"Should we tolerate negative views and ways of life that differ from the majority."

[maydelle]

"Should we tolerate negative views and ways of life that differ from the majority."

What is your opinions on this statement? I want to see if anyone can change my opinion.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

"Should we tolerate negative views and ways of life that differ from the majority."

"Negative" is subjective. If we stopped tolerating views that differed from the majority, then society would never change, never progress. We'd simply stagnate. Furthermore there is a lot of natural diversity among people. You'd naturally disenfranchise a large portion of people simply because they are different.

 

[Totenkindly]

What is your opinions on this statement? I want to see if anyone can change my opinion.

What's your opinion?

The whole question is too damn vague. It could encompass anything from child molesters and rapists to nihilists to pessimists to things that are considered negative by the majority but might not be inherently negative at all.

Liquid pretty much says it all. You need something to challenge the majority opinion or nothing ever changes, and majority doesn't always mean "best."

 

[A window to the soul]

What is your opinions on this statement? I want to see if anyone can change my opinion.

Yes, I think it's wise to tolerate negative views and ways of life that differ from the majority, as long as they don't encroach on the majorities way of life with special exceptions to the rules that the majority are expected to follow. Let's use gay pride as an example. I think what's good for them should be good for me; meaning, if they are allowed to block off city streets partying in their tighty whities promoting gay pride, then I should be allowed to block off city streets partying in my panties promoting straight pride. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would be cuffed and thrown in the back of a cop car if I tried that.

 

[maydelle]

What's your opinion?

The whole question is too damn vague. It could encompass anything from child molesters and rapists to nihilists to pessimists to things that are considered negative by the majority but might not be inherently negative at all.

Liquid pretty much says it all. You need something to challenge the majority opinion or nothing ever changes, and majority doesn't always mean "best."

You can interpret 'negative' the way you want.
Okay so you say that majority doesn't always mean best, you would tolerate whatever it is then? Be it the right to kill in the name of family honor or stuff like that....because then society would never change, right?

 

[maydelle]

Yes, I think it's wise to tolerate negative views and ways of life that differ from the majority, as long as they don't encroach on the majorities way of life with special exceptions to the rules that the majority are expected to follow. Let's use gay pride as an example. I think what's good for them should be good for me; meaning, if they are allowed to block off city streets partying in their tighty whities promoting gay pride, then I should be allowed to block off city streets partying in my panties promoting straight pride. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would be cuffed and thrown in the back of a cop car if I tried that.

That's interesting. My question to you is would that work universally (In all situation)? I always go on about if there is an answer then it should be able to be applied universally.

 

[Jaguar]

Yes, I think it's wise to tolerate negative views and ways of life that differ from the majority, as long as they don't encroach on the majorities way of life with special exceptions to the rules that the majority are expected to follow. Let's use gay pride as an example. I think what's good for them should be good for me; meaning, if they are allowed to block off city streets partying in their tighty whities promoting gay pride, then I should be allowed to block off city streets partying in my panties promoting straight pride. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would be cuffed and thrown in the back of a cop car if I tried that.

No one is stopping you from organizing a group of people to have a special event in your city.

Anyone would be thrown in the back of a cop car-regardless of sexual orientation- if they hadn't applied for, and received a city permit for a march, parade, or special event. Being gay is irrelevant. The issue is acquiring the city permit.

There are laws against public nudity, not poor taste in clothing.
If there is a fashion police force in Texas, perhaps a change of residence is in order.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

You can interpret 'negative' the way you want.
Okay so you say that majority doesn't always mean best, you would tolerate whatever it is then? Be it the right to kill in the name of family honor or stuff like that....because then society would never change, right?

It means that what the majority believes is mostly irrelevant. The majority might be right or they might be wrong, but it doesn't matter. We shouldn't base our ethical views based on what the majority thinks.

 

[Biaxident]

Sure. As long as those views and ways of life don't negatively impact the way others, who don't subscribe to that particular delusion, live their own lives.

Irritating proselytizers should be shot on sight. Generally, they aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer anyway. Improve the gene pool.

I don't care if Cthulhu, or Spunkulon the CCXIII, God Emperor of the 12th through 28th dimensions, has come to you personally to show you the correct way to live. Keep it to yourself. If I have questions I'll ask.

 

[Such Irony]

In a broad sense, yes. We should be open-minded about different viewpoints and lifestyles. Who really cares how the others are living their lives if they are not harming others in process?

 

[Kenn Salvatore]

My question is why is the statement "Should we tolerate negative views and ways of life that differ from the majority." instead of "Should we tolerate views and ways of life that differ from the majority." ? It seems to imply that just because it is of minority, that it is negative. Why do people associate minority and negative, is this what the world has come to?

 

[Randomnity]

My question is why is the statement "Should we tolerate negative views and ways of life that differ from the majority." instead of "Should we tolerate views and ways of life that differ from the majority." ? It seems to imply that just because it is of minority, that it is negative. Why do people associate minority and negative, is this what the world has come to?

I don't think your interpretation is correct. In fact, if the question was "Should we tolerate views and ways of life that differ from the majority?" that to me implies that a minority view is instrinsically negative (because otherwise why would it need to be tolerated?)

By saying that the views discussed here are specifically the "negative" ones, the OP implies that there are also positive ones (and rightly so, of course), which aren't being discussed here.

/pedant

 

[Jaguar]

My question is why is the statement "Should we tolerate negative views and ways of life that differ from the majority." instead of "Should we tolerate views and ways of life that differ from the majority." ? It seems to imply that just because it is of minority, that it is negative. Why do people associate minority and negative, is this what the world has come to?

I'm hoping the title was mistyped.

 

[Kenn Salvatore]

I don't think your interpretation is correct. In fact, if the question was "Should we tolerate views and ways of life that differ from the majority?" that to me implies that a minority view is instrinsically negative (because otherwise why would it need to be tolerated?)

By saying that the views discussed here are specifically the "negative" ones, the OP implies that there are also positive ones (and rightly so, of course), which aren't being discussed here.

/pedant

I see your point, but if this is the case "why does anyone tolerate views & opinions that defies their own?"

 

[Randomnity]

Yes, I'm sure there's a better way to phrase it. "Negative" is a subjective term, of course. The entire answer to the question depends on how you define "negative" in this case, and where exactly "eccentric" crosses the line into "negative".

 

[A window to the soul]

I'm in favor of lining up the negative people, spanking the negatude out of them, and parading them around town in their underwear. We can all vote as to what qualifies as a negative view, if you want.

On a serious note, I'll narrow the scope of this topic down to what I consider to be the most concerning members of American society with lives that differ from the majority that I don't think we should cater to: pedophiles, drug dealers, terrorists, gang members, "extremists", members of extreme organizations (i.e., kkk), etc. When weirdoes, crazies, and sickies deviate too far away from what's acceptable, the laws often change forming tighter boundaries, in an effort to protect the 'upstanding' majority of the population from the 'deviated' minority. In some cases the laws change to protect us from ourselves; as in the case of drinking and driving. Which is ultimately a good thing I think. Should we tolerate members of society that choose to go off the grid, wear fig leaves, and eat berries? Sure, why not, if they're not hurting anyone. Should we tolerate those same folks planning a mass suicide on their commune that includes innocent children? Absolutely not.

As for tolerating negative views... Let's face it, there are some seriously "sensitive", negative, big-mouthed, extremist-phonies in this world that like to ride the backs (and coat-tails) of those of us 'accomplished' w/integrity in the happy majority party; we work our asses off for what we have (that they would like to take away). These "sensitive extremists" that try to interfere and skew our positive messages, I don't think we should cater to their "sensitivity" or make it easy for them to spread their negative messages of extremism, hatred, and violence. I'm all for offending them.

I like what Biaxident said, "As long as those views and ways of life don't negatively impact the way of others." ...That's what matters most to me and I think that sums it up nicely.

 

[Mole]

Free speech means nothing unless we are free to offend.

The exception is Islam where offensive speech is met by the death penalty.

However liberal democracy, science and the law all depend on free enquiry and free speech.

 

[maydelle]

I don't think your interpretation is correct. In fact, if the question was "Should we tolerate views and ways of life that differ from the majority?" that to me implies that a minority view is instrinsically negative (because otherwise why would it need to be tolerated?)

By saying that the views discussed here are specifically the "negative" ones, the OP implies that there are also positive ones (and rightly so, of course), which aren't being discussed here.

/pedant

Your interpretation of the statement is exactly correct. My main aim here is to see how people think therefore be as subjective as you want.

 

[Lark]

What is your opinions on this statement? I want to see if anyone can change my opinion.

Well, I suppose, I would first enquire what is your opinion?

 

[maydelle]

Well, I suppose, I would first enquire what is your opinion?

I'm a very liberal about this, I base my beliefs on the harm principle....do whatever you want as long as you don't harm others.