May 10, 2006
-
What is Tolerant Conversation and how do wy keep it that way?
Socrates cafe has been revived and here we go:
"Please remember that the main purpose of Socrates Cafe is questions rather than answers and that we need to be open and listen to others' opinions so that we can better review our own. Listening to others helps us think more deeply and can strengthen our own views. It can also help us to understand each other better."
This plea for tolerance sort of typifies our site's purpose, but I suspect we will have to balance off courtesy and passion.
I'm sure we are all intolerant of intolerance, especially if it's someone else's; but it's not that easy to feel strongly about a subject and still be completely level-headed in the discussion, so I suppose we will have to allow each other to fly off the handle every now and then.
Tolerance is best practiced by those who feel pretty secure in their own worth and understanding of their beliefs and position but are still willing to allow others the same worth. This is difficult because tolerance of another's beliefs tends to do two things: First, gives their belief some worth or standing; and second, allows you to compare your belief with theirs- which may make you uncomfortable if you don't think your belief should be questioned.
Those areas where tolerance is most strained are usually those most closely associated with your basic values and their interpretation, or where your values conflict c- such as abortion, to cite an obvious example.
Suppose someone steps on your most cherished beliefs, how tolerant should you be?
Comments (46)
Does tolerance exist on a continuum? (Most things do, but I'm not sure that tolerance is one of them). Or is tolerance an either/or proposition? (Can you be a little bit tolerant?). And ryc: Thank you for the invite, but I think I'll just visit from time to time.
I think "hot topic" tolerance is a matter of both individuals respecting the others opinion without being angry, controlling, or hateful about it. It isn't a continuum. It's either there or it isn't. When communication goes beyond respectful disagreement, in becomes intolerant and helpful to no one.
Linking you now.
Hi, Dick, I am one of your hosts for this topic. For that matter, you are one of your hosts for this topic.
How do we find that balance about which you speak? And once we find it, how do we maintain it? Isn't the nature of balance to become unstable easily?
You've posed some good questions about tolerance - see even discussing this subject can make one stop and think! And that is a good thing, that is what is makes this Socrates Cafe so interesting. I do feel a certain worth and many of my ideas and opinions are based on my experiences in life. I admit to being passionate about some ideas, people (ones I like and ones I don't like) but I believe that I can care passionately about some idea without trampling on someone else who has a differing idea or opinion. It doesn't make me or anyone else more "right" to belittle someone else for their thoughts, ideas, opinions or actions. To use your example, I am not in favor of abortion, but I am in favor of other women having the right to choose.
You post some really thought-provoking ideas and I admire you ability to state them clearly and logically. I know I'm supposed to be hosting also but I don't seem to be able to ask those types of questions. Keep up the good work.
Peace
Does tolerence in conversation necessarily have to translate into tolerence in other areas? To use your example of abortion: Suppose the law says that abortion is murder and must be abolished, must I tolerate your practice of such murder? Reframing the question: must I accept your right to commit any crime just because you don't see anything wrong with what you're doing?
I think we are talking about toleration of each other's VIEWS, not of their illegal deeds. If on this or any other site I access, I find evidence of seriously illegal ACTIVITY, I would feel bound to do something about it.
OK now, that's evidence of intolerance on my part. Is it justified? Why or why not?
Let's look further at thereluctantsinger's question. However, this time let's suppose that the law says that abortion is NOT murder and therefore is permitted. I have an obligation to be tolerant of the dissent of the anti-abortionsists. I have no similar obligation to tolerate the firebombing of family planning clinics.
I do not agree that reporting illegal activity means that you are intolerant. Illegal activity does not represent a view or an opinion. It is a violation of the laws that make society work. And reporting illegal activity is a civic duty. It has nothing to do with being intolerant.
Intolerance comes from the word "tolerate." To tolerate means to allow something, such as a belief, to exist even though we don't like it or agree with it. Tolerance does not mean never disagreeing with anybody. The word implies disagreement. True tolerance means allowing differing views to coexist without necessarily agreeing with them or claiming that all views are true.
Therefore, we can hold that one view is true or better than other views without being intolerant. If we were truly intolerant, we would seek to silence other points of view.
I wonder what you mean by you "noticed that I blocked someone." It would be easy to respond to this reading a lot into it that isn't there... so please do explain before I say anymore.
I think an interesting point has come up. There is a difference between illegal and immoral. Legal is a matter of law and is very clear. It may be illegal to jaywalk, to shoplift, or to murder. Those are very different offenses with very different penalties, but it can be clearly established whether or not each of them is illegal and it is not a matter for debate.
Morality, on the other hand, is not so clear cut. It is based on religious beliefs, cultural mores, and life experience. It varies even within families. Even with the example of abortion given above, there is variation. Many who claim to be part of the right to life movement approve abortion in the case of rape or incest. Is the fetus responsible for the way in which it came to exist? If it is murder to abort a fetus, why is it acceptable to abort a fetus that came into being through rape? Or is it only murder to abort sometimes? Or is murder OK sometimes? Those questions are why this is such a difficult issue. There is never likely to be a resolution to this conflict.
What are the dangers of trying to establish morality through laws? Is that an intolerant act?
Hmmm, You could twist that around to the question:
Does morality breed intolerance?
Actually, when you think about it, much (most?) intolerance has moral roots. Therefore, immoral people are more likely to be tolerant
Obviously we are all (mostly, anyhow) intolerant of intolerance, but how tolerant should we be?
Suppose someone steps (nicely) on your most cherished beliefs - should you tolerate this or be outraged?
I see tolerant discourse becoming less and less common, in politics, in religion, on TV, in newspapers, and even in conversation - especially among kids. If you seem to be too tolerant you are in danger of being branded a "LIBERAL" (shudder) and are in danger of being shunned.
This is a bad thing.
Any suggestions as to what can be done about this?
We should be as tolerant to others as we would want them to be unto us. If someone "steps" on your beliefs you need to be a rational and critical thinker (remeber our debate on education)
and figure out what that person meant. Was the "stepping" a direct attack? If so how is the best way for you to benefit from the attack? Or was the "stepping" a genuine open minded, curious question? This is left to the individual to decide, and that is why societies have so many problems over the issue.
I belive that tolerant discourse is acutally always been sparce in politics and religion, suhc is the nature of faith and power, what you say about "especially among kids" is evidence that critical thinking is needed, that way the child can decide "should I be tolerant, or should I fight back?"
Finally if you are tolerant and therefore shunned and labeled "conservative" or "liberal" then, to change a famous quote, "tis better to be shunned and deserve society, then not to be shunned and not deserve society."
The ultimate solution is what I have placed in my post, Love + Tolerance = Great Things. The problem in politics as well as religion is that there is a lack of this.
What do you think?
Creed_of_Kings is not blocked from my site... In fact, I subscribe to him. Not sure how or why you got that idea
How can we improve the level of conversation? I'm not sure if it's even possible at this point. I know I have been discouraged from even participating in the Cafe anymore. I have enjoyed it, but if future participation means I have to surrender control of my xanga and what is appropriate to be there or not to a mysterious "board" of people on the Cafe, then it's not for me. Frankly, I am dissappointed that one person's behind-the-scenes harrasment and subsequent whining to hosts was allowed to cause this. But, I'm not really suprised. I saw the evidence that something of this nature had happened once before, when I first discovered the Cafe. I was never able to figure out exactly what had happened, because the people in question had removed the relevant postings, but there were enough comments on various sitese to indicate there had been a serious problem. Funny, everyone associated with hosting at the time tried to pretend the problem didn't exist. I hate to be negative but I think it may be too late to salvage the Cafe in the format that it once was. That isn't to say that it can't change and evolve - but necessarily, the membership will do so as well.
Is it tolerance to allow someone else to "step on your beliefs" or is it tolerance to accpet the other person's right to believe as he/she does? If you accept the right of others to believe differently, does the other person owe you that same courtesy?
Thank you for reminding us of our humanity, and that the ideal of tolerance is not perfectly executed by any of us. How does one recognize and recover from bouts of intolerance? How far does one allow the other to be human and intolerant before cutting off the conversation or returning the favor?
Hey everybody.
Worry not. I will provide my own tail, horns and pitch fork.
RYC: Tychecat - Thank you for your response, but, you need to read more carefully. I didn't say 'liberal' was a GREEK word. I was talking about the concept of 'liberal' in Greek classical terms. I did say the meaning/concept (the Greek classical meaning, the original ideal) has changed in our modern society. People associate liberal with Leftist. This not accurate.
I found this at the University of Rochester's site explaining a Liberal Education.
http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/brown/172/related/cronon.html
Speaking of "liberal" education, we certainly do not mean an education that indoctrinates students in the values of political liberalism, at least not in the most obvious sense of the latter phrase. Rather, we use these words to describe an educational tradition that celebrates and nurtures human freedom. These days liberal and liberty have become words so mired in controversy, embraced and reviled as they have been by the far ends of the political spectrum, that we scarcely know how to use them without turning them into slogans--but they can hardly be separated from this educational tradition.
Liberal derives from the Latin liberalis, meaning "of or relating to the liberal arts," which in turn derives from the Latin word liber, meaning "free." But the word actually has much deeper roots, being akin to the Old English word leodan, meaning "to grow," and leod, meaning "people." It is also related to the Greek word eleutheros, meaning "free," and goes all the way back to the Sanskrit word rodhati, meaning "one climbs," "one grows." Freedom and growth: Here, surely, are values that lie at the very core of what we mean when we speak of a liberal education.
Tychecat – You stated the following on 5/11/2006 at 9:23PM: “I just checked the site I thought you had blocked (Creed...) and I can certainly see why you might. If he posts on my site, I'll have to really raise my tolerance factor. He does not seem to be a member of Socrates Cafe but he does post here occasionly.
Hopefully we can return to intelligent, polite discourse; but that seems to be in really short supply nowadays. I really hope people will tend to be more tolerant and understanding of each other's viewpoints, but things aren't looking up.
Sometimes I get discouraged.
How do you think we can inprove the level of conversation?”
I didn’t realize you carried such negative feelings about me. Why do you see why Building_A_Mystery might block me from her site? Does this show intolerance on your part? Are you saying that my discourse is unintelligent? Does this imply your superiority in discourse? Being that you seem to think you are a beckon of tolerance, could you please explain these comments? Thanks.
I think tolerance is one of those words that have been redefined under our current relativistic society. We are constantly being told on the one hand what is right and wrong according to what others believe and according to their sensitivities and on the other hand the person with convictions is penalized for saying just about anything that someone else takes offence to. This makes it impossible to say anything of substance without being penalized for it base on how it was understood by virtually anyone else, no matter how convoluted their reasoning may be.
agreed... That is one of my bumper stickers: Intolerance will not be Tolerated.
Tolerance in the media has led to some really strange occurrences. One of the latest is the New York "shock Jock DJ" how offered $500 to anyone who would send him the address of a rival so he could rape and kill the rival's four-year-old daughter.
He has been fired and may be charged with criminal threatening, but some legal experts say he may be protected under the first amendment. You will probably see a popular "Free DJ star" movement. Somehow I don't think tolerance should go that far.
Incidentally, Creed, I am far from being a beacon of tolerance.
Thanks for the explanation... I couldn't for the life of me figure out where that misunderstanding came from.
A good example of a conversation starting to degrade is shown here by Creed's last comment. Near the bottom of the comment, he opens with, "Being that you seem to think you are a beckon of tolerance ...." At this point, we are moving toward the edge of civility.
Also, forgive me if I have misunderstood, but are we not supposed to focus on asking questions, and allowing tychecat to respond, rather than on debating what has been said.
What does it mean to step on someone's beliefs? I am not sure that someone being intolerant of my beliefs by stepping on them necessarily means I need to be intolerant of theirs. For example, suppose I am a Muslim and there is a Fundamentalist Christian who, based on his/her faith, tells me to rot in hell or some such thing. I can still be tolerant of Christianity proper, and even of said person's particular belief system (that my beliefs will cause me to burn), without tolerating the action of said person attacking me as a result of them. I am not sure that "should" really enters into it until a position causes actions that are harmful--for the most part i think the standards of free speech are a decent measuring stick for that. If we seperate the action a belief causes from the belief itself, it seems like we ought to be infinitely tolerant of beliefs. The question in that case is whether that seperation is always possible or wise. What do you (and by "you" I mean all of you) think?
While we give lip service to tolerance, I am not sure we are practicing or teaching tolerance very well. We can come up with many examples of intolerant behavior, how about some examples of tolerant behavior in public life?
An example of this problem that comes to my mind, is the concept of Virtue. This admirable word has many meanings. Most of us want to be virtuous or be seen as being virtuous, but too often one person's virtue is another's vice. Some religious groups have so narrow a definition of virtue that their members condemn all non-members and sometimes themselves for not living up to their narrow standards.
An ancestor of mine, Cotton Mather, once wrote about how pleased he was that one of his flock (he was a preacher) was so fearful of the state of her soul that "...she spent many hours weeping and praying in a dark closet..."
That little girl was four years old.
According to ABC News tonight, there is a religious movement among the American soldiers in Iraq to encourage celibacy by using rather fundimentalist-oriented study groups and texts. While the basic idea of being true to your wife (or husband, or friend) may be a good one, I'm not sure how good it is for the psychological health of the soldiers to be held to a narrow, apparently Calvinistic, standard.
I don't think this would raise the soldier's tolerance factor much either - which raises a question: Should soldiers be tolerant?
Re your comment on Da Vinci's site: Do you really know a psychotherapist who actually felt religion was being imposted on him at a friends hous because they said grace, and did he really make his feelings known to them? That sounds like the defensive ranting of a very insecure person.
In my experience, in talking with people who judge my spirituality, I have learned to not compare them to myself, or their beliefs to my own. I don't point out their beliefs at all, but instead I tend to say "I admire YOU for your faith and your strenght in conviction". This has ebbed quite a few agressive outbursts.
I think you are right in saying that it is not at all about the belief, but about the person.
“Should soldiers be tolerant?”
Where is there room for tolerance on the battlefield? Soldiers don’t have any place to be tolerant… They are trained to be soulless enforcers… soldiers… they don’t have the time nor place to make opinions, let alone respect those of an adversary. Question tolerance as the bullets fly by…
Off the battlefield might be a different story, but you need to break it down a bit more. Are you talking about troupe moral? Should you be tolerant of another’s religious beliefs as a solider? Should the armed forces be tolerant toward homosexuality?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“How does one recognize and recover from bouts of intolerance? “
What recovery is there?… If you manage to recognize that you had a ‘bout of intolerance,’ and you feel as if you have a necessary need to prevent such occurrence in the future.. there is no training you can perform… all you can do is try to meet controversies and adversaries with something other than outrage/intolerance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“How far does one allow the other to be human and intolerant before cutting off the conversation or returning the favor?”
See now, right there… there is the million dollar question… that’s what I’m surprised people haven’t been addressing…
An outcry of toleration is a bit much in reality… JeffSkills asked earlier if someone can be a bit tolerant… and the automatic response was no, its not either/or… you are tolerant until you are pushed into intolerance…
Yet, that seemed to be too automatic of an answer… There are no tolerant people in this world… As stated previously, “the ideal of tolerance is not perfectly executed by any of us. “
Tolerant isn’t a label we carry… it’s the reaction to someone’s opinion… Every argument on every level is different and is handled with a different amount of tolerance… So yes, people, as individuals, are only ‘a bit tolerant,’ because we cannot use such tolerance on every level, every time….
So... that brings me back to the first question… How much do we take? Where are the lines drawn? When is it tolerable to be intolerant?
As a personal rule of thumb, I give everyone a free shot… any issue I post about on a xanga, or any ideal I hold to in real life is challengeable by anyone who wishes to do so… Upon assessment of their views do I make my charge to them and I draw my initial decision on which to continue an argument… If my decision is not respected, then I think its fair game to do what is necessary…
Basically, if I choose to walk away and be tolerant of someone’s opinion, and they don’t greet me with the same amount of respect, its on… like the break of dawn
But then, that beckons another question… how do you succeed as an actively tolerant person?
If my boss tells me I’m not going to get a raise because he doesn’t feel I did a good enough job this past year… do I tolerate his opinion? Or do I argue my case, in turn, NOT permitting him to have those views… I can be level headed and express my concerns, even if they are not met…. You can’t submit to complete tolerance unless you are willing to live a life of submissiveness….
A good example was a concern expressed by Da Vinci. Society constantly informs us that we should be tolerance as to not offend.
“…the person with convictions is penalized for saying just about anything that someone else takes offence to. This makes it impossible to say anything of substance without being penalized for it base on how it was understood by virtually anyone else, no matter how convoluted their reasoning may be.”
Do we take this punishment from others because they feel we aren’t being tolerant enough? Should I submit when I’m met with penalization rather than debate?
Tolerance isn’t a weapon… we should be free to express what we want to anyone we want, without fear of being ostracized for what has been condemned by society (or just an opponent) as ‘offensive.’
That having been said, we have a base responsibilities as productive members of our society to be generally tolerant…
But this isn’t just societal standards… it is the basis of respect for the brotherhood of man… As I walk down the street, I do not judge those who I pass… I wait for the appropriate place and time to enter debate… I rant through appropriate mediums… not to strangers…
I make attacks, but not onto those unprovoked…
I choose not to force my opinions to others, but I do choose to stand my ground… and when challenged, I will meet with what I feel is necessary.
In doing so, I will never be a fully tolerant person if I am forced to meet someone’s aggressiveness with the same…
Never submitting to those who feel they can retreat assuming I will be tolerant under every circumstance.
I am happy to say, that I am a bit tolerant…
They are the ones who need to control their bouts of intolerance…
They are the ones being intolerant of me when I voice my views and am met with such outrage rather than healthy debate…
They are the Eggmen…
I am the Walrus…
Coo Coo CaChoo
Werd
I find piratebuddha's comment fascinating. It seems to me that we have many different meanings of tolerance in this discussion. Maybe "What is tolerance?" is a good question.
When I used the expression "Stepping on someone's beliefs" I was thinking of a situation where one commenter deliberately seeks to denigrate the opinions of another by belittling his belief system: "I suppose that's all I could expect from a Unitarian" or "I would not expect a feminist to understand the pain a man feels when he is accused of rape" are a couple of sloppy examples.
I think we often do this without realizing it.
I know I am NEVER guilty of this
BlackSockCerulean
Hmm your comment made me sit own and think long and hard.
Off the bat, I should say that the measuring stick of free speech is a tad bit distorted… even though I understand what you mean, free speech will never have anything clearly defined… so its not the best example of something to be measured off of…
The separation of beliefs and actions though… that is an interesting point… Do you be respectful of the Muslims beliefs but not of the actions? I would have to agree that you ‘should’ be…
‘Should’ being a very abstract term with a different perspective for every eye…
In your situation… yes… I do believe that IF you manage to separate the belief from the act, we should be ‘infinitely tolerant’… but the act of separation isn’t always possible and I don’t really believe it’s a question of ‘wise.’
Advisable, maybe… Only because we live in a constant struggle for dominance in our world... in almost every form… power can be rooted as the ultimate motivation…
We ‘should’ be tolerant of other peoples’ belief systems… but there comes a point where their actions and beliefs roll into one, sometimes being unacceptable… whether it is the belief of a group to cleanse the world… or the belief that my boss doesn’t think I’m doing a good enough job (as state in my previous comment)….
At some point you have to ask yourself whether or not tolerance is worth submissiveness in specific situations…
Does the price of our personal perspective of tolerance outweigh our right to stand up for ourselves when attacked?
Werd
Tolerance stops at the basic value level. It's unlikely that you would be tolerant of another's actions if they violated your own basic beliefs. If part of your basic value system included "respect for another's right to state their beliefs" you might be tolerant of their statements or at least vaguely accepting of that right, but I think it's unlikely that actions, or statements that they think might lead to actions, that violate your Culture's Basic Values would not be vigorously opposed.
A few Philosophers and Saints have practiced the "Turn the other cheek" that Jesus called for, but they are few and far between.
I am participating in the Cafe indirectly... you may be interested in my post on this topic
My Take On Tolerance
Dear Dick ,
I just posted a very late response to the Socrates Cafe topic post. As usual, I am visiting all the Socrates Cafe sites which have already posted (probably heated) discussions and reading the essays.
You conclude your essay by asking a question. What do you think? Are you going to be tolerant of the opposing viewpoints of another when they impinge on your most basic belief systems? Can someone who has been trained from birth to enbrace a rigid set of beliefs even be persuaded to think the opposing viewpoint is a viable alternative?
Isn't human nature , by nature, intolerant?
Michael F. Nyiri, poet, philosopher, fool
I agree with you, Mike. Complete tolerance is probably neither possible or particularly desirable; we are really talking about degrees of tolerance and why some people are less tolerant than others. Tolerance, IMHO, breaks down at the Basic Value level - but our BVs actually contains a sort of tolerance - Respect for the Individual - which implies at least some respect for differing ideas
Of course the problem here at Socrates Cafe is more likely be different degrees of tolerance and definitions of what should be included as tolerant behavior.
How about: Argu... uh, discussions should be conducted in a polite, rational manner. Ideas may be attacked, but NEVER the person offering them, either directly or indirectly.
Example, neither "Only a knuckle-head would say that" or "That idea's the stupidest thing I ever heard" should be acceptable. Instead point out politely why the idea's stupid without saying so. To call the idea "stupid" is an indirect attack on the presenter. Even better would be to try to discover the interesting and correct elements (if any) of the idea.
"Tolerance is best practiced by those who feel pretty secure in their own worth and understanding of their beliefs and position but are still willing to allow others the same worth. This is difficult because tolerance of another's beliefs tends to do two things: First, gives their belief some worth or standing; and second, allows you to compare your belief with theirs- which may make you uncomfortable if you don't think your belief should be questioned" Very well put and quite a viable observance of human nature. You've managed to open another perspective of just how intolerance intrudes the opening of my mind. You've also brought about the concept that when we are alone in our perspective, we do become quite uncomfortable, do we not? Acceptance of ourselves, unfortunately, does not come from within, but from how another person views us.
Too many sheep in this world.....unfortunately, I've been one way too often, myself. Thanks for an eye opening write.
You've opened a new path for me and that, my friend, is the gift of gab! (HA). Lisa.
Absolutely - your points are so well taken. I feel intolerance breeds intolerance - a meeting of the minds, so to speak, but not a meeting of growth. Intolerance is an emotional reaction, to me, and leaves no room for frank understanding to take place. Perhaps that is why War is War - as it's been said - let's play a game of chess and let the "big wigs" play for keeps, instead of sending the troops into the trenches to fight the battles that two human beings won't consider sitting down and, not agreeing, but understanding the other's perspective. Maybe it's because I am a woman, that I don't understand the need to "win" or "argue" a point. I'd rather hear your point, for instance, consider it, try to put myself in your place and see the whole picture....this does not make me a communicator, by any means. It does require me to let go of my preconceptions of how the world should be and let in new information, which is what conversing can lead to. Why is it that we cannot do this with each other? Must one win in order to be "heard?" Hugs, Lisa.
Boy, I am sorry I posted twice. My computer is acting up on me and I did not post twice (eerie - huh?). I was shocked to see myself come up 2x with the same statements. Now, I am a Gemini, afterall, but this is ridiculuous! HA!. Sorry for the intrusion! Lisa.
Hi there. I've been following your comments, and am very impressed with your train of thinking. "Tolerance stops at the basic value level. It's unlikely that you would be tolerant of another's actions if they violated your own basic beliefs.." I am having a bit of trouble understanding why 'tolerance stops at the basic value level, etc. My beliefs, in my opinion, are just that. Mine! And Your's - well, they belong to you, but does mean we cannot talk Or does it? Maybe I have my head in a cloud and probably do....and yes, pink colored glasses! Yikes.....I hope not! HA!
Let me know your thoughts. You do much for this group of thinkers and you pose new views that inspire me.
Thanks. Lisa.
Basic Values are just that, the beliefs and values that underlie our Western Culture (American Branch). Some are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence (The ideas of sanctity of Life, Liberty, the right to pursue Happiness)
The concept of the role of government (To insure rights) and the idea of democratic government ( derive their powers from the consent of the governed.
Others are defined in the first ten amendments of the Constitution: Individualism, Freedom from illegal restraint, Law and Justice, Religious freedom, Equality, et al.
Still others are the basis for our way of living: The concepts of Honesty, Loyalty, courtesy, Compassion, Dependability, Rationality, Bravery.
As some of these mentioned are actually sub-sets of others, the list can vary widely, but perhaps you get the idea.
If you were discussing a point with someone and they made statements which seemed to threaten these beliefs, you would probably reject their statements out of hand and might even feel personally threatened; sort of like having a discussion with Hitler, for example.
Personally, I was once closely acquainted with a mass-murderer (No one knew he was at the time). We agreed on almost nothing when it came to values (or indeed anything else) I tried to warn others, unfortunately to no avail. He was caught, convicted and murdered while in prison. I suppose in a terrorist- tolerant culture he would be some kind of a hero.
What would you suppose the difference is between tolerance and acceptance?
I don't think tolerance and acceptance mean the same thing. If you accept an idea or opinion, you need not be tolerant of it.
The question: Could tolerance lead to acceptance? is a good one and I suspect this happens frequently.
Has it ever happened to you? What was the occasion?
Where would you draw the line on conversation? When the participants are just talking by each other? Where the conversation is obviously upsetting someone? Where someone is proclaiming ideas you find offensive hurtful, or immoral?
There is no clear, bright line. Tolerance is something we choose to pursue. As I've explained to others, tolerance shouldn't be put forth as a universal virtue to be adhered to and pursued by all. Ther are some things in our lives which we must find "intolerable". Perhaps an example would be the old revolutionary spark of "taxation without representation". Without commenting on the historical accuracy of the point, I think it illustrates the -type- of thing which we may find intolerable. If in a scenario where the subject matter is intolerable, we needn't pursue it.
Tolerance is only a virtue for us because of the nature of TSC. Since TSC is a forum committed to understanding, reason and discussion, tolerance of different perspectives is the point, since TSC presupposes that tolerance breeds greater enlightenment on a topic through exposure to a multitude of varying perspectives. I suppose then that the guideline is "be tolerant insofar as you wish to be involved". There're no consequences for TSC, no real-world manifestations of our thoughts or desires. It's just a discussion, a blog-table, wherein we share ideas. If you can't be tolerant on a topic, just don't join in. Since nothing real occurs, you should have no moral imperative to join.
Would you like to have had a conversation with Hitler, Stalin, or Torquemada? Not particularly. But, I'm not very political. I suspect i wouldn't mind reading an interview though
My Grandma was in Auschwitz, so I suspect I'd be intolerant of Hitler. But....[shrugs] there's a bit more to it than how I'd feel chatting over tea.
I have matured of late and have determined that we all have a perception of the truth. In my case I know that my perception is ever changing. So, to be intolerant of my former views would exclude myself from my circle of influence. Does that make sense? For example, I began my spiritual life as a Catholic. I then was a Baptist, then Catholic again, the Methodist, Charamatic, Pentacostal and now I am just a radical worshipper. While I have reasons to change my views, I can not disregard the fact that at one time I embraced the views of all those other religions. To tolerate does not require that I agree with the other persons current perceptions of the truth. I would much rather spend my time and energy finding something we can agree on. I have learned you can not argue with someone to change their paradigm.
Regarding illegal activity: There are established cultural truths despite our perceptions/beliefs/desires for the safety and welfare of others. This is not an issue of tolerance in my opinion.
Can you tell me how to subscribe your blog?