[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Exactly where have I stated that my personal sense of morality is better or worst than anyone elses, even if it differs? How exactly am I unaware. Prove these assertions about me. Prove them or retract.

You have repeatedly spoken of a "higher morality", regarding human rights and equality.
Chewbacca, they are no more or less subjective than any other morality. You personally regard them as causes that justify going against other parts of your moral code, like following laws prohibiting gay marriages for example. However, that's your personal subjective value system, not some universal truth.

Here, I will spell it out so it will be on the record: If you think that intolerance, bigotry, ethnic cleansing, segregation, inequality, ect. are some how morally high, then you've got me...I think my 'morality' , including the conscious practice of tolerance, is higher than people who have or support any of those qualities. Am I all alone in this perspective of being moral? I think not. Lay off the ad hominems and personal commentary and quit changing the context of words mid-discussion (you know very well what context of the word intolerance I am using, and its not the same context of being intolerant to being killed) and maybe, just maybe, I will have a thoughtful reply that pertains to the topic. But if thats the best that can be offered, an accusation of being "holier than thou", with a lecture on the subjectivity of morality and some word twisting then I have nothing more to add in reply in this discussion beyond this post. ******************************************** If the spirit of the word tolerance included tolerating hate-speech, the KKK, Nazi death Camps, bigotry, segregation, and Ect. then we would not need the word intolerance at all. It wouldn't matter. There is a third state that should be described, and that is apathy. Apathy is what you get when intolerance is tolerated. Indifference to hate, ignoring bigotry- allows it to flourish. The spirit of being tolerant is naturally against intolerance. Another perspective: Tolerance is like water for illustrative purposes It is like Ice and steam. Water can only be one form or the other at any give time. Apathy is like water that has stood too long: stagnant. Not exactly a perfect metaphor, but tolerant is not a perfect word as evident by this very discussion. For example: Someone can get so totally hung up on proving the literal defintion of a word, that they fail to grasp the spirit of its meaning from the perspective I have provide. They even go so far as to assume that, because I find the focus on being totally literal incorrect, that I must think myself higher or better. When the truth is I have a different perspective, one that is correct for me. I'm willing to allow these two different ideas stand side by side, expressing my opinions that the literal perspective, is incorrect and why. I tolerate the differing perspective, as it seems not to be rooted in intolerance,( though the ad hominem tactic used to reply to my disagreeance may skirt the border) but I disagree. Disagreement is not intolerance. Disagreement is not to automatically say I am morally better. Can you tolerate disagreement? The other thing is I can grasp and understand the literal perspective, but I reject it for a perspective that has personal meaning and an inspired call for action that has demonstratably brought results for the betterment of society. After all Rosa Parks didn't just give her seat up to a white guy on the bus that day. I sure the hell wouldn't call her intolerant. You can if you want, if that perspective works for you fine. I disagree. I can also formulate a literal perspective that differs: Tolerance doesnt tolerate intolerance because tolerance is the exact opposite of intolerance. Ideas that are mutually exclusive. Very much a paradox, but like i said I reject the narrow literalist perspective in this case even it if creates a concept that logic wants to deny. Even if it might give a big middle finger to the dictionary defintions. [img]graemlins/finger.gif[/img] Are my perspectives understandable? Are they graspable? Are they tolerable? Will I get a reply that isn't a cheapshot-accusation that I think I'm better than thou? Will dictionary definition number three or four of the word get tossed in the mix? I guess I will find out next time....

All you've done is argue reasons that justify intolerance in given situations. But your are wrong to believe you are being tolerant.

Why aren't you understanding this? INTOLERANCE is AMORAL. The morality hinges on what you tolerate or not. You can be intolerant of "evil" actions. You can be intolerant of murder, rape, abortion, homosexuality, bigotry, cigarette smoke, smoking bans, taxes, children, noise, injustice, rudeness, or anything else. Intelerance, like discrimination have become politically incorrect, yet, it's an absurdity. Those decrying intolerance itself - per se - are hypocritically engaging in the same judgemental process they are decrying.

Thanks for your support Timber. I was beginning to think I was in a mad house.

It's like someone being critical of criticism.

????

Or someone hating hatred.

???

Or someone refusing to refuse anything.

???

All completely impossible.

And Chewbacca, it's more than pertinent. All that's happening in American society, is that what is tolerated and intolerated is changing, rather than tolerance itself growing. Gibsons lynching by the media before TPOTC showed how far the "religious freedom/freedom of speech" barometre has swung to the other extreme, but equally as restrictive, intolerant and blind.

Take homosexuality. The United nations has been discussing enacting international laws regarding it. However, this directly runs over Islamic nations freedom of religion, and autonomy regarding national laws. By DECREEING tolerance of homosexuality, the Islamic, Jewish and Christian religions are not tolerated.

Same intolerance, just a different subject.

I will digress if I repeat the mantra, that the Bible (considering the New Testaments GRACE for all humankind) accepts homosexuals, but not homosexuality - making a distinction between the person, and the action - but so be it.

[ 04-06-2004, 05:47 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]