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

[Asclepias]

No, it shows why we should allow tolerance to all ideas. For, if society had not been tolerant to the idea of integration, people would never have been able to push the change through.

Are you trying to be funny here? Society was not tolerant. In your on words it had to be pushed through after a lot of people died.

No, I'm not trying to be funny. If society had been as intolerant as you perceive it, the idea of integration would never have been allowed to be proposed. However, the idea WAS tolerated and enough people were convinced by the argument that court cases were brought forward and change began. As people learned, more and more reforms were accepted. Yet, you would censor people who have ideas that are different than yours, which is the same position that Bull Connor would have taken back in Alabama.

I think you are confused with what my premise is. Advocating for equal rights does not restrict the rights of others. Advocating for banning gay marriage for example does. If my idea is tolerant of everyone minus the intolerant people then thumbs up. If my idea is intolerant of other people then thumbs down. I'm not banning different ideas I'm banning intolerant ones

 

[Asclepias]

Are you trying to be funny here? Society was not tolerant. In your on words it had to be pushed through after a lot of people died.

Exactly. I lived in the segregated south and can tell you that integration wasn't popular. In fact, they were intergrating schools as slowly as possible and only up to the fourth grade at the time I was in high school.

It had more to do with the Constitution than tolerance.

What do you mean by the bolded statement?

 

[hunarcy]

Are you trying to be funny here? Society was not tolerant. In your on words it had to be pushed through after a lot of people died.

No, I'm not trying to be funny. If society had been as intolerant as you perceive it, the idea of integration would never have been allowed to be proposed. However, the idea WAS tolerated and enough people were convinced by the argument that court cases were brought forward and change began. As people learned, more and more reforms were accepted. Yet, you would censor people who have ideas that are different than yours, which is the same position that Bull Connor would have taken back in Alabama.

I think you are confused with what my premise is. Advocating for equal rights does not restrict the rights of others. Advocating for banning gay marriage for example does. If my idea is tolerant of everyone minus the intolerant people then thumbs up. If my idea is intolerant of other people then thumbs down. I'm not banning different ideas I'm banning intolerant ones

But, the "intolerant ones" ARE different ideas than you have. If you think an idea is intolerant, you must argue against the merits of the intolerant idea. But, you shouldn't try to stifle the idea and punish people for having it.

 

[R.D.]

It wasn't silly, it was a preemptive move on the part of A&E. Once they realized the only people that watched the show were like minded ignorant people they unsuspended him. Money speaks more than morals.

Nonsense.

You see it exactly for what it was but prefer to ignore it at the same time. None so blind than those who refuse to see

What is it that I am ignoring?

Preemptive strike how? Black eye from what? Religious people are ignorant, but you are not conenscending?

Your view is all that matters, but you want to convince yourself you're tolerant and openminded on the issue. They, having caved so fast, is more an indication they were both wrong legally and they overestimated how many would cheer and embrace a true showing of intolerance and bigotry....both from the left and the right.

 

[Asclepias]

No, I'm not trying to be funny. If society had been as intolerant as you perceive it, the idea of integration would never have been allowed to be proposed. However, the idea WAS tolerated and enough people were convinced by the argument that court cases were brought forward and change began. As people learned, more and more reforms were accepted. Yet, you would censor people who have ideas that are different than yours, which is the same position that Bull Connor would have taken back in Alabama.

I think you are confused with what my premise is. Advocating for equal rights does not restrict the rights of others. Advocating for banning gay marriage for example does. If my idea is tolerant of everyone minus the intolerant people then thumbs up. If my idea is intolerant of other people then thumbs down. I'm not banning different ideas I'm banning intolerant ones

But, the "intolerant ones" ARE different ideas than you have. If you think an idea is intolerant, you must argue against the merits of the intolerant idea. But, you shouldn't try to stifle the idea and punish people for having it.

The intolerant ideas are only a subset of the different ideas. For example I believe the way to true wealth is being an business owner. Some people may think its by working for someone else. I dont agree but it does not make their idea intolerant.

 

[Asclepias]

Nonsense.

You see it exactly for what it was but prefer to ignore it at the same time. None so blind than those who refuse to see

What is it that I am ignoring?

Preemptive strike how? Black eye from what? Religious people are ignorant, but you are not conenscending?

Your view is all that matters, but you want to convince yourself you're tolerant and openminded on the issue. They, having caved so fast, is more an indication they were both wrong legally and they overestimated how many would cheer and embrace a true showing of intolerance and bigotry....both from the left and the right.

Preemptive:
A&E upon hearing the comments in the media decided to look like they disapproved.

Black Eye?
Does this really need to be explained?

Ignorant
Black people were happy being oppressed.

 

[R.D.]

I think you are confused with what my premise is. Advocating for equal rights does not restrict the rights of others. Advocating for banning gay marriage for example does. If my idea is tolerant of everyone minus the intolerant people then thumbs up. If my idea is intolerant of other people then thumbs down. I'm not banning different ideas I'm banning intolerant ones

But, the "intolerant ones" ARE different ideas than you have. If you think an idea is intolerant, you must argue against the merits of the intolerant idea. But, you shouldn't try to stifle the idea and punish people for having it.

The intolerant ideas are only a subset of the different ideas. For example I believe the way to true wealth is being an business owner. Some people may think its by working for someone else. I dont agree but it does not make their idea intolerant.

 

[Foxfyre]

It seems that some here are intentionally refusing or failing to discern the difference between thinking/believing something and doing something to somebody else. I may think Asclepias to be the most bigoted, intolerant, and ignorant person in the world because he thinks people who watch A&E's Duck Dynasty are ignorant, but I do not harm Asclepias in the least because I think that. Nor does he harm a single Duck Dynasty fan by holding that opinion of them.

I am an advocate for demonizing and squelching the current concept of political correctness that translates into a politics of personal destruction for anybody who wanders off the PC plantation of th day or offends anybody in a 'protected' class. But I am not demanding that any one of you who do not agree with me on that be harmed or disciplined in any way.

The opinions that we hold harm nobody. It is ACTING on those opinions or intending to act on those opinions that can harm people. But too many here can't seem to make the distinction between those two things.

 

[Asclepias]

But, the "intolerant ones" ARE different ideas than you have. If you think an idea is intolerant, you must argue against the merits of the intolerant idea. But, you shouldn't try to stifle the idea and punish people for having it.

The intolerant ideas are only a subset of the different ideas. For example I believe the way to true wealth is being an business owner. Some people may think its by working for someone else. I dont agree but it does not make their idea intolerant.

What is it you don't understand?

 

[hunarcy]

I think you are confused with what my premise is. Advocating for equal rights does not restrict the rights of others. Advocating for banning gay marriage for example does. If my idea is tolerant of everyone minus the intolerant people then thumbs up. If my idea is intolerant of other people then thumbs down. I'm not banning different ideas I'm banning intolerant ones

But, the "intolerant ones" ARE different ideas than you have. If you think an idea is intolerant, you must argue against the merits of the intolerant idea. But, you shouldn't try to stifle the idea and punish people for having it.

The intolerant ideas are only a subset of the different ideas. For example I believe the way to true wealth is being an business owner. Some people may think its by working for someone else. I dont agree but it does not make their idea intolerant.

Ok, but what you seem to be trying to do is say "I'm tolerant, sometimes." But, that doesn't absolve you from being intolerant other times. To me, it's an offshoot of the "I have a black friend so I can't be a racist" argument and that ultimately fails.

 

[Asclepias]

It seems that some here are intentionally refusing or failing to discern the difference between thinking/believing something and doing something to somebody else. I may think Asclepias to be the most bigoted, intolerant, and ignorant person in the world because he thinks people who watch A&E's Duck Dynasty are ignorant, but I do not harm Asclepias in the least because I think that. Nor does he harm a single Duck Dynasty fan by holding that opinion of them.

I am an advocate for demonizing and squelching the current concept of political correctness that translates into a politics of personal destruction for anybody who wanders off the demanded plantation or offends anybody in a 'protected' class. But I am not demanding that any one of you who do not agree with me on that be harmed or disciplined in any way.

The opinions that we hold harm nobody. It is ACTING on those opinions or intending to act on those opinions that can harm people. But too many here can't seem to make the distinction between those two things.

I agree with Fox up to the point that once a intolerant idea is expressed for public consumption, any and all means are fair play to rid the earth of that sentiment being circulated again. Progress is slowed down by intolerant ideas. Squashing them from being expressed and allowing the concept of gradualism to deal with the inherent damaging aspects of those thoughts will speed up progress.

 

[hunarcy]

Ignorant
Black people were happy being oppressed.

That would have been ignorant if that was what he said.

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

He never said Blacks were happy being oppressed.

 

[Asclepias]

But, the "intolerant ones" ARE different ideas than you have. If you think an idea is intolerant, you must argue against the merits of the intolerant idea. But, you shouldn't try to stifle the idea and punish people for having it.

The intolerant ideas are only a subset of the different ideas. For example I believe the way to true wealth is being an business owner. Some people may think its by working for someone else. I dont agree but it does not make their idea intolerant.

Ok, but what you seem to be trying to do is say "I'm tolerant, sometimes." But, that doesn't absolve you from being intolerant other times. To me, it's an offshoot of the "I have a black friend so I can't be a racist" argument and that ultimately fails.

You are correct. I am tolerant until I encounter intolerance. I have no moral dilemma with that stance. I don't see how it relates to "having a black friend so I cant be racist".

 

[Foxfyre]

Are you trying to be funny here? Society was not tolerant. In your on words it had to be pushed through after a lot of people died.

No, I'm not trying to be funny. If society had been as intolerant as you perceive it, the idea of integration would never have been allowed to be proposed. However, the idea WAS tolerated and enough people were convinced by the argument that court cases were brought forward and change began. As people learned, more and more reforms were accepted. Yet, you would censor people who have ideas that are different than yours, which is the same position that Bull Connor would have taken back in Alabama.

I think you are confused with what my premise is. Advocating for equal rights does not restrict the rights of others. Advocating for banning gay marriage for example does. If my idea is tolerant of everyone minus the intolerant people then thumbs up. If my idea is intolerant of other people then thumbs down. I'm not banning different ideas I'm banning intolerant ones

You might wish to ban ideas that YOU see as intolerant but where do you get the authority to determine what is intolerant? Unless we tolerate the 'intolerant' ideas of others--ideas that coerce or harm nobody--are we not just as intolerant?

That is the paradox. The conundrum comes in what separates critical conclusions from intolerance in the first place, and should we not be intolerant of what we believe to be harmful?

 

[midcan5]

Sigmund Freud here, well I'll be, this here OP purports to be about intolerance about intolerance and thus the only intolerance is intolerance about intolerance. And some thought ego id and superego were complicated. Seems to this old codger that some just seem to want to apologize for intolerance, like apologies make it all go away, why I sure don't remember this sorta apology for Mr Bashir or the Dixie Chicks, must be intolerance about intolerance ain't all the same intolerance. Therein lies the complexity about intolerance, seems some like some intolerance but not other intolerance or is that some intolerance ain't intolerance while other intolerance is intolerant. Jeez soon I gonna need to get on the couch myself and see if I can clear up this here complexity of intolerances. Or just maybe this intolerance is kinda relative to the relativist. You think.

"Acts are not made right or wrong simply by people believing that they are right or wrong. ... Relativists think that moral absolutism is a bad view, encouraging intolerance and so on. But I ask them: Is absolutism only bad in a relative way -- only wrong for them and not necessarily for others? If so, then it might not be wrong for me. I can believe in it and act on it. On the other hand, if it is wrong for everybody, then it is absolutely wrong, which contradicts the relativist's [own] position. So moral relativism is either self-refuting or it has no claim on my moral beliefs." Colin McGinn

 

[hunarcy]

It seems that some here are intentionally refusing or failing to discern the difference between thinking/believing something and doing something to somebody else. I may think Asclepias to be the most bigoted, intolerant, and ignorant person in the world because he thinks people who watch A&E's Duck Dynasty are ignorant, but I do not harm Asclepias in the least because I think that. Nor does he harm a single Duck Dynasty fan by holding that opinion of them.

I am an advocate for demonizing and squelching the current concept of political correctness that translates into a politics of personal destruction for anybody who wanders off the demanded plantation or offends anybody in a 'protected' class. But I am not demanding that any one of you who do not agree with me on that be harmed or disciplined in any way.

The opinions that we hold harm nobody. It is ACTING on those opinions or intending to act on those opinions that can harm people. But too many here can't seem to make the distinction between those two things.

I agree with Fox up to the point that once a intolerant idea is expressed for public consumption, any and all means are fair play to rid the earth of that sentiment being circulated again. Progress is slowed down by intolerant ideas. Squashing them from being expressed and allowing the concept of gradualism to deal with the inherent damaging aspects of those thoughts will speed up progress.

I can't agree that "any and all means are fair play". Censorship is never an answer. Even if it slows down that which you consider progress, allowing everyone to express their ideas and then judging those ideas on their merits are the ONLY way that true progress will be achieved.

 

[Asclepias]

Ignorant
Black people were happy being oppressed.

That would have been ignorant if that was what he said.

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

He never said Blacks were happy being oppressed.

Those were my words or I would have quoted them. I bolded the ignorant ones.

 

[Asclepias]

No, I'm not trying to be funny. If society had been as intolerant as you perceive it, the idea of integration would never have been allowed to be proposed. However, the idea WAS tolerated and enough people were convinced by the argument that court cases were brought forward and change began. As people learned, more and more reforms were accepted. Yet, you would censor people who have ideas that are different than yours, which is the same position that Bull Connor would have taken back in Alabama.

I think you are confused with what my premise is. Advocating for equal rights does not restrict the rights of others. Advocating for banning gay marriage for example does. If my idea is tolerant of everyone minus the intolerant people then thumbs up. If my idea is intolerant of other people then thumbs down. I'm not banning different ideas I'm banning intolerant ones

You might wish to ban ideas that YOU see as intolerant but where do you get the authority to determine what is intolerant? Unless we tolerate the 'intolerant' ideas of others--ideas that coerce or harm nobody--are we not just as intolerant?

That is the paradox. The conundrum comes in what separates critical conclusions from intolerance in the first place, and should we not be intolerant of what we believe to be harmful?

I get that authority from a variety of sources but mainly myself. I agree that banning intolerant ideas is intolerance. However, intolerance in the face of intolerance provides no paradox or conundrum for me. I'm very comfortable with it. I dont believe in harming people but I will if they do something to me. Same exact principle.

 

[hunarcy]

The intolerant ideas are only a subset of the different ideas. For example I believe the way to true wealth is being an business owner. Some people may think its by working for someone else. I dont agree but it does not make their idea intolerant.

Ok, but what you seem to be trying to do is say "I'm tolerant, sometimes." But, that doesn't absolve you from being intolerant other times. To me, it's an offshoot of the "I have a black friend so I can't be a racist" argument and that ultimately fails.

You are correct. I am tolerant until I encounter intolerance. I have no moral dilemma with that stance. I don't see how it relates to "having a black friend so I cant be racist".

So, you are tolerant until you aren't tolerant and then you become a censor, but you don't see how it "having a black friend so I cant be racist".? The people who had a "black friend" were fine with their friend, but when they encountered a Black they didn't agree with, they felt fully justified to punish that Black person because he was "uppity", right? And you feel perfectly fine tolerating anything that's said except that which you deem intolerant, then you feel fully justified to use any means to punish that person for having a different idea.

I feel you have the most excellent hopes for all of us and our society, but in my opinion, the way you want to go about it will not lead to the society you hope to achieve.

 

[Asclepias]

It seems that some here are intentionally refusing or failing to discern the difference between thinking/believing something and doing something to somebody else. I may think Asclepias to be the most bigoted, intolerant, and ignorant person in the world because he thinks people who watch A&E's Duck Dynasty are ignorant, but I do not harm Asclepias in the least because I think that. Nor does he harm a single Duck Dynasty fan by holding that opinion of them.

I am an advocate for demonizing and squelching the current concept of political correctness that translates into a politics of personal destruction for anybody who wanders off the demanded plantation or offends anybody in a 'protected' class. But I am not demanding that any one of you who do not agree with me on that be harmed or disciplined in any way.

The opinions that we hold harm nobody. It is ACTING on those opinions or intending to act on those opinions that can harm people. But too many here can't seem to make the distinction between those two things.

I agree with Fox up to the point that once a intolerant idea is expressed for public consumption, any and all means are fair play to rid the earth of that sentiment being circulated again. Progress is slowed down by intolerant ideas. Squashing them from being expressed and allowing the concept of gradualism to deal with the inherent damaging aspects of those thoughts will speed up progress.

I can't agree that "any and all means are fair play". Censorship is never an answer. Even if it slows down that which you consider progress, allowing everyone to express their ideas and then judging those ideas on their merits are the ONLY way that true progress will be achieved.

My lone exception would be if it was actually a new idea. For example if scientist discovered you could catch being "gay" and had some evidence to support it then I'd be open to discussion.