people know it. They used to stand for the people that actually deserved representation. Don't even get me started on the semantics of their organization's stances. Speaking of the Taliban, I have no reason to believe that they wouldn't be defended if they were here either.

because it's easy. some people just have to associate the general idea of tolerance with one group (the aclu) and a few of the more extreme things it's done, so they can pass that off as tolerance, and give it a bad spin. why this happens i don't know, it just always tends to.

You have a problem with people talking about their awful stances but not about their actual stances?

I tolerate Fuzz far too much

I haven't tried to kill you in atleast a day.

How dare you quote me above where I've posted

I'm the best there is at whatever it is I do for a living.