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

[Nicodemus]

Who is 'we'?

 

[maydelle]

Who is 'we'?

the majority

 

[Beargryllz]

We aren't obligated to tolerate dissenting views, but we certainly enrich our own understanding of the world by exposing ourselves to new views. I'm going to go ahead and say that if it was up to me alone, I would put up with every "view". I would not hold others to this standard though. Why don't we vote on it?

 

[Curator]

Im ok with tolerating any view to a certain extent (although sometimes I have a hard time with Scientology,lol) but I am not, and will not ever be tolerant of any actions/views of any group that directly result in the harming of other individuals, except in cases where the harm is caused to keep individuals who are harmful to society from harming anyone else...and that is an even more complicated topic...

 

[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'm hoping the title was mistyped.

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.

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

How can one truly gain knowledge in subject if they choose to "cherry-pick" bits of said subject, only viewing it from common points and not exploring the uncommon as to gain a 360° view of what is in subject? People tend to always seems to draw lines as to say "okay this bit is acceptable and this bit is not". I believe these "drawn lines" have a name, its called "boundaries" & I truly believe one can't understand something if they are bounded, because they'll never get the full picture.

I was simply viewing said subject of a different view point, one can not say an interpretation is wrong if them they themselves have only one view.

Whether you agree with what I've said or not, would the your interpretation in which I can never say is wrong. Its all or nothing for me, or am I simply pulling on strings with no attachment?

 

[maydelle]

How can one truly gain knowledge in subject if they choose to "cherry-pick" bits of said subject, only viewing it from common points and not exploring the uncommon as to gain a 360° view of what is in subject? People tend to always seems to draw lines as to say "okay this bit is acceptable and this bit is not". I believe these "drawn lines" have a name, its called "boundaries" & I truly believe one can't understand something if they are bounded, because they'll never get the full picture.

I was simply viewing said subject of a different view point, one can not say an interpretation is wrong if them they themselves have only one view.

Whether you agree with what I've said or not, would the your interpretation in which I can never say is wrong. Its all or nothing for me, or am I simply pulling on strings with no attachment?

Alright...sorry if that offended you. Interpret the statement however you want btw it's not my opinion.

 

[maydelle]

We aren't obligated to tolerate dissenting views, but we certainly enrich our own understanding of the world by exposing ourselves to new views. I'm going to go ahead and say that if it was up to me alone, I would put up with every "view". I would not hold others to this standard though. Why don't we vote on it?

This is what I've been waiting for. Having a view/opinion/belief and what not is one thing but how about letting people act upon their views whatever it may be..?

 

[A window to the soul]

How can one truly gain knowledge in subject if they choose to "cherry-pick" bits of said subject, only viewing it from common points and not exploring the uncommon as to gain a 360° view of what is in subject? People tend to always seems to draw lines as to say "okay this bit is acceptable and this bit is not". I believe these "drawn lines" have a name, its called "boundaries" & I truly believe one can't understand something if they are bounded, because they'll never get the full picture.

Come on in, kick off your boots, kick back, ... Uh Ohs!! -tripz- Watch the rug! This is a casual sharing of thoughts. Feel free to explore the uncommon if you want.

 

[rav3n]

"Tolerate"? To tolerate means to permit. We don't have the authority to give permission unless it deviates from the social contract called law.

Any forms of intolerance are called discrimination if the individuals who differ, are abiding by the afore-mentioned social contract.

 

[A window to the soul]

"Tolerate"? To tolerate means to permit. We don't have the authority to give permission unless it deviates from the social contract called law.

Any forms of intolerance are called discrimination if the individuals who differ, are abiding by the afore-mentioned social contract.

Yeah, this is one way to look at tolerance; it's sad that not everyone follows the laws or pays the legal consequences for their actions (i.e., slipping through the cracks). I'm thinking more along the lines of businesses, universities, etc., following fairness laws in regards to your post.

Also, I want to throw in a more personal angle into this discussion; an area in which we are protected by the Bill of Rights here in America where the government's power over us has it's limitations. It's not against the law for you to discriminate in your social circle of friends; specifically, you can choose not to tolerate a behavior, attitude, culture, etc and not call the person to hangout with you. You have the right to tactfully tell that friend you do not tolerate their views and don't want to associate with them; that's not against the law.

I see how this topic could be looked at from many different angles; such as, we have a free will to choose what we tolerate or permit in the day-to-day interactions in our personal lives (for the most part), but corporations must follow strict fairness laws.

 

[Kenn Salvatore]

Alright...sorry if that offended you. Interpret the statement however you want btw it's not my opinion.

I take no offense, I was just having an opinion.

Come on in, kick off your boots, kick back, ... Uh Ohs!! -tripz- Watch the rug! This is a casual sharing of thoughts. Feel free to explore the uncommon if you want.

Which is what I've been doing. V_^

 

[A window to the soul]

Feel free to explore the uncommon if you want.

Which is what I've been doing.V_^

Grrrr, I don't see that...

I don't see any posts in this thread where you're "exploring the uncommon" ways of life that differ from the majority. Where?

Please guide me to them.

 

[Kenn Salvatore]

I don't see any posts in this thread where you're "exploring the uncommon"

The reason for this is because my attempt to debate the uncommon failed! so it was discarded. So forgive me I should have said "Which is what I was trying to do" , I got the impression that it was viewed as negative....ironically the tread itself was focused on the negative......

 

[Beargryllz]

This is what I've been waiting for. Having a view/opinion/belief and what not is one thing but how about letting people act upon their views whatever it may be..?

Actions are not views. Taking action is not the same thing as holding a view. Why a person conducts an action can easily become secondary to the effects of that action. I don't tolerate actions universally, how they effect people determines this.

 

[Kenn Salvatore]

Actions are not views. Taking action is not the same thing as holding a view. Why a person conducts an action can easily become secondary to the effects of that action. I don't tolerate actions universally, how they effect people determines this.

 

[A window to the soul]

The reason for this is because my attempt to debate the uncommon failed! so it was discarded. So forgive me I should have said "Which is what I was trying to do" , I got the impression that it was viewed as negative....ironically the tread itself was focused on the negative......

haha, I was wondering what happened. Anyway, no problem.

 

[Santosha]

Absolutely. How could anyone think otherwise? Unless freedom has lost all value. If you don't have the freedom to fail, be wrong, be "negative", you are not truly free. I also wonder if "negative" views of life were not tolerated, exactly what kind of "positive" action would be taken to "correct" this?

Moral justification is incredibly dangerous.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of it's victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. – C. S. Lewis

Look at where a majorities idea of good and bad got 6 million Jews.