Smoking ban

[Yorick]

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 ]

[Timber Loftis]

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.

Objection, your honor! Argumentative.

[Chewbacca]

Using Chewbaccas definition, we have an ever shifting umbrella that shifts depending on who the individual is.

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 ]

[Oblivion437]

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...

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Using Chewbaccas definition, we have an ever shifting umbrella that shifts depending on who the individual is.

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


Why not just agree to disagree? [/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.

[Yorick]

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.

[Timber Loftis]

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.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Not all Christian sects are exclusive.

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.

[Oblivion437]

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.

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Not all Christian sects are exclusive.

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. [/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).