I was reading an interesting argument about this and thought I'd see what other people think...
Should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant?
Meet Swingers
Entertainment
Latest Members
Fun and Games
Information
Shopping
Site Stats
- Members:
- 1,355,968
- Online Now:
- 3,265
- Msgs Sent:
- 154,952,773
- Photo Ads:
- 723,993
- User Pics:
- 562,932
- Video Chat:
- 763
Ethical dilemma of the day - volume 1
3rd Mar 2010 - 10:59pm
Re: Ethical dilemma of the day - volume 1
3rd Mar 2010 - 11:03pm
jdwxxx wrote:
I was reading an interesting argument about this and thought I'd see what other people think...
Should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant?
I was reading an interesting argument about this and thought I'd see what other people think...
Should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant?
Or........
Should the intolerant tolerate the tolerant?
Surely if someone was totally tolerant they'd have to apply it unequivocally? Otherwise they'd be selectively tolerant, which means they'd be intolerant to some things and couldn't then profess to be truly, totally tolerant, loosing their moral high-ground and any weight to their statements?
As I can't think of anyone who's ever been completely tolerant I guess it comes down to where you want to draw the line how your question's answered.
Think I need to go lie down now.
Last edited by on 3rd Mar 2010 - 11:11pm; edited 1 time in total
As I can't think of anyone who's ever been completely tolerant I guess it comes down to where you want to draw the line how your question's answered.
Think I need to go lie down now.
Last edited by on 3rd Mar 2010 - 11:11pm; edited 1 time in total
Too complicated for me at this time of the night.
It depends how you define intolerant,should we tolerate attitudes that harm others or are beyond our moral boundaries,no.
Should we allow free speech,in the belief that censorship is wrong yes.But allowing free speech also means we have the right to call up people on there mistaken beliefs,attempt to educate them and point out the fallacies in there arguments.
Should we allow free speech,in the belief that censorship is wrong yes.But allowing free speech also means we have the right to call up people on there mistaken beliefs,attempt to educate them and point out the fallacies in there arguments.
Kaznkev wrote:
It depends how you define intolerant,should we tolerate attitudes that harm others or are beyond our moral boundaries,no.
Should we allow free speech,in the belief that censorship is wrong yes.But allowing free speech also means we have the right to call up people on there mistaken beliefs,attempt to educate them and point out the fallacies in there arguments.
It depends how you define intolerant,should we tolerate attitudes that harm others or are beyond our moral boundaries,no.
Should we allow free speech,in the belief that censorship is wrong yes.But allowing free speech also means we have the right to call up people on there mistaken beliefs,attempt to educate them and point out the fallacies in there arguments.
I concur. I would have typed more but my fingers are numb after posting in the Jon Venables thread!Kaznkev wrote:
It depends how you define intolerant,should we tolerate attitudes that harm others or are beyond our moral boundaries,no.
Should we allow free speech,in the belief that censorship is wrong yes.But allowing free speech also means we have the right to call up people on there mistaken beliefs,attempt to educate them and point out the fallacies in there arguments.
It depends how you define intolerant,should we tolerate attitudes that harm others or are beyond our moral boundaries,no.
Should we allow free speech,in the belief that censorship is wrong yes.But allowing free speech also means we have the right to call up people on there mistaken beliefs,attempt to educate them and point out the fallacies in there arguments.
In other words if you do not agree with someone, then you try and teach them the error of their ways? According too who exactly?
That implies that what you believe is right and anyone that does not agree is therefore by definition, mistaken.
Maybe I have that wrong, it is late and am tired, but knowing you as I do on here.
Or maybe I am wrong and you can kindly educate me on my mistakes.
Ahh the nuances of interpretation 
That's not how I read and perceive what Kaz said at all. Some people are open to persuasive argument and may or may not change their views accordingly. Personally, I prefer to listen to all sides of an argument/discussion and then form an informed opinion rather than take a blinkered view 
That's not how I read and perceive what Kaz said at all. Some people are open to persuasive argument and may or may not change their views accordingly. Personally, I prefer to listen to all sides of an argument/discussion and then form an informed opinion rather than take a blinkered view kentswingers777 wrote:
In other words if you do not agree with someone, then you try and teach them the error of their ways? According too who exactly?
That implies that what you believe is right and anyone that does not agree is therefore by definition, mistaken.
Maybe I have that wrong, it is late and am tired, but knowing you as I do on here.
Or maybe I am wrong and you can kindly educate me on my mistakes.
Kaznkev wrote:
It depends how you define intolerant,should we tolerate attitudes that harm others or are beyond our moral boundaries,no.
Should we allow free speech,in the belief that censorship is wrong yes.But allowing free speech also means we have the right to call up people on there mistaken beliefs,attempt to educate them and point out the fallacies in there arguments.
It depends how you define intolerant,should we tolerate attitudes that harm others or are beyond our moral boundaries,no.
Should we allow free speech,in the belief that censorship is wrong yes.But allowing free speech also means we have the right to call up people on there mistaken beliefs,attempt to educate them and point out the fallacies in there arguments.
In other words if you do not agree with someone, then you try and teach them the error of their ways? According too who exactly?
That implies that what you believe is right and anyone that does not agree is therefore by definition, mistaken.
Maybe I have that wrong, it is late and am tired, but knowing you as I do on here.
Or maybe I am wrong and you can kindly educate me on my mistakes.
i defined the term by which i will not tolerate others,harm and beyond my moral boundaries
i would not for example tolerate a paedophile who argued his sexual preferences should be accepted as other sexual preference have (the arguement of some groups in the states).I accept that on other issues i may disagree with people,however as i can only be truly responsible for my morality how else do you expect me to decide what my boundaries are?
Kaznkev wrote:
i defined the term by which i will not tolerate others,harm and beyond my moral boundaries
i would not for example tolerate a paedophile who argued his sexual preferences should be accepted as other sexual preference have (the arguement of some groups in the states).I accept that on other issues i may disagree with people,however as i can only be truly responsible for my morality how else do you expect me to decide what my boundaries are?
i defined the term by which i will not tolerate others,harm and beyond my moral boundaries
i would not for example tolerate a paedophile who argued his sexual preferences should be accepted as other sexual preference have (the arguement of some groups in the states).I accept that on other issues i may disagree with people,however as i can only be truly responsible for my morality how else do you expect me to decide what my boundaries are?
I could tolerate a paedophile who argued that his sexual preferences should be accepted but I couldn`t tolerate them putting those preferences into practice.
So ....should we lock up people who express paedophile tendencies or should we wait for them to commit a crime ?
I think it would be intolerant to lock them up for talking about it but once the crime has been committed they have gone beyond something that can be tolerated but it doesn`t make us intolerant.......
I`m sure there`s a difference between tolerating a view or opinion and allowing somebody to commit a crime.
flower411 wrote:
I could tolerate a paedophile who argued that his sexual preferences should be accepted but I couldn`t tolerate them putting those preferences into practice.
So ....should we lock up people who express paedophile tendencies or should we wait for them to commit a crime ?
I think it would be intolerant to lock them up for talking about it but once the crime has been committed they have gone beyond something that can be tolerated but it doesn`t make us intolerant.......
I`m sure there`s a difference between tolerating a view or opinion and allowing somebody to commit a crime.
Kaznkev wrote:
i defined the term by which i will not tolerate others,harm and beyond my moral boundaries
i would not for example tolerate a paedophile who argued his sexual preferences should be accepted as other sexual preference have (the arguement of some groups in the states).I accept that on other issues i may disagree with people,however as i can only be truly responsible for my morality how else do you expect me to decide what my boundaries are?
i defined the term by which i will not tolerate others,harm and beyond my moral boundaries
i would not for example tolerate a paedophile who argued his sexual preferences should be accepted as other sexual preference have (the arguement of some groups in the states).I accept that on other issues i may disagree with people,however as i can only be truly responsible for my morality how else do you expect me to decide what my boundaries are?
I could tolerate a paedophile who argued that his sexual preferences should be accepted but I couldn`t tolerate them putting those preferences into practice.
So ....should we lock up people who express paedophile tendencies or should we wait for them to commit a crime ?
I think it would be intolerant to lock them up for talking about it but once the crime has been committed they have gone beyond something that can be tolerated but it doesn`t make us intolerant.......
I`m sure there`s a difference between tolerating a view or opinion and allowing somebody to commit a crime.
bloody hell well spotted Flower,can i bring forward in my defence the fact i was running upstairs to deal with a puking,shitting child
Kaznkev wrote:
bloody hell well spotted Flower,can i bring forward in my defence the fact i was running upstairs to deal with a puking,shitting child
flower411 wrote:
I could tolerate a paedophile who argued that his sexual preferences should be accepted but I couldn`t tolerate them putting those preferences into practice.
So ....should we lock up people who express paedophile tendencies or should we wait for them to commit a crime ?
I think it would be intolerant to lock them up for talking about it but once the crime has been committed they have gone beyond something that can be tolerated but it doesn`t make us intolerant.......
I`m sure there`s a difference between tolerating a view or opinion and allowing somebody to commit a crime.
Kaznkev wrote:
i defined the term by which i will not tolerate others,harm and beyond my moral boundaries
i would not for example tolerate a paedophile who argued his sexual preferences should be accepted as other sexual preference have (the arguement of some groups in the states).I accept that on other issues i may disagree with people,however as i can only be truly responsible for my morality how else do you expect me to decide what my boundaries are?
i defined the term by which i will not tolerate others,harm and beyond my moral boundaries
i would not for example tolerate a paedophile who argued his sexual preferences should be accepted as other sexual preference have (the arguement of some groups in the states).I accept that on other issues i may disagree with people,however as i can only be truly responsible for my morality how else do you expect me to decide what my boundaries are?
I could tolerate a paedophile who argued that his sexual preferences should be accepted but I couldn`t tolerate them putting those preferences into practice.
So ....should we lock up people who express paedophile tendencies or should we wait for them to commit a crime ?
I think it would be intolerant to lock them up for talking about it but once the crime has been committed they have gone beyond something that can be tolerated but it doesn`t make us intolerant.......
I`m sure there`s a difference between tolerating a view or opinion and allowing somebody to commit a crime.
bloody hell well spotted Flower,can i bring forward in my defence the fact i was running upstairs to deal with a puking,shitting child
I`ve no doubt it would be seen as intolerant were I not to accept your mitigating circumstances
flower411 wrote:
I`ve no doubt it would be seen as intolerant were I not to accept your mitigating circumstances
Kaznkev wrote:
bloody hell well spotted Flower,can i bring forward in my defence the fact i was running upstairs to deal with a puking,shitting child
flower411 wrote:
I could tolerate a paedophile who argued that his sexual preferences should be accepted but I couldn`t tolerate them putting those preferences into practice.
So ....should we lock up people who express paedophile tendencies or should we wait for them to commit a crime ?
I think it would be intolerant to lock them up for talking about it but once the crime has been committed they have gone beyond something that can be tolerated but it doesn`t make us intolerant.......
I`m sure there`s a difference between tolerating a view or opinion and allowing somebody to commit a crime.
Kaznkev wrote:
i defined the term by which i will not tolerate others,harm and beyond my moral boundaries
i would not for example tolerate a paedophile who argued his sexual preferences should be accepted as other sexual preference have (the arguement of some groups in the states).I accept that on other issues i may disagree with people,however as i can only be truly responsible for my morality how else do you expect me to decide what my boundaries are?
i defined the term by which i will not tolerate others,harm and beyond my moral boundaries
i would not for example tolerate a paedophile who argued his sexual preferences should be accepted as other sexual preference have (the arguement of some groups in the states).I accept that on other issues i may disagree with people,however as i can only be truly responsible for my morality how else do you expect me to decide what my boundaries are?
I could tolerate a paedophile who argued that his sexual preferences should be accepted but I couldn`t tolerate them putting those preferences into practice.
So ....should we lock up people who express paedophile tendencies or should we wait for them to commit a crime ?
I think it would be intolerant to lock them up for talking about it but once the crime has been committed they have gone beyond something that can be tolerated but it doesn`t make us intolerant.......
I`m sure there`s a difference between tolerating a view or opinion and allowing somebody to commit a crime.
bloody hell well spotted Flower,can i bring forward in my defence the fact i was running upstairs to deal with a puking,shitting child
I`ve no doubt it would be seen as intolerant were I not to accept your mitigating circumstances
dont talk to me about mitigating circumstances,you weak do gooding liberal!
Rather depends if one is tolerant by nature or because of belief...
If tolerant by nature it's given that you would tolerate anything (up to a point no-one is a saint after all)
If however like me you believe that tolerance is the best policy but you are by nature impatient and often intolerant the act is often more difficult than the choice....I try but I do often find others intolerance difficult to accept....but as I say I try
P.S. And also like flower said somewhere up there ^^^
If tolerant by nature it's given that you would tolerate anything (up to a point no-one is a saint after all)
If however like me you believe that tolerance is the best policy but you are by nature impatient and often intolerant the act is often more difficult than the choice....I try but I do often find others intolerance difficult to accept....but as I say I try
P.S. And also like flower said somewhere up there ^^^
Re: Ethical dilemma of the day - volume 1
4th Mar 2010 - 9:29pm
jdwxxx wrote:
I was reading an interesting argument about this and thought I'd see what other people think...
Should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant?
I was reading an interesting argument about this and thought I'd see what other people think...
Should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant?
False dichotomy.
It's not a binary question, it's a spectrum of tolerance.
jdwxxx wrote:
In the book I was reading, although the question is a paradox, the answer to the question is no.
The argument is that tolerating intolerant views would lead to the eventual death of tolerance.
Thanks for your thoughts
In the book I was reading, although the question is a paradox, the answer to the question is no.
The argument is that tolerating intolerant views would lead to the eventual death of tolerance.
Thanks for your thoughts
which book?
and erm no, no philosophical debate worth it salt has an answer,read more, but post again it was an interesting thread
"All it takes for evil to reign is for good men to do nothing."
If we tolerate intolerance in others are we not opening the door to evil?
I'm more for cracking down on the small stuff (bad manners, petty crime, poor driving) and when people don't get away with that, they won't move up (as often) to the big stuff.
If we tolerate intolerance in others are we not opening the door to evil?
I'm more for cracking down on the small stuff (bad manners, petty crime, poor driving) and when people don't get away with that, they won't move up (as often) to the big stuff.
Kaznkev wrote:
which book?
and erm no, no philosophical debate worth it salt has an answer,read more, but post again it was an interesting thread
jdwxxx wrote:
In the book I was reading, although the question is a paradox, the answer to the question is no.
The argument is that tolerating intolerant views would lead to the eventual death of tolerance.
Thanks for your thoughts
In the book I was reading, although the question is a paradox, the answer to the question is no.
The argument is that tolerating intolerant views would lead to the eventual death of tolerance.
Thanks for your thoughts
which book?
and erm no, no philosophical debate worth it salt has an answer,read more, but post again it was an interesting thread
It was 'the meaning of things' by A.C. Grayling
