Tolerance

I made this because a thread I was responding to was going way off topic. Here's the last post I gave in that topic:

Originally Posted by mikej

Exactly. Homosexuality and fornication are being condoned simply because people want to do them, not because they're okay. Suffrage came as a result of efforts to bring equality.

If you have theories about tolerance, feel free to post them here, this thread is about tolerance in general.

They aren't being allowed simply because people "want to do them", they're being allowed because people want to do them and the only people they could possibly harm are the people doing them, who are capable of giving consent.

If you ban such things then you are saying that you, and you alone, have the right to decide what everyone on Earth is, and isn't, allowed to do.

How would you like it if I changed the law so that being homosexual was mandatory, claiming that heterosexual marriages destroy your soul? My argument is just as good as yours, so maybe you'll see why people don't agree with you.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

They aren't being allowed simply because people "want to do them", they're being allowed because people want to do them and the only people they could possibly harm are the people doing them, who are capable of giving consent.

You admit that there is a possibility that it could hurt them? Consider this: in the U.S., committing suicide is illegal, and it hurts the person involved. Although I do find the law to be kind of stupid, considering there's nothing anyone can do to enforce it.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

If you ban such things then you are saying that you, and you alone, have the right to decide what everyone on Earth is, and isn't, allowed to do.

I don't have the right. No human does. You did reply to a post of mine that said that, didn't you?

Originally Posted by GDwarf

How would you like it if I changed the law so that being homosexual was mandatory, claiming that heterosexual marriages destroy your soul? My argument is just as good as yours, so maybe you'll see why people don't agree with you.

Yes, let's make the only way to have babies illegal, and make ourselves the last humans to exist. That would cleanse our souls.

Tolerance is a good thing. It involves respecting other people and their choices. Of course, where there is major harm involved (especially so if against other parties), it can be reasonable not to tolerate something.

Yes, let's make the only way to have babies illegal, and make ourselves the last humans to exist. That would cleanse our souls.

You ignored the example and chose to take it literally. Funny, because that example showed how shallow your argument really is.

Originally Posted by mikej

You admit that there is a possibility that it could hurt them?

Not a reasonable one, no, but even if there is, it's immaterial to this discussion.

Consider this: in the U.S., committing suicide is illegal, and it hurts the person involved. Although I do find the law to be kind of stupid, considering there's nothing anyone can do to enforce it.

Suicide shouldn't be illegal. You might be able to make a case for mandatory psychological treatment if you try it, I don't know, I haven't really thought about it that much.

However, can you justify banning something that, at absolute worst, harms only the person doing it?

I don't have the right. No human does. You did reply to a post of mine that said that, didn't you?

Yet you continue to support a ban on such things.

Yes, let's make the only way to have babies illegal, and make ourselves the last humans to exist. That would cleanse our souls.

Every time I make that argument people miss the point. Sure, it's impractical. I'm not, however, asking for the practicality of the argument. I'm asking how it would make you feel in order to try and let you see where everyone else is coming from.

Originally Posted by Blue fire

You ignored the example and chose to take it literally. Funny, because that example showed how shallow your argument really is.

Sorry, I forgot to give my answer with it. I would break that law, if only to keep my morality. That's what many will do when Christ returns, they'll blatantly ignore the law because tolerance will reverse everything we know to be right about halfway through the seven years.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Suicide shouldn't be illegal. You might be able to make a case for mandatory psychological treatment if you try it, I don't know, I haven't really thought about it that much.

Like I said, I don't see why it is illegal, mostly because there's it can do to stop or alter their decision. The last thing an extremely depressed person is going to think about is that suicide is illegal. Actually it's a second, only behind happy thoughts.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Yet you continue to support a ban on such things.

There's a difference between supporting a ban and getting to decide once and for all what is truly right and what is truly wrong.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Every time I make that argument people miss the point. Sure, it's impractical. I'm not, however, asking for the practicality of the argument. I'm asking how it would make you feel in order to try and let you see where everyone else is coming from.

I cannot sympathize with immorality. It is physically (maybe mentally is a more correct term here) impossible for me. If I'm to understand someone else's situation, they have to be moral. I've tried sympathizing in the past, I just can't.

Originally Posted by mikej

There's a difference between supporting a ban and getting to decide once and for all what is truly right and what is truly wrong.

Not at all. If you support the ban you are saying that you do know what is right and what is wrong, else why take away freedoms?

I cannot sympathize with immorality. It is physically (maybe mentally is a more correct term here) impossible for me. If I'm to understand someone else's situation, they have to be moral. I've tried sympathizing in the past, I just can't.

But what if what you believe is what's immoral? How can you know otherwise? After all, there are other religious texts, one of which has the same number of supporters as Christianity, that call your morality wrong.

Heck, most other sects of Christianity would call parts of your morality wrong.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Not at all. If you support the ban you are saying that you do know what is right and what is wrong, else why take away freedoms?

The law does not decide once and for all what is right and what is wrong. That's why it can be changed, to get closer to being what is right. Also, the law can be made in opposite of what is right. Look at Hitler. Do I even need to explain why I mentioned Hitler?

Originally Posted by GDwarf

But what if what you believe is what's immoral? How can you know otherwise? After all, there are other religious texts, one of which has the same number of supporters as Christianity, that call your morality wrong.

Numbers mean nothing in how correct something is. After all, following WWII, Stalin thought just because the U.S.S.R. was the biggest county, it was the highest world power.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Heck, most other sects of Christianity would call parts of your morality wrong.

I don't care how wrong they are, it has no effect on me.

Originally Posted by mikej

I don't care how wrong they are, it has no effect on me.

I'm not too sure I understand the song... Its about tolerance right? To debate why certain things are tolerated?

Using some of your reasoning we should ban all things that are immoral... But immoral for whom. I personally think that some of your beliefs are immoral because they include taking rights away from people. We may as well ban the right to practice religion in that case.

Originally Posted by mikej

The law does not decide once and for all what is right and what is wrong. That's why it can be changed, to get closer to being what is right. Also, the law can be made in opposite of what is right. Look at Hitler. Do I even need to explain why I mentioned Hitler?

My point is, why take away freedoms? How can you justify that?

It takes much less justification to add a freedom than it does to remove it, simply because without society we have perfect freedom, and since society is simply a social contract between people in order to increase security, it's up to society to justify removing those freedoms.

Also, you just said that you are trying to amend the law to make it "more right", well then, I must ask, does that not mean that you feel that arbitrarily denying freedoms is the right thing to do?

Numbers mean nothing in how correct something is. After all, following WWII, Stalin thought just because the U.S.S.R. was the biggest county, it was the highest world power.

Agreed.

However, you can't defend your point objectively, you can't defend it using numbers, how can you defend it?

I don't care how wrong they are, it has no effect on me.

If they had the same mindset as you it would have an effect on you, since they'd simply outlaw your branch of religion for being immoral.

That is, after all, essentially what you're advocating, making personal opinions that differ from yours illegal.

Oh Dorothy, you're not in Kansas anymore: welcome to the exciting world of liberalism!

That's what many will do when Christ returns, they'll blatantly ignore the law because tolerance will reverse everything we know to be right about halfway through the seven years.

What if Vishnu comes back before Christ does? Of worse, Zeus!

Could you imagine how awkward *that* would be?

The fact is that Christ isn't here, and I don't believe that he'll *ever* be coming back. He died 2500 years ago and has yet to make an encore appearance thus far.

We all have to share a planet, live together and work together. Liberalism (which you have no doubt benefited from) recognises this and strives to mould the world in a way that allows everybody to co-exist as peacefully as possible. For that to happen we have to willing to accept and drive change. That's how we make progress, and it's how we grow as a species.

Tolerance is a basic human necessity. Through compassion, empathy and yes, a little common sense, we can learn to put the irrational and intuitive problems that we have with one another to one sideand move forward.

Morality isn't something that you should pluck from thin air; it should be constantly considered and revised. I am a very moral person, and for every moral assessment I make I can back it up with reason. Falling back on 'God said so' or 'Jeezuz wont be happy when he comes back' isn't good enough I'm afraid. There are plenty of things that go on across this planet that make me feel uncomfortable, although if I can't come up with a reasonable explanation for why that is, then I accept that it's *MY* problem. It might be easier for me to project that onto another person, but my ego doesn't take precedence over another person's right to live and enjoy their life.

That is what tolerance is all about, and it's what liberalism strives to achieve. You can still seek to change the world for the better, push for tolerance *and* keep a strong moral code. A moral code that can be justified and explained no less!

Tolerance =/= hedonistic existentialism.

When Jesus shows up, *then* he can tell us what to do. Although wasn't Jesus all about empathy and humility? Me thinks he'd be a great supporter of what we're doing on the earth, although some people seem to have an X-rated version of the New Testament where Jesus drove tanks through Iraq.

This is my philosophy, regarding tolerence.

I believe in the right of every human to believe in whatever religion they please, participate in any sexual act that they want to, and basically live their own lives in a way that makes them as happy as possible.

The moment that any of these things starts to negatively impact others, they lose that right ias far as I am concerned. I mean intentionally, of course, or at least in a way that can be helped.

The moment that a person tries to force it's opinions, beliefs or morals on another person, they also lose the right.

That might sound a little too simple, and it is, but I try to apply it when dealing with people whose attitudes or lifestyles I don't quite agree with.