• 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?

  • I honestly don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    42
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.

:2funny: It is not my point to prove what Leviticus refers to. My point is to prove there is disagreement. I think I have done that. I hearly suggest, again, that if you are really interested in the topic, go to your public library.

;)
 
I think the part of tolerance that is debateable regards "accepting behavior". I think someone can say "gays are an abomination that will rot in firey hell forever and ever. It is a most grotesque of sins. However, I support their equal rights", and one is, legally at least, tolerant. I don't go after people for general bigotry or honest opposition to a behavior, as they see it, but more correctly an orientation - or asianation. I'm unsure of the grammatical rules regarding things that refer to people (but not necessarily people directly) and the whole oriental restaurant is ok but person is not thing. Anyway, what I will not tolerate is the legal intolerance of equal citizens. When one denies another their rights (without conviction, of course), one is intolerant - there's no debating that.

You can't have the same rights as me, under the law!

Intolerance. Legally and beyond debate.

I am, however, tolerant of people who are against the practice of homosexuality. If they, for example, say "I disagree with the act and the lifestyle, and I think it is a sin worthy of hell but I think they should have equal rights", then I think the person is misguided but decent (politically), not a monster. I might be so intolerant of legally intolerant anti-gay people, that I may want to take away some of their rights. I might be legally intolerant of legally intolerant anti-gay people.
 
Leviticus isn't Christian law anyway.

And Christian law isn't U.S. law either, by the way.
 
Leviticus isn't Christian law anyway.

I haven't reviewed Lev in awhile, but I'm pretty sure there is moral law in there too (not just ceremonial), which Christians are expected to obey via the Spirit - not as a Law upon them. At any rate, it's all Christian Law, as it points to a messiah and all of it is relevant to Christianity. The apostles quoted the Old Testament countless times.

There is some debate as to what is ceremonial and what is moral law (eg. sabbath), but the debates regarding homosexuality being 'ok' I find to be very thin. They gotta let it go, like they did the 'no women speaking in church' and other stuff. Christians didn't remove the references to women (even in the NT). They chose to re-interpret, and sometimes appear to flat-out ignore, them. Same thing will happen. Christians will someday accept gays, the Spirit does not condemn nor does it discriminate. God has no favorites. We're all sinners.
 
I haven't reviewed Lev in awhile, but I'm pretty sure there is moral law in there too (not just ceremonial), which Christians are expected to obey via the Spirit - not as a Law upon them. At any rate, it's all Christian Law, as it points to a messiah and all of it is relevant to Christianity. The apostles quoted the Old Testament countless times.

There is some debate as to what is ceremonial and what is moral law (eg. sabbath), but the debates regarding homosexuality being 'ok' I find to be very thin. They gotta let it go, like they did the 'no women speaking in church' and other stuff. Christians didn't remove the references to women (even in the NT). They chose to re-interpret, and sometimes appear to flat-out ignore, them. Same thing will happen. Christians will someday accept gays, the Spirit does not condemn nor does it discriminate. God has no favorites. We're all sinners.

I wouldn't argue the Bible says it is OK. But that it really doesn't address the issue at all. As I understand it, homosexual behavior was rather common as Jesus walked the country side, yet he says nothing at all about it.

Now, I don't pretend to be a Bible scholar, so I don't speak in absolutes. But I would think someting that causes so much consternation among religious folk, we would see something much more direct and clear.
 
This is a simple question:

Is intolerance wrong?

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

Yes, because in a democratic system an intolerant opinion can lead to the restriction of rights of others. Intolerance and ignorance usually go hand in hand, so intolerance is not usually a strong position, but a stubborn one. It's why bigots get such a bad reputation.
 
If intolerance is taken here as an act against "Free Speech" then it's wrong. But even free speech has its limitations in the form of libel and slander, hate speech and false exclamations like shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre or bomb in an airport. We are expected to use a certain amount of civility and common sense in our everyday discourse with each other. You may not shout profanity in an open Court room or disturb the peace in a neighborhood or holler in a place of business, hospital, library or classroom. So ultimately tolerance is limited to the acceptable behavior according to a societies rules and laws. As far as freedom of thought it again depends on your ability to express your views in an acceptable manner, regardless of their unpopular nature. What I think is intolerant and what I choose to display or accept are two different animals. It takes a little tact, experience and charm to express your thoughts without being considered intolerant.

I worked in a business were the parents would let their children run around unattended grabbing and mishandling expensive merchandise. I could not say anything instructive to the children without offending the parents and couldn't tell them to control their child without being offensive. So I would say in a nice but semi sarcastic way to the child "Oh no, mommy/daddy is going to have to pay hundreds of dollars for that broken merchandise!" Talk about watching a parent move fast to control their child. I think it's ridiculous that I had to think of some politically correct way to handle the situation, instead of being able to just say "hey lady or dude control your brat! ermm... I mean little darling." I'm sure saying that would've been considered intolerant? But wasn't their behavior intolerable?
 
Last edited:
Do you agree that that's the message, or do you agree with the message?

I agree that intolerance is normally used in a negative way. I also agree that it can be good or bad. However I dont seem to see the problem with people using it in a negative way if the intolerance is indeed negative. I also dont understand why we are arguing over something so trivial.
 
:2funny: It is not my point to prove what Leviticus refers to. My point is to prove there is disagreement. I think I have done that. I hearly suggest, again, that if you are really interested in the topic, go to your public library.

;)

I have a Bible.
 
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?

Yes that got rid of some forms of bigotry, did not make it go away. It still happens in some places.
 
No, wrong. Intolerance carries legal ramifications.

Only in some cases. That is just a self righteous blanket statement.

If the "common sense" did not carry legal weight (or threaten to), THEN it would be just an opinion.

In this case not really. It is going to happen at some point. Courts or dumping votes like prop 8 down so ultimately it carries no weight at all.

Then you are tolerant of gays.

I am not according to some, I am according to others. I am tolerant of equal treatment under the law.
 
This is a simple question:

Is intolerance wrong?

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

It depends on how one defines intolerance. To me it means being unable to tolerate something. Such that if you come across something you are intolerant of, you're willing to physically intercede to end that thing. In that sense, it can be wrong if the interaction is against the free exercise of rights of another whom is not infringing upon the rights of others.
 
I have a Bible.

So do I. Read the entire book of Leviticus. It's best read as a whole. But remember what my claim is, that there is disagreement. :peace
 
Tolerance created Western civilization. Losing it is what will kill it.
So very PC cliche misterman_Why am I not surprised______The truth in a nutshell;

Intolerance of poverty and oppression created "Western Civilization" which resulted from a unification of european cultures, philosophies, christian values, political and economical ideologies and genes, resulting in the creation of one unique society based on individuality, cooperation and a love of freedom which brought about the formation of a unique political/economical system of unprecedented wealth and opportunity for those who were a part of it.

Tolerance opened the door to people from every continent of every race, ethnicity, religion and culture who wanted a share of the milk&honey and for travel fare or by simply sneaking across a border in the middle of the night could have what western civiliation had created with the sweat and blood of it's creators, and refuse to assimilate, selfishly drain our resources, promote socialist policies, demand citizenship and shout "racism" when their host doesn't comply.
 
I agree that intolerance is normally used in a negative way. I also agree that it can be good or bad. However I dont seem to see the problem with people using it in a negative way if the intolerance is indeed negative. I also dont understand why we are arguing over something so trivial.
As already stated, some people criticize political opinions by calling them 'intolerant', implying that intolerance is ALWAYS wrong.
 
Intolerance of poverty and oppression created "Western Civilization" which resulted from a unification of european cultures, philosophies, christian values, political and economical ideologies and genes, resulting in the creation of one unique society based on individuality, cooperation and a love of freedom which brought about the formation of a unique political/economical system of unprecedented wealth and opportunity for those who were a part of it.

No, that's tolerance.
 
In the context of social intolerance, yes, intolerance is wrong. The idea that little divisions should keep us apart and prevent us from cooperating is foolish. This goes for race, gender, religion, cultural differences, and all that. That is the definition that is used in these kinds of debates about tolerance. Trying to push a different definition does not change the overall meaning. The point of tolerance, like many other things, is "Don't be a douche."
 
As already stated, some people criticize political opinions by calling them 'intolerant', implying that intolerance is ALWAYS wrong.

I dont believe that anybody believes that intolerance is always wrong.
 
Intolerance of poverty and oppression created "Western Civilization" which resulted from a unification of european cultures, philosophies, christian values, political and economical ideologies and genes, resulting in the creation of one unique society based on individuality, cooperation and a love of freedom which brought about the formation of a unique political/economical system of unprecedented wealth and opportunity for those who were a part of it.

No, that's tolerance.
Wrong, that's cooperation by individuals who share common goals and interests, for which Western Civilization's would be freedom, security and prosperity.

The Neomericans bring their socialist baggage, show little interest in assimilation and demand that America conform and cater to their personal goals and interests.

Tolerance is the wholesale acceptance of such bad behavior, bad policy and immorality, to avoid being labeled a "racist" "sexist" "fascist" "homophobe" or "xenophobe".

Intolerance is the key to survival of Western Civilization and the American Dream___and time is running out.
 
I dont believe that anybody believes that intolerance is always wrong.
So then the people who use that word that way are lying? The people answering the poll are lying too? and the people posting in this thread?
 
Tolerance is the wholesale acceptance of such bad behavior, bad policy and immorality, to avoid being labeled a "racist" "sexist" "fascist" "homophobe" or "xenophobe".

No it's not. That's an ludicrous definition. See, that's your problem.
 
Dictionary definition:

tol·er·ance

a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

Sounds good to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom