Tolerance

Originally posted by stocken
Aren't you confusing things a little? If I disagree with you, or if what you say makes no sense at all to me, I'm not being intolerant when I argue against what you say, am I? If I disagree with what you are, proposing laws and regulations that will make it hard for you being what you are, I am being intolerant.

In some cases, intolerance is necessary. I ...[text shortened]... anything (here I have a little dark spot of shame I'm carrying on myself, by the way).

I don't think you are being the "thought police". But many well meaning people are unwittingly advocating just that.

For example, several years ago my wife and I had a dating couple (man and woman) spend the night. They were actually living together at the time, but we set it up so they would sleep in seperate rooms while in our house. They can do whatever they want in their house, but due to our own principles, we did not want them sleeping together in our house. Even though society doesn't generally have a problem with unmarried people sleeping together, at least we were free to apply our principles in our own house.

Just where do you think the end result of "gay marriage" is going to lead? If I have a small business and provide benefits for spouses and kids, what happens if I refuse to provide benefits for same-sex spouses? Am I going to be free to live by my principles? If I don't at least face criminal charges, you can bet your last peso I'll face civil suits that will put me out of business.

Or, what if I convert my house into a "bed and breakfast"? Do you think I'll be free to not allow gay couples to stay in my own house? No way will such decisions be tolerated by those who preach tolerance loudly.

We've already heard stories of people being fired from their jobs for merely expressing their belief that homosexuality is immoral. And that seems to be the ultimate goal, to criminalize certain thoughts and marginalize anyone who does not embrace the lifestyle.

Originally posted by princeoforange
If you think about it, tolerance is an intrinsically contradictory concept. So think about it ... and post your thoughts.

OK
let's expand...

being tolerant with intolerance can be good or bad

being intolerant with tolerance can be good or bad if tolerance is a good tolerance or a bad tolerance

being intolerant with intolerance can be good or bad either if it's a good or a bad intolerance

and being tolerant with tolerance can be good or bad if this is a good or a bad tolerance

as a conclusion,tolerance and intolerance can be morally good or morally bad according to the situation/circumstances and they are empty words if you don't know what you're talking about...

Originally posted by techsouth
If I have a small business and provide benefits for spouses and kids, what happens if I refuse to provide benefits for same-sex spouses? Am I going to be free to live by my principles?

I sure hope not.

This is exactly why anti-discrimination laws are needed.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
I sure hope not.

This is exactly why anti-discrimination laws are needed.

Well, at least this is a candid admission that the battle truly is about homosexuals forcing their views on the rest of us.

Originally posted by techsouth
Well, at least this is a candid admission that the battle truly is about homosexuals forcing their views on the rest of us.

The part that you're too dense to get is that nobody has unlimited freedom to 'live according to principles'. In particular, freedom must be balanced so that the rights of all people are respected under the law.

In other words, you're perfectly content to force your views on people who think differently (non-married straight couples or homosexuals) by denying them rooms in your home, or even rooms in your hypothetical little hotel, but then you start whining and crying when they stand up for their own right to live true to their lifestyle without being blacklisted by arrogant bigots and cut off from access to basic services that everyone else can get easily. Thankfully, the way I judge the tide of the 'battle', you and your ilk are going to come out the losers.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
The part that you're too dense to get is that [b]nobody has unlimited freedom to 'live according to principles'. In particular, freedom must be balanced so that the rights of all people are respected under the law.

In other words, you're perfectly content to force your views on people who think differently (non-married straight couples or homos ...[text shortened]... e way I judge the tide of the 'battle', you and your ilk are going to come out the losers.[/b]

Yes, me and my ilk will be called "arrogant bigots" more and more frequently, and this without shame or remorse. But if we merely request politely that we don't want to be forced to condone such behaviour, we'll be in danger of losing our jobs, facing civil suits, etc.

How's that for "balance of freedom"?

Originally posted by techsouth
Well, at least this is a candid admission that the battle truly is about homosexuals forcing their views on the rest of us.

Some, the more vociferous and least educated, certainly try to to do so but fortunately most seem to realise that the best way to avoid unpleasantness is go about their business quietly.

Originally posted by techsouth
Yes, me and my ilk will be called "arrogant bigots" more and more frequently, and this without shame or remorse. But if we merely request politely that we don't want to be forced to condone such behaviour, we'll be in danger of losing our jobs, facing civil suits, etc.

How's that for "balance of freedom"?

Assuming your personal definitions for words such as "politely" and "condone" are correct, I would be inclined to agree.

However, it has been my experience that those who put up this kind of response to these arguments rarely adopt the correct meanings for those terms. "Politely" seems to have a very liberal meaning and "condone" refers to anything below physical violence.

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
Assuming your personal definitions for words such as "politely" and "condone" are correct, I would be inclined to agree.

However, it has been my experience that those who put up this kind of response to these arguments rarely adopt the correct meanings for those terms. "Politely" seems to have a very liberal meaning and "condone" refers to anything below physical violence.

-JC

Well, it has been my experience that those who advocate homosexual rights frequently...

OOPs!!!

I can't complete that sentence because I'll be accused of bigotry and prejudice. (Technically, I've already been accused of bigotry).

It is amazing that so many can't see the irony.

Originally posted by techsouth
Yes, me and my ilk will be called "arrogant bigots" more and more frequently, and this without shame or remorse. But if we merely request politely that we don't want to be forced to condone such behaviour, we'll be in danger of losing our jobs, facing civil suits, etc.

How's that for "balance of freedom"?

You're pushing for the right to do far more than 'merely request politely'. In your sick little 'perfect' world, a hotel owner could deny lodging to anyone who was not a married white christian.

In the real world, such an owner richly deserves to be called a bigot, and sued repeatedly until he goes out of business.

Furthermore, if you repeatedly criticize the lifestyle of your co-workers, you deserve to get fired for it. It's harrassment, plain and simple, and has no place in a professional workplace.

Originally posted by techsouth
Well, it has been my experience that those who advocate homosexual rights frequently...

OOPs!!!

I can't complete that sentence because I'll be accused of bigotry and prejudice. (Technically, I've already been accused of bigotry).

It is amazing that so many can't see the irony.

The bottom line here is if you do not wish to condone another person's "lifestyle", simply ignore them.

Attempting to limit, alter, or otherwise inhibit another person's life because you happen to disagree with their sexual orientation is not acceptable.

Leaving other people alone doesn't "condone" what they do, contrary to what some may think.

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
The bottom line here is if you do not wish to condone another person's "lifestyle", simply ignore them.

Attempting to limit, alter, or otherwise inhibit another person's life because you happen to disagree with their sexual orientation is not acceptable.

Leaving other people alone doesn't "condone" what they do, contrary to what some may think.

-JC

Exactly what are we talking about here?

Has anyone here suggested we knock on doors and flush out all engaged in activities we don't like?

Is it tolerable to you that my idea of what it means to "condone" a behaviour is ever so slightly different than yours? Can you tolerate that? Is there ever a rare scenerio in which putting your foot down is okay? What about insisting drug users refrain while in your house?

What if you walk into a room in your own house and your 14 year old daugher is having sex with your 25 year old neighbor? Wouldn't you feel that perhaps you are condoning the behaviour you simply walked away and said nothing.

Of course you are going to say (but a underage daugher is different because...). Just remember, we are talking about the definition of "condone", not what a parents legal responsibilties are.

What if your neighbor was having sex with an aardvark in your living room? Do you simply ignore that?

Hey, I am open minded and wouldn't call the police if I found out my neighbor regularly sexed up aardvarks in his living room, but I have to draw the line when it is done in my own house. Can you tolerate that kind of thinking?

So would you really consider it intolerable for someone who allows male/female married couples to sleep in the same bed in their guest room, but does not allow gay couples to do the same?

Again, the irony is astounding. What is more astounding is the lack of ability for some to see the irony.

Originally posted by techsouth
Can you [b]tolerate that kind of thinking?[/b]

You aren't thinking, and that is the problem. Each of your examples is either a situation where someone else is violating your own life (illegally), or a red herring large enough to feed an army.

No I would not tolerate a person doing drugs or engaging in sexual activities with animals in my living rooms. Then again, these people would be invading and inhibiting my own life, which is exactly what I am speaking against.

So we have a deal then. Gays won't have sex in your living room, and you leave them alone when they have sex in their own houses. I won't vote to abolish tresspass laws so that it remains illegal for gays (or anyone else) to enter your house and have sex, and you won't vote to ban gay marriage or impose any limitations on their activities that don't also apply to any other couple in this (generally) free country.

Sound like a deal?

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
You aren't thinking, and that is the problem. Each of your examples is either a situation where someone [b]else is violating your own life (illegally), or a red herring large enough to feed an army.

No I would not tolerate a person doing drugs or engaging in sexual activities with animals in my living rooms. Then again, these people would be invading ...[text shortened]... so apply to any other couple in this (generally) free country.

Sound like a deal?

-JC[/b]

You mischaracterize my arguments and then accuse me of not thinking.

Let me break it down. You claimed that "if you don't want to condone someone's lifestyle, simply ignore them."

Hypothesis: Ignoring someone's actions in no way can be considered "condoning" their lifestyle.

Using an informal sort of "reductio ad absurdum" I attempted to demonstrate that it is not always sufficient to ignore someone's actions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Of course when using "reductio ad absurdum", you want to reach a conclusion that everyone would agree is false. For everyone to agree a statement is false, I don't want to pick borderline statements. So I brought up the "sex with aardvarks" in my living room. I think we'd agree that I am well within reason to speak up if that happens and that other guests in my home would rightly conclude that I am condoning the behaviour if I don't speak up.

This is not a red herring because I am in no way debating about sex in living room. Wouldn't you agree that when using reductio ad absurdum that you'd want to focus on ridiculous examples?

So the way I see it, you have choices: (1) to contend that I have no right nor obligation to speak up when someone engages in sex with an aardvark in my living room (while other guests watch no less) or (2) admit that there are some instances that you cannot ignore someones actions without condoning their behaviour.

That's all.

All I am talking about up until this point in this post and the previous one is that you cannot always ignore behaviour without condoning it.

You brought up that doing drugs or having sex with animals in your living room are not okay because they invade your personal space. Initially you made a very simple statement (i.e. if you don't want to condone someone's lifestyle, simply ignore it). It was almost like you were addressing a child. Now you've just made it a little more complicated (i.e. except when they invade or inhibit your personal life). Is that all? Is their any chance that the rule would get even more complicated if I brought up some more examples?
Hey, I'm not here to haggle about the definition of "condone" nor the precise set of actions someone can take without being considered "intolerant". My original purpose is to point out the irony of the fact that those who are most adament about "tolerance" are often the least tolerant.


I'll have more to say after you respond to this. After all, if we cannot talk about something this simple without misunderstanding, what's the point of talking about anything else.

So which is it? Are my guests reasonable to think I am condoning the behaviour if I sit quietly while a man has sex with an aardvark in my living room? If so, do you admit that you cannot always ignore behaviour without condoning it? It's okay if this is an extreme. I freely admit that this is a very extreme case. But seems like you'd have to admit that you cannot always ignore behaviour without condoning it.

Originally posted by Nargaguna
Yes, that was a most amusing example of the sort of nonsensical situation which arises when a Muslim ,who demands toleration for his own odd beliefs and customs, will not tolerate sodomites who themselves will not tolerate criticism

An example of bigotry. Where the hell did anyone mention anything about a Muslim demanding tolerance for his "odd" beliefs in this thread? Seems to me you are pretty intolerant. Nearly every one of your posts somehow reverts to slagging off Muslims. It's really quite pathetic.