It seems to be both in the democratic and "New Age" spirit of things to be tolerant of all views and opinions, or so they claim. One of the most frequent responses I hear to an intelligent discussion is "well this is just what I believe" or "why can you just accept his beliefs?"

I have concluded that tolerance by itself is not a virtue. Intolerance is fine when it is in response to ignorance. I feel that if I am informed of a thing and another person is not, they have no business discussing things and certainly have no business disputing what I have to say. It is there job to become informed in it before they start disputing it.

I also want to be clear that tolerance is not a bad thing by itself. If am ignorant of a thing I am tolerant of any who have opposing views. If I want to have the right to dispute them it is my job to read up and actually become informed on the topic. Perhaps then, humility is a better word. I will remain humble in the things I say and do, but be brutally intolerant of ignorance.

So for future reference, don't bitch at me for being intolerant of your views.

Oh yes--any thoughts, objections?

Of course tolerance is a virtue, it is supposed to be what this country is founded on. How could we have any of our basic freedoms if we weren't tolerant of other peoples religions, beliefs, things people say or write, the list goes on and on.

I agree. But I think you should pity those who r ignorant. Ignorance is not a curse. Unwillingness to Learn is.

He who knows not and knows not he knows not. He is a fool. Show Him.

He who knows not and knows he knows not. He is Simple. Teach him.

He who knows and knows not he knows. He is asleep. Awake him.

He who knows and knows he knows. He is wise. Follow him.

Also I think sometimes we are so sure of our own intelligence that we are unable to see the other person's perspective. That may be one of the cause of intolerance in some cases.

Of course tolerance is a virtue, it is supposed to be what this country is founded on. How could we have any of our basic freedoms if we weren't tolerant of other peoples religions, beliefs, things people say or write, the list goes on and on.

So what you're saying is you didn't read my post?

So what you're saying is you didn't read my post?

Apparantly didn't make it past the thread title.:slow_en:

Tolerence is something taught.. that explains why violence is 90% impulsive becuase it's more natural..

Rather than tolerating a homo like fire zouave i'd persaonally be happy to smack that clown in the mouth.. tolerence is thought violence is impulse.

Tolerence is something taught.. that explains why violence is 90% impulsive becuase it's more natural..

Rather than tolerating a homo like fire zouave i'd persaonally be happy to smack that clown in the mouth.. tolerence is thought violence is impulse.

Tolerence is something taught.. that explains why violence is 90% impulsive becuase it's more natural..

Rather than tolerating a homo like fire zouave i'd persaonally be happy to smack that clown in the mouth.. tolerence is thought violence is impulse.

Violence is often impulsive because its generally fueled by heat of the moment emotions.In hindsight a vast majority see their violent reactions as irrational and not the right course of action.The violent explosion that seemed to be necessary at that point in time can,in hindsight, be evaluated without the emotional influence that hindered the individuals ability to think rationally in the actual situation.

So you see violence isn't impulsive because its 'more natural' ,its impulsive because its fueled by conditions & emotions that aren't conducive to optimum & rational decision making.

Intolerance is fine when it is in response to ignorance.

If am ignorant of a thing I am tolerant of any who have opposing views. If I want to have the right to dispute them it is my job to read up and actually become informed on the topic. Perhaps then, humility is a better word. I will remain humble in the things I say and do, but be brutally intolerant of ignorance.




What is the purpose of intolerance? Would intolerance be helpful in getting your point across? I doubt it. It will just increase the barriers. It might, in some cases, make a person become aware of his ignorance and get to work on it but that goal can be attained by being tolerant too.


I think we all have different levels of certainties and if the discussions are tolerant, they'll be more fruitful. The more knowledgeable guy will gain a better perspective on what the less knowledgeable guy thinks and might become aware of a different point of view. I dunno what would intolerance help him gain.


Most people, including me, aren't aware of our ignorance and will give an opinion immaterial of the fact we've thought about it enough or not. People don't just dispute because they've concluded that they are right. Most of the times, we're guided by our instincts.

What is the purpose of intolerance? Would intolerance be helpful in getting your point across? I doubt it. It will just increase the barriers. It might, in some cases, make a person become aware of his ignorance and get to work on it but that goal can be attained by being tolerant too.

I disagree. I think the problem that tolerance brings is a sort of complacency wherein people are not challenged to defend their beliefs. The sort of mentality that says, "Well, you have your opinion and I have mine. Sure they might be different, but lets all be happy anyway. Here, have a hug!"

An argument consist of premises, a conclusion, and inferences. Some of those premises are the conclusion of other arguments, but again--those prior arguments have the same elements. Assumptions are simply implicit premises that have the same structure as explicit premises.

It seems to me then that we can only genuinely disagree on a few key points:

- We disagree on the truth or falsity of the premises, in which one of us could either a) lack accurate information, or b) sees the premise as a conclusion whose argument involved faulty reasoning.

- One of us is, knowingly or unknowingly, relying on an assumption that the other is not accounting for.

- One or both of us arrived at said conclusion as the result of improper inferences.

Now you can say things like, "Oh we have different assumptions about the world" or "We have had different experiences in our lives". But the assumptions, as we have said, can be detected and unpacked as new arguments which can be discussed, and personal experiences can be submitted as evidence but must also be considered as a narrow piece unless corroborated with other independent evidence.

Because these are things that can be publicly addressed, I see no reason why I should be tolerant of an opinion that I see as mistaken. Any difference of opinion from my own I should see as a challenge of my own beliefs, and a debate between the two can result in one of both of our opinions being found in error. Moreover, I tend to thing that this aggressive clash of opinions, rather than a tentative, appeasing approach, is more likely to encourage the rooting out of errors as there is more personally invested in finding a problem rather than highlighting similarities.

Of course, I am not ruling out the place of diplomacy--we should all us tact when addressing things of conflict..

I think we all have different levels of certainties and if the discussions are tolerant, they'll be more fruitful. The more knowledgeable guy will gain a better perspective on what the less knowledgeable guy thinks and might become aware of a different point of view. I dunno what would intolerance help him gain.

I think you are conflating tolerance with a lack of belligerence. I think a person can be intolerant of differing opinions and still approach such a conflict with a level head.

Most people, including me, aren't aware of our ignorance and will give an opinion immaterial of the fact we've thought about it enough or not. People don't just dispute because they've concluded that they are right. Most of the times, we're guided by our instincts.

Of course, which is why intolerance of those opinions is crucial. It forces you to articulate for yourself what it is you believe and why you believe it. If it can stand up repeatedly to public scrutiny, then it should stand. If not, then the constant challenge should weaken those that you are less confident in and should force your to educate yourself in those opinions that you hold as important.

I think the problem that tolerance brings is a sort of complacency wherein people are not challenged to defend their beliefs. The sort of mentality that says, "Well, you have your opinion and I have mine. Sure they might be different, but lets all be happy anyway. Here, have a hug!"

I think we can be tolerant and debate our views in a better way so as to foster a better understanding and arrive at a conclusion than if we are intolerant of the other person's opinion or if we mark him as ignorant from the beginning.

Complacency comes from lack of arguing or "know it all" attitude which we come to have if our beliefs remain unquestioned. Good debates will never let complacency set in. Does intolerance helps us shatter the wall of "know it all" attitude or ignorance? I don't think its very efficient in doing so. If we explain our point in a tolerant way, the probability that we get our point across will be much higher IMO.

We can disagree with a person's opinion and still be tolerant.

------

Now I was listening to this debate between dawkins and lennox the other day and none of the guy was able to "convert" the other one. So this thing about argument is very complex. If it was so cut and dry, I think all the well meaning people would be on one side of the spectrum - single uniform ideology.

I agree with you that we should challenge the other's ideology if we see it seems erroneous to us in order to have a better understanding so as to have a much more enlightened opinion. :) Like you said, tact is important.

------

I think even bs should be tolerated till it hurts or hampers "our way of life". I'm not sure regarding this though.

Moreover, I tend to thing that this aggressive clash of opinions, rather than a tentative, appeasing approach, is more likely to encourage the rooting out of errors as there is more personally invested in finding a problem rather than highlighting similarities.

I think that a more vigorous soul-searching will result if the people aren't pushed towards the wall. That leads us to panic and sends us into our shell where we become bad listeners.

I think you are conflating tolerance with a lack of belligerence. I think a person can be intolerant of differing opinions and still approach such a conflict with a level head.

Yes I was. I think intolerance leads to that. Doesnt intolerance in a debate means that a person is being belligerent? How else would a persn know that one is infact intolerant?

Of course, which is why intolerance of those opinions is crucial. It forces you to articulate for yourself what it is you believe and why you believe it. If it can stand up repeatedly to public scrutiny, then it should stand. If not, then the constant challenge should weaken those that you are less confident in and should force your to educate yourself in those opinions that you hold as important.

While I agree that intolerance forces you to educate yourself before debating and inproves the quality of the debates, I just dont see it as a necessity. And there are side effects of intolerance like a person wont be inclined to understand your opinion since he typecasted you into a stereotypical smartarse.

Again, If we exercise tolerance, I think we'll be able to get our point across in a much better way. I think I'm repeating the same arguments. :wah:

Now I was listening to this debate between dawkins and lennox the other day and none of the guy was able to "convert" the other one. So this thing about argument is very complex. If it was so cut and dry, I think all the well meaning people would be on one side of the spectrum - single uniform ideology.

Well, first lets be clear--it IS cut and dry. If we have a disagreement, it can stem from a very select few places.

With that said, people are not, on the whole, rational in most of their judgments. I readily admit that I frequently am not. We take challenges personally and get affronted when people tell us we are wrong.

However, I think the important of intolerance is how it affects the public sphere. While I have doubt very much that Dawkins would ever be convinced of anything regarding anything good about religion, Dawkins does not debate with others to convince THEM of the rightness of his claims, but to convince the public that this Lennox fellow is faulty in his thinking and that he has the best answer to the problem posed.

Ultimately, if a person's mind is to be changed, it must come from an open-minded mentality from that person himself. After all, if no one else is listening, who is being hurt by that person's ignorance other than the person himself?

I think even bs should be tolerated till it hurts or hampers "our way of life". I'm not sure regarding this though.

Did you read that essay called "On Bullshit" that I posted?

I think that a more vigorous soul-searching will result if the people aren't pushed towards the wall. That leads us to panic and sends us into our shell where we become bad listeners.

Actually, I think the opposite. The threat of having to defend a position, if challenged, will foster more cautious and more carefully considered statements of opinion for fear of appearing constantly ignorant. It will also encourage more general probing for information and understanding rather than coming out with an opinion as soon as it pops into one's head. People will be much more apt to say, "What do you think of this?" or "As was thinking about this, but I'm not entirely sure."

As it stands now, people are unaccountable for their opinions. They can get away with saying, "Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree" and few will challenge them or force the issue because they are afraid of appearing to be "intolerant".

Yes I was. I think intolerance leads to that. Doesnt intolerance in a debate means that a person is being belligerent? How else would a persn know that one is infact intolerant?

No, I don't think so. I think I am quite intolerant of incorrect opinions (to the point that Narb accused me of having nothing better to do than argue with him), but I never (or do my best not to) attack people personally.

Name calling, aggression, appealing to previous threads in the context of the debate, or challenging motives are all belligerent actions, but it has nothing to do with tolerance or intolerance.

While I agree that intolerance forces you to educate yourself before debating and inproves the quality of the debates, I just dont see it as a necessity. And there are side effects of intolerance like a person wont be inclined to understand your opinion since he typecasted you into a stereotypical smartarse.

Again, that is his loss. As long as you have demonstrated yourself to be thoughtful and somewhat detached to most people observing, I think you will be seen as credible. Further, the individual who is flat ignoring you will be seen as the person who doesn't bother to listen to and attempt to understand the other side. Bad for the reputation.

I think I'm repeating the same arguments. :wah:

lol repetition is the nature of the beast.

I’d probably be inclined to reguard tolerance as virtue.
Even in a situation where someone is ignorant of the facts.Actually it could be argued that remaining tolerant in such a situation is where tolerance is at its most virtuous.
After all, others will be more tolerant of you if u show them the same,and moreso if you exercise tolerance in a situation where you have all the right not to be tolerant.Being tolerant also puts you in a position where those who oppose your views will be more inclined to listen and respect your opinion.

That’s just an opinion I have on this…I don’t know if im right or wrong or if what I just said holds up to any scrutiny.
However if someone is intolerant of this POV then I probably wouldn’t be interested in discussing it any further with them....even if they r right.

Well, first lets be clear--it IS cut and dry. If we have a disagreement, it can stem from a very select few places.

With that said, people are not, on the whole, rational in most of their judgments. I readily admit that I frequently am not. We take challenges personally and get affronted when people tell us we are wrong.

However, I think the important of intolerance is how it affects the public sphere. While I have doubt very much that Dawkins would ever be convinced of anything regarding anything good about religion, Dawkins does not debate with others to convince THEM of the rightness of his claims, but to convince the public that this Lennox fellow is faulty in his thinking and that he has the best answer to the problem posed.

Ultimately, if a person's mind is to be changed, it must come from an open-minded mentality from that person himself. After all, if no one else is listening, who is being hurt by that person's ignorance other than the person himself?



Did you read that essay called "On Bullshit" that I posted?



Actually, I think the opposite. The threat of having to defend a position, if challenged, will foster more cautious and more carefully considered statements of opinion for fear of appearing constantly ignorant. It will also encourage more general probing for information and understanding rather than coming out with an opinion as soon as it pops into one's head. People will be much more apt to say, "What do you think of this?" or "As was thinking about this, but I'm not entirely sure."

As it stands now, people are unaccountable for their opinions. They can get away with saying, "Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree" and few will challenge them or force the issue because they are afraid of appearing to be "intolerant".



No, I don't think so. I think I am quite intolerant of incorrect opinions (to the point that Narb accused me of having nothing better to do than argue with him), but I never (or do my best not to) attack people personally.

Name calling, aggression, appealing to previous threads in the context of the debate, or challenging motives are all belligerent actions, but it has nothing to do with tolerance or intolerance.



Again, that is his loss. As long as you have demonstrated yourself to be thoughtful and somewhat detached to most people observing, I think you will be seen as credible. Further, the individual who is flat ignoring you will be seen as the person who doesn't bother to listen to and attempt to understand the other side. Bad for the reputation.



lol repetition is the nature of the beast.
Well, you have your opinion and I have mine. Sure they might be different, but lets all be happy anyway. Here, have a hug!

lol. J/K. I agree. The difference was in the meaning of tolerance.

Intolerance would be limited to voicing our possibly correct different point of view. Right? Or would it mean more than that?