What is tolerance?

[Immanuel Can]

I figure that every age has its Gandhi...

Really?

What makes you think so?

[Gary Childress]

No one knows. The purpose of the question is to rationally infer and show your work.

I apologize for disappointing.

Gary, I did not introduce the topic of Gandhi. You introduced the topic of Gandhi. That your understanding and interest in your own topical example of Gandhi extends no further than it does, has nothing to do with me. In a similarly shallow vein, neither does your expressed limited understanding of Christianity have anything to do with IC. It’s all yours Gary, including the projections and expressed disappointments with perceived reality. As a neutral, neural witness, my proposal was merely to provide a springboard for you, an elicitation so to speak, for you to dive into your own expressed interest in Gandhi, but not into the shallow end of the Condemnation & Blame Pool (CBP).

I apologize once again. Not sure what you want from me.

[Lorikeet]

He's asking for tolerance.

[Walker]

I figure that every age has its Gandhi...

Really?

What makes you think so?

In the overview, it's always the best of times and the worst of times, and folks make it so. (The details of rational proof were lost in the first transmission attempt, but that's the gist.)

[Walker]

I apologize once again. Not sure what you want from me.

Evidence of comprehension.

[mickthinks]

Pornstar Mia Khalifa, star performer at pornhub.com, giving a lecture at Oxford University:

Where did you get your information from, god? Because it’s wrong.

https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/cele ... b457a.html
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest ... y-29887186

Here's the thing; Mia Khalifa was invited to appear at the Union*. A talk is not a lecture and the Union is not the University. In this context the difference matters. The Daily Star actually gets it right. Marca gets it wrong.


*The relationship between the Union and the University is something like that between The Washington Hilton and the White House.

[MikeAndreas1]

1. : capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina. 2. a. : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own.

Tolerance was one of the virtues of the European Enlightenment (albeit religious tolerance in most specific cases). After the Enlightenment toleration has been more broadly applied to various non-religious lifestyles and behaviors that are different from one's own. But is tolerance a virtue?

What about intolerant people who are bigoted and prejudiced and perhaps dangerous toward others around them. Are such people as that to be tolerated? And if not, then what? What if they refuse to change their minds and remain intolerant? Should that be tolerated?

Is toleration the same as acceptance? Is toleration itself practiced through enduring hardship from others who are intolerant? How does one practice tolerance toward intolerance?

And perhaps more importantly, is tolerance viable? Or does the first one to eradicate all those s/he does not tolerate become the 'winner take all' in life?

I was wondering too. Tolerance was one of the virtues of the European Enlightenment (albeit religious tolerance in most specific cases). After the Enlightenment, toleration has been more broadly applied to various non-religious lifestyles and behaviors that are different from one's own. But is tolerance a virtue?

What about intolerant people who are bigoted, prejudiced, and perhaps dangerous toward others around them? Are such people to be tolerated? And if not, then what? What if they refuse to change their minds and remain intolerant? Should that be tolerated?

Is toleration the same as acceptance? Is toleration itself practiced through enduring hardship from others who are intolerant? How does one practice tolerance toward intolerance?

And perhaps more importantly, is tolerance viable? Or does the first one to eradicate all those they do not tolerate become the 'winner take all' in life?

[bahman]

1. : capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina. 2. a. : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own.

Tolerance was one of the virtues of the European Enlightenment (albeit religious tolerance in most specific cases). After the Enlightenment toleration has been more broadly applied to various non-religious lifestyles and behaviors that are different from one's own. But is tolerance a virtue?

What about intolerant people who are bigoted and prejudiced and perhaps dangerous toward others around them. Are such people as that to be tolerated? And if not, then what? What if they refuse to change their minds and remain intolerant? Should that be tolerated?

Is toleration the same as acceptance? Is toleration itself practiced through enduring hardship from others who are intolerant? How does one practice tolerance toward intolerance? And perhaps more importantly, is tolerance viable? Or does the first one to eradicate all those s/he does not tolerate the 'winner take all' in life?

The West is tolerant only to views that align with its own, which are in turn essentially depraved. For example, if you are a gender-fluid mostly homosexual transgender drug addict who lives off prostitution by giving sloppy blowjobs in dark back alleys, your views will not just be tolerated, they will even be celebrated. Your views will be deemed refreshingly "sex positive". If, on the other hand, you believe that sex outside marriage is a sin, then you will be branded a retrograde bigot, and your views will not be tolerated, and met with hostility, because promiscuity is deemed a virtue in the West. But then again, sooner or later, the laws of nature will naturally regain the upper hand and reassert themselves with a vengeance.

I like your opinion.

[Gary Childress]

Tolerance was one of the virtues of the European Enlightenment (albeit religious tolerance in most specific cases). After the Enlightenment toleration has been more broadly applied to various non-religious lifestyles and behaviors that are different from one's own. But is tolerance a virtue?

What about intolerant people who are bigoted and prejudiced and perhaps dangerous toward others around them. Are such people as that to be tolerated? And if not, then what? What if they refuse to change their minds and remain intolerant? Should that be tolerated?

Is toleration the same as acceptance? Is toleration itself practiced through enduring hardship from others who are intolerant? How does one practice tolerance toward intolerance? And perhaps more importantly, is tolerance viable? Or does the first one to eradicate all those s/he does not tolerate the 'winner take all' in life?

The West is tolerant only to views that align with its own, which are in turn essentially depraved. For example, if you are a gender-fluid mostly homosexual transgender drug addict who lives off prostitution by giving sloppy blowjobs in dark back alleys, your views will not just be tolerated, they will even be celebrated. Your views will be deemed refreshingly "sex positive". If, on the other hand, you believe that sex outside marriage is a sin, then you will be branded a retrograde bigot, and your views will not be tolerated, and met with hostility, because promiscuity is deemed a virtue in the West. But then again, sooner or later, the laws of nature will naturally regain the upper hand and reassert themselves with a vengeance.

I like your opinion.

Yeah. He's probably right. At least until enough 'queers' are pissed off enough to tip the balance in the other direction again. And we know the Abrahamic God "hates fags."

What we need to find is a God that is impartial, or else perhaps do away with the notion of a supreme spiritual ruler and vote for a democratic universe.

[bahman]

The West is tolerant only to views that align with its own, which are in turn essentially depraved. For example, if you are a gender-fluid mostly homosexual transgender drug addict who lives off prostitution by giving sloppy blowjobs in dark back alleys, your views will not just be tolerated, they will even be celebrated. Your views will be deemed refreshingly "sex positive". If, on the other hand, you believe that sex outside marriage is a sin, then you will be branded a retrograde bigot, and your views will not be tolerated, and met with hostility, because promiscuity is deemed a virtue in the West. But then again, sooner or later, the laws of nature will naturally regain the upper hand and reassert themselves with a vengeance.

I like your opinion.

Yeah. He's probably right. At least until enough 'queers' are pissed off enough to tip the balance in the other direction again. And we know the Abrahamic God "hates fags."

What we need to find is a God that is impartial, or else perhaps do away with the notion of a supreme spiritual ruler and vote for a democratic universe.

You are correct Gary.

[Immanuel Can]

I figure that every age has its Gandhi...nulls brawl

Really?

What makes you think so?

It may not be my place, but i agreed with the statement.
You don't think so?

It's an odd one. Why would the indifferent, merely material universe cough up a person like Ghandi on schedule? And why not a Hitler or Stalin, too? That would require some explanation, to be sure...

[Iwannaplato]

The West is tolerant only to views that align with its own.

Is this the West, or most of the world?
Is it different in the MIddle East? In most of Asia? In Russia?

[BuzzCap7]

Tolerance...........

...........it is better to know the circumstances.........for tolerance can change depending......

In general, IMO, it is to observe without judgement.

Mark

[godelian]

The West is tolerant only to views that align with its own.

Is this the West, or most of the world?
Is it different in the MIddle East? In most of Asia? In Russia?

The difference is that, unlike the West, countries outside the West do not even pretend to be "tolerant". I prefer intolerance to fake tolerance (which is very misleading).

Furthermore, the ruling mafia outside the West is intolerant only to challenging its power and to disturbing public order.

The West, on the other hand, is even intolerant to using a biologically sound definition of the terms "man" and "woman" or using otherwise standard pronouns.

I physically live outside the West because people here are tolerant to where it matters to me.

[Iwannaplato]

The difference is that, unlike the West, countries outside the West do not even pretend to be "tolerant".

Could you give an example of a country you live in that doesn't pretend to be tolerant of things.

I prefer intolerance to fake tolerance (which is very misleading).

Furthermore, the ruling mafia outside the West is intolerant only to challenging its power and to disturbing public order.

Well, they take 'public order' as covering a tremendous amount of ground. Let's look at one of these countries you respect in their honesty about tolerance.

The West, on the other hand, is even intolerant to using a biologically sound definition of the terms "man" and "woman" or using otherwise standard pronouns.

I physically live outside the West because people here are tolerant to where it matters to me.

Well, let's dive into an example of a country and see how all this pans out.