• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Toleration

So I've decided to try the whole education thing out and have found my way into an entry level philosophy class. Anyway, an interesting series of questions came up and I figured I'd turn to this place for some conversation on the topic of toleration:


  1. What is toleration?
  2. What are some of the barriers that prevent us from being a tolerant society?
  3. What are ways to encourage toleration?


What are your thoughts on toleration, as it applies to the U.S. and how we've developed as a nation over the past several hundred years.

1. An utterly ridiculous and contradictory idea.
2. Intelligence.
3. Confusing people.
 
That's an amazing response, and I agree completely, although I don't think we are there yet.

Right now, I think we have a lot of toleration to work through before we get to acceptance, societally speaking anyway. However, maybe that's a better approach to the whole thing. Especially when addressing the barriers to toleration and encouraging tolerance. Maybe its slightly disingenuous, but maybe the best way to gain toleration is through pushing for something more than toleration.

Perhaps, we will never reach a true level of acceptance, but through pushing for it we might actually reach a much higher level of tolerance.




Again, great response. I might hijack this idea, if you don't mind.



If the first class is any indication of his sense of humor, I'm sure I'm safe.

I'll give the Nietzsche quote a try, however I'll have to be careful in how I deploy that. I'm going back to school pretty late in the game, and fortunately most people still confuse me for a high schooler, so I don't want to ruin that perception.

Simply put, I want to continue with the perception that I'm straight out of school.



I have to agree with the observation you as in the US are not there yet. Full acceptance I guess has to start with tolerance, however in Canada's strange two languages and 1176 cultures acceptance was inevitable. The racial acceptance, in my opinion crested when the nation came to realize that Polish Jokes were racist. Whenever I hear someone bitch about their treatment as a race, I ask if they have heard a "good" Polack Joke. T hey usually have one at the ready.

I believe that true inclusion begins with the disadvantaged. Most people have no problem being kind to a Down's person, but can easily sidestep a homeless man panhandling. It is furthered by exposure. When you work or play hockey alongside someone, the perceived barriers break down petty fast.


Don't borrow, steel. Whatever you write, the prof will use as his own anyway, so go for it.

Being underestimated has always been a good strategy for me, first impressions last a long time, in Hockey more than one forward learned late. And if the prof is so droll, have fun with a little "superman" in here. It will not take a lot of philosophical twisting to work 'man as god' into the equation, or even better to question it. Yeah, take a run at Nietzsche, everyone else has.
 
That's an amazing response, and I agree completely, although I don't think we are there yet.

Right now, I think we have a lot of toleration to work through before we get to acceptance, societally speaking anyway. However, maybe that's a better approach to the whole thing. Especially when addressing the barriers to toleration and encouraging tolerance. Maybe its slightly disingenuous, but maybe the best way to gain toleration is through pushing for something more than toleration.

Perhaps, we will never reach a true level of acceptance, but through pushing for it we might actually reach a much higher level of tolerance.




Again, great response. I might hijack this idea, if you don't mind.



If the first class is any indication of his sense of humor, I'm sure I'm safe.

I'll give the Nietzsche quote a try, however I'll have to be careful in how I deploy that. I'm going back to school pretty late in the game, and fortunately most people still confuse me for a high schooler, so I don't want to ruin that perception.

Simply put, I want to continue with the perception that I'm straight out of school.

OH yeah!

Flash idea! Check out some modern Jesuit teachings on acceptance, tolerance and forgiveness. That could and should lead you into some Ghandi. It might be worthwhile to check out a Canadian Prime Minister named Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Jesuit trained and the 'father' of Canada's multi-culturalism policy. He had lots to say about inclusion and so forth during the "separation crisis" a decade of the French trying to leave this experiment in frozen politeness. He is obscure enough to intrigue a young prof and profound enough to get his attention.

Trudeau, as Justice Minister - the top cop - coined the phrase "The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation". Circa 1972, the first acknowledgment of gay union.
 
2. Intelligence.

Funny, the bible bangs on a lot about tolerance.

Romans 14:1-4 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand

Timothy 4:1-2 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.
 
I have to agree with the observation you as in the US are not there yet. Full acceptance I guess has to start with tolerance, however in Canada's strange two languages and 1176 cultures acceptance was inevitable. The racial acceptance, in my opinion crested when the nation came to realize that Polish Jokes were racist. Whenever I hear someone bitch about their treatment as a race, I ask if they have heard a "good" Polack Joke. T hey usually have one at the ready.

I believe that true inclusion begins with the disadvantaged. Most people have no problem being kind to a Down's person, but can easily sidestep a homeless man panhandling. It is furthered by exposure. When you work or play hockey alongside someone, the perceived barriers break down petty fast.


Don't borrow, steel. Whatever you write, the prof will use as his own anyway, so go for it.

Being underestimated has always been a good strategy for me, first impressions last a long time, in Hockey more than one forward learned late. And if the prof is so droll, have fun with a little "superman" in here. It will not take a lot of philosophical twisting to work 'man as god' into the equation, or even better to question it. Yeah, take a run at Nietzsche, everyone else has.
Nietzsche, is not for beginners...:)
 
Funny, the bible bangs on a lot about tolerance.

Romans 14:1-4 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand

Timothy 4:1-2 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.

I was assuming that the OP was speaking of liberal tolerance.

Of course classical tolerance is a good thing (within due limits).
 
Classical liberalism is still liberalism. By classical tolerance, I meant the tolerance which Aquinas and the like talked about, tolerating an evil because it would be too difficult to prohibit it, but still recognizing it as an evil.

Yes, old Aquinas was a beacon of toleration. Just look at his enlightened view of women.
 
Yes, old Aquinas was a beacon of toleration. Just look at his enlightened view of women.

Are you incapable of making on-topic responses, or do you simply choose not to?
 
Are you incapable of making on-topic responses, or do you simply choose not to?

Pointing out that Aquinas was intolerant is on topic. Do you agree that his views on women were extremely intolerant? You brought him into the disussion.
 
yes I believe that a society can back slide.

I think it is an excellent point that in some instances toleration is a bad thing it is not always good.

Definitely, and like everything it's not black & white. There are an infinite number of ways to quantify and demonstrate toleration. For instances where toleration is bad, I wonder if there is a line beyond which it ceases to be toleration anymore.

I'm pretty sure the term has already surfaced in this thread, but does complacency enter the equation at some point and perhaps even trump toleration?

Tolerance means to tolerate. Not everything is to be tolerated, but there are certain rights and activities that demand it. It doesn't mean you must agree, it doesn't mean you can't speak out or demonstrate against. It merely means you cannot use government force to prevent it.

I agree with this in theory, but to an extent find that even speaking out against something can erect a barrier to toleration.

Take marijuana, for example:

Say one educated person, with exactly one informed vote, speaks out against marijuana use. Perhaps she's found some information about the plant and doesn't feel that it's a good idea for people to use it. Even if she still votes for legalization, or calls for the government to stop enforcing laws pertaining to the use of marijuana, but speaks out against it.

If her voice is even remotely heard, there might be several dozen less informed people who make a snap decision in the intolerant direction, solely based upon her words. Then you have 36 votes to one.

Maybe that's a stretch, but I think the idea is there. Toleration, as per the definition, might include not speaking out against something either, especially if your voice has the ability to affect change?
 
I agree and i think that is the key us being able to get along peacefully with one another. When people see themselves in others or can see some sameness they tend to find them less threatening.

That's a good point, a really good point actually.

It seems so apparent, but when you think of it in terms of the Mississippi River and the Ross Ice Shelf, it's easy to see where people might find more to separate them from other people than tie them together.

How do you go about demonstrating to people of widely different backgrounds that they are all still people with the same basic want's and needs?

Education?

Exposure (as has already been mentioned)?

What else?
 
The racial acceptance, in my opinion crested when the nation came to realize that Polish Jokes were racist. Whenever I hear someone bitch about their treatment as a race, I ask if they have heard a "good" Polack Joke.

That's a very interesting observation. Personally, that's very similar to my individual tipping point, when I realized [or was made to realize] that Jewish jokes were racist. Growing up in New England, Jewish jokes are just par for the course, so it wasn't until I was stationed on a ship with a Machinist who happened to be a Nicaraguan-Jew, that had dealt with more than his fair share of racism on many fronts during the course of his life.

It was a pretty banal joke I made one day that caused him to really break it down to me. For him, the point was that one persons words can [and often do] lead to anthers actions. It was very interesting, but definitely opened my eyes to attempting to see how even little things might effect someone else, and that all circumstances aside those other people are people just the same.


I believe that true inclusion begins with the disadvantaged. Most people have no problem being kind to a Down's person, but can easily sidestep a homeless man panhandling. It is furthered by exposure. When you work or play hockey alongside someone, the perceived barriers break down petty fast.

On this point, I also completely agree. I think either sports, the military or some sort of civic/ foreign service could go a long way for people just getting out of high school.



Don't borrow, steel. Whatever you write, the prof will use as his own anyway, so go for it.

Being underestimated has always been a good strategy for me, first impressions last a long time, in Hockey more than one forward learned late. And if the prof is so droll, have fun with a little "superman" in here. It will not take a lot of philosophical twisting to work 'man as god' into the equation, or even better to question it. Yeah, take a run at Nietzsche, everyone else has.

Beg, borrow and steal has been a long running motto of mine for a long time. Maybe it's a survival instinct or maybe it's just the free market at work.

Anyway, I'll have to give the Nietzsche a try in class, it's pretty early in the semester so I'm hoping I'll also have an opportunity to break out with some Voltaire later. His work, God & Human Beings could apply pretty tightly to the topic at hand.
 
OH yeah!

Flash idea! Check out some modern Jesuit teachings on acceptance, tolerance and forgiveness. That could and should lead you into some Ghandi. It might be worthwhile to check out a Canadian Prime Minister named Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Jesuit trained and the 'father' of Canada's multi-culturalism policy. He had lots to say about inclusion and so forth during the "separation crisis" a decade of the French trying to leave this experiment in frozen politeness. He is obscure enough to intrigue a young prof and profound enough to get his attention.

Trudeau, as Justice Minister - the top cop - coined the phrase "The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation". Circa 1972, the first acknowledgment of gay union.

I've only had a quick moment to look up the Prime Minister, but I've seen is good. I'll have to read more into that tomorrow, really good stuff.

With Ghandi, he's one of those people I'm embarrassed to say I haven't read more about. I think this class is, if nothing else, going to be a good opportunity for me to catch up on a lot of reading that I've been sorely lacking. Especially where one of the Professors key points is to introduce the class to more than just european philosophers.

Anyway, thanks for the replies.
 
That's a good point, a really good point actually.
It seems so apparent, but when you think of it in terms of the Mississippi River and the Ross Ice Shelf, it's easy to see where people might find more to separate them from other people than tie them together.
How do you go about demonstrating to people of widely different backgrounds that they are all still people with the same basic want's and needs?
Education?
Exposure (as has already been mentioned)?
What else?

I think all it really takes is people who "think" they are different than one another spending time together and getting to know one another as individuals instead of as just cultural stereotypes. I guess I have fundamental faith in humans so I believe that most often people who hold prejudicial views are able to preserve them due to a lack of one on one exposure to those the hold prejudicial views against.
 
That's a very interesting observation. Personally, that's very similar to my individual tipping point, when I realized [or was made to realize] that Jewish jokes were racist. Growing up in New England, Jewish jokes are just par for the course, so it wasn't until I was stationed on a ship with a Machinist who happened to be a Nicaraguan-Jew, that had dealt with more than his fair share of racism on many fronts during the course of his life.

It was a pretty banal joke I made one day that caused him to really break it down to me. For him, the point was that one persons words can [and often do] lead to anthers actions. It was very interesting, but definitely opened my eyes to attempting to see how even little things might effect someone else, and that all circumstances aside those other people are people just the same.




On this point, I also completely agree. I think either sports, the military or some sort of civic/ foreign service could go a long way for people just getting out of high school.





Beg, borrow and steal has been a long running motto of mine for a long time. Maybe it's a survival instinct or maybe it's just the free market at work.

Anyway, I'll have to give the Nietzsche a try in class, it's pretty early in the semester so I'm hoping I'll also have an opportunity to break out with some Voltaire later. His work, God & Human Beings could apply pretty tightly to the topic at hand.



Yes! By all means, Voltaire, it is best to confuse them. There is another Canadian angle, but save it for later. A Canadian philosopher by the name of John Ralston Saul

John Ralston Saul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and his quartet "Voltaire's Bastards, The Doubter's Companion and The Unconscious Civilization", Reflections of a Siamese Twin, On Equilibrium.

In Siamese Twin he deals with a very interesting truth about Canada and a core distinction between the Great White North and the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. In it he contends that modern-day Canada has been fundamentally shaped by its First Nations peoples, where the tolerance of not two nations, as is the Canadian myth, but at least five large nations, Iroquois, Cree, Sioux, French and English with another 23 identified nations across the North and British Columbia. It is his observation that unlike the US that warred and conquered, Les Voyaguers chose to adopt native ways and culture. One thing predominant in Canadian First Nations is a general acceptance and lack of Xenophobia, a communal way of living that is reflected in our ways today; buses that say more than "Not in Service", but "Sorry, Not in Service". Our courts reflect their ways, rejecting incarceration more and more in favor of community's harsher judgement. I.e., few of the convicted rioters in the 2010 Stanley Cup riots did time but each paid a greater toll as the Vancouver Police Department assembled all the videos of the accused and posted them on line. They lost their jobs, careers and were shamed out of their homes.
Film maker Michael Moore made a huge point about how Canadians don't bother to look their doors. That's totally First Nations who believe homelessness is a crime against God. There is no homelessness in Newfoundland, people don't lock their doors.
That, sir, leads to the point of tolerance, of acceptance of differences in one another and in cultures; in this case a trade more two way than we had before thought.

That Jew had a damn good point. As half Polish and listening to Pollock jokes all my life I can attest that the result of those jokes often resulted in the need to defend myself. Also, people fail to realize how demeaning it is. "Have you heard the one about the dumb Pollock who...." will get them going, but change the word Pollock to Woman or Negro and you have a major issue on your hands.
 
Last edited:
I've only had a quick moment to look up the Prime Minister, but I've seen is good. I'll have to read more into that tomorrow, really good stuff.

With Ghandi, he's one of those people I'm embarrassed to say I haven't read more about. I think this class is, if nothing else, going to be a good opportunity for me to catch up on a lot of reading that I've been sorely lacking. Especially where one of the Professors key points is to introduce the class to more than just european philosophers.

Anyway, thanks for the replies.

Well, adding Indian and two Canadian will turn a head.
 
So I've decided to try the whole education thing out and have found my way into an entry level philosophy class. Anyway, an interesting series of questions came up and I figured I'd turn to this place for some conversation on the topic of toleration:


  1. What is toleration?
  2. What are some of the barriers that prevent us from being a tolerant society?
  3. What are ways to encourage toleration?


What are your thoughts on toleration, as it applies to the U.S. and how we've developed as a nation over the past several hundred years.

I have always wondered if tolerant people should be required to tolerate intolerant people? I personally believe that they should in order to maintain consistency with their cause.
 
Definitely, and like everything it's not black & white. There are an infinite number of ways to quantify and demonstrate toleration. For instances where toleration is bad, I wonder if there is a line beyond which it ceases to be toleration anymore.

I'm pretty sure the term has already surfaced in this thread, but does complacency enter the equation at some point and perhaps even trump toleration?
If people are forced into toleration, what does it then become? If I am forced via fear to look the other way while a group of marginalized people are abused, is that toleration?
 
I agree with this in theory, but to an extent find that even speaking out against something can erect a barrier to toleration.

Take marijuana, for example:

Say one educated person, with exactly one informed vote, speaks out against marijuana use. Perhaps she's found some information about the plant and doesn't feel that it's a good idea for people to use it. Even if she still votes for legalization, or calls for the government to stop enforcing laws pertaining to the use of marijuana, but speaks out against it.

If her voice is even remotely heard, there might be several dozen less informed people who make a snap decision in the intolerant direction, solely based upon her words. Then you have 36 votes to one.

Maybe that's a stretch, but I think the idea is there. Toleration, as per the definition, might include not speaking out against something either, especially if your voice has the ability to affect change?

That's free speech, and you're just going to have to tolerate it.
 
That's free speech, and you're just going to have to tolerate it.

That's a pretty powerful statement, definitely a good message.

Anyway, I was never trying to say that people shouldn't speak out, but more wondering where the line between toleration and intolerance is. I think we'd find it somewhere before violent action, but after lively debate.
 
If people are forced into toleration, what does it then become? If I am forced via fear to look the other way while a group of marginalized people are abused, is that toleration?

I think it ceases to become toleration once you don't have the agency to actually do something about it.
 
I have always wondered if tolerant people should be required to tolerate intolerant people? I personally believe that they should in order to maintain consistency with their cause.

I suppose it depends upon your view of intolerance, do you hold that up on the same plateau with individual lifestyle choices or other conditions?
 
That, sir, leads to the point of tolerance, of acceptance of differences in one another and in cultures; in this case a trade more two way than we had before thought.

I really think there is a lot to be learned from Canada, things which could be applied on a much broader scope. I also do remember that Michael Moore video, which reminded me of growing up. My parents, father in particular, was very fond of locks on doors. He'd double lock everything and then invent several new ways to secure the door, completely ignoring the glass window next to the door. My grandparents, conversely, never locked a single door, their house was everyones house. I've always liked that mentality, the tighter you cling to your possessions, the looser your grip upon reality becomes.

Also, it's just better for society in general, to have more people focused on life rather than things, plays into the promotion of tolerance much better. Keeping the doors locked and preventing the 'other' from entering your space, only serves to separate you further from the 'other.'

That Jew had a damn good point. As half Polish and listening to Pollock jokes all my life I can attest that the result of those jokes often resulted in the need to defend myself. Also, people fail to realize how demeaning it is. "Have you heard the one about the dumb Pollock who...." will get them going, but change the word Pollock to Woman or Negro and you have a major issue on your hands.

He did, and it really goes back to exactly what you were saying.

Crazy how one conversation can really open your eyes to something.
 
Back
Top Bottom