12 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by princeoforangeSomething is contradictory if it implies some statement and that statement's negation. What is that statement for the concept of tolerance, and how can 'tolerance' by itself imply anything?
If you think about it, tolerance is an intrinsically contradictory concept. So think about it ... and post your thoughts.
12 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by princeoforangetolerance
If you think about it, tolerance is an intrinsically contradictory concept. So think about it ... and post your thoughts.
.....n 1: the power or capacity of an organism to tolerate unfavorable environmental conditions
.....2: a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior [syn: permissiveness] [ant: unpermissiveness]
.....3: the act of tolerating something
.....4: willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others [ant: intolerance]
.....5: a permissible difference; allowing freedom to move within limits [syn: allowance, leeway, margin]
Now, exactly what kind of tolerance are we talking about here? You have a way of pushing my tolerance in the fourth definition, but it doesn't make the concept of tolerance contradictory. You need an anti-concept for contradiction to arise. I can't be both tolerant and intolerant for instance. That would be contradictory. To be tolerant can't be contradictory in itself. You need to specify exactly what you mean that tolerance contradicts.
Edit: Yes I did notice that you said intrinsically contradictory, but since it makes no sense I'm gonna go ahead and assume you don't know the meaning of that word. But, by all means, prove me wrong.
12 May 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeThe way that I see that it could be, is that by being tolerant you are actually displaying a sense of smug condescending superiority over the object of your pity. Tolerance therefore springs from initial intolerance or rejection of another person's views, lifestyle etc.
If you think about it, tolerance is an intrinsically contradictory concept. So think about it ... and post your thoughts.
Without an initial barrier between yourself and the other, there would be no reason to employ tolerance in the first place, therefore as POE suggests the concept of tolerance is intrinsically contradictory.
12 May 06
Originally posted by kmax87I can easily see how you can be anything but smug and condescending and still be tolerant. So, tolerance is not intrinsically contradictory. What's contradictory in your example is the fact that you can't be both intolerant and tolerant at the same time.
The way that I see that it could be, is that by being tolerant you are actually displaying a sense of smug condescending superiority over the object of your pity. Tolerance therefore springs from initial intolerance or rejection of another person's views, lifestyle etc.
Without an initial barrier between yourself and the other, there would be no reason to ...[text shortened]... first place, therefore as POE suggests the concept of tolerance is intrinsically contradictory.
The barrier you speak of is there because we have different opinions on specific matters. Having a different opinion doesn't necessitate being smug and condescending. And smug and condescending doesn't necessarily equal intolerance. I am intolerant when I act intolerant. I am tolerant when I act tolerant. Therefore, I cannot be both at the same time.
12 May 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeWell, it seems as if those who most loudly preach "tolerance" are almost always very intolerant themselves. In general, they do not insist that they themselves be tolerant of others, but that others be "tolerant" of them. And usually they alter the definition of "tolerance" to enable themselves to become thought police.
If you think about it, tolerance is an intrinsically contradictory concept. So think about it ... and post your thoughts.
For example, if one simply believes that homosexuality is an immoral choice, that person is branded "intolerant". It doesn't matter how kind they are and it does not matter if that person refrains from attempting to force others to act according to their beliefs. In effect, the mere thought that homosexuality is an immoral choice becomes a thought crime that cannot be tolerated under any circumstances.
I don't think tolerance is "intrinsically" contradictory, but in common practice it is very contradictory.
12 May 06
3 edits
Originally posted by techsouthAren't you confusing things a little? If I disagree with you, or if what you say makes no sense at all to me, I'm not being intolerant when I argue against what you say, am I? If I disagree with what you are, proposing laws and regulations that will make it hard for you being what you are, I am being intolerant.
Well, it seems as if those who most loudly preach "tolerance" are almost always very intolerant themselves. In general, they do not insist that they themselves be tolerant of others, but that others be "tolerant" of them. And usually they alter the definition of "tolerance" to enable themselves to become thought police.
For example, if one simply beli e is "intrinsically" contradictory, but in common practice it is very contradictory.
In some cases, intolerance is necessary. I can't very well believe that all life is of intrinsic value, and at the same time tolerate you ending life, can I? If you end a human life, society won't tolerate it either. *
Other forms of intolerance I disagree with. Such as if you want to make it punishable by law to act on being gay. Being gay is not going to hurt anyone, any more than being heterosexual is. Therefore, I can easily be tolerant with gay people. But not murderers or pedophiles or politicians because they harm others almost on a daily basis. A gay does not. I would be most intolerant with a gay murderer, though.
Having said that, would you call me an intolerant "thought police", and if so, why?
---
* Although there are exceptions to when it's ok to end another life, in my opinion. If someone is suffering and noone can help, for instance, I am all for assisted suicide (assuming the person in pain is considered sane by psychologists). Or if an animal is suffering horribly and the vets can't do anything (here I have a little dark spot of shame I'm carrying on myself, by the way).
12 May 06
"If you were truly tolerant, you would tolerate my supposed intolerance."
The gist of this thread's initial point.
Unfortunately this idea is often used dishonestly - depending on context, of course. Generally I find this clever (but perhaps over-used) gambit used by individuals who are attempting to deflect their own narrow-mindedness rather than simply responding to the debate on hand.
-JC
12 May 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeOk...
If you think about it, tolerance is an intrinsically contradictory concept. So think about it ... and post your thoughts.
Tolerance is simply, the act of tolerating something.
It implies a conscious decision against some ability,
essentially affirming the contrary.
However, for some, tolerance is the same as "acceptance"
and always applies to someone else.
13 May 06
Originally posted by techsouthThat was exactly what I meant and you used the very example I was going to use! If you demand tolerance then you are effectively not tolerating those who disagree with you strongly enough to find your opinions or actions untolerable. The former UK Home Secretary, David Blunkett summed it up perfectly (although somewhat unwittingly) when he said; "We will not tolerate intolerance", which is of course an oxymoron. Homosexuals must be the prime example. Recently a senior member of the Muslim Counsel of Britain was labelled homophobic etc. and threatened with legal action for commenting that he thought homosexuality was unnatural. This merely shows that defenders of homosexuality, who are always the loudest criers for tolerance, are themselves unable to tolerate any criticism.
Well, it seems as if those who most loudly preach "tolerance" are almost always very intolerant themselves. In general, they do not insist that they themselves be tolerant of others, but that others be "tolerant" of them. And usually they alter the definition of "tolerance" to enable themselves to become thought police.
For example, if one simply beli ...[text shortened]... e is "intrinsically" contradictory, but in common practice it is very contradictory.
13 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by princeoforange This merely shows that defenders of homosexuality, who are always the loudest criers for tolerance, are themselves unable to tolerate any criticism.[/b]There is a very large difference between tolerating a difference of opinion and tolerating pure bigotry. Additionally I suggest you actually review the posts above. It sounds to me like you either missed them, or simply ignored them.
-JC
13 May 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeYes, that was a most amusing example of the sort of nonsensical situation which arises when a Muslim ,who demands toleration for his own odd beliefs and customs, will not tolerate sodomites who themselves will not tolerate criticism
That was exactly what I meant and you used the very example I was going to use! If you demand tolerance then you are effectively not tolerating those who disagree with you strongly enough to find your opinions or actions untolerable. The former UK Home Secretary, David Blunkett summed it up perfectly (although somewhat unwittingly) when he said; "We ...[text shortened]... are always the loudest criers for tolerance, are themselves unable to tolerate any criticism.
15 May 06
Originally posted by ChurlantI cannot think of a single person who does not claim to abhor "pure bigotry" and yet agrees we should allow "differences of opinion".
There is a very large difference between tolerating a difference of opinion and tolerating pure bigotry. Additionally I suggest you actually review the posts above. It sounds to me like you either missed them, or simply ignored them.
-JC
As long as I, and I alone decides what is a "difference of opinion" and what is "pure bitory", I think we'll all get along fine.