|
Funny you would say that when you post is the same thing, just wordier. You didn't make an argument, just said that thinking tolerance means tolerance of intolerance is wrong and laughable. Personally, I think calling something tolerance when it's only tolerant towards certain ideals is laughable.
Firstly, you seem to have some kind of arbitrary standard for me launching a full-scale "argument". I made a point, and you even repeated it. It seems like you think that declaring that I've done nothing, while repeating the thing that I did, means that I did nothing? For someone so interested in an argument, I'd think you might bother with responding to my opinion. Looks like you just wanted to call me a hypocrite.
If you think that tolerance of everything is actually even a possibility, then you're simply not thinking it through. And I would say to you that we have a lot of freedom today because we did not tolerate others intolerance. Don't be one of those lazy people who thinks life will magically be great if we all just refrain from giving a shit about anyone doing whatever the hell they want. It's ridiculous and devoid of any intellectual scrutiny.
you think monotheists do not respect other people's ideologies. you either don't know what respect means or... something
Or you're just bad at perpetuating monotheism. I think the word is religious moderate? Which is basically where you say that your belief is the only true one (monotheism) but that you still "respect" others, even though you 'know' that they are invalid. Just because you think that that's what respect is, doesn't mean that anyone else has to feel respected by it, or agree that that's what respect is. And just because you aren't verbalizing your invalidation of their beliefs, doesn't mean that you aren't thinking it, and being it.
...but you just said someone else's thoughts were laughable. What's the difference between your thoughts that are ridiculous and the other guy's thoughts that are... funny?
Their thoughts don't actually respect mine or others, they merely claim to. While you may see only hypocrisy, I see common sense in affording no respect to that which inherently does not respect me. Freedom 101.
|
On July 27 2012 06:26 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 06:20 taintmachine wrote:On July 27 2012 06:17 Lumi wrote:On July 27 2012 06:16 taintmachine wrote:On July 27 2012 06:14 Lumi wrote:On July 27 2012 04:40 Zaqwert wrote:![[image loading]](http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/7899/39136910151133419454414.jpg) If you think that being open-minded or tolerant to ideologies that are monotheistic or otherwise dogmatic (which means that they in turn do not respect your own ideologies) is a remotely intelligent or virtuous idea, you are about as wrong as it gets. Tolerating intolerance is nothing if not laughable. pretty ridiculous how some of you think. Thanks for your very worthwhile post where you generally insult the way people in this thread are thinking. Or was that just for me? Care to be a decent person and interact with me beyond showing up and saying that my thoughts are ridiculous? you think monotheists do not respect other people's ideologies. you either don't know what respect means or... something He wrote that in parenthesis next to dogmatic =.='''
then menionting monotheism at all is rather out of place with the rest of his post
|
|
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 06:29 Lumi wrote:Show nested quote +Funny you would say that when you post is the same thing, just wordier. You didn't make an argument, just said that thinking tolerance means tolerance of intolerance is wrong and laughable. Personally, I think calling something tolerance when it's only tolerant towards certain ideals is laughable. Firstly, you seem to have some kind of arbitrary standard for me launching a full-scale "argument". I made a point, and you even repeated it. It seems like you think that declaring that I've done nothing, while repeating the thing that I did, means that I did nothing? For someone so interested in an argument, I'd think you might bother with responding to my opinion. Looks like you just wanted to call me a hypocrite. If you think that tolerance of everything is actually even a possibility, then you're simply not thinking it through. And I would say to you that we have a lot of freedom today because we did not tolerate others intolerance. Don't be one of those lazy people who thinks life will magically be great if we all just refrain from giving a shit about anyone doing whatever the hell they want. It's ridiculous and devoid of any intellectual scrutiny. Show nested quote +you think monotheists do not respect other people's ideologies. you either don't know what respect means or... something Or you're just bad at perpetuating monotheism. I think the word is religious moderate? Which is basically where you say that your belief is the only true one (monotheism) but that you still "respect" others, even though you 'know' that they are invalid. Just because you think that that's what respect is, doesn't mean that anyone else has to feel respected by it, or agree that that's what respect is. And just because you aren't verbalizing your invalidation of their beliefs, doesn't mean that you aren't thinking it, and being it.
My point was that you acted as though your post was somehow better than his. Aside from proper grammar and better vocab, you both said the same thing - the other sides reasoning is wrong because you think it is.
And yea, I did want to point out you're being a hypocrite.
|
I also feel the need to make something clear for the people spouting the whole "tolerating intolerance" crap.
To tolerate something is to objectively view something fairly, usually an opinion or view that differs with one's own. A person does not tolerate tolerance or intolerance, you're either for it or against it. If you're for tolerance, you're against intolerance. It's simple as that.
To tolerate everything would necessarily mean you don't have a single opinion on ANYTHING.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 06:33 S_SienZ wrote:
I also feel the need to make something clear for the people spouting the whole "tolerating intolerance" crap.
To tolerate something is to objectively view something fairly, usually an opinion or view that differs with one's own. A liberal does not tolerate tolerance or intolerance, you're either for it or against it. If you're for tolerance, you're against intolerance. It's simple as that.
To tolerate everything would necessarily mean you don't have a single opinion on ANYTHING.
That's not my view of tolerance. Tolerance means you accept that someone else can have a position even if you don't agree with it. I'm against intolerance, but I will not silence it.
|
My point was that you acted as though your post was somehow better than his. Aside from proper grammar and better vocab, you both said the same thing - the other sides reasoning is wrong because you think it is.
And yea, I did want to point out you're being a hypocrite.
I responded to your last post above on this page now - edited it in. It still addresses the point you're continuing to press.
|
I'm against intolerance, but I will not silence it.
What the hell does that even mean? How does it even count to be "against" something if you accept it? It's like when people say they care, but in no way actually s how it or act on it. They may as well not care. You're performing some mental gymnastics here.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 06:36 Lumi wrote:What the hell does that even mean? How does it even count to be "against" something if you accept it? You're performing some mental gymnastics here.
Allowing someone to speak their beliefs is not accepting it.
|
On July 27 2012 06:37 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 06:36 Lumi wrote: I'm against intolerance, but I will not silence it. What the hell does that even mean? How does it even count to be "against" something if you accept it? You're performing some mental gymnastics here. Allowing someone to speak their beliefs is not accepting it.
Okay so then you're against intolerance but you're not accepting of others beliefs that you don't agree with? On that note, I need to shower, afk for a bit.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 06:38 Lumi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 06:37 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 06:36 Lumi wrote: I'm against intolerance, but I will not silence it. What the hell does that even mean? How does it even count to be "against" something if you accept it? You're performing some mental gymnastics here. Allowing someone to speak their beliefs is not accepting it. Okay so then you're against intolerance but you're not accepting of others beliefs that you don't agree with? On that note, I need to shower, afk for a bit.
What? Tolerance and acceptable are two different things. I will tolerate you speaking your mind while still disagreeing with what you say, What is hard to understand about that?
|
On July 27 2012 06:34 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 06:33 S_SienZ wrote:
I also feel the need to make something clear for the people spouting the whole "tolerating intolerance" crap.
To tolerate something is to objectively view something fairly, usually an opinion or view that differs with one's own. A liberal does not tolerate tolerance or intolerance, you're either for it or against it. If you're for tolerance, you're against intolerance. It's simple as that.
To tolerate everything would necessarily mean you don't have a single opinion on ANYTHING. That's not my view of tolerance. Tolerance means you accept that someone else can have a position even if you don't agree with it. I'm against intolerance, but I will not silence it.
I believe we're on the same page here.
My point was essentially that it is possible to be against intolerance yet claim to be tolerant without being contradictory. Taking away one's freedom of speech was never really in contention there.
Anyways it's nearly 6am here, gtg.
|
On July 26 2012 14:23 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 14:21 logikly wrote:On July 26 2012 14:12 Courthead wrote:
You guys don't understand the difference between local governments and the federal governments.
Cities and states can do almost anything for almost any reason. That includes doing everything in their power in order to ban certain businesses from operating there. Whether it's Wal-Mart, because they don't like big chains, or Chick-Fil-A, because they don't like supporting bigotry.
Sorry but you guys just don't understand law. I'm no lawyer but I am positive that a City cannot ban a company from its limits without a legitimate reason. A Political stance is nothing more than 1st amendment right. They are not denying gays entry to the business; they are merely speaking on an issue. I always laugh how the leftest try to silence anyone who disagrees with them yet say they are the party of open minds. Yea, but the right disenfranchising whole voter blocks is not silencing one bit. Come on you partisan hack, do better next time.
Dafuq are you talking about?
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 06:41 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 06:34 Myles wrote:On July 27 2012 06:33 S_SienZ wrote:
I also feel the need to make something clear for the people spouting the whole "tolerating intolerance" crap.
To tolerate something is to objectively view something fairly, usually an opinion or view that differs with one's own. A liberal does not tolerate tolerance or intolerance, you're either for it or against it. If you're for tolerance, you're against intolerance. It's simple as that.
To tolerate everything would necessarily mean you don't have a single opinion on ANYTHING. That's not my view of tolerance. Tolerance means you accept that someone else can have a position even if you don't agree with it. I'm against intolerance, but I will not silence it. I believe we're on the same page here. My point was essentially that it is possible to be against intolerance yet claim to be tolerant without being contradictory. Taking away one's freedom of speech was never really in contention there. Anyways it's nearly 6am here, gtg.
That's not how a lot of people feel. They would happily silence people who they consider intolerant. Anyways, gnight... I think.
|
I do not support gay marriage. Although gay couples raising a child has no effect on the outcome of the child's sexual preference, there is and always will be intolerance in the south. Whether it be against gays or against other races. Its tough being non-white in places in the southern US, but then again I don't know how soon a place like Georgia will support gay marriage anyways.
|
|
|
On July 27 2012 06:29 Lumi wrote:Show nested quote +Funny you would say that when you post is the same thing, just wordier. You didn't make an argument, just said that thinking tolerance means tolerance of intolerance is wrong and laughable. Personally, I think calling something tolerance when it's only tolerant towards certain ideals is laughable. Firstly, you seem to have some kind of arbitrary standard for me launching a full-scale "argument". I made a point, and you even repeated it. It seems like you think that declaring that I've done nothing, while repeating the thing that I did, means that I did nothing? For someone so interested in an argument, I'd think you might bother with responding to my opinion. Looks like you just wanted to call me a hypocrite. If you think that tolerance of everything is actually even a possibility, then you're simply not thinking it through. And I would say to you that we have a lot of freedom today because we did not tolerate others intolerance. Don't be one of those lazy people who thinks life will magically be great if we all just refrain from giving a shit about anyone doing whatever the hell they want. It's ridiculous and devoid of any intellectual scrutiny. Show nested quote +you think monotheists do not respect other people's ideologies. you either don't know what respect means or... something Or you're just bad at perpetuating monotheism. I think the word is religious moderate? Which is basically where you say that your belief is the only true one (monotheism) but that you still "respect" others, even though you 'know' that they are invalid. Just because you think that that's what respect is, doesn't mean that anyone else has to feel respected by it, or agree that that's what respect is. And just because you aren't verbalizing your invalidation of their beliefs, doesn't mean that you aren't thinking it, and being it.
yea im an atheist bro. like i said, the way you think is ridiculous. you come off presumptious and arrogant, and you ask another to be decent. not going to get into a drawn out argument on what respect or tolerance means with you, but (a) they are not the same thing tho you mention them together and seem to imply that they are, (b) respect can have little to do with actually agreeing with someone or something
|
Myles and taint - the distinction you're making barely sounds good on paper, where it already appears more as a matter of semantics t han anything. Do you feel respected when people tell you that your god doesn't exist? Do you feel respected by the awareness you have of the multitude of people who think that? You're pitting this all on a single arbitrary standard of freedom of speech, which, as s_sienz pointed out as not really in contention here.
Peoples monotheistic beliefs manifest in many negative ways outside of the possibility of being intolerant of what people say or think. When things are put in practice, and its the real-world actions that stem from the differing preferences of peoples beliefs, you run into problems really quickly.
People brainwash their kids instead of actually letting them think for themselves when it comes to these things. People interfere with the political and social landscapes based on their beliefs. They might vote for a candidate who supports some rights, at the expense of others. They prevent the availability of birth control in Africa over their beliefs. If you'd like more examples, I can give you a ton.
Most people who try to practice to the tune of 'to each their own' really just aren't thinking it through, and are oblivious to the degrees to which their everyday decisions are violating other peoples "own". Remaining silent in conversation in the areas in which you degree is hardly all it takes to be "respectful".
PS
you come off presumptious and arrogant
How one comes off isn't some universal truth that everyone experiences. You're acting as though everyone experiences everyone in the same way. As I happen to have just shared the recent developments of this thread with a friend to get their thoughts on it all, and having heard their commentary, I am confident that I am being experienced differently by others. Not that it was a stretch to believe.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 07:07 Lumi wrote:
Myles, the distinction you're making barely sounds good on paper, where it already appears more as a matter of semantics t han anything. Do you feel respected when people tell you that your god doesn't exist? Do you feel respected by the awareness you have of the multitude of people who think that? You're pitting this all on a single arbitrary standard of freedom of speech, which, as s_sienz pointed out as not really in contention here.
Peoples monotheistic beliefs manifest in many negative ways outside of the possibility of being intolerant of what people say or think. When things are put in practice, and its the real-world actions that stem from the differing preferences of peoples beliefs, you run into problems really quickly.
People brainwash their kids instead of actually letting them think for themselves when it comes to these things. People interfere with the political and social landscapes based on their beliefs. They prevent the availability of birth control in Africa over their beliefs. If you'd like more examples, I can give you a ton.
Most people who try to practice to the tune of 'to each their own' really just aren't thinking it through, and are oblivious to the degrees to which their everyday decisions are violating other peoples "own".
I'm agnostic, so it doesn't bother me when people trash religion anymore than when they trash gay marriage. They both offend my sense tolerance if they can't make a well reasoned opinion, which bigots rarely do. And I agree with all your negatives points on religion, many times those are true and I'm very much against it, but there are also many religious people that don't act like the Westboro Baptist Church.
And for the record, I'm against being able to make laws that govern others personal behaviors in general.
|
On July 27 2012 06:36 Lumi wrote:What the hell does that even mean? How does it even count to be "against" something if you accept it? It's like when people say they care, but in no way actually s how it or act on it. They may as well not care. You're performing some mental gymnastics here.
This really isn't that complicated. You can be tolerant, while accepting that some people are intolerant. You can work in favor of a society and policies that are more tolerant. You can be accepting of people's right to voice their intolerant opinions, and at the same time work against them in favor of whatever ideal you happen to be in favor of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
