• 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
Blackdog said:
That would depend on who you ask, lol.

For example being to tolerant of certain actions is inviting trouble. Tolerance is quite subjective.
Click to expand...
I agree that tolerance can be both good and bad, but as a nation, I don't think we've taken the good kind far enough at all. There is a significant portion of the population that are intolerant of same-sex relationships, same-sex adoption, Muslims, religion in general and many other things. There is still a hell a lot of damaging intolerance in the United States and some of it the reason who politicians can't even work together to get anything done.
 
Wake said:
My main message is that I don't think it is inherintly wrong to be intolerant of SSM. There are those who scream that's it's evil and intolerant to differ on the matter of SSM.
Click to expand...

It is intolerant and wrong. Can you show me why it isnt?
 
Boo Radley said:
Acceptable intolerance has to be based on something more known to be harmful. In tolerance of mature consenting adults doing loving one another is not equal to be intolerant of someone harming someone, like say a pedophile.
Click to expand...
Pedophile-ism
This is where tolerance is stretched to a breaking point.
In an absolutely perfect world, intolerance is wrong.
But we do have the "mentally sick", and those who live in the past, the Sandusky's and the ilk....being intolerant here accomplishes nothing...
 
theplaydrive said:
I agree that tolerance can be both good and bad, but as a nation, I don't think we've taken the good kind far enough at all. There is a significant portion of the population that are intolerant of same-sex relationships, same-sex adoption, Muslims, religion in general and many other things. There is still a hell a lot of damaging intolerance in the United States and some of it the reason who politicians can't even work together to get anything done.. we need a better breed of politicians !!! .
Click to expand...
With these examples, as I see it, NO ONE IS HURT !
The problem is, IMO, we have too many people who "live in the past"...
 
Tolerance has its limits. There comes a point where tolerance becomes nothing less than stupidity. Too many lefties/liberals/progressives have a hard time with that concept. It flies squarely in the face of their most treasured beliefs.
 
Meathead said:
Tolerance has its limits. There comes a point where tolerance becomes nothing less than stupidity. Too many lefties/liberals/progressives have a hard time with that concept. It flies squarely in the face of their most treasured beliefs.
Click to expand...
I will admit that same sex marriage stretches my tolerance to the near breaking point...
I can remember when "gay" had a positive meaning ....the old movies of the 30s, 40s.......when a homosexual was shunned by society...
Now, I need an example, Meathead....
 
There are many things that I will not tolerate. I actively seek to expose, undermine, discredit, mock and discriminate against those things in many ways. In other words, I have a spine. The poll is not intelligence-friendly and thus I shall not vote.


earthworm said:
I will admit that same sex marriage stretches my tolerance to the near breaking point...
Click to expand...

Do you oppose SSM? If so, you are intolerant because you are unwilling to grant the other the same rights as you have. You are discriminating against them legally. If there was SSM throughout the US, then such an opinion (as that quoted above) would not be intolerant but merely an opinion. However, as long as they don't get equal rights because of ones opinion... one is intolerant. We might note, even if SSM was legal everywhere, wanting to outlaw it would be intolerant.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
There is an old line about someone so open-minded their brains have fallen out. We have taken tolerance a bit too far, and made it into a good in and of itself; which it is not.
Click to expand...

Examples would help.
 
earthworm said:
Pedophile-ism
This is where tolerance is stretched to a breaking point.
In an absolutely perfect world, intolerance is wrong.
But we do have the "mentally sick", and those who live in the past, the Sandusky's and the ilk....being intolerant here accomplishes nothing...
Click to expand...

So, here's an idea - let's define the principles that guide us on what to tolerate and what to not tolerate (the words are used in different ways there - which is part of the problem).

I say we practice "tolerance," meaning respect for differences, when those differences do no harm to us or others. So if two consenting adults want to be gay, leave them alone. If someone wants to have sex with a child, that's different because it harms the child. Pretty simple.
 
theplaydrive said:
I agree that tolerance can be both good and bad, but as a nation, I don't think we've taken the good kind far enough at all. There is a significant portion of the population that are intolerant of same-sex relationships, same-sex adoption, Muslims, religion in general and many other things. There is still a hell a lot of damaging intolerance in the United States and some of it the reason who politicians can't even work together to get anything done.
Click to expand...

You can't force people to stop being bigots, it's a part of human nature as we all have our own bigotry. It can't be legislated away, we have been trying that since the days of slavery and it is still a problem. So what do you mean when you say "I don't think we've taken the good kind far enough at all?"
 
ecofarm said:
There are many things that I will not tolerate. I actively seek to expose, undermine, discredit, mock and discriminate against those things in many ways. In other words, I have a spine. The poll is not intelligence-friendly and thus I shall not vote.

Do you oppose SSM? If so, you are intolerant because you are unwilling to grant the other the same rights as you have. You are discriminating against them legally. If there was SSM throughout the US, then such an opinion (as that quoted above) would not be intolerant but merely an opinion. However, as long as they don't get equal rights because of ones opinion... one is intolerant. We might note, even if SSM was legal everywhere, wanting to outlaw it would be intolerant.
Click to expand...

No he is not doing anything of the sort even if he did not support it. Over the top is what that is.
 
Blackdog said:
No he is not doing anything of the sort even if he did not support it. Over the top is what that is.
Click to expand...

When the position carries the weight of legal discrimination, it is an intolerant position. It's not just "complaining" about it or "not approving" of it. It is supporting institutionalized discrimination and that is, in fact, intolerant.

If someone supports SSM being legal but does not approve of it or the lifestyle, that would be tolerant. But when someone crosses the line from opinion to the restriction of rights, intolerance is there.

I'm intolerant of many things. Why can't people just admit that they are intolerant of gay people. What's the big psychological brain-fart here? Since when did universal tolerance become a virtue?!
 
Last edited:
Blackstone said:
On what factual basis are you making this statement?
Click to expand...

A little something called the Enlightenment?

Zafirovski, (2010) argues that The Enlightenment is the source of critical ideas, such as the centrality of freedom, democracy, and reason as primary values of society – as opposed to the divine right of kings or traditions as the ruling authority.[36] This view argues that the establishment of a contractual basis of rights would lead to the market mechanism and capitalism, the scientific method, religious tolerance, and the organization of states into self-governing republics through democratic means. In this view, the tendency of the philosophes in particular to apply rationality to every problem is considered the essential change.[37] Later critics of The Enlightenment, such as the Romantics of the 19th century, contended that its goals for rationality in human affairs were too ambitious to ever be achieved.
Click to expand...
Link

Hmmmm, fair market competition, religious tolerance, free and pluralistic societies like the one we created based on these very principles, opposition to the divine right of kings, the intellectual capacity of all of humanity...sounds like tolerance was a big part of this kind of thought.
 
ecofarm said:
When the position carries the weight of legal discrimination, it is an intolerant position. It's not just "complaining" about it or "not approving" of it. It is supporting institutionalized discrimination and that is, in fact, intolerant.

If someone supports SSM being legal but does not approve of it or the lifestyle, that would be tolerant. But when someone crosses the line from opinion to the restriction of rights, intolerance is there.

I'm intolerant of many things. Why can't people just admit that they are intolerant of gay people. What's the big psychological brain-fart here? Since when did universal tolerance become a virtue?!
Click to expand...

Because people try and make it sound like a bad word, I don't want to share the right of marriage either. It is impossible for me to see two men or women as a marriage because it takes a man and a woman dictated by my belief system. I am intolerant to the idea although I do accept it needs to happen. We can't read minds and don't know anyone's true intent unless they tell you, one persons intolerant is another common sense.
 
I'm the dumb guy that votes for the wrong option at every poll (the asterisk next to the results). I put always, but meant some. I'm pretty intolerant of child abuse, rape, murder, and genocide.
 
In certain areas we have taken tolerance way too far. In others not far enough. Tolerance is not inherently a good thing.
 
ecofarm said:
There are many things that I will not tolerate. I actively seek to expose, undermine, discredit, mock and discriminate against those things in many ways. In other words, I have a spine. The poll is not intelligence-friendly and thus I shall not vote.




Do you oppose SSM? NO....5 years ago....YES...but now I tolerate it.....and support it, but I want those people to realize their situation and be tolerant of us...it works both ways.. If so, you are intolerant because you are unwilling to grant the other the same rights as you have. You are discriminating against them legally. If there was SSM throughout the US, then such an opinion (as that quoted above) would not be intolerant but merely an opinion. However, as long as they don't get equal rights because of ones opinion... one is intolerant. We might note, even if SSM was legal everywhere, wanting to outlaw it would be intolerant.
Click to expand...
I wish NOT for equal rights to be infringed upon..It is more than intolerable that we have in our nation otherwise intelligent people running for office who wish to deprive other of their rights.
 
Blackdog said:
one persons intolerant is another common sense.
Click to expand...

No, wrong. Intolerance carries legal ramifications. If the "common sense" did not carry legal weight (or threaten to), THEN it would be just an opinion.


earthworm said:
I wish NOT for equal rights to be infringed upon..It is more than intolerable that we have in our nation otherwise intelligent people running for office who wish to deprive other of their rights.
Click to expand...

Then you are tolerant of gays.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
You can't force people to stop being bigots, it's a part of human nature as we all have our own bigotry. It can't be legislated away, we have been trying that since the days of slavery and it is still a problem. So what do you mean when you say "I don't think we've taken the good kind far enough at all?"
Click to expand...

The effects of bigotry can be forbidden legislatively. Ever notice how black folks in the South don't have to use separate bathrooms and all that lately?
 
earthworm said:
Pedophile-ism
This is where tolerance is stretched to a breaking point.
In an absolutely perfect world, intolerance is wrong.
But we do have the "mentally sick", and those who live in the past, the Sandusky's and the ilk....being intolerant here accomplishes nothing...
Click to expand...

Without debating meaning of words, the thing is we can hold pedophiles accountable under the law, properly try, convict and punish, or treat as the case may warrant (as much as treatment has any positive effect currantly). This type of thing is far more understandable and proper than denying basic rights to homosexuals, for example.
 
Thunder said:
oh really? which ritual?
Click to expand...

As I said, there are some really good books on this, which I haven't read since the early 80's. But I'm sure you could find one at a local library. However, I will use a conservative site to make the point:

2. Leviticus is that book of the Law which has specifically to do with cult--sacrifice, priesthood, ritual purity. It is in this regard that it touches on homosexuality.

(snip)

It's true, much of the Law deals with religious activity rather than universal morality.

Stand to Reason: Leviticus and Homosexuality

They go on to try and explain it away, but it my point is only to show some disagree on what it actually says. I think this accomplishes that.
 
Boo Radley said:
As I said, there are some really good books on this, which I haven't read since the early 80's. But I'm sure you could find one at a local library. However, I will use a conservative site to make the point:

2. Leviticus is that book of the Law which has specifically to do with cult--sacrifice, priesthood, ritual purity. It is in this regard that it touches on homosexuality....
Click to expand...

please point to actual text where it says the laws in Leviticus are only in regards to priests and religious practise, and not general rules for the Israelites.
 
There should be little or not tolerance for what is intolerable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom