• 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!

Is Intolerance Wrong?

Is Intolerance Wrong?

  • Yes, all intolerance wrong

    Votes: 9 21.4%

  • Only some intolerance is wrong

    Votes: 28 66.7%

  • No intolerance is wrong

    Votes: 5 11.9%

  • I honestly don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    42
I'm intolerant of murders and child molesters.

The context is significant here.
 
This thread is a good example of how people go wrong when they think in absolutes.
 
Redress said:
This thread is a good example of how people go wrong when they think in absolutes.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Wake said:
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.
Click to expand...

1) I do not care about how you represent a discussion. You are giving only one slanted view which is not enough to judge from.

2) Intolerance can be good or bad, depending on the situation.

3) Wall of text is bad.
 
Wake said:
This is a simple question:

Is intolerance wrong?

The question arises because people have a tendency to connote intolerance with something negative.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you are not tolerant of.Not being tolerant of criminals is not a bad thing. Being intolerant of deviant behavior is not a bad thing.Being intolerant of someone's race or religion is a bad thing.I do find it amusing that people who piss bitch and moan about others being intolerant are just as or more intolerant than the people they accuse of being intolerant.
 
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.
 
earthworm said:
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.
Click to expand...

Really? I am intolerant of criminals. Is that wrong?
 
Wake said:
This is a simple question:

Is intolerance wrong?

The question arises because people have a tendency to connote intolerance with something negative.
Click to expand...
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.

For example, criminals are demonstrably harmful. Therefore, it is acceptable to be intolerant of them. Same sex marriage is not demonstrably harmful. Therefore, it is not acceptable to be intolerant of it.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Really? I am intolerant of criminals. Is that wrong?
Click to expand...
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.
 
conservativeguy said:
I am intolerant of people that are intolerant of intolerant people
Click to expand...
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.
 
theplaydrive said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Is it acceptable to be intolerant of laziness? ignorance? prejudice? Absolutely! Is it acceptable to be intolerant of another persons sexual preference? political ideology? habits? lifestyle? Again - yes. What is not acceptable in a decent society is acting on the judgement that drives your intolerance. As soon as you act in any way that harms the person or group who is the subject of your intolerance - you lose. And so does society. You see, the heart of the question has everything to do with the kind of society we are willing to accept, participate in, and mold - by example. Intolerance of crime is a separate, if related subject. Although not all laws are just, we live in a society with laws that are meant to protect us all. Crime, by definition, is a breach (an intolerance) on the part of the criminal, of the social order. Action taken against criminals is not intolerance.
 
Thunder said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Wake said:
This is a simple question:

Is intolerance wrong?

The question arises because people have a tendency to connote intolerance with something negative.
Click to expand...

Intolerance to what? Intolerance to bigotry? Intolerance for drunks? Intolerance of crackheads? Intolerance of drunk drivers? Intolerance of foul-mouthed adolescents? Intolerance of pre-emptive military invasions? What??

Why in heck don't you just, you know, start a thread by saying exactly what you mean instead of some kind of vague question that could be interpreted a hundred different ways?
 
theplaydrive said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is actually the key point. Nothing is absolute. Is discrimination bad? Well, if I was hiring for a job, I would discriminate against those I felt where not able to do the job properly, as does every one else. Can discrimination be bad? Of course. Is intolerance bad? Of course not. Can it be used badly? Of course. That is the fundamental flaw with this thread. It works from absolutes, when very little is absolute.
 
theplaydrive said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is apparent you don't have a sense of humor.
 
conservativeguy said:
It is apparent you don't have a sense of humor.
Click to expand...
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.
 
theplaydrive said:
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.
Click to expand...
Can someone translate this post for me?
 
Is this anything like what my uncles in the hills of Virginia tell me when I ask, "Hey Delmar and Pudd how ya doing" and they say "tolerable"...
 
conservativeguy said:
Can someone translate this post for me?
Click to expand...

He does not think you have a sense of humor. Since he has heard your laughable argument before as a serious argument.
 
mpg said:
When you're on a website that's all about political rhetoric, of course political rhetoric matters. duh
Click to expand...

I dont really think the use of the word matters as much as the message that is conveyed.
 
Depends on what you are being intolerant of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom