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