Thread: How far should tolerance go? Where do we draw the line?

I hope this is the right section to post this in. Xei and I got off topic on another thread. We started discussing where to draw the line as far as respecting other people who have different opinions or beliefs. I was saying that we don't need to agree in order to respect each other. He had a good point regarding that we shouldn't tolerate someone who believes that women should be repressed. Where do you draw the line?

I didn't post this in the religious section because it is more of a debate about ethics. I don't want this to be a debate about which belief system is right and wrong. But it is a question of how do we respect or not people who might be Mormons while you may be an atheist, or how would a Christian respect or not someone who is a Luciferian, or a Jew, or an atheist, etc.

I want to say that ideally I would love everybody to get along and love each other on this planet. But we have to draw the line somewhere about what we tolerate and what we cannot. And is there a way to heal with respect? For example, atheists often point out that religions have been to blame for lots of intolerance and war. But based on online behavior and even in the news like the incident in Boston where an atheist was convicted of a murdering a Muslim because of his religion, could it be that even atheists also potentially guilty of intolerance and hate crimes? If an atheist can do something like this is atheism responsible or is the individual responsible? If a Christian did it is Christianity responsible or is the individual. Where do we draw the line regarding respect and tolerance to people we disagree with?

Your thoughts:

All that is, is but a dream within a dream.

In the perfect world, everyone would be an absurdist. No lines at all.

Originally Posted by seroquel

all that is, is but a dream within a dream.

In the perfect world, everyone would be an absurdist. No lines at all.

THAT'S PRETTY DEEP MAN hidden words so I can get caps

Originally Posted by Marvo

THAT'S PRETTY DEEP MAN hidden words so I can get caps

Notsureifsrsjoker.jpg

I think you have two issues here. Respect, and tolerance. You can respect someone and still not show tolerance for what they do. Enemies and people with conflicting opinions can respect each other. Often times their goals are something you can relate with, and so you can respect them, but the way they go about trying to reach their goal is often something you do not agree with.

For example terrorists. You might agree with a terrorists goal, and respect them, if say they just want to bring political change and stop the invasion of their country. The goal is reasonable, and it is something you can understand and relate to. However they go about it by blowing people up. That is something that should not be tolerated and it isn't acceptable. So the means by which they are trying to accomplish their goal is bad.

Usually the more extreme the method is, the harder it is to agree with the persons goal, because it is colored by the horrible things they are doing to try to reach it. If a person is being an idiot you can respect that the person means well, but still think their methods are moronic and harmful. If it is harmful to just them self then you should respect their choice and let them harm them self. If their choice is harmful to others, then you have a right to try and stop them from harming people around you.

Lastly we are all humans, and if nothing else we should be able to respect each other because of that. No matter how bad someone is, you should always have some level of respect that they are a human. There are some things, that no human should be put through. Things like torture. If a person if harming others we should stop them from harming others. Not because they need to be punished or because we hate them, but because we had to in order to protect our self.

I think that if something is not harmful, but maybe just moronic, we should humble ourselves and not judge if it is moronic or not. The spectrum of human intelligence quotient is not so broad, it may appear so from our perspective inside the spectrum, but we have no idea what lies beyond the spectrum. For example: European invaders thought that the Indians were savages, when in fact they were not, even though they hadn't invented the wheel yet. The Indians thought that the European invaders were moronic and disconnected from reality. Two different points of view, but the Europeans point of view was harmful and disrespectful, yet the Europeans were more 'civilized' and 'advanced' and had science. I think I know what reality is and that a Mormon is deluded, but the Mormons I have met are very nice and respectful, so I couldn't criticize them.

It depends on the subject where the line would go. Some more lighthearted subjects i have tolerance for. But for something like religion I'm like on the line in the beginning . It depends on the subject how much tolerance i have.

Originally Posted by gameoverlord345

It depends on the subject where the line would go. Some more lighthearted subjects i have tolerance for. But for something like religion I'm like on the line in the beginning . It depends on the subject how much tolerance i have.

How so? Why?
What about respect?

Because there are some things that are like, well, who cares type of thing. Lemme give you an example.

Bill: YOOOO, whats your favourite show
Bob: Simpsons
Bill: YOOOO, fuck Family guy is way better your stupid

now for religion:

Bill: Yo, what religion are you?
Bob: atheist
Bill: YOOOO, Christianity is like way better you stupid
Bob: fuck you bitch
ARGUEMENT

respect I'm not really sure but i think you see where I'm going with tolerance... Respect might decrease because he is disrespecting me for my religion or lack of

....then you will see that it isn't a line that has crossed you, it is you who have crossed a line

O_O

woh

"How far should tolerance go? Where do we draw the line?"
That is one of the great questions of mankind. I use to say it differently, What is the line of demarkation between the individual and society? This line of demarkation is obviously violated wholesale, but that is a tradition effected by immaturity of man himself.

A = A. A wise man once said it another way. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Yet people could not see that this was just another expression of "Eye for an Eye." They call the same expression, one time good, and another time evil. This is the fault of a mind too young to reason.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

"How far should tolerance go? Where do we draw the line?"
That is one of the great questions of mankind. I use to say it differently, What is the line of demarkation between the individual and society? This line of demarkation is obviously violated wholesale, but that is a tradition effected by immaturity of man himself.

A = A. A wise man once said it another way. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Yet people could not see that this was just another expression of "Eye for an Eye." They call the same expression, one time good, and another time evil. This is the fault of a mind too young to reason.

Where is your answer?

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

Where is your answer?

My aplogies, I did not recognize the seeing eye dog.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

My aplogies, I did not recognize the seeing eye dog.

I still don't see your answer. Will you point it out to me?

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

I still don't see your answer. Will you point it out to me?

he's philosopher8695, his posts need not explanation
*is being facetious*

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

I still don't see your answer. Will you point it out to me?

Let me give you a hint, it is what Plato was about, what Scripture is about, what all your education is about.

Is there a defining characteristic for man himself? Let us look at the Platonic presentation, is a doctor a doctor in so far as he is a doctor, a doctor at the time he fails as a doctor? Or look at a toaster, Is a broken toaster really a toaster? It has to do with the idea, can you subtract a defining characteristic of a thing, but still call it the thing defined?

We call certain people monsters based on their behavior. Is that really metaphorically?

The most common form of an ellipsis is one not even recognized in grammar teachings today--when we use a name that does not represent all the defining characteristics of that name.

Or look at how Christ put it, "Let the dead bury the dead."

It is something to think about. Can one say a man is a man if the defining characteristic of a man, i.e. his mind, is dysfunctional?

The idea is not strange, it is in fact, at the core of some judicial arguments about what it means to be in a peer group.

If the mind of man has a defining characteristic, not even the man himself can change it, no matter how insane he is. Thus, it is a tacit agreement, beyond the comprehension of that man, that he should be corrected in his behavior--Plato demonstrated this argument in, what was it? Gorgias? over 2400 years ago.

This is what I meant by the prior identity--the definition of what it means to be a man.

In some dim form of awareness, this is why men make laws, because there is a right way to be. Man is just too young to understand it yet.

Even in language itself, logic is not possible, unless the first identity is made--what the symbols actually name.

Plato's distinction in human action between doing what one pleases and what on wills, is very real.

The more you understand this, the greater your awareness is, the more you understand that we really do live in a world of zombies, monsters, and madmen, however, they do not know who they are nor what they do.

"To thyne own self be true." Has a real and valid meaning that has yet to be understood but by very, very few in history.

If one can say that a sadist is a masochist who does unto others, then what can be said for this "golden rule"?

Originally Posted by sloth

If one can say that a sadist is a masochist who does unto others, then what can be said for this "golden rule"?

Are you implying that an equality of one thing is invalidated because of an inequality of another? i.e. that there is not also an individual equality to achieve, besides a social one? Is that the wisdom you wish to impart?

One of the ways that people fall into the trap of errant predication is because they simply cannot follow an idea.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Are you implying that an equality of one thing is invalidated because of an inequality of another? i.e. that there is not also an individual equality to achieve, besides a social one? Is that the wisdom you wish to impart?

One of the ways that people fall into the trap of errant predication is because they simply cannot follow an idea.

I mesh synergistic functionalities and enable granular schemas while synergizing intuitive channels on an enabled scalable metrics system. If you enhance the proactive action-items the virtual drive deliverables will incentivize real-time achitectures and deliver strategic orchestrate turn-key functions.

What I am stating is that if a masochist treats others the way that he would like to be treated he would be considered to be a sadist. I don't go in any particular direction at that point in my expression, or my thoughts, for I think it is merely something to think about, and has many different interpretations.

Thank you for asking me to repeat myself, but double posting, deliberately is bad manners.

There is a huge difference between an eye for an eye, and do to others what you would have them do to you. An eye for an eye is all about getting revenge. Someone harms you, so you harm them back in an equal amount. On the other hand, most people don't want to be harmed at all, so if they live by that rule they would never harm anyone.

Ok well regarding what you said about the atheist killing a Muslim because of their religion, I find that horrible. But it isn't atheism itself, it is the person, disregardless of whatever religion or lack of.
Here is an example, in the Quran it says to "kill the infidels", as you can see, the majority of Muslims aren't radical suicide bombers and don't kill non Muslims. But those who do kill others, it is not the religions fault, it is whoever chose to take action upon it. Yes a religion can "suggest" (if you will) but that doesn't mean you will or absolutely, willfully, need to take action, which this is a perfect example. Back to your topic, I am a Christian Deist, and I respect all religions as long as the person respects me back. I do tolerate most everything, there are some things I don't tolerate, which are most extremes, but I still have respect even if it is the least bit respect, we all deserve it...basically I am saying what Alrics first post said about the different between respect and tolerance...you just need to learn to accept things

Originally Posted by gameoverlord345

Bill: Yo, what religion are you?
Bob: atheist
Bill: YOOOO, Christianity is like way better you stupid
Bob: fuck you bitch
ARGUEMENT

respect I'm not really sure but i think you see where I'm going with tolerance... Respect might decrease because he is disrespecting me for my religion or lack of

from what I have obsevred it is usually vice versa...x3 anyways, I know you were just using that as an example

I shall re write that O_O

bob: I'm atheist
bill: Why
bob: Cause i don't believe in God
bill: why
Bob: cause i..... *sigh* just don't k?
bill: But HE'S REALLLLLLL!
Bob: Well I don't believe that ok? now drop the subject...
Bill: I just don't understand! HOW CAN'T YOU!?!?
Bob: Shut Up Already!!!!
Bill: What made Earth? What made life? What made [insert something here]
Bob: What made God?
Bill: [indirectly answers]
Bob: but that wasn't a good answer you idiot
Bill: NOW ANSWER MINE!
Bob: Big Bang
Bill: What made that?!
Bob: [indirectly answers]
Bill: WTH kinda answer was that
ARGUMENT INCREASES!

Originally Posted by gameoverlord345

I shall re write that O_O

bob: I'm atheist
bill: Why
bob: Cause i don't believe in God
bill: why
Bob: cause i..... *sigh* just don't k?
bill: But HE'S REALLLLLLL!
Bob: Well I don't believe that ok? now drop the subject...
Bill: I just don't understand! HOW CAN'T YOU!?!?
Bob: Shut Up Already!!!!
Bill: What made Earth? What made life? What made [insert something here]
Bob: What made God?
Bill: [indirectly answers]
Bob: but that wasn't a good answer you idiot
Bill: NOW ANSWER MINE!
Bob: Big Bang
Bill: What made that?!
Bob: [indirectly answers]
Bill: WTH kinda answer was that
ARGUMENT INCREASES!

that is a bit extreme though, and you could use different religions
Christianity and atheism are so prototypical and cliche.
Don't worry, you don't need to create a new scenario haha, I catch your drift