Intolerance versus tolerance

reply to post by AQuestion


Thanks for offering your opinion to what intolerance means, but dictionaries tend to side with me on this one. This is what www.dictionary.com defines intolerance to be:

noun
1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.
2. incapacity or indisposition to bear or endure: intolerance to heat.
3. abnormal sensitivity or allergy to a food, drug, etc.

Nowhere in that definition does the word 'controlling' or 'controlling someone' get mentioned.

I think it is unfair of me to decide your realities for you, as realities are nothing more than perception. With that concept in mind, it is equally unfair of you to convey a faulty logic on my part in the way I define intolerance. Saying that someone has faulty logic is an intolerant behavior as well.

I didn't even put much thought into what you feel about the boy scouts or gay people once you showed signs of hypocritical behavior. For me, I can't validate the preachings or concerns of anyone that is only true to a standard when they see fit... being true to one's self and everyone is a full time job.

Originally posted by ttobban
reply to post by AQuestion

 

Thanks for offering your opinion to what intolerance means, but dictionaries tend to side with me on this one. This is what www.dictionary.com defines intolerance to be:

noun
1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.
2. incapacity or indisposition to bear or endure: intolerance to heat.
3. abnormal sensitivity or allergy to a food, drug, etc.

Nowhere in that definition does the word 'controlling' or 'controlling someone' get mentioned.

I think it is unfair of me to decide your realities for you, as realities are nothing more than perception. With that concept in mind, it is equally unfair of you to convey a faulty logic on my part in the way I define intolerance. Saying that someone has faulty logic is an intolerant behavior as well.

I didn't even put much thought into what you feel about the boy scouts or gay people once you showed signs of hypocritical behavior. For me, I can't validate the preachings or concerns of anyone that is only true to a standard when they see fit... being true to one's self and everyone is a full time job.

Dear ttoban,

Just to be clear, if I disagree with someone or thing they are wrong then I am intolerant. If you disagree with me than you are just being educational. How very hypocritical. Now lets go back to your definition of intolerance. The person in question refused to tolerate the views of the Boy Scouts, is that intolerance on his part? I tolerated his views and was willing to discuss them with him and actually listened. Was that intolerance on my part? I told him that I did not think it was right to force the boy scouts to accept others, was that tolerant or intolerant on my part. You have me so confused, it seems that you believe that if I disagree with someone I am intolerant. Nope, I simply disagree with them and if they seek to force their beliefs on others than I find them intolerant. You show no tolerance for other views than your own.

reply to post by jiggerj


Dear jiggerj,

Sure, sure, we the intolerant of religion are the problem. We should tolerate the Catholic church as it frowns on condoms in Africa and, in doing so, helps to spread AIDS throughout the entire continent. We should tolerate the church when it claims that birth control for poor people is a bad thing, thereby creating more and more unwanted babies that these people can't afford. We should tolerate Islamic terrorism because we don't see other Muslims taking up arms to put down those that use this religion to spread hatred, oppression and death. If they can tolerate it, so should we. Yep, it's all our intolerant fault.

Here is the difference. There are laws and their are opinions. The Catholic church has an opinion and they are entitled to it as are the Muslims, they do not need to agree with me, you or anyone else. Now, when you start legislating morality, we have a problem. Understand the difference. If you wish to attack the Catholics for not agreeing with you and blame them for Aids, you are stretching logic. They also believe you are only supposed to be with one person in your life, you have follow their whole doctrine to give them their proper due. As for Islam, not all Muslims are terrorists and the vast majority just want to have a normal life, same as me and same as you. They want to have families and not be forced to accept western societies values.

We have controlled the middle east for oil's sake, not out of a wish to install democracy and not because of weapons of mass destruction. Our forces are protecting the poppy fields in Afghanistan. We supported dictators and regularly bomb Arab countries. We don't do the same to Asian Muslims (who outnumber the Arab Muslims) and because of that we don't have a war with the Asian Muslims, they don't have all the oil.

Here is my question for you. If Saddam Hussein controlled the United States and christians attacked the invading army, would you call them terrorists or freedom fighters? It is easier to blame terrorism on religion than it is to accept responsibility for how we installed dictators in the Arab countries and supported their oppressive regimes. Did you know that the Iranian Secret Service tested pepper spray and tasers on prisoners for the United States so that we would know the effect they had? I am a pacifist and do not respect terrorism from anyone; but, lets be clear about why Arabs hate us.

reply to post by AQuestion


The ironic factor in this discussion is that I never once mentioned that I disagree with you. With that in mind, I find it quite hard to understand how I've displayed a hypocritical behavior. I seemingly have been judged for pointing out that a kettle/pot scenario exists in your op in regards to tolerance.

Did you handle the discussion with that man in a tolerant fashion? I don't think I could answer that with full respect as I for one was not there to witness it. Secondly, we are only hearing one side of the story from the involved parties. It also should be obvious at this point that tolerance can be defined in multiple ways... meaning that what I may deem to be intolerant can easily be viewed as tolerant to another.

I can attest to the fact that you'll have a tough time finding a post on this site made by me that calls anyone dumb or wrong... I am very tolerant to what people believe. You will indeed find multiple posts made by me on this site that expose behaviors of saying one thing, then turning around and doing another.

You must understand that you started an open discussion to rant about a conflict that occurred in your heart and/or mind. I'd find myself doing something similar if I were intolerant towards the way the conflict occurred. All of that is more than ok... up until you mention that intolerance is the one unforgiveable sin. I read that as an admission of sin on your part. I highly doubt you'll find a rant on the internet of the other involved party of your boy scout conflict. I'm even ok and carefree if you were, are, or not intolerant of the situation, because the reality of it for me is that the conflict of interest shown in ideals leading up to the conflict diminish credibility of the conflict of issue.

Like I said when I first responded... I still love you all the same. Can you tolerate my opinion on the matter?

Originally posted by ttobban
reply to post by AQuestion

 

Did you handle the discussion with that man in a tolerant fashion? I don't think I could answer that with full respect as I for one was not there to witness it. Secondly, we are only hearing one side of the story from the involved parties. It also should be obvious at this point that tolerance can be defined in multiple ways... meaning that what I may deem to be intolerant can easily be viewed as tolerant to another.

You must understand that you started an open discussion to rant about a conflict that occurred in your heart and/or mind. I'd find myself doing something similar if I were intolerant towards the way the conflict occurred. All of that is more than ok... up until you mention that intolerance is the one unforgiveable sin. I read that as an admission of sin on your part. I highly doubt you'll find a rant on the internet of the other involved party of your boy scout conflict. I'm even ok and carefree if you were, are, or not intolerant of the situation, because the reality of it for me is that the conflict of interest shown in ideals leading up to the conflict diminish credibility of the conflict of issue.

Like I said when I first responded... I still love you all the same. Can you tolerate my opinion on the matter?

Dear ttoben,

This is how you were hypocritical, you accused me of being intolerant for disagreeing with the person and then told me how I was intolerant, you did what accused me of doing. Now you claim you agree with me, which is it, do you agree or disagree or hide behind not stating your opinion?

As for the conversation, I had it with him, I was stopped on the street and asked to sign a petition to take tax exempt status from the Boy Scouts because he disagreed with them not letting in homosexuals. Was that evidence of tolerance on his part? It is a yes or no question and very simple according to your definitions. He sought to use the law to force others to do what he believes is right. I support gay marriage because it is nothing more than a right to use government sanctioned contracts and all should have equal access to contracts (except those who don't understand what the contract means such as minors and people with certain mental states). That is tolerance, that is allowing other people the same rights. To prohibit the free assembly of gays, straights, blacks, whites, racists or any other group is the legalized intolerance. I listened to all of his arguments and told him that I was not in favor of using a non-profits tax exempt status to force them to allow people who they disagree with into their organizations. I would not require the Nazi's to allow in communists. A group is non-profit or it is for profit and they are not involved in a commercial endeavor.

As far as the unforgivable sin, the only one is the rejection of love for God and others and I did not say this person had committed the unforgivable sin. You seek to turn this into some sort of religious discussion and it is not. It is not even about the Boy Scouts or homosexuality, it is about not trying to force others to accept your beliefs, which is what he was trying to do by using the ballot box to take away rights rather than give rights. Which is more intolerant, to take away from someone a right that others can have or to give someone a right that others have?

Finally, this was posted in the rant section for a reason. I was annoyed that this person was being counterproductive and seeking to do to others what he felt had been wrongly done to him. It doesn't matter that he was a transvestite, it didn't matter to me, that never bothered me and you didn't know that until now. We have had transvestites come to our church, all are accepted. Does that mean I am tolerant or intolerant of them? You take the position that if someone wants to deny other's rights and I call them on it that somehow I am intolerant. Must I agree with everyone on every issue to be considered tolerant, I think not. It is a good thing for us that we have you to tell us what we should and shouldn't rant about, less we be called intolerant for having an opinion. I did not say divisive things to the person I spoke of, he said that anyone that disagreed with his beliefs was irrational. I never said he was. He may or may not have been rational; but, he truly was intolerant.

reply to post by AQuestion

Here is the difference. There are laws and their are opinions. The Catholic church has an opinion and they are entitled to it as are the Muslims,

Morning Aquestion,
Here is the last line of the OP:

It is not religion, it is intolerance that is the enemy.

The subject of this thread is intolerance of religion. When you say that the teachings of Islam and Christianity is just an opinion and not laws, you are justifying those opinions. You are also trying to make those opinions trivial even though billions of people adhere to what their leaders say.

reply to post by jiggerj


Dear jiggerj,

Good morning.

The subject of this thread is intolerance of religion. When you say that the teachings of Islam and Christianity is just an opinion and not laws, you are justifying those opinions. You are also trying to make those opinions trivial even though billions of people adhere to what their leaders say.

reply to post by AQuestion

I have read from some Atheists who say all the bad in the world is because of religion. They are as dumb as the people they accuse of being wrong. It is not religion, it is intolerance that is the enemy.

No, the subject is intolerance, not limited to religion.

Oh?

reply to post by jiggerj


Dear jiggerj,

You are confused, but, it is so simple. Which response confuses you?

reply to post by AQuestion


I still fail to understand how I have been making hypocritical statements. It's pretty clear that we define words to mean different things, and that's why I stated that your reality and my reality may define any chosen word to hold a different meaning. I've merely given my opinion on the matters at hand. As you indicate, you can disagree with someone and still be labeled as tolerant... well, at least until a hypocrite such as myself offers a contrary opinion to yours is what I am reading the situation to be. The contradiction I pointed out at first between unforgiveable sin and intolerance has seem to have spread to a further contradiction between opinion and intolerance. Quite ironic!

I believe that person had every right to do what they want, say what they want, ask anyone they want to sign a petition, and debate with people about a cause that is important to them... it is called freedom to have the right to do so. If I were in your shoes in that manner, I may have struck up conversation about it, I may have offered my opinion on the matter, I may have listened to their comments on the matter, but it would have been a closed door topic once I walked away. Just because they want a law to change does not indicate that it will happen. It is an intolerant action to make an issue more than what is really is, as it creates divide for unneccesary reasons. If it shows true that the other person involved in the conflict moved on from it, is living their life as they see fit, and isn't making posts online dwelling over the issue then I'd have to credit them with being more tolerant towards the conflict that occurred. Personally, I feel you may be more upset that your logic was questioned than anything else, but whose to say.

You can preach all you want, but you're stating opinions just as I am here. I have no desire to educate anyone... we are all adults here, and can devise opinions for ourselves. Maybe I'm right, maybe you're right... it doesn't matter as I can tolerate being wrong. If you left my comments to be I wouldn't be barking up a storm here over a senseless issue, but it seems my opinons just can't find the area of tolerance on your part. I really don't care what either of us think on the matter, as I tolerate indifference at a much higher level. I'm simply responding further and further to indicate the intolerance levels you display... maybe more subtle than most, but still evident in my opinion. As you defend your rant over and over, you're only displaying to the other posters what I called out in a flaw in your op from the get go.

I really hope that you can tolerate my opinions on the matter, as my opinions mean as little to me as they do for you. There are much bigger issues in life than trying to force my opinions on others. I'd define that as a tolerant behavior on my part. You're more than welcome to define that as hypocritical or whatever you wish... it would be intolerant for me to get upset at another person's opinion of my opinion.

I still love you all the same!

Originally posted by Cinrad

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by Cinrad

 

Well, I hope your prejudice actually manages to keep pedophiles away from children.

Unlike gays they don't openly announce themselves, and homophobic religious institutions are rife with them.

Are you suggesting I am an idiot? That I didn't know that already? That I thought my kids would be safe from paedophiles as long as I keep them away from gay men? That that is all I had to do? You are so arrogant.

You wrote a previous post on how you will keep your kids away from gay scout leaders and openly gay men, although you never gave a reason for that hurtful arrogance (from my perspective).

So how exactly should that be interpreted?

Actually I still don't know.

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
What is the connection between being gay and not being able to join the boy scouts (member or leader, whatever)?
To me, that is a case of discrimination - it is not necessary for a boy scout to be "straight", right?

It has nothing to do with being a boy scout if you are gay or not.

It is not some kind of sex-club with only male/female-pairings.

Because, homosexuals aren't welcome. What gives homosexuals the right to try and subjugate heterosexuals? After all, the real reason homosexuals don't form a Rainbow Scouts because there are not enough gay or lesbian to adequately support an organization as large as the Boy Scouts of America.

Homosexuals should form their own social communities and leave heterosexuals alone.