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?