Quote:
Originally posted by Night Stalker:
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.
|
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.
Anytime, you are strectched into accepting something you are practicing tolerance.
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 ]