Meet Swingers

Entertainment

Latest Members

Fun and Games

Information

Shopping

Site Stats

Members:
1,355,959
Online Now:
3,392
Msgs Sent:
154,951,983
Photo Ads:
723,983
User Pics:
562,922
Video Chat:
797
Search
Next »
  1. 1
  2. 2
< >

 

5th Mar 2010 - 6:43pm
Kaznkev's AvatarKaznkevGodlike
Joined:
17 Sep 2009
Posts:
7494
Location:
Kneeling
ProfilePM
jdwxxx wrote:

Kaznkev wrote:

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



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


ty, rawls and nozick kinda killed epistomology for me but it sounds interesting unlike them!
 

 

5th Mar 2010 - 8:16pm
neilinleeds's AvatarneilinleedsGodlike
Joined:
10 Feb 2004
Posts:
5706
Location:
Furtlin' me ferrets.
ProfilePM
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?


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


Ha haaaa! But the corollary of that argument seems to suggest that were the tolerant to stop tolerating the intolerant, then that by itself would lead to a general rise in intolerance, thereby possibly hastening the aforementioned death of tolerance, albeit from a contrary position? icon_confused.gif Or something? icon_confused.gif dunno.gif

i.e. In a just society the intolerant must be tolerated, because were the tolerant to stop tolerating the intolerant, then the tolerant could no longer be said to be tolerant, thereby rendering the just and tolerant society both unjust, and intolerant . . . . Q.E.D. . . .

. . . .

. . . . . Fuck it, I've completely lost me thread now . . . . . In my defence, I'm still trying to get to grips with squirrels going round trees that fall in woods out of earshot? icon_confused.gif

icon_lol.gif

N x x x icon_wink.gif

p.s. icon_wink.gif s @ Kaz
 

 

7th Mar 2010 - 7:50pm
corrie2010's Avatarcorrie2010I need to get out more
Joined:
23 Jan 2010
Posts:
265
Location:
never far from you
ProfilePM
The word epistomology sends shivers down my spine icon_lol.gif
 

 

7th Mar 2010 - 8:02pm
Kaznkev's AvatarKaznkevGodlike
Joined:
17 Sep 2009
Posts:
7494
Location:
Kneeling
ProfilePM
corrie2010 wrote:

The word epistomology sends shivers down my spine icon_lol.gif



ohh i now have the idea of pming you every day with a one word message,cos i like the idea cos sending shivers down your spine icon_twisted.gif

it was too much like hard work for me,give me nietchze any day icon_lol.gif
 

 

7th Mar 2010 - 10:39pm
__random_orbit__'s Avatar__random_orbit__Godlike
Joined:
13 Dec 2005
Posts:
8097
Location:
das capital
ProfilePM
do you want sugar with that?
lp
 

 

9th Mar 2010 - 9:56pm
Anotherjimbo's AvatarAnotherjimboJust popped in
Joined:
26 Jun 2005
Posts:
9
Location:
London/Essex
ProfilePM
Should we tolerate the intolerant?

Surely tolerance is not a permanent state but one of tentative judgement awaiting action. We tolerate certain people or activities pending our observation to see if they they turn out good or redeem themselves in some way. If they don't we then no longer tolerate them or the activity: we condemn it and/or apply some sanction to stop the behaviour.

Tolerance is about having the grace and kindness to give someone or something a chance. It is not about having to endure unacceptable behaviour or activities.

This is an interesting thread, and made me think.
 

 

9th Mar 2010 - 11:53pm
__random_orbit__'s Avatar__random_orbit__Godlike
Joined:
13 Dec 2005
Posts:
8097
Location:
das capital
ProfilePM
I like what you said there Jimbo.
Toleration need not be a permanent state, if that which needs tolerence goes beyond acceptable boundaries surely?
Should not tolerance be applied where the benefits to the tolerated individual/group and the remainder of society (I'm using society as an example, but I guess indivual relationships could/should work in the same manner) maintain a level of parity?
I would suppose that an open dialogue would also be needed to help keep this co-existance.

when that goes, sharpen your implements I suppose.
lp
 

 

10th Mar 2010 - 12:53am
Kaznkev's AvatarKaznkevGodlike
Joined:
17 Sep 2009
Posts:
7494
Location:
Kneeling
ProfilePM
__random_orbit__ wrote:

I like what you said there Jimbo.
Toleration need not be a permanent state, if that which needs tolerence goes beyond acceptable boundaries surely?
Should not tolerance be applied where the benefits to the tolerated individual/group and the remainder of society (I'm using society as an example, but I guess indivual relationships could/should work in the same manner) maintain a level of parity?
I would suppose that an open dialogue would also be needed to help keep this co-existance.

when that goes, sharpen your implements I suppose.
lp


the problem with allowing tolerance to be a moveable boundary is that we are then left with no solid foundation for what is unacceptable.To use the benifit to society as a whole is,a i am sure you are aware,simply utilitarianism and 30s Germany shows us how the greater good can lead us down dark paths,

For example, i am open to all kinks but will not tolerate Gor, i feel it is outside my beliefs as a woman and a feminist, i do not need to tolerate something that i believe is harmful because my morals overide my need for tolerance
 

 

10th Mar 2010 - 1:02pm
Plimboy's AvatarPlimboySuper human rambling
Joined:
1 Nov 2009
Posts:
675
Location:
rather not say
ProfilePM
What a strange thread - it started from nothing. Then someone brought something in, but I'm still not sure how the topic evolved as it did - if only I was an educated man icon_sad.gif

Plim icon_wink.gif
 

 

10th Mar 2010 - 8:50pm
browning's AvatarbrowningSuper human rambling
Joined:
14 Dec 2005
Posts:
892
Location:
essex(white stilleto
land!)
ProfilePM
I only tolarate the people I want to.... icon_lol.gif
 

 

10th Mar 2010 - 9:17pm
__random_orbit__'s Avatar__random_orbit__Godlike
Joined:
13 Dec 2005
Posts:
8097
Location:
das capital
ProfilePM
Kaznkev wrote:


For example, i am open to all kinks but will not tolerate Gor, i feel it is outside my beliefs as a woman and a feminist, i do not need to tolerate something that i believe is harmful because my morals overide my need for tolerance


Interesting.
Leaving "Gor" aside for a moment:
Morals, Ethics and Tolerance. Do not each feed into and substantiate the other? Would not a certain Moral standpoint be the basis on which a Tolerant view is founded?

And what is the diference between Morals, and Ethics?
(Yes, I know it was I who brought Ethics in here, and I appologise, maybe thats another thread/debate).

Please don't misunderstand me here, I'm certainly not tying to argue a point or point-score in the least. This whole Tolerance Malarky seems rather a can or worms.... can there be a hard and fast point, a deciding factor in general behaviour that marks one as tolerant or intolerant? Or might Tloerance be measured on a "continuum", to be scaled and measured, one against the other with the potential for 'trade-off' and 'agreement'?
Would indeed that ever be posible for one who is intolerant of another to come to terms?

Now then, "Gor", what's that then? I'm intrigued now.
lp
 

 

10th Mar 2010 - 9:23pm
awayman's AvatarawaymanGodlike
Joined:
24 Sep 2003
Posts:
1125
Location:
northumberland
ProfilePM
Kaznkev wrote:

__random_orbit__ wrote:

I like what you said there Jimbo.
Toleration need not be a permanent state, if that which needs tolerence goes beyond acceptable boundaries surely?
Should not tolerance be applied where the benefits to the tolerated individual/group and the remainder of society (I'm using society as an example, but I guess indivual relationships could/should work in the same manner) maintain a level of parity?
I would suppose that an open dialogue would also be needed to help keep this co-existance.

when that goes, sharpen your implements I suppose.
lp


the problem with allowing tolerance to be a moveable boundary is that we are then left with no solid foundation for what is unacceptable.To use the benifit to society as a whole is,a i am sure you are aware,simply utilitarianism and 30s Germany shows us how the greater good can lead us down dark paths,

For example, i am open to all kinks but will not tolerate Gor, i feel it is outside my beliefs as a woman and a feminist, i do not need to tolerate something that i believe is harmful because my morals overide my need for tolerance


But the movability of boundaries is not mere utilitarianism; it's just a reflection of the messiness of real life. Your own example is a good one; it's not being fucked senseless you object to, but being fucked senseless by someone who subscribes to a particular set of ideas. That's a good example of messiness, that you don't object to the act per se, but to the act because of what it means to the other person.
Tolerance as a fixed set of rules is an artificial construct into which we try and fit the messiness of real life. As soon as life's messiness doesn't fit the construct it becomes a source of conflict.
The idea of the greatest benefit to the greatest number isn't mere utilitarianism; it's trying to flex artificial constructs to make them better fit the mess of real life. In the process it reduces conflicts. The German example isn't about utilitarianism; it's about the disastrous application of ideology to reality.

I think....
 

 

10th Mar 2010 - 9:39pm
jdwxxx's AvatarjdwxxxI need to get out more
Joined:
5 Jan 2010
Posts:
238
Location:
?
ProfilePM
__random_orbit__ wrote:



And what is the diference between Morals, and Ethics?



ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs. This could be national ethics, social ethics, company ethics, professional ethics, or even family ethics. So while a person's moral code is usually unchanging, the ethics he or she practices can be other-dependent.


Thats just copy pasta... my brain is to tired to think for myself!
 

 

10th Mar 2010 - 9:41pm
__random_orbit__'s Avatar__random_orbit__Godlike
Joined:
13 Dec 2005
Posts:
8097
Location:
das capital
ProfilePM
jdwxxx wrote:

__random_orbit__ wrote:



And what is the diference between Morals, and Ethics?



ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs. This could be national ethics, social ethics, company ethics, professional ethics, or even family ethics. So while a person's moral code is usually unchanging, the ethics he or she practices can be other-dependent.


Thats just copy pasta... my brain is to tired to think for myself!

makes sence to me, I have pasta tonight too.
lp
 

 

13th Mar 2010 - 12:12pm
Anotherjimbo's AvatarAnotherjimboJust popped in
Joined:
26 Jun 2005
Posts:
9
Location:
London/Essex
ProfilePM
Kaznkev wrote:

__random_orbit__ wrote:

I like what you said there Jimbo.
Toleration need not be a permanent state, if that which needs tolerence goes beyond acceptable boundaries surely?
Should not tolerance be applied where the benefits to the tolerated individual/group and the remainder of society (I'm using society as an example, but I guess indivual relationships could/should work in the same manner) maintain a level of parity?
I would suppose that an open dialogue would also be needed to help keep this co-existance.

when that goes, sharpen your implements I suppose.
lp


the problem with allowing tolerance to be a moveable boundary is that we are then left with no solid foundation for what is unacceptable.To use the benifit to society as a whole is,a i am sure you are aware,simply utilitarianism and 30s Germany shows us how the greater good can lead us down dark paths,

For example, i am open to all kinks but will not tolerate Gor, i feel it is outside my beliefs as a woman and a feminist, i do not need to tolerate something that i believe is harmful because my morals overide my need for tolerance




There seems to be here the idea that "to be tolerant" is the way we should act towards each one another all the time. But I don't think this is so and I come back to my previous point about tolerance being a tentative state. All of us, living in what we are lucky enough to be a fairly free society, are just that, free to pursue our own life without sanction as long as we keep within legal and general social boundaries. To say that I "tolerate" you when you have a different lifestyle to me is just patronising: in the real sense of a condescending indulgence on my part to put up with you. But how can this be when you are free to do as you wish? What right do I have to be tolerant of something that is yours already?

Surely tolerance only comes into play when boundaries are crossed in an ambiguous way, a provisional state is required: tolerance comes into play as a personal restraint pending the final outcome of your activity. Sometimes it appears someone or thing may be wrong but it is the right thing after all, without tolerance we would have slammed down on it at the start and never discovered the good outcome.

Does this make sense?

(By the way, what is Gor - it's driving bonkers!)
 
Next »
  1. 1
  2. 2
< >
Search