CDZ Intolerance

[Bonzi]

Let's start with this definition found on the internet.
Do you agree or disagree with this definition?

INTOLERANCE: Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own


Opening question:

Is calling someone "dumb" for believing something "intolerant"?

 

[PredFan]

Let's start with this definition found on the internet.
Do you agree or disagree with this definition?

INTOLERANCE: Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own


Opening question:

Is calling someone "dumb" for believing something "intolerant"?

Yes.

 

[saveliberty]

It is possible that the person is dumb on that subject, more likely you are dealing with a frustrated person and calling them intolerant will not result in a positive outcome.

 

[Alex.]

I believe it is

But


I


Don't

Stop


Believing!

 

[Bonzi]

Do you think there is ever a good reason to call someone intolerant?

 

[Bonzi]

Your opinion of someone, say, because they like Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders, assuming they are "stupid" for liking them - ?

Judgmental instead of intolerant?
Ignorant for making a blanket judgment?

It's not about "calling people out" to me, it's about getting us to think about opening our minds for meaningful and productive conversation - exploring inquisitively, vs. defensive judging.

 

[320 Years of History]

Let's start with this definition found on the internet.
Do you agree or disagree with this definition?

INTOLERANCE: Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own


Opening question:

Is calling someone "dumb" for believing something "intolerant"?

Not when what the "dummy" believes can be shown objectively to be false, inductively to be in contravention with the preponderance of facts, or inductively to be without material merit. It's also not intolerant when the "dummy" believes something and it can be shown that they don't have a (or several) cogent reason for believing whatever it is they believe. There are surely other dimensions and circumstances wherein calling another person a "dummy" isn't intolerant, but all of them accrue from the "dummy's" actually displaying willful or nominal ignorance.

None of us is entitled to our opinion even as everyone is entitled to their informed opinion. Nobody is entitled to be ignorant. Similarly, none of us is obliged to tolerate ignorance.

When is calling someone a "dummy" an indication of the "caller" being intolerant? It's intolerant when the caller makes the assertion without presenting his/her own cogent case showing the ignorance of the "dummy" whom they aspersed.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Let's start with this definition found on the internet.
Do you agree or disagree with this definition?

INTOLERANCE: Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own


Opening question:

Is calling someone "dumb" for believing something "intolerant"?

But you have the right to set your boundaries. Especially if what someone is having a negative impact on you

 

[saveliberty]

If I receive an entitlement, I'd probably be supportive of politicians who support or increase them. If I do not receive an entitlement, I'd support a politician who opposes them more likely. I would be informed in both situations but respond differently. A bit too simplistic a response from 320 in my opinion, though I tolerate him.

 

[alang1216]

Let's start with this definition found on the internet.
Do you agree or disagree with this definition?

INTOLERANCE: Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own


Opening question:

Is calling someone "dumb" for believing something "intolerant"?

Not when what the "dummy" believes can be shown objectively to be false, inductively to be in contravention with the preponderance of facts, or inductively to be without material merit. It's also not intolerant when the "dummy" believes something and it can be shown that they don't have a (or several) cogent reason for believing whatever it is they believe. There are surely other dimensions and circumstances wherein calling another person a "dummy" isn't intolerant, but all of them accrue from the "dummy's" actually displaying willful or nominal ignorance.

None of us is entitled to our opinion even as everyone is entitled to their informed opinion. Nobody is entitled to be ignorant. Similarly, none of us is obliged to tolerate ignorance.

When is calling someone a "dummy" an indication of the "caller" being intolerant? It's intolerant when the caller makes the assertion without presenting his/her own cogent case showing the ignorance of the "dummy" whom they aspersed.

I would never call someone who had different values from me "dumb", we are all entitled to our opinions and values. We're not entitled to our own facts. We're all ignorant to some degree but to willfully refuse to accept facts because they don't support our ideology is dumb.

 

[OldLady]

Do you think there is ever a good reason to call someone intolerant?

Sure, if they're being intolerant. But it won't get you far if you want to have a dialogue with that person and hope to share a different point of view. Call them racist or intolerant or a bigot and it will immediately raise their hackles.
Once someone has proven they are not going to listen, go ahead and say the truth.

 

[320 Years of History]

Let's start with this definition found on the internet.
Do you agree or disagree with this definition?

INTOLERANCE: Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own


Opening question:

Is calling someone "dumb" for believing something "intolerant"?

Not when what the "dummy" believes can be shown objectively to be false, inductively to be in contravention with the preponderance of facts, or inductively to be without material merit. It's also not intolerant when the "dummy" believes something and it can be shown that they don't have a (or several) cogent reason for believing whatever it is they believe. There are surely other dimensions and circumstances wherein calling another person a "dummy" isn't intolerant, but all of them accrue from the "dummy's" actually displaying willful or nominal ignorance.

None of us is entitled to our opinion even as everyone is entitled to their informed opinion. Nobody is entitled to be ignorant. Similarly, none of us is obliged to tolerate ignorance.

When is calling someone a "dummy" an indication of the "caller" being intolerant? It's intolerant when the caller makes the assertion without presenting his/her own cogent case showing the ignorance of the "dummy" whom they aspersed.

I would never call someone who had different values from me "dumb", we are all entitled to our opinions and values. We're not entitled to our own facts. We're all ignorant to some degree but to willfully refuse to accept facts because they don't support our ideology is dumb.

Red:
Well, if as I noted, the person's opinion derives from their own facts, they would be exhibiting, among other things, their stupidity and/or ignorance. Showing that the person's opinion does indeed flow from "their own facts" and calling them dumb in the aftermath of having so shown is hardly intolerant. It's not intolerant to state the truth regardless of how distasteful or undesired be the truth one tells.

I appreciate the general egalitarianism and magnanimity that underlies your remarks. I bid you not to let your willingness and preference for politeness not to obfuscate your ability to recognize that there are indeed dumb people -- momentarily dump, perpetually and inveterately dumb, or something in between -- in the world. There's absolutely nothing wrong with accepting there are such folks. There's nothing wrong with being able to tell who is and who isn't dumb and when; indeed it's critical that one be able to discern accurately that trait in others. Thus there's nothing intolerant about calling someone dumb when in fact they are or have been in a given situation and one can and does show as much. The "and does" part is essential to ensuring a person who calls another a dummy is not being intolerant. It's not enough to merely be able to show so; one must also actually do so if one is to be rightly seen as stoic.

 

[OldLady]

Let's start with this definition found on the internet.
Do you agree or disagree with this definition?

INTOLERANCE: Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own


Opening question:

Is calling someone "dumb" for believing something "intolerant"?

Not when what the "dummy" believes can be shown objectively to be false, inductively to be in contravention with the preponderance of facts, or inductively to be without material merit. It's also not intolerant when the "dummy" believes something and it can be shown that they don't have a (or several) cogent reason for believing whatever it is they believe. There are surely other dimensions and circumstances wherein calling another person a "dummy" isn't intolerant, but all of them accrue from the "dummy's" actually displaying willful or nominal ignorance.

None of us is entitled to our opinion even as everyone is entitled to their informed opinion. Nobody is entitled to be ignorant. Similarly, none of us is obliged to tolerate ignorance.

When is calling someone a "dummy" an indication of the "caller" being intolerant? It's intolerant when the caller makes the assertion without presenting his/her own cogent case showing the ignorance of the "dummy" whom they aspersed.

So many of the quibbles on this board are based on beliefs and opinions, not proveable facts, though. The one raging at the moment is, "Are transgenders mentally ill?" Well, there are "expert" opinions to be had in both camps, so there is no way to actually dispute the belief either way. Either could call the other a "dummy," and prove it. The crux of the matter is whether an individual tolerates LGBT's or feels the need to have no contact/dealings with them. The value of tolerance is not really a "fact" that can be argued and won, so when I argue for tolerance, I am called lots of stuff, including intolerant of their intolerant views. It gets pretty thorny. And there is absolutely no way to win. It's been going on for months, but it is really hard to witness intolerance and not open my big yap about it. So there we are. It's impossible.

 

[Muhammed]

Disillusioned ex-Christians turned atheist seem to be the most intolerant folks at USMB and similar sites. I believe that they feel like they were duped for most of their lives and therefore harbor a very deep resentment and hatred of all Christians.

I'm an atheist but unlike the hateful athiests I am a tolerant atheist, however I was not brought up in a religious family and therefore have no reason to hate Christians. I even married a devout Catholic girl.

 

[alang1216]

Let's start with this definition found on the internet.
Do you agree or disagree with this definition?

INTOLERANCE: Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own


Opening question:

Is calling someone "dumb" for believing something "intolerant"?

Not when what the "dummy" believes can be shown objectively to be false, inductively to be in contravention with the preponderance of facts, or inductively to be without material merit. It's also not intolerant when the "dummy" believes something and it can be shown that they don't have a (or several) cogent reason for believing whatever it is they believe. There are surely other dimensions and circumstances wherein calling another person a "dummy" isn't intolerant, but all of them accrue from the "dummy's" actually displaying willful or nominal ignorance.

None of us is entitled to our opinion even as everyone is entitled to their informed opinion. Nobody is entitled to be ignorant. Similarly, none of us is obliged to tolerate ignorance.

When is calling someone a "dummy" an indication of the "caller" being intolerant? It's intolerant when the caller makes the assertion without presenting his/her own cogent case showing the ignorance of the "dummy" whom they aspersed.

I would never call someone who had different values from me "dumb", we are all entitled to our opinions and values. We're not entitled to our own facts. We're all ignorant to some degree but to willfully refuse to accept facts because they don't support our ideology is dumb.

Red:
Well, if as I noted, the person's opinion derives from their own facts, they would be exhibiting, among other things, their stupidity and/or ignorance. Showing that the person's opinion does indeed flow from "their own facts" and calling them dumb in the aftermath of having so shown is hardly intolerant. It's not intolerant to state the truth regardless of how distasteful or undesired be the truth one tells.

I appreciate the general egalitarianism and magnanimity that underlies your remarks. I bid you not to let your willingness and preference for politeness not to obfuscate your ability to recognize that there are indeed dumb people -- momentarily dump, perpetually and inveterately dumb, or something in between -- in the world. There's absolutely nothing wrong with accepting there are such folks. There's nothing wrong with being able to tell who is and who isn't dumb and when; indeed it's critical that one be able to discern accurately that trait in others. Thus there's nothing intolerant about calling someone dumb when in fact they are or have been in a given situation and one can and does show as much. The "and does" part is essential to ensuring a person who calls another a dummy is not being intolerant. It's not enough to merely be able to show so; one must also actually do so if one is to be rightly seen as stoic.

If there is an absolute definition of "dumb" I don't know it so I'd guess it is a relative measure. Except for the smartest person alive, there are people smarter than we are who might consider all of the rest of us "dumb", and they would be correct. Therefore, calling other people dumb is not only impolite it is meaningless since we're all dumb to some degree.

 

[OldLady]

Let's start with this definition found on the internet.
Do you agree or disagree with this definition?

INTOLERANCE: Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own


Opening question:

Is calling someone "dumb" for believing something "intolerant"?

Not when what the "dummy" believes can be shown objectively to be false, inductively to be in contravention with the preponderance of facts, or inductively to be without material merit. It's also not intolerant when the "dummy" believes something and it can be shown that they don't have a (or several) cogent reason for believing whatever it is they believe. There are surely other dimensions and circumstances wherein calling another person a "dummy" isn't intolerant, but all of them accrue from the "dummy's" actually displaying willful or nominal ignorance.

None of us is entitled to our opinion even as everyone is entitled to their informed opinion. Nobody is entitled to be ignorant. Similarly, none of us is obliged to tolerate ignorance.

When is calling someone a "dummy" an indication of the "caller" being intolerant? It's intolerant when the caller makes the assertion without presenting his/her own cogent case showing the ignorance of the "dummy" whom they aspersed.

I would never call someone who had different values from me "dumb", we are all entitled to our opinions and values. We're not entitled to our own facts. We're all ignorant to some degree but to willfully refuse to accept facts because they don't support our ideology is dumb.

Red:
Well, if as I noted, the person's opinion derives from their own facts, they would be exhibiting, among other things, their stupidity and/or ignorance. Showing that the person's opinion does indeed flow from "their own facts" and calling them dumb in the aftermath of having so shown is hardly intolerant. It's not intolerant to state the truth regardless of how distasteful or undesired be the truth one tells.

I appreciate the general egalitarianism and magnanimity that underlies your remarks. I bid you not to let your willingness and preference for politeness not to obfuscate your ability to recognize that there are indeed dumb people -- momentarily dump, perpetually and inveterately dumb, or something in between -- in the world. There's absolutely nothing wrong with accepting there are such folks. There's nothing wrong with being able to tell who is and who isn't dumb and when; indeed it's critical that one be able to discern accurately that trait in others. Thus there's nothing intolerant about calling someone dumb when in fact they are or have been in a given situation and one can and does show as much. The "and does" part is essential to ensuring a person who calls another a dummy is not being intolerant. It's not enough to merely be able to show so; one must also actually do so if one is to be rightly seen as stoic.

The teacher in me is screeching right now. Can you hear me? Unless you're talking to a provocative troll who has insulted you up one side and down the other, please don't call them dummies, people. Please.

 

[boedicca]

Let's start with this definition found on the internet.
Do you agree or disagree with this definition?

INTOLERANCE: Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own


Opening question:

Is calling someone "dumb" for believing something "intolerant"?

No. Tolerance doesn't mean agreement or acceptance. Calling someone dumb is an opinion.

Intolerance involves things such as silencing and punishing them for being "dumb"...much like driving a bakery out of business for refusing to make a gay wedding cake.

 

[320 Years of History]

The one raging at the moment is, "Are transgenders mentally ill?" Well, there are "expert" opinions to be had in both camps, so there is no way to actually dispute the belief either way. Either could call the other a "dummy," and prove it.

That there is a cogent argument on either side of an issue indicates to me that folks who accept one or the other can't rightly be called dummies based on their acceptance of the credible and cogent arguments on either side. In that situation, what'd be dumb to do is call the individuals on either side dummies.

On the other hand, if one has little or no awareness of the credible and cogent arguments on both sides of an issue, that person can be legitimately be called ignorant. If in their ignorance a person proceeds to vehemently "argue" or stand on their position, well, that too would a dumb thing to do.

It's safe to say that only dummies say/do dumb things. The only question then is whether the individual is a "momentary dummy" or a "consistent and persistent dummy."

In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue. It's not cool to not know what you're talking about.
-- Barack Obama, Rutgers University Commencement Address, 2016​

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Let's start with this definition found on the internet.
Do you agree or disagree with this definition?

INTOLERANCE: Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own


Opening question:

Is calling someone "dumb" for believing something "intolerant"?

No, not in my opinion. Simply calling someone dumb, or any other verbal insult, is typically the tool for a person who either lacks the intellect to put forth a legitimate rebuttal, or is too lazy to do so. This forum is full of just such people. I know one poster in particular who goes to great lengths to comprise "clever" insults. I find her insufferable and boring.

 

[320 Years of History]

Except for the smartest person alive, there are people smarter than we are who might consider all of the rest of us "dumb", and they would be correct.

Smart people, not just the smartest person, don't and would not do that unless and until others give them just cause to do so. It's only upon receiving just cause that a bright person would make such an assertion about another person.

One thing smart people do that dumb people routinely do not do is refrain from expressing an opinion when and where they know they aren't well informed enough to have a clear and/or strong opinion. One of the things that attests to the fact that a person is smart is their being able to discern when, assuming they're given a choice, to refrain from saying or doing something prior to knowing what the heck they are doing or what they are talking about.

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
― Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism​