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

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Foxfyre, Jan 1, 2014.

  1. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,833
    Thanks Received:
    12,544
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +18,475
    Ah but here we are smack dab into the very heart of the thesis of the OP. :)

    Several on this thread have made posts that, in my opinion, are ugly as well as wrong, stupid, and ignorant and that were intended to be insulting. Many were off topic and I have been trying to ignore those as much as possible. But if they had persisted and continued to the point that they were seriously derailing the thread, I would report them as bad ACTS. Not bad opinions.

    As Mac pointed out, we can never have an honest discussion about anything if everybody's opinions are not included in the mix. But we can set the parameters of what the discussion will be and not allow unrelated issues or concepts to interfere with the focus on a specific subject to be discussed.

    It is the difference between a 'bad' opinion and a 'bad' act.

    Some seem to think it is fair game to punish a 'bad' opinion just as much as it is to punish a 'bad' act. And only a few of us seem to want to focus on discussing that in relation to unalienable rights and promoting liberty.

    Tolerance in the context of the OP is not about appreciating or condemning the 'bad' opinions of others. We all should be able to do that as appropriate. Tolerance, in the context of the OP, however, is allowing people to have 'bad' opinions without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after them to physically and/or materially punish them.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2014
  2. Montrovant
    Offline

    Montrovant Fuzzy bears!

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    14,640
    Thanks Received:
    2,621
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Beyond the Veil
    Ratings:
    +5,831
    I disagree that the founders all agreed with that principle. I think the treatment of minorities, women, and non-landowners in that time makes it a difficult argument to make that ALL of the founders agreed.

    When you add in the differences in technology and communication between then and now, the principles and ways of living we take for granted that they were unfamiliar with, again, I think assuming we know that the founders would all agree on just about anything is silly.

    I doubt they would all agree on just who would be included in 'all men' from the phrase all men are created equal, myself. :)
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,833
    Thanks Received:
    12,544
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +18,475
    But don't you see? What they saw as the norm of their culture, what they adopted as policy as the most reasonable and practical way to form a government in their culture, had ZERO to do with the principle of freedom of thought, ideas, concepts, ideas, values, convictions. They DIDN"T all agree on the policy--it took them eleven long years of often heated debate, argument, give and take, and compromise from the signing of the Declaration of Independence that provided the PRINCIPLE behind the Constitution and the signing of the Constitution. Even then only 38 of the 41 representatives present at the signing actually signed the final document.

    But they were, to a man, even those who didn't ultimately sign the final document, agreed on the principle of unalienable rights that the Constitution was intended to recognize and protect. And they were of one mind that no federal potentate would ever again have the power or ability to dictate what the people would think or believe or express about anything. And they were of one mind that the existing societies that did dictate what people must think, believe, or express would be allowed to exist, but would not be allowed to force those on others.

    And it is that principle that we seem to have abandoned in our modern culture. Too many not only claim the right to their own opinions, but presume to force them on everybody else to the point that those who don't share them will be physically and/or materially punished.

    I think that is wrong. And it should be culturally unacceptable in America.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2014
  4. Montrovant
    Offline

    Montrovant Fuzzy bears!

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    14,640
    Thanks Received:
    2,621
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Beyond the Veil
    Ratings:
    +5,831
    That's just it, I don't think they were of one mind about it. I don't think they would have all agreed about who had the rights you are talking about. I think some might have considered gays to be unnatural abominations, or something of the sort, and not men deserving the unalienable rights we are talking about. Some might have felt that women were not deserving. Some might have felt minorities of various types were not. They may have all agreed that there are unalienable rights, but I think there would have been plenty of disagreement about just what that meant.

    Move ahead to today's situations and I don't see how you can know if they would consider the situations we are describing as violations of those unalienable rights. Would the founders have considered it a violation of someone's rights to have their job as a television personality ended because of their expressed opinions, or because of their homosexuality? As far as I'm concerned, a definitive answer is impossible.
     
  5. BlackSand
    Offline

    BlackSand Nobody Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    12,093
    Thanks Received:
    3,802
    Trophy Points:
    380
    Location:
    Wherever I May Roam
    Ratings:
    +14,132
    Yeah … But then you have to determine the difference in an act and an opinion in accordance to results … Because an opinion means absolutely nothing until it results in an action.
    I mentioned earlier about tolerance in regards to the necessity to interact with others through contribution, acceptance or participation.
    If we need to fool ourselves into thinking that because someone has expressed their opinion it means that we are all more dedicated to act appropriately … Then I think that is a fool's errand.

    A simple analogy that won't be worth arguing with ...

    When fire ants build a nest in my yard … I don't give a crap what there needs are, what their opinions are or whether they have the right to be there.
    Just because I understand that they bite me as a defense weapon because I am a giant, they feel threatened and it is the only way they can do anything … Doesn't change my opinion of them.
    I am still going to garage … Getting a container of poison … And killing as many of the bastards as I can.

    Do I not think the fire ants have a reason to fear me … Nope.
    Do I fail to understand that their fear is both justified and worthy of recognition … Nope.
    Do I care if they decide to build their nest in the woods behind my house and not in my yard … Nope.
    Do I think that fire ants are not an important part of our eco-system … Nope.
    Do you think I will ever tolerate them building a nest in my yard and biting the crap out of me … Nope.

    That is the difference in understanding another person's opinions, justification and reasoning … Then the ability for it to affect change in any manner as far as tolerance is concerned.
    I understand that humans are not fire ants before some fool thinks that is worthy of discussion … It was an analogy to make the premise more malleable without involving politics.

    .
     
  6. BlackSand
    Offline

    BlackSand Nobody Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    12,093
    Thanks Received:
    3,802
    Trophy Points:
    380
    Location:
    Wherever I May Roam
    Ratings:
    +14,132
    I am pretty sure they all had opinions on gays, women and minorities ... Luckily, they were smart enough to understand it was none of the Federal Government's business.
    They also felt that some issues could be handled better and with more accurate or appropriate legislation at the Local or State Level than the Federal Level.

    You can try to use a paintbrush as a hammer all day long ... But it is not going to be worthwhile or productive in any case.

    Edit:
    They also left us the tools necessary to make appropriate changes ... We have bastardized the extent as to what is appropriate.
    Left to our own devices ... The government has changed in regards to basic rights for minorities ... And states have progressed further as far as rights for gays than the Federal Government has ... Get a clue folks.

    .
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2014
  7. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,833
    Thanks Received:
    12,544
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +18,475
    Actually it is a pretty good analogy.

    Let's take another example that involves people. If GLAAD gets in my face and tries to demand that I do something or don't do something they think I should do, and threaten me with physical and/or material harm if I don't do it, I will resist that with every legal weapon at my disposal. And I will fight back with ANY means necessary if my physical person, or that of my loved ones, is threatened.

    Does that mean I hate gay people? Nope.
    Does it mean that I condone discrimination against gay people because they are gay? Nope.
    Does it mean I am homophobic? Nope.
    Does it mean that I am unsympathetic to the discomfort of some people as to how others will see them if they 'come out'? Nope.
    Does it mean that I am unaware of wrong bad acts committed by people toward gay people? Nope.
    Does it mean that I am unaware of bigoted or prejudiced views of gays? Nope.
    Does it mean that I wish any harm or discomfort to any gay person? Nope.
    Does it mean that I can't embrace the gay people among my friends, family, neighbors, associates? Nope.

    Just as you are unwilling to have fire ants invade your space and reduce your unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, so am I unwilling to have GLAAD (or any other organization doing bad ACTS) invade mine.

    Now likewise, let's say that I believe the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. (I don't believe it says that, but that's a matter for another thread.) Let's just pretend I do:

    Does that mean I hate gay people? Nope.
    Does it mean that I condone discrimination against gay people because they are gay? Nope.
    Does it mean I am homophobic? Nope.
    Does it mean that I am unsympathetic to the discomfort of some people as to how others will see them if they 'come out'? Nope.
    Does it mean that I am unaware of wrong bad acts committed by people toward gay people? Nope.
    Does it mean that I am unaware of bigoted or prejudiced views of gays? Nope.
    Does it mean that I wish any harm or discomfort to any gay person? Nope.
    Does it mean that I can't embrace the gay people among my friends, family, neighbors, associates? Nope.

    My opinion about what the Bible says or teaches is an opinion. Nothing more. And I should be able to express it without fear that GLAAD or any other angry mob, group, or organization will come after me and try to punish me physically and/or materially.

    EDIT: And as an aside, even if I DID hold all that list of views, it would still be my opinion to have. Might make me a really unappealing or intolerable person to most of you. But so long as it is expressed as opinion and I do not act on it, I still should not have any angry mob, group, or organizating coming after me to hurt me.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2014
  8. Montrovant
    Offline

    Montrovant Fuzzy bears!

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    14,640
    Thanks Received:
    2,621
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Beyond the Veil
    Ratings:
    +5,831
    As far as I'm aware, GLAAD didn't punish anyone physically or materially.

    What they did was try and get A&E to punish Phil Robertson. That A&E capitulated with that doesn't mean that GLAAD actually did the punishing.

    What you are actually saying is that you don't think people should organize to have someone punished rather than to do the actual punishing.

    I think that is likely the important distinction and difference of opinion for most of this argument. Some people are accepting of a demand to have someone punished, others are not. I don't think anyone is arguing that it would be ok for GLAAD to actually have punished Phil Robertson themselves. :)

    Minutae pointed out; back to regularly scheduled programming.
     
  9. BillyZane
    Offline

    BillyZane BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    544
    Thanks Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +79
    Unfortunately , Americans have every right to be as wrong, stupid, and ignorant as they wish. Personally I wish someone wouldn't exercise that right so freely, but I don't advocate making it illegal for them to do so.

    However, I wouldn't have a problem with limiting certain privileges and such from those who continually do so. For example, if you are an idiot out on the road, don't be surprised when the state tells you you can't drive etc etc.
     
  10. hunarcy
    Offline

    hunarcy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    3,496
    Thanks Received:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,373
    As I have said over and over, GLAAD had a right to be offended if they felt offended. GLAAD had a right to complain. GLAAD had a right to even boycott. Where they went wrong, in my humble opinion, was when they went beyond all that to "researching" him in order to "black list" him in the future.
     

Share This Page