Can someone explain the point of tolerance to me ?

[Nonsensical]

Tolerance you say?

It's to stop people from being so drunk all the time!

 

[Virtual ghost]

this is why some of us

<--

like to advocate opening a lot more family planning clinics with free birth control and sex ed classes worldwide... It's a lot cheaper than building more nukes AND is better on the planet

For that is probably too late. Since the number of people is already far too large. On the other hand only one county on the world has one child policy as far as I know a yet that one seems to be the most polluted one. What is technically irrelevant since this is a global problem.

Basicly severly limiting economic growth would be far more effective when it comes to this. However I think that we both know how much that scenario is likely.

 

[miss fortune]

well, anything that slows population growth is better than nothing at all... and what's there to do otherwise? hope for another natural disaster of sorts?

genocide isn't an option, it places the decision in the hands of those who hold power, and I don't trust anyone who rises to a position to make such decisions, not to mention that it's discriminatory and appalling and you can't hate people who are different than you because it's not like people choose the country of thier birth or their ethnicity!

also, despite the fact that sustainability is considered the most viable option, it's highly unlikely that any developed country will change it's mind about how it maintains itself, and then there's the question of hypocrisy when the west tells the developing countries to quit developing the same way that we developed because during the industrial age and such the west was horribly dirty and polluted

really the best solution to make things tolerable is education on the issue, education on sustainable living, education on birth control and family planning and assistance with developing an infrastructure that will allow everybody to be able to change enough to make SOME impact

I refuse to give up hope

 

[sculpting]

AS,

Sounds like the theme of the thread has shifted a touch-like intolerance fuels disagreement which serves to equalize populations and thus reduce strain on resources and enviornmental damage? Okay, I guess I buy this. But So do disease, natural disasters and so on. But honestly-do any of this significantly impact the population enough to actually prevent overpopulation and subsequent overutilization and destruction? I dont have the numbers in front of me, but my gut argues likely not. (of course totally discounting all of the arguments revolving around is it okay to allow human suffering.)

Now-back to the tolerance argument. So you assume that by allowing one group to eliminate another, the remaining group will maximize resources and live in peace?

I think intolerance is grounded in our innate biology for very specific reasons. In any area there will be limited resources. Only a specific population/area can be tolerated before those resources will be over utilized. Most animals kind of innately observe these rules and distribute populations accordingly. This distribution is done by different herds/packs of animals being somewhat averse to one another, starvation, and all types of inter-relations with predators and such. But to focus on the groups, They may meet for limited amounts of time, then break apart again. I'd guess the behavioral mechanisms might differ from herbivore to omnivore to carnivore and across species but displays of aggression seem common.

Funny-our closest two genetic relatives:

Chimps wage war on adjacent chimp clans and will kill each other.
Bonobos actually will engage in orgies when they encounter other clans and then depart peacefully.

(It looks like we follow the chimp model a little more closely.)

So in humans-even if group one eliminates group 2-eventually group 1 will reach a population size which forces it to splinter as it is overutilizing resources. Thus aggression will reoccur, more will be killed, until the population reaches a stable point or the groups can disperse into two groups.

It doesnt seem to matter where you go in the world you will see intolerance-race, sex, skin color, religion, country of origin, clothes, MBTI type, football team, hometown, the olympics. Humans WILL ALWAYS find a reason to dislike/compete against the "other" as the other is a member of a group which potentially competes against our group. We are kinda hard wired that way.

So tolerance is sort of an intellectual acknowledgment that we should try and ignore our base biological instincts. Those instincts really dont fit well in the world we live in anymore. Even if something is very foreign to our understanding, tolerance suggests we add a moment of hesitation-a reconsideration-before making our judgment. We allow ourselves to ignore that innate "that's weird" response.

(That's Te above-Fi says we should just love people for being the unique individuals they are and treasure them for their imperfections, differences, and being authentic to the things that define them. Love.)

 

[Lark]

which is that who I am to make judgments and force people what to do? What is legitimite democratic additude. However the freedom don't seem to have a positive effect in this case.

So what should we ? Ignore the problem or becoming undemocratic?
Since this is the dilema of our time as it looks for now.

Its not a problem of being democratic or undemocratic, like you indicated growth and industrialisation in China is having a massive impact, its not a democracy.

There are different sorts of global redistribution taking place, supranational bodies are restructuring the entire planet as a single farm, shopping mall and factory floor and this process is only being forestalled by nations, like the US and China fighting for competitive advantage.

So I wouldnt worry really, the nations which are stupid enough to let ideological divisions escalate into open conflict and war will be at loss and their populations will pay the price, which might have some ecological easing effect who knows.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Good point, Antisocial one.

I never put it into words; or rather I did not focus on tolerance.
I am and will always be in vehement opposition to democracy, because it does not work.
Furthermore, it is not only that tolerance/democracy does not work. It does, like you say, not lead anywhere but a status quo.
I believe human progress to be an ideal worth pursuing, which means that I am in opposition to stagnation; a state we have been in for quite some time now.
We don't need infighting and chaos; i.e democracy, capitalism, religions conflicting with the goal... Etc.


The main balancing factor and argument against intolerance is indeed that "intolerance" makes you make a decision which will sometimes be unpleasant in the short-term.
It does seem like a common denominator for a lot of people, that they refuse to do violence or act decisively when it is clearly needed.
I have always found it odd that some people just won't punch a guy in the face if he deserves it, and if said person can get away with it.

The question is where to draw the line? One cannot be completely without tolerance, that would lead to complete anarchy; which is entirely what at least I want to prevent at all costs.
Well, at least lasting anarchy.
Complete, short-term anarchy usually breeds dictatorship/kingdom, which I like.

Why ?

 

[Katsuni]

There's really just two main things, honestly.

Firstly, there's always the possibility yeu are wrong; to have intolerance towards another is to assume that yeu are right and they are wrong. It may be the reverse is true. Killing them off doesn't help anyone since none of us knows the truth until it's too late anyway, may as well leave yeur options open.

The second problem is that intolerance leads to the lack of value of basic things such as life. In yeur own example, yeu killed off a bunch of people simply so that yeu could have economic stability for a short time. It's hard to define 'evil', considering it's a vague, gaseous concept rather than anything set in stone, but I'm pretty sure that would be covered by it. As soon as yeu stop tolerating other's beliefs, and start acting to restrict their thought, their freedom, and their lives, yeu have become something that most civilizations view as a criminal.



Is tolerance directly related to wisdom? Not really. Indirectly they have similarities, and those that're intolerant usually aren't all that wise, but there are exceptions here and there.

In general though, being willing to just exist with each other without being at each other's throats all the time isn't exactly all that bad a way to live. The alternative usually is either anarchy, civil war, or witch hunts, none of which really show humanity's better side.

 

[yvonne]

be tolerant, but only to the point you can tolerate.

 

[Virtual ghost]

There's really just two main things, honestly.

Firstly, there's always the possibility yeu are wrong; to have intolerance towards another is to assume that yeu are right and they are wrong. It may be the reverse is true. Killing them off doesn't help anyone since none of us knows the truth until it's too late anyway, may as well leave yeur options open.

The second problem is that intolerance leads to the lack of value of basic things such as life. In yeur own example, yeu killed off a bunch of people simply so that yeu could have economic stability for a short time. It's hard to define 'evil', considering it's a vague, gaseous concept rather than anything set in stone, but I'm pretty sure that would be covered by it. As soon as yeu stop tolerating other's beliefs, and start acting to restrict their thought, their freedom, and their lives, yeu have become something that most civilizations view as a criminal.



Is tolerance directly related to wisdom? Not really. Indirectly they have similarities, and those that're intolerant usually aren't all that wise, but there are exceptions here and there.

In general though, being willing to just exist with each other without being at each other's throats all the time isn't exactly all that bad a way to live. The alternative usually is either anarchy, civil war, or witch hunts, none of which really show humanity's better side.

Well I agree with you but I am afraid that the world is not nice enough place for this to worrk. What is basicly the core of the problem.

Here is a trivial example. Towards your logic it is it barbaric to wipe out Somalian pirates from this world. Seriously why should we tolerate them ?

 

[yvonne]

^ that's such a strange logic

there are other ways to deal with people you can't tolerate than wiping them out

 

[Katsuni]

Well I agree with you but I am afraid that the world is not nice enough place for this to worrk. What is basicly the core of the problem.

Here is a trivial example. Towards your logic it is it barbaric to wipe out Somalian pirates from this world. Seriously why should we tolerate them ?

And that is when we come down to the basic core of letting others show their values and applying whot they show they believe to themselves.

If they show no value for life, then there's nothing wrong in killing them off, as they obviously don't care. If they steal others' possessions, then they do not have value on personal property and their own may be destroyed or taken at will.

Until someone does something to show such, however, if they are tolerant of others' beliefs and do not attempt to force their own in place with the assumption that theirs are more 'right' (for example, the belief that they think the other person should die, and they feel that their opinion holds more weight than that person's opinion they should live), so long as they are accepting that others' beliefs can coexist beside theirs without conflict, then they are entitled to be left alone.

The only times yeu ever see a problem with this, anyway, are the times when one group just flat out becomes intolerant to large degree in the first place. For example, when the KKK decides to actually act out against black people. Sure, yeu have the right to hate them to the core... yeu just don't have the right to do anything about it. That's whot tolerance truly is... accepting that 'well maybe they're right, maybe I'm right, it doesn't matter, let's just agree to disagree and stay the hell away from each other'.

When that breaks down, that's when yeu get situations which cause the things yeu mentioned, such as the world not being nice enough for this to work... or the pirates...

In a truly tolerant world, christians would still hate gays, but would be like "well we don't like yeu... but hei whotever, do yeur own thing, yeu're not hurting anyone". They could coexist, and continue to provide benefits for each other, despite the fact that they may not like each other.

Instead, we have people who feel it is their god given right, nay, their duty, to enforce their beliefs upon others. They HAVE to enforce their hatred of gays, for they don't deserve to exist peacefully. They HAVE to go on a serial killer's rampage and kill 57 hookers they deem as 'evil'. They HAVE to go and just insist that everyone can't get along and there must be direct conflict...

Honestly, economically we'd be better off without such; as soon as yeu're intolerant of someone, or a group of people, those individuals can no longer purchase from yeu. They can't provide goods or services back to yeu. Yeu no longer have a working relationship because yeu just can't tolerate their existence, and are willing to shoot yeurself in the foot to show just how dedicated yeu are towards hating them.

Tolerance allows people who hate each other or don't agree to continue to exist together and still interact peacefully, and maintain a give/take relationship despite that fact. Once yeu loose tolerance, it just breaks down; either it becomes "take take take" or "I refuse to accept anything they have".

There are people out there that're so intolerant that they would sooner die of starvation than accept a meal offered freely out of the kindness of someone they just can't stand.

How does this help anyone? It really doesn't.

And yes, the world isn't that nice of a place. It sadly doesn't work. Because we really are so stupid that we will destroy ourselves and everyone around us just because we can't shut our mouths and get along.

Yeu don't have to LIKE someone to do business with them... that's tolerance right there. It works quite well, until one side goes and screws everything up.

 

[Halla74]

Tolerance ance be defined many ways.

In a utopian sense it is one's capacity to set aside their negative feelings for another and to continue to behave towards them in a civilized manner.

Now, motivation for tolerance, that is an entirely different issue.

Maybe person "A" tolerates people for the sake of trying to be a good and understanding person, while person "B" tolerates people only long enough to get what they want out of them, and then free themselves from being bound by tolerance once their objective is achieved.

Does that make sense?

 

[Virtual ghost]

And that is when we come down to the basic core of letting others show their values and applying whot they show they believe to themselves.

If they show no value for life, then there's nothing wrong in killing them off, as they obviously don't care. If they steal others' possessions, then they do not have value on personal property and their own may be destroyed or taken at will.

Until someone does something to show such, however, if they are tolerant of others' beliefs and do not attempt to force their own in place with the assumption that theirs are more 'right' (for example, the belief that they think the other person should die, and they feel that their opinion holds more weight than that person's opinion they should live), so long as they are accepting that others' beliefs can coexist beside theirs without conflict, then they are entitled to be left alone.

The only times yeu ever see a problem with this, anyway, are the times when one group just flat out becomes intolerant to large degree in the first place. For example, when the KKK decides to actually act out against black people. Sure, yeu have the right to hate them to the core... yeu just don't have the right to do anything about it. That's whot tolerance truly is... accepting that 'well maybe they're right, maybe I'm right, it doesn't matter, let's just agree to disagree and stay the hell away from each other'.

When that breaks down, that's when yeu get situations which cause the things yeu mentioned, such as the world not being nice enough for this to work... or the pirates...

In a truly tolerant world, christians would still hate gays, but would be like "well we don't like yeu... but hei whotever, do yeur own thing, yeu're not hurting anyone". They could coexist, and continue to provide benefits for each other, despite the fact that they may not like each other.

Instead, we have people who feel it is their god given right, nay, their duty, to enforce their beliefs upon others. They HAVE to enforce their hatred of gays, for they don't deserve to exist peacefully. They HAVE to go on a serial killer's rampage and kill 57 hookers they deem as 'evil'. They HAVE to go and just insist that everyone can't get along and there must be direct conflict...

Honestly, economically we'd be better off without such; as soon as yeu're intolerant of someone, or a group of people, those individuals can no longer purchase from yeu. They can't provide goods or services back to yeu. Yeu no longer have a working relationship because yeu just can't tolerate their existence, and are willing to shoot yeurself in the foot to show just how dedicated yeu are towards hating them.

Tolerance allows people who hate each other or don't agree to continue to exist together and still interact peacefully, and maintain a give/take relationship despite that fact. Once yeu loose tolerance, it just breaks down; either it becomes "take take take" or "I refuse to accept anything they have".

There are people out there that're so intolerant that they would sooner die of starvation than accept a meal offered freely out of the kindness of someone they just can't stand.

How does this help anyone? It really doesn't.

And yes, the world isn't that nice of a place. It sadly doesn't work. Because we really are so stupid that we will destroy ourselves and everyone around us just because we can't shut our mouths and get along.

Yeu don't have to LIKE someone to do business with them... that's tolerance right there. It works quite well, until one side goes and screws everything up.

Or until pirates start to steal shipments.

 

[Virtual ghost]

^ that's such a strange logic

there are other ways to deal with people you can't tolerate than wiping them out

Well one of the reason s why I have opened his thread is because I am fascinated with how fast people are ready for tolerance.

In a way from my perspective this looks like some sort of a taboo. (and I don't like those)


However I understand that combination of my forum name and this topic give a "creepy vibe". (I presume)

 

[yvonne]

^ no, i mean... if you want to talk about something, i'll listen.

 

[Virtual ghost]

^ no, i mean... if you want to talk about something, i'll listen.

Well in post 32 you have my main question / argument. The reason why I have opened this thread is because I am asking what will we do when tolerance will no longer be a practical option.

 

[Mole]

Tolerating the Intolerant

Liberal democracy is based on freedom of speech. And freedom of speech is based on tolerance.

The problem comes when we are asked to tolerate the intolerant.

In 1951 we were asked by national referendum whether we wanted to ban the intolerant Communist Party of Australia. And we voted not to ban the Communist Party. And it turns out it was the right decision at the time.

However I think each decision whether to tolerate the intolerant must be made on a case by case basis.

 

[Zangetshumody]

I'm very surprised no one has distinguished between two very different senses tolerance could be used in...

Political tolerance;- that which underpins an open society, indispensable to any kind of freethinking and individual integrity.

An individual's disposition toward another individual's freedom to hold an opposing ideology.

And then a third type which it seems to me has nothing to do with real tolerance but with which it is being confused:

An individual's personal belief in a sort of pluralism, in which everything is permissible and the only thing forbidden is that which would discern delimitations and seek to impose them through the force of argument.

edit:

Just to join the dots for you, it would seem quite obvious why tolerance is necessary, as without it, people are not going to generate or face a wealth of thought which one might be prone to adopt. Intolerance limits variance from orthodoxy which would also mean it stifles potential for the most robust growth and development.

 

[foolish heart]

why should we have to?

 

[kiddykat]

^Yeah.. I don't know for whatever reason, the word 'tolerance' to me gives me vibes of really linear-type thinking. Sorry to offend anyone. I didn't read through the entire thread. It's just something that's always kinda.. been in the back of my mind.

In response, my motto is: "Embrace diversity." Maybe it's just semantics. That's just how I've always viewed it.