- Joined
- Nov 7, 2010
- Messages
- 7,676
- Reaction score
- 2,850
- Location
- Your Head
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
I'm intolerant of murders and child molesters.
The context is significant here.
The context is significant here.
This thread is a good example of how people go wrong when they think in absolutes.
When you're on a website that's all about political rhetoric, of course political rhetoric matters. duhYup. Does that really matter though?
Or, it's something else entirely. Tbh, my ideology is changing with my experiences, and this is just another one of those minor bumps in the road I drive over. I'll impart some of my frustration. I was told I was intolerant for being of an opposing opinion regarding "X". "Intolerance" was used with a negative connotation. So, I argue, mentally, with this hypothetical person. "Is intolerance wrong," I ask him. He says it is, yet I remind him of whether he talks in absolutes or not. He reasons that intolerance is neither 100% right or wrong. I then inquire with, "how, then, do you decide which intolerance is wrong?" He retorts with, "because I say so, and I've made up my mind that it's wrong to be intolerant of 'X'." Now here is where you understand my frustration. I ask, "so you believe it is wrong based on your opinion? An opinion is a belief that rests on grounds insufficient to produce certainty." He retorts that society, "more people", agree with him. He makes references to philosophical fragments such as equality, love, hate, etc. The problem, all along, is not the issue of "X", but the existence of opinions. Beliefs. People grab hold of them, and insult, harm, and kill people over them. Obviously, if I decide to try to proceed without opinions, it will for sure be an endeavor against every person here because everyone here clings to many beliefs/opinions. It is simply frustrating how either number of people or might of power decides what is and isn't right. You do not see machines develop opinions and squabble amongst themselves. Eh, it is just a lot of questions with no certain answers.This thread is a good example of how people go wrong when they think in absolutes.
Or, it's something else entirely. Tbh, my ideology is changing with my experiences, and this is just another one of those minor bumps in the road I drive over. I'll impart some of my frustration. I was told I was intolerant for being of an opposing opinion regarding "X". "Intolerance" was used with a negative connotation. So, I argue, mentally, with this hypothetical person. "Is intolerance wrong," I ask him. He says it is, yet I remind him of whether he talks in absolutes or not. He reasons that intolerance is neither 100% right or wrong. I then inquire with, "how, then, do you decide which intolerance is wrong?" He retorts with, "because I say so, and I've made up my mind that it's wrong to be intolerant of 'X'." Now here is where you understand my frustration. I ask, "so you believe it is wrong based on your opinion? An opinion is a belief that rests on grounds insufficient to produce certainty." He retorts that society, "more people", agree with him. He makes references to philosophical fragments such as equality, love, hate, etc. The problem, all along, is not the issue of "X", but the existence of opinions. Beliefs. People grab hold of them, and insult, harm, and kill people over them. Obviously, if I decide to try to proceed without opinions, it will for sure be an endeavor against every person here because everyone here clings to many beliefs/opinions. It is simply frustrating how either number of people or might of power decides what is and isn't right. You do not see machines develop opinions and squabble amongst themselves. Eh, it is just a lot of questions with no certain answers.
This is a simple question:
Is intolerance wrong?
The question arises because people have a tendency to connote intolerance with something negative.
Of course, intolerance is "wrong", but lets not crucify the intolerant. Something about it being taught for an entire lifetime, starting at age 0.0.... And then there is forgiveness.
We should lead by example and we must accept a degree of human imperfection, even a high degree.
Wrong is one of the most subjective concepts in existence. For some it's absolutely wrong and for some it's absolutely good. For most people, it's wrong sometimes and not others. I personally don't tend to think of intolerance in terms of morality, but in terms of acceptability. In my opinion, it is acceptable to be intolerant of demonstrably harmful people, actions or ideas. It is, however, unacceptable to be intolerant of people, actions or ideas that are not demonstrably harmful.This is a simple question:
Is intolerance wrong?
The question arises because people have a tendency to connote intolerance with something negative.
One could argue legitimately that it's wrong to be intolerant of any imperfect individual in light of our own imperfections. I don't accept that argument, but it's certainly not without a legitimate foundation.Really? I am intolerant of criminals. Is that wrong?
Really? So you're intolerant of people that are intolerant of the intolerant Nazis, murderers, rapists, dictators, etc. of the world. You must be intolerant of a lot of people.I am intolerant of people that are intolerant of intolerant people
One could argue legitimately that it's wrong to be intolerant of any imperfect individual in light of our own imperfections. I don't accept that argument, but it's certainly not without a legitimate foundation.
I never said said Redress wasn't right to be intolerant of criminals and if you read the post I wrote above the one you quoted, you will see that I too am intolerant of criminals. However, the argument that it's wrong to be intolerant of criminals can be made and to say absolutely that it's "right to be intolerant of X" denies the subjective nature of morality.forgive my speaking with authority, but Redress is right to be intolerant of criminals.
I am intolerant of racists, anti-Semites, homophobes, Islamophobes, and other jerks.
And I am right to be.
This is a simple question:
Is intolerance wrong?
The question arises because people have a tendency to connote intolerance with something negative.
I never said said Redress wasn't right to be intolerant of criminals and if you read the post I wrote above the one you quoted, you will see that I too am intolerant of criminals. However, the argument that it's wrong to be intolerant of criminals can be made and to say absolutely that it's "right to be intolerant of X" denies the subjective nature of morality.
Really? So you're intolerant of people that are intolerant of the intolerant Nazis, murderers, rapists, dictators, etc. of the world. You must be intolerant of a lot of people.
It's apparent that I don't perceive you as someone with a sense of humor actually, particularly since I've heard your "funny" argument presented seriously in the past.It is apparent you don't have a sense of humor.
Can someone translate this post for me?It's apparent that I don't perceive you as someone with a sense of humor actually, particularly since I've heard your "funny" argument presented seriously in the past.
Can someone translate this post for me?
When you're on a website that's all about political rhetoric, of course political rhetoric matters. duh
Perfect.He does not think you have a sense of humor. Since he has heard your laughable argument before as a serious argument.