Well since this forum seems to be have a very large number of people from free and democratic western countries I would really be greatful if you could explain the entire concept of tolerance to me.
To be honest I never trully grasped why tolerance is considered to be something so tightly related to wisdom.
As I said in some other threads "Growing up in a country that is being torn upart by war was not traumatic for me. It is just that it left deep phylosophical consequences". In other words I am comfortable with "Lets wipe out the other tribe from the face of the earth" logic.
I mean I am not saying that you should be antitolerant against everything but in alot of cases I simply don't see tolerance as something logical.
For example you can see in alot of political speeches and movies where something like "We have to stay tolerant or we will becomes just as the minority that wants to destroy the current order" is said.
On the other hand you have different logic. You wipe out that minority out of existance. What means that tolerant majority will be able to live in peace instead of having decades of political instability. Which often leads to economic instability. Not to mention that stable system is usually capable of supporting more people with a better quality of life. Which means that loses in population numbers can be solved with a little higher fertility rate (if needed). Which often happens if the system is stabile. Plus since the society can support more people some people will get the chance to live. What would be the case if you have decades of problems. On small scales that may not be the case but in larger ones it often is. (boom after WW2 is perhaps the most obvious example) Which is something no one is thinking about.
However I know that in reality things are often not that simple. But on the other hand people simply don't allow them to be this simple.
Also you can have a deep political disagreement with someone. So by tolerant logic you should just be democratic and try to find a way to get along with other person/group. What usually leads to creating some sort of status quo. Basicly the entire modern politics in developped world is like this. They are just arguing and debating for decades while they maintain pretty much everything as it is/was. The only thing that is changing is tech-level.
What means that entire global political wisdom will become obsolete with time. (If we overlook "the fact" that this is already the case)
I mean don't delude yourself, the thousands of years of technological progress will destroy the politics as we know it.
What opens the question of should we have simpathy for something that is failing and it probably will to do so even more in the future ?
Which then leads to radical conclusions. What is the point of finding a common ground with people who may have fundamentaly different view from yours ?
Also tolerance creates paradoxes. Since it tolerances the anti-tolerance for tolerance. Which isn't a problem if we are not talking about a mind-set that has antitolerance and provocation at its most fundamental level.
However if I persoanally do something against this person I am considered evil and/or psychotic. Seriously why not allow different groups to solves their issues once and for all ? Why delay something that is most likely inevitable outcome given enough time.
Most people seem to dislike any radical view of things but I have problem figuring out why? Since only radical (what is not the same as primitive) leads away from the status quo. By "status quo" I mean birocracy and no change or real progress (in any direction). What often leads to "total eruption" of all problems with time and at the same time. People may dislike the principle but sometimes you have to remove old ideas by force just to enable the creation of new ones.
Basicly I could go on and on about this so i will just stop here.
Seriously, is tolerance and mutual understanding always the best solution ?