Ah.. no Chewbacca. It's logic.

Person A "I hate Jews, I am a Nazi"
Person B "I hate Nazis because they hate Jews"
Person C "I hate Nazism because it creates hatred"

All three are hating. You can apply morality to that hatred and suggest that person A hates because of changable actions and ideas, whereas person B hates an unchangeable race, and person C only hates a set of human ideas, but essentially all people are HATING.

This is a nonmoral objective look at the human behaviour.

You seem unable to get outside yourself Chewbacca, if you cannot agree that you are being intolerant by refusing to tolerate intolerant people. If you posts are indicative of your views, your own subjective morality has blinded you to the reality of the actions. ;) [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Ah.. no Chewbacca. It's logic.

Person A "I hate Jews, I am a Nazi"
Person B "I hate Nazis because they hate Jews"
Person C "I hate Nazism because it creates hatred"

All three are hating. You can apply morality to that hatred and suggest that person A hates because of changable actions and ideas, whereas person B hates an unchangeable race, and person C only hates a set of human ideas, but essentially all people are HATING.

This is a nonmoral objective look at the human behaviour.

You seem unable to get outside yourself Chewbacca, if you cannot agree that you are being intolerant by refusing to tolerate intolerant people. If you posts are indicative of your views, your own subjective morality has blinded you to the reality of the actions. ;) [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Wrong again.

Who said anything about hate? Are you saying that I hate intolerant people?


You seem unable to get over yourself.

[ 04-08-2004, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

No. That was an example. Someone hating hatred is being hypocritical. Someone criticising criticism is being hypocritical. Someone being intolerant of intolerance is effectively painting themself into a corner. Just as someone desiring no desire is.

These are examples Chewbacca.

Examples? I have some.
Demonstrate how Martin Luther King Jr. painted himself into a corner by not tolerating intolerance. How did Rosa Parks paint herself into a corner by not tolerating intolerance. How has the Civil Rights Acts of the last 50 or so years painted every law-abiding U.S. citizen into a corner? How did international pressure to end Arpartheid in South Africa paint much of the world into a corner?

I don't know why you are so hung up in attacking my stance on intolerance, but all your petty judgements about me are far more telling about you.

[ 04-08-2004, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Call a Jewish survivor of the Holocaust who hates Nazis a hypocrite.

Way to break Godwin's law, by the way...

Only 4 pages too.

I finally see what he was talking about now. Not discussions about Nazis, or use of Nazis in a comparative context, but the irrelevant invocation of their name to argue a point, which you've done. ANY other group could have been used, and this debate has devolved into a posting style nitpick. How this relates to smoking bans is not even relevant anymore. The thread is very dearly suicidal, don't turn this into that awful Guinea Pig movie, let the poor thing die with what little dignity it has left.

Examples? I have some.
Demonstrate how Martin Luther King Jr. painted himself into a corner by not tolerating intolerance. How did Rosa Parks paint herself into a corner by not tolerating intolerance. How has the Civil Rights Acts of the last 50 or so years painted every law-abiding U.S. citizen into a corner? How did international pressure to end Arpartheid in South Africa paint much of the world into a corner?

I don't know why you are so hung up in attacking my stance on intolerance, but all your petty judgements about me are far more telling about you. </font>[/QUOTE]Martin Luther King took stands against racism. Against people being judged by the colour of their skin, rather the content of their hearts. He did not tolerate racism. He was intolerant of violence, racism and inequaltiy.

Rosa Parks did not tolerate segregation. She refused to tolerate aparteid-like laws seperating people according to race.

Both of these people were INTOLERANT and that is why they succeeded in changing their environment. When you decry intolerance you preach apathy. I am proudly intolerant of murder, abortion, fear, terrorism, incest, rape, domestic violence, paedophilia, and many other things. I wear intolerance proudly. There are things in my world which I will not tolerate and seek to end, remove or limit.

I will not tolerate self loathing in myself, nor self condemnation, bitterness, fear, hatred, or materialism.

Er... no. I did no such thing. Read again.

I said a person hating hatred is hypocritical. A person criticising criticism is a hypocrite. A person being intolerant of intolerance is a hypocrite.

How is this calling a Jewish holocaust survivor a hypocrite? What piece of reality did you stretch to put those words in my mouth?????

Quote:

I finally see what he was talking about now. Not discussions about Nazis, or use of Nazis in a comparative context, but the irrelevant invocation of their name to argue a point, which you've done. ANY other group could have been used, and this debate has devolved into a posting style nitpick. How this relates to smoking bans is not even relevant anymore. The thread is very dearly suicidal, don't turn this into that awful Guinea Pig movie, let the poor thing die with what little dignity it has left.

Who cares if it has anything to do with the smoking ban. It's called conversation flow. Conversations move in and out of subjects, and cover more than one aspect. Sometimes you have to break something down to understand the rest of the argument.

As to Nazism, it was used as an example because it's extreme. No one was called a Nazi. Everyone understands what it was/is It's a clear example. Try and understand it and comment on it, instead of misrepresenting it's context and attacking it's existence as an argument at all.

Oh no, they were both actually quite tolerant. You have provided for my perspective quite well. It's all in the spirit of the matter. You also did not answer my questions. What corner did they paint themselves in?

No. When intolerance is allowed to flourish in the name of being "tolerant" then apathy will threaten.

By demanding that in order to practice tolerance once must 'tolerate' intolerance is preaching apathy. I maintain that I reject this perspective on various grounds and I am perfectly willing to agree to disagree.

Here you are using a different context of the word intolerance than I have been refering to, but that is obvious if you actually read what I have written. You did read what I wrote right? Maybe even thought about it? Perhaps, maybe even, tried to understand? (I just had Deja Vu)

Why is it so hard for you to just agree to disagree with me? Why do you insist that I see it your way? Why, in your zest to force your opinion at me, must you must attack my character and moral perspective by calling me a hypocrite, implying I think I am morally better than those who disagree with me, ect.? Why do you keep avoiding questions about this?

[ 04-09-2004, 01:59 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Here we go... out rolls the dictionary:


Tolerance:

1: capacity to endure pain or hardship : ENDURANCE, FORTITUDE, STAMINA
2 a : sympathy or indulgence for <font color=yellow>beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own</font>
b : <font color=pink>the act of allowing something</font> : TOLERATION

---------

in·tol·er·ant ■■

Not tolerant, especially:
<font color=yellow>Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.</font>
<font color=pink>Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself</font>, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.

Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime


__________

You just can't accept that you're wrong can you. LOGIC Chewbacca. Use English, please.

As to WHY I am on about this, it matters to me when the United Nations seek to make international law banning religions from making moral judgements about peoples behaviour, when the united nations are doing the same thing by making such a law!!!!

There is so much hypocrisy in modern political correctness it makes me sick. By invoking Roasa, Ghandi, or Luther King Jnr to trample on religion, bigots and those intolerant of things like Christianity or Islam will perpetuate intolerance by simply changing the subject that is not tolerated.

Lumping up a heap of ideas and calling them "intolerance" is not what the word means. Intolerance is refusing to accept or that which differs from your own beliefs and practices.

Sometimes intolerance is evil - DEPENDING ON WHAT IS NOT TOLERATED. Other times it is a necessity for justice - DEPENDING ON WHAT IS NOT TOLERATED.

Ignoring that reality simply thumbs a nose at the English language.

[ 04-09-2004, 03:43 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

I can't believe I have to go to this much effort to defend the logical statement "True tolerance tolerates intolerance".

Because it goes against the grain of American political correctness is precisely the point! I wouldn't be making it if American media types weren't railing on about intolerance - such as Mel Gobsons Passion, yet exhibiting intolerance of freedom of expression, intolerant of religious expression, intolerance of a person holding the bible to be true, and wanting to make an artistic expression of that.

I'm pointing out a logical problem with the current language used.

What the heck is wrong with challenging held notions? Are we so locked down in our ideas we can't take someone turning it around so we see the picture from another angle?

Yorick,

You really haven't read or even tried to understand a word I have written, have you?


Sorry, but bright yellow fonts, ranting about logic and the english language, and accusations that I won't admit that I am wrong<-----Ladies and Gentlemen, the pot has called the kettle black won't shock me into submission.


You still haven't addressed the personal attacks you have made towards me. You still haven't answered my questions.

Why won't you just agree to disagree? Why not just accept I have a different perspective that differs from the dictionary defintion and doesn't fit your logic?

[ 04-09-2004, 03:49 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Curious and Ironic: That is exactly what I have been doing.

Are you the only one allowed to do this or something?

I'm not attacking your character, I'm pointing out a logical consequence of fighting fire with fire.

What is your problem? There is no huge character flaw in being hypocritical in a certain area. Are you perfect? Why seek perfection? Can't you deal with the possibility you MIGHT be engaging in the very activity you hate?

There are times when I enjoy having a flaw of mine pointed out. It means I can do two things.
1.Stay humble.
2.Fix it.

I've said before I like you, and we're actually more similar than we realise. I never made this personal, and hold no ill toward you. I was making generalised statements about the illogicality of conflicts such as this. You're the one who's gone and gotten all hurt it seems.

Let bygones be bygones mate.

In churches we deal with this conflict all the time.

We are told to not be judgemental. That we are judged according to how we judge. The parable of the man forgiven of a huge debt who goes out and throws another guy in prison for owing a much smaller amount is in immediate consciouness quite regularly.

A "get out gaol free" card, ;) might being nonjudgemental of peoples judgementalism. :D

As a christian I can get all hung up about how so many christians go around condemning people for sin, yet if I do, I am doing the same thing. I have in the past had to correct this. I've caught myself in my own hypocrisy. No big deal. It's part of being human, and can provide for some humorous self analysis.

I'm not attacking your character, I'm pointing out a logical consequence of fighting fire with fire.

What is your problem? There is no huge character flaw in being hypocritical in a certain area. Are you perfect? Why seek perfection? Can't you deal with the possibility you MIGHT be engaging in the very activity you hate?

</font>[/QUOTE]Uh, thanks, but <font size 12</>NO thanks</font> for the unsolicited (and erroneous) "advice".

I do wonder how in the first sentence you state you are not attacking my character and then proceed to ask me what is my problem seeing as how hypocrisy is "no huge character flaw"

My personal process of character growth and self-evalutation is NONE OF YOUR F-ING BUSINESS and is no topic I would want to discuss with you in the first place.

You disagreed with me. I made the statement "True tolerance tolerates intolerance" and then you were the one unable to tolerate my viewpoint and leave it unchallenged on the forum.

And now, you cite "different perspectives" and yet acknowledge you don't care about the dictionary definition.

No wonder there is a problem. If you change the meaning of a word, we are no longer speaking the same language. Words exist to translate one idea to another. Dictionaries give clarity and guidelines on how humans use that word. I can't help it if you're reinventing the word all by yourself in Boston. My language - English - has a meaning. I can't read your mind. If you want to be understood, use the commonly accepted meaning, or admit you're wrong.

As too the pot calling the kettle black, there are HUNDREDS of times on this forum alone, where I've admitted mistake, error and apologised unreservedly. The last time to Grojlach re. Metallica. Being wrong is no big deal to me Chewbacca, yet here you are, faced with a dictionary definition and logic that proves you're wrong, and you can't do it, holding up a "different perspectives" line....

sheesh.

You disagreed with me. I made the statement "True tolerance tolerates intolerance" and then you were the one unable to tolerate my viewpoint and leave it unchallenged on the forum.

And now, you cite "different perspectives" and yet acknowledge you don't care about the dictionary definition.

No wonder there is a problem. If you change the meaning of a word, we are no longer speaking the same language. Words exist to translate one idea to another. Dictionaries give clarity and guidelines on how humans use that word. I can't help it if you're reinventing the word all by yourself in Boston. My language - English - has a meaning. I can't read your mind. If you want to be understood, use the commonly accepted meaning, or admit you're wrong.

As too the pot calling the kettle black, there are HUNDREDS of times on this forum alone, where I've admitted mistake, error and apologised unreservedly. The last time to Grojlach re. Metallica. Being wrong is no big deal to me Chewbacca, yet here you are, faced with a dictionary definition and logic that proves you're wrong, and you can't do it, holding up a "different perspectives" line....

sheesh. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually I adressed both the dictionary and "logic" a few posts back where I also stated I had no problem with my perspective co-existing right along side yours even if I disagreed.

[quote]Originally posted by Yorick:

Quote:

Originally posted by Chewbacca: You disagreed with me. I made the statement "True tolerance tolerates intolerance" and then you were the one unable to tolerate my viewpoint and leave it unchallenged on the forum.

I am perfectly able to tolerate your veiwpoint, even if I challenge it and clarify why I disagree, why I think it is incorrect in a similiar way that tolerance challenging intolerance is not intolerance.

Where did I give advice, and how are you determining if it is erroneous?

Quote:

I do wonder how in the first sentence you state you are not attacking my character and then proceed to ask me what is my problem seeing as how hypocrisy is "no huge character flaw" My personal process of character growth and self-evalutation is NONE OF YOUR F-ING BUSINESS and is no topic I would want to discuss with you in the first place.

Then why argue with me on a forum? What do you expect? You're in control of the situation. You talk, I analyse. If that analysis comes out in conversation, that's a natural result of who I am, and the nature of written discussion.

Are you being intolerant of me Chewbacca? ;)

I'm sure a moderator will come along and give us both recommendations for personal growth. It's the way it is.

Well I'm out of here. If you want to pursue this self defeating logic and continue to warp the english language do so. I've had my vent about western society. If you want to remain speaking your own language that's no skin off my nose.

Bye

[ 04-09-2004, 04:24 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

I hope not. The blood is only just starting to fly! This is great! ;) Keep going :D

So you can make petty accusations about me (rather than my opinions) and you think that is just fine and dandy?
No. I am doing what is called setting limits. You want to discuss my opinions that is fine. You want to espouse your opinion of me in a personal and provocative way. That is not okay. If you have any respect for your fellow forum members, you would respect such limits, not to mention they are already clarified in the rules:

Hopefully they reccomend sticking to discussing the opinions and not the posters making them. Thats what I have tried to keep my behavior in line with, give or take a few slip ups. I'll let the moderators themselves be the judge if my behavior is worthy of thier attention in an official capacity.

I hope not. The blood is only just starting to fly! This is great! ;) Keep going :D </font>[/QUOTE]Hey, that will $1.50 entertainemnt fee. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I do wonder if anyone (besides Yorick, he has had his say) understands the perspective I am putting forth with this whole tolerance bit. Not hafta agree, but simply understand.

Well I'm out of here. If you want to pursue this self defeating logic and continue to warp the english language do so. I've had my vent about western society. If you want to remain speaking your own language that's no skin off my nose.

Bye </font>[/QUOTE]But it is not self-defeating logic. Great strides in civic equality have been made by people challenging the notions of social intolerance. Just because I consider using the word 'intolerant' as incorrect to describe these people (and myself) doesn't equate to warping the english language. English is quite flexible. I am fairly certain the perspective I have offered is quite understandable ( and seeking feedback from the wider populous on this point) and that I am not speaking my own language at all.

No, I don't. If you could explain it in clear, point by point form for me, that'd be great.

My position, where I'm comin' atcha from:
If you oppose/restrict/attempt to eradicate someone else's point of view, no matter how destructive or repugnant you may think it to be, you are not being tolerant of it. In fact, boy howdy I'd say you're being intolerant of it. And that's great. Intolerance makes things interesting. Intolerance makes life fun. Fight fight fight!

So yeah, in openly opposing the entrenched ideology of segregation and discrimination in American politics/society Dr King was a champion of intolerance. A champion also of equality and fairness before American law, but a champion of intolerance nonetheless. And I can dig it... fine by me.

Well, that's my understanding of the issue. Maybe you can be intolerant of my opinion and try to convince me of viewing things a different way Chewie.

No, I don't. If you could explain it in clear, point by point form for me, that'd be great.

My position, where I'm comin' atcha from:
If you oppose/restrict/attempt to eradicate someone else's point of view, no matter how destructive or repugnant you may think it to be, you are not being tolerant of it. In fact, boy howdy I'd say you're being intolerant of it. And that's great. Intolerance makes things interesting. Intolerance makes life fun. Fight fight fight!

So yeah, in openly opposing the entrenched ideology of segregation and discrimination in American politics/society Dr King was a champion of intolerance. A champion also of equality and fairness before American law, but a champion of intolerance nonetheless. And I can dig it... fine by me.

Well, that's my understanding of the issue. Maybe you can be intolerant of my opinion and try to convince me of viewing things a different way Chewie. </font>[/QUOTE]I really dont want to convince you to veiw things differently. Thats not my game. Either you keep the veiwpoint you have offered here or you don't.

I do question, that since segregation and discrimination are by-products of racial intolerance, how someone can defeat intolerance by being intolerant? Fire typically doesn't put out fire.

Perhaps Dr. Kings underlying ideaology and practice differed so greatly from the underlying ideaology and practice of racial intolerance that using the same word to describe his vewipoint would not be exactly fitting or fair, no matter how technically accurate it is?

I understand exactly where you are coming from Chewie. As I said before, it is one thing to accept and tolerate intolerant ideas, and quite another to fight against intolerance once that intolerance manifests into actions or laws that inhibit another's Liberties.

I can tolerate the KKK for example, but they need a smack down once the burning crosses start appearing on people's lawns. ;)

Boo yah! I think you nailed it Chewie! Don't stretch the meaning of the word 'intolerance' to encompass actions that it does not entail. I think Dr King was a pretty decent guy, had some great ideas and enough charisma and willpower to convince people to do (not necessarily think) as he said. But he wasn't about tolerance, no way. He was about equality, which is very different.

To be honest, universal tolerance isnt possible anyway. You can be tolerant of individual people's actions (which can link us back to the smoking ban issue). But you can't be (in)tolerant of abstract concepts such as 'hate' or 'prejudice', because 'tolerance' itself is essentially an abstract concept, and when you go abstract, you go subjective. Everyone has their own ideas as to what abstract concepts are, whether or not you can effectively communicate your ideas through language is another thing entirely. Hence all the hissing and scratching between Yorick and yourself [img]smile.gif[/img]

My stance is that it is folly to apply tolerance to abstract social ideas. Because I don't think that 'tolerance' is necessarily a 'good' (oooooh, another abstract concept) thing. Conflict is necessary in order to create your reality. To preach the benefits of tolerance, it is necessary to create sweeping, dogmatic principles of social order, conduct, and physical law. Yet, dogma is subjective. And this subjective knowledge must be justified by personal conviction, otherwise it is merely a collection of words, sounds and visual symbols. And this personal conviction creates individual verifiability (ie: it is right/true because I personally believe it to be so')which in turn conflicts with the concept of detatched, unpersonalised universal knowledge. So tolerance ultimately, is intolerable... in a universal framework ('universal' again being a subjective abstract term).

Bad logic, yes, but I don't care, I'm tolerance-intolerant.

Right there.

Yes you do, but this isn't doing that. It's an irrelevant nitpick by you and someone else that needs to stop before it gets out of hand. What's more, the thread was only 4 pages long and you managed to kill it. It's practically unsalvagable.

It still applies, as you HAD to use that example to argue your point. Far more realistic and modern examples could have been used, but you chose one that will likely draw emotions out, rather than one with more applied value.

Oblivion, you're nitpicking and being hypocritical by taking the post offtopic into a discussion about how the post should not have been taken offtopic. The most assured way to steer a conversation back on course is to do it naturally, rather than criticise the very nature of conversation, or someones topical choices. All you've done is taken the post further away. I don't care about that, but you do.

So desist.

Secondly, I never called a Jewish survivor a hypocrite. You have not posted proof, you have made an erroneous interpretation.

Not all survivors hated hatered. Nowhere have I implied that. In fact I never mentioned a Jewish survivor at all. You've drawn that wierd equation. I used an example because it is extreme, simple and too the point.

Nazism was an intolerant ideology. Obviously. However, western society does not tolerate nazism. Just as Nazism repressed Christianity, democracy, Judaism, dissention and public protest, so now in Germany in particular, is Nazism being repressed, restricted and not allowed.

I use the example because other than communism, there aren't many ideaologies not permitted in the west. Can a Nazi party run for office in Germany? No. Just like a democratic party or Jewish party couldn't run for office under Nazism.

The intolerance is the same. Refusal to accept the others existence. The METHOD is the same, the subject matter is different.

Bringing morality back in, I think it's a beautiful thing we are not tolerating Nazism. But then, I'm not under any illusion I am "tolerance" personified. I accept there are things I cannot and will not tolerate. Going personal for a second, there were things in my first marriage that I tolerated for years that were beyond my acceptance. I tolerated them, endured them. However there cam a point, where I could not tolerate them, and left.

Now, I am intolerant of certain issues in a relationship. I will walk away a lot quicker given certain scenarios. The intolerance is stronger. Setting clearer boundaries. As I mentioned I am intolerant of certain character elements of myself, that I change or remove over time.

Intolerance is not evil. Tolerance is not good. They are ammoral.

If you tolerate someone being racist, or violent, biggoted or whatever, you are being "evil".

If you are intolerant of racism, intolerant of violence, you are being "good".

All depending on your subjective morality of course.

If you tolerate cancer running through you, you will die.
If you are intolerant of cancer, and cut it out, or destroy it, you will live.

Intolerance is a necessary part of life, and a necessary part of society. Laws are built around what is tolerated in society, and what is not. Adultery and homosexuality are now tolerated, where once they were not. Murder, paedophilia and rape are not tolerated. Thankfully so.

Smoking has been tolerated in society by nonsmokers. Any time a smoker smokes around a nonsmoker, they are asking, or demanding that the nonsmoker tolerate their decision, for it impacts over the nonsmokers choices.

Now, we have the issue where nonsmokers, are impacting smokers with their choices. We are choosing to have clean air on aeroplanes, in bars, at work. Our choice is impacting on a nonsmoker in the same way a smokers choice impacts on nonsmokers.

The question is, are smokers going to be tolerant or intolerant of this choice? Certainly New York has developped an exciting "street bar" system, where the bar spills out onto the street, where smokers gather to light up, and then head back inside to see the band. That is the compromise Timber is talking about. Previously, nonsmokers would head outside to "get some air". Now it's the other way round.

A huge case in point, for how, regarding tolerance and intolerance, you merely end up swapping what is tolerated and what is not.


Heirophant, you made a great post. Fully agree.


Chewbacca, your anaology was erroneous. Intolerance is not like fire. Intolerance is a wall. A barrrier. It is the setting of limits as to what is accepted, and what is excluded. You move the wall, destroy it (by refusing to accept it) or ignore the wall, or blow a hole through it.

However, all analogies are flawed, because intolerance is internal, as well as social.

And you can fight fire with fire. It's called BACKBURNING. In fact, it's the most sucessful way to fight bushfires. Burn a little bit, so that when a huge fire comes, it's fuel is already taken.

Like immunising against a virus by giving someone a little bit of that virus.

Mind you, huge numbers of bushfires have been started by a lone cigarette tossed out the window.

Should we then ban smoking from cars during fire season? ;) :D

[ 04-09-2004, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

But that's what laws are. They are restrictions on liberties. For the health of society.

Are you an anarchist? Do you advocate rule of the jungle? Because that is the logiocal extension of applying your intolerance of lawmaking that inhibits personal liberties.

Speed limits
Alcohol limits
Educational requirements for doctors
et etc

All inhibit anothers liberty. I am not free to go and perform an operation at a hospital.

Actually let's break it down. I cannot get a job to support myself, outside the narrow field I am allowed to work in, while in the USA. Your immigration laws have removed my liberty to walk in and out of here freely, and work in any and every field.

Is this a bad thing?

C'mon Night Stalker, stop applying huge generalisations, ignoring the generalisational effect.
When you speak of "Liberty" it does not mean "subjective things I think should be free". How am I going to know what they are?? Use the word for what it means.

I was thinking perhaps it's an American thing, for Heirophant and I are not American. But then Timber agreed with me. Are there any other Americans that agree with my argument re. this linguistic problem here?

I've encountered it with the word "accent". In English, all speakers have an accent. You only hear an accen in others who speak differently to you. It comes from how we all accentuate words differently.

However, in America, the word is often used to mean "English that is not American". It's a distortion of a generalised word into a wierd subject one.

the language is quite comprehensive. You have an American accent, I have an Australian one, she has an english accent. All Good. However Americans will say they have no accent, and the Austrlians and English have accents - and therefore remove the ability to delineate between the accents, because they've dropped the qualifier before the word "accent".

Similarly, in American society it seems "tolerance" is used, especially in Chewbaccas case, to mean "Liberal" or something, whatever that is. "Intolerance", rather than meaning what it is, lumps nazism, racism, discrimination, antihomosexuality etc" all under one basket.

But that is not what the word means. It's prohibitive to communication also, because one person could put Islam under the "intolerance" umbrella - for Saudi Arabi is intolerant of Jews and Christians and American customs etc - while obviously the Muslim would not.

So what of the British Muslim who champions tolerance in that manner. They may be anti-Israel. What of the Zionist who champions tolerance in the name of opposing Arabic intolerance of Israels right to exist.

Using Chewbaccas definition, we have an ever shifting umbrella that shifts depending on who the individual is. NOW it is politically incorrect to love the Bible, and present it in film. Faith is not being tolerated by Hollywood. All in the name of tolerance.

Doesn't make sense. Use the word how it should be used. It gives greater self awareness, and may actually change the world, due to the awareness of the PROCESS of intolerance.

<font color=yellow>Anytime, you are strectched into accepting something you are practicing tolerance.</font>

It is THAT METHOD, which when applied to religion, race, creed, and personality, makes for a more open society.

[ 04-09-2004, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Objection, your honor! Argumentative.

Wrong. The only thing that "shifts" is using the word intolerance in specific circumstances.


Why not just agree to disagree?

[ 04-09-2004, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Taking that point of tolerance back to the concept of a public smoking ban, I feel it is a private establishment's right to decide if they will or will not allow smoking, and under what circumstances they will partition smoking and non-smoking areas, if they decide to do so. We should tolerate smokers, they as a group are no different from non smokers. I am a non smoker, so I can say my position is at least somewhat objective. In an open area, like outdoors, smoking should be perfectly legal. There's more toxic stuff in the air before and after the smoker lights up anyways...

Wrong. The only thing that "shifts" is using the word intolerance in specific circumstances.


Why not just agree to disagree? </font>[/QUOTE]Because I see a growing trend. The UNs discussion, and the hollywood attitude to the bible, could result in the Torah, Bible and Qu'ran from being banned outright, because they are all intolerant of homosexuality. I see an ever increasing intolerance in society under the banner of "tolerance" that is actually frighteningly intolerant.

Very 1984 actually. The ministry of Peace waged war. The ministry of Truth, spread propoganda, the ministry of Love, tortured people. Western societies "ministry of tolerance" is frighteningly intolerant. Just because something is named something, does not mean it is that something.

Additionally Chewbacca, it occurs right now in India, where Hindus preach acceptance and incorporation of ALL FAITHS, for they are pantheistic. All faiths are right, all are o.k. As long as you call yourself a Hindu that is. It ends up the Christianity and Islam are the only faiths NOT tolerated, because they are exclusive faiths.

So, Hinduism will tolerate all faiths.... except exclusive faiths....

Kids get kicked out of home, disowned.

It's a point of concern for me. The very right of Christianity to suggest it is the only way, is what often gets attacked. The right to state a worldview that suggests an alternate reality to post modernism.

It's very pertinent, for we are at the cusp of social change.

Not all Christian sects are exclusive.

Nice try to pull us back on track, Oblivion. I salute your efforts, but point out your task is Herculean.

I mean exclusive in suggesting their way is uniquely correct. The right to even suggest your way is right and anothers is wrong, comes under fire from those trumpetting "tolerance" yet in the process the trumpets are intolerant.

Also speaking of tolerance, and it is relevant to the grander picture of social trevail this topic relates to, has anyone seen the classic D.W. Griffith epic "Intolerance"? It's a great film, it's very much like a fiery minister preaching his sermon, and if that bugs you, the film will rub you the wrong way. However, its serious and well-represented points about being decent and tolerant to other people (Griffith, who'd constructed the mammoth and racist Birth of a Nation went on to construct this to show how he really felt as a person) and in general showing good nature to mankind says a lot about how we really haven't progressed as a people. Honestly, applying that to smokers: If what they're doing is so horrible, stop buying or using anything made of plastic, or else you further an industry which pollutes, massively.

I mean exclusive in suggesting their way is uniquely correct. The right to even suggest your way is right and anothers is wrong, comes under fire from those trumpetting "tolerance" yet in the process the trumpets are intolerant. </font>[/QUOTE]You may feel that way because you feel your beliefs are under attack, but that simply is not the case. And as one "trumpeting" tolerance, I am not saying you need to change your beliefs that you follow "The One True Path". I do request that you (or more to the point, those even more hidebound) accept the fact not everyone believes as you do and not try to force your beliefs upon them through law and let them live according to their own beliefs as they will or face the stigma of being labeled "Intolorant".

As for a previous post of yours, if you don't know how I am defining Liberty, read up on John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, H D Thoureau, Emmerson, Uncle Walt Whitman, Voltaire, Ben Franklin and the like. My concept of Liberty is not defined by "things I agree with" but by "I am free to do what I want, provided that it does not impinge on the Liberties of another" (I don't even want to hear nonsense from you about murder or rape or abuse for they all obviously fail the second half of the clause).