Tolerance: Allowing people to be who and what they are.

It's not up to us to judge our fellow humans. We should, as much as we're able, love all around us. We don't have to agree with them or even accept their opinions, but we should tolerate their opinions.

At what point should that tolerance end? Sometimes you misjudge that time period and you end up with a holocaust.

Obviously when it moves from opinion to action and people's rights are being infringed, that's when toleration should end and action taken.

Bingo. If no contribution or participation is required by anybody else, we don't have to agree with or condone their point of view, but we allow people to be who and what they are. It is only when they are DOING something or intending to do something harmful to others that good people will intervene. You nailed it.
 
I support self censorship. If you are not intelligent enough to censor yourself then others should do it for you. Yes it would be in my opinion which was my whole point. Its human nature to want to stop those that are of the opinion you should not exist and openly express that thought.

And that is intolerant thinking...no one should express an opinion with which you don't agree.

Is that really the world you want to live in, Asclepias?
 
While I agree there is a difference between voicing an opinion and doing something (taking action) the latter does not normally occur without having the thought first. Thoughts are dangerous only if expressed and used to influence actions.

Silencing those thoughts are a tricky subject as you pointed out because of the question of who is fit to be the judge? IMO I have a duty to argue and destroy if possible any thoughts that I feel lead to stupidity in the form of racism, sexism, bigotry etc. I see nothing wrong with advocating the financial ruin of someone promoting burning crosses on my neighbors lawn. If that person can be locked up all the better.

So, you support censorship as long as you are the one choosing who should be censored. Burning crosses is an overt act and infringes on the rights of others. I applaud you for wanting to stop that. However, everyone is free to think whatever they choose.

I support self censorship. If you are not intelligent enough to censor yourself then others should do it for you. Yes it would be in my opinion which was my whole point. Its human nature to want to stop those that are of the opinion you should not exist and openly express that thought.

But what others? Who would you trust to be your censor? Hunacy? Me? Rush Limbaugh? Martin Bashir? Who?
 
How or when is that time period defined? At what point should saying you wish someone would shoot the president be stopped? Before or after the president is shot?

I can say, in frustration or jest, that anyone should be shot, but until I take action, it's just an attitude and we shouldn't be punished for an attitude.

(However, I realize that there are laws concerning threatening the President and whether we agree with the law or not, we must follow it)
 
I support self censorship. If you are not intelligent enough to censor yourself then others should do it for you. Yes it would be in my opinion which was my whole point. Its human nature to want to stop those that are of the opinion you should not exist and openly express that thought.

And that is intolerant thinking...no one should express an opinion with which you don't agree.

Is that really the world you want to live in, Asclepias?

Only some harmful opinions. Yes I agree its intolerant but I see anything wrong with being intolerant of intolerant people.
 
How or when is that time period defined? At what point should saying you wish someone would shoot the president be stopped? Before or after the president is shot?

I can say, in frustration or jest, that anyone should be shot, but until I take action, it's just an attitude and we shouldn't be punished for an attitude.

(However, I realize that there are laws concerning threatening the President and whether we agree with the law or not, we must follow it)

Thats where we differ I think. Your (not you personally) expressed thought should not be tolerated if there is a possibility that your wish influences others to harm someone else.
 
How or when is that time period defined? At what point should saying you wish someone would shoot the president be stopped? Before or after the president is shot?

I can say, in frustration or jest, that anyone should be shot, but until I take action, it's just an attitude and we shouldn't be punished for an attitude.

(However, I realize that there are laws concerning threatening the President and whether we agree with the law or not, we must follow it)

Yes and saying somebody should be shot is a common expression with no force of action or intent behind it in American vernacular. But if I say I want you to shoot somebody or I intend to shoot somebody, then I certainly should be very strongly questioned, investigated, and, if warrented, restrained. We are NOT talking about speech here that encourages people to do something illegal, violent, or harmful or that incites to panic or riot such as shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. We are talking about expressing personal opinions, convictions, belief, perspectives, observations.

It is unfortunate that, as the guy in the video explained, some are unwilling to draw and/or are incapable of drawing distinctions between two different things like that.
 
Last edited:
I support self censorship. If you are not intelligent enough to censor yourself then others should do it for you. Yes it would be in my opinion which was my whole point. Its human nature to want to stop those that are of the opinion you should not exist and openly express that thought.

And that is intolerant thinking...no one should express an opinion with which you don't agree.

Is that really the world you want to live in, Asclepias?

Only some harmful opinions. Yes I agree its intolerant but I see anything wrong with being intolerant of intolerant people.

But, that's a slippery slope. The slave owner believed it was harmful for slaves to desire to be free and did everything he could to control the slave's thinking, to the point that slaves were prevented from learning to read and write in most cases. If you believed a slave should seek freedom, your opinion would be considered harmful in that world.

Wouldn't you want the opinion that people should all be free to be tolerated, even by those who would deem it harmful to their lives?
 
How or when is that time period defined? At what point should saying you wish someone would shoot the president be stopped? Before or after the president is shot?

I can say, in frustration or jest, that anyone should be shot, but until I take action, it's just an attitude and we shouldn't be punished for an attitude.

(However, I realize that there are laws concerning threatening the President and whether we agree with the law or not, we must follow it)

Thats where we differ I think. Your (not you personally) expressed thought should not be tolerated if there is a possibility that your wish influences others to harm someone else.

So, you would have supported those who wanted abolitionists to be silenced? I cannot believe that.
 
So, you support censorship as long as you are the one choosing who should be censored. Burning crosses is an overt act and infringes on the rights of others. I applaud you for wanting to stop that. However, everyone is free to think whatever they choose.

I support self censorship. If you are not intelligent enough to censor yourself then others should do it for you. Yes it would be in my opinion which was my whole point. Its human nature to want to stop those that are of the opinion you should not exist and openly express that thought.

But what others? Who would you trust to be your censor? Hunacy? Me? Rush Limbaugh? Martin Bashir? Who?

Therein lies the paradox. Until someone or something can be appointed Supreme Censor then you can only go on your beliefs as to what constitutes a dangerous expression of thought. The only safe way is to be intolerant of intolerant people.
 
:lmao: that anyone could actually swallow that kind of partisan drivel! :cuckoo:

And thus we see that tolerance is not your strong suit. Tolerance is a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, and attitudes differ from your own. By dismissing his video because you don't agree with it, you're showing your intolerance. You're free to express such things, but be aware we see your intolerance toward his thinking.

Technically speaking I am intolerant of his appalling lack of critical thinking skills. :D

However it is readily apparent that you didn't watch it yourself. Within the first 3 minutes the speaker was expressing absolute intolerance of everything that the Dems stand for. It was the epitome of intolerance and yet Mojo was raving about how good it was. So the irony here is your accusing me of intolerance without knowing that you were defending intolerance.
 
I can say, in frustration or jest, that anyone should be shot, but until I take action, it's just an attitude and we shouldn't be punished for an attitude.

(However, I realize that there are laws concerning threatening the President and whether we agree with the law or not, we must follow it)

Thats where we differ I think. Your (not you personally) expressed thought should not be tolerated if there is a possibility that your wish influences others to harm someone else.

So, you would have supported those who wanted abolitionists to be silenced? I cannot believe that.

I'm Black. I would not agree with abolitionists being silenced. I would be advocating the silencing of those against them.
 
How or when is that time period defined? At what point should saying you wish someone would shoot the president be stopped? Before or after the president is shot?

I can say, in frustration or jest, that anyone should be shot, but until I take action, it's just an attitude and we shouldn't be punished for an attitude.

(However, I realize that there are laws concerning threatening the President and whether we agree with the law or not, we must follow it)

Thats where we differ I think. Your (not you personally) expressed thought should not be tolerated if there is a possibility that your wish influences others to harm someone else.

But who gets to decide what is allowed to be said that might influence somebody to harm someone else? When Nancy Pelosi describes Republicans or Tea Partiers as Nazis or bullies or obstructionists or whatever the unflattering characterization of the day is, is she influencing somebody to target Republicans or Tea Partiers? Does anybody really think that an extemporaneous or scripted controversial comment by a politician or radio or televsion personality or preacher or even the President himself carries anywhere near the influence that violent video games or movies or television shows or rap music carries?

Who gets to make the rules about what will be considered 'harmful influence' and what is permissable?
 
Thats where we differ I think. Your (not you personally) expressed thought should not be tolerated if there is a possibility that your wish influences others to harm someone else.

So, you would have supported those who wanted abolitionists to be silenced? I cannot believe that.

I'm Black. I would not agree with abolitionists being silenced.

I'm white and I would not either. But, the slave holder would have felt that the abolitionist should not be not be tolerated if there is a possibility that their wish to free the slaves would influence others to end the system and/or cause slave uprisings. THAT'S what your point of view is really supporting. We shouldn't censor the thoughts and opinions of others, for only when they are expressed can they stand or fall in the court of public opinion. THAT'S why we should tolerate opinions we don't agree with in life.
 
:lmao: that anyone could actually swallow that kind of partisan drivel! :cuckoo:

And thus we see that tolerance is not your strong suit. Tolerance is a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, and attitudes differ from your own. By dismissing his video because you don't agree with it, you're showing your intolerance. You're free to express such things, but be aware we see your intolerance toward his thinking.

Technically speaking I am intolerant of his appalling lack of critical thinking skills. :D

However it is readily apparent that you didn't watch it yourself. Within the first 3 minutes the speaker was expressing absolute intolerance of everything that the Dems stand for. It was the epitome of intolerance and yet Mojo was raving about how good it was. So the irony here is your accusing me of intolerance without knowing that you were defending intolerance.

And I did listen to the whole thing and I think he defended that statement very well, but it has to be put into the whole context. The whole rest of his speech was making a very comprehensive and well thought out rationale for the thesis he set in the first few minutes.

But that is not pertinent is it? You are totally intolerant of anything the guy said and are obviously unwilling to admit he has a valid point about anything. And it is your right to hold that opinion. It is your right to think it was strictly partisan even though it wasn't.

But should he be censured for saying it? For making the speech? Should he be denied a forum to speak? How strongly do you enforce your own brand of intolerance? Who should get to make the rules about what you should speak? And what he should speak?
 
Technically speaking I am intolerant of his appalling lack of critical thinking skills. :D

However it is readily apparent that you didn't watch it yourself. Within the first 3 minutes the speaker was expressing absolute intolerance of everything that the Dems stand for. It was the epitome of intolerance and yet Mojo was raving about how good it was. So the irony here is your accusing me of intolerance without knowing that you were defending intolerance.

I appreciate you helping me understand what you were being intolerant of in your post. :)

I watched about 5 minutes of it.

But, the point, you are given and opportunity to hear his ideas and judge for yourself and accept it or reject it. That's what tolerance is all about...not that you have to agree with him, only that you allow him his opportunity to express his ideas.
 
I support self censorship. If you are not intelligent enough to censor yourself then others should do it for you. Yes it would be in my opinion which was my whole point. Its human nature to want to stop those that are of the opinion you should not exist and openly express that thought.

But what others? Who would you trust to be your censor? Hunacy? Me? Rush Limbaugh? Martin Bashir? Who?

Therein lies the paradox. Until someone or something can be appointed Supreme Censor then you can only go on your beliefs as to what constitutes a dangerous expression of thought. The only safe way is to be intolerant of intolerant people.

LOL! Wouldn't it be easier to tolerate them and let their ideas and attitudes survive or fail on their own?
 
.

Tolerance requires a mix of humility and confidence in your own beliefs.

We're pretty short on both, clearly.

.

I think it's more an idea that we know what we think is right and we don't want to be forced to question ourselves or be disrupted. ;)
 
Last edited:
I can say, in frustration or jest, that anyone should be shot, but until I take action, it's just an attitude and we shouldn't be punished for an attitude.

(However, I realize that there are laws concerning threatening the President and whether we agree with the law or not, we must follow it)

Thats where we differ I think. Your (not you personally) expressed thought should not be tolerated if there is a possibility that your wish influences others to harm someone else.

But who gets to decide what is allowed to be said that might influence somebody to harm someone else? When Nancy Pelosi describes Republicans or Tea Partiers as Nazis or bullies or obstructionists or whatever the unflattering characterization of the day is, is she influencing somebody to target Republicans or Tea Partiers? Does anybody really think that an extemporaneous or scripted controversial comment by a politician or radio or televsion personality or preacher or even the President himself carries anywhere near the influence that violent video games or movies or television shows or rap music carries?

Who gets to make the rules about what will be considered 'harmful influence' and what is permissable?

Thats why I said initially true tolerance is not possible. As of now individuals have to decide for themselves. We all know what that means.

Yes it has been proven countless times comments or opinons made by people with airtime or a platform have influenced others to act. You never know if what you say may give someone the wrong idea or to you the perfect idea. Thats why it should be kept to yourself if it involves harming someone else or their rights.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top