Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Everybody except Donald Trump, that is.
That is patently false. Trump loves anyone who praises him and kisses his behind. He also loves really wealthy people as long as they don't criticize him, and loves people in the military (which, I agree with as they are putting their lives on the line for yours truly).
I agree. A tolerant society cannot survive unless it is intolerant of intolerance. While that sounds contradictory in nature, it really isn't. A tolerant society can still be considered as such if it is tolerant of everything except intolerance.
The problem is who judges what is intolerance versus having a valid issue. The devil is in the details.
I could not disagree more strongly. Isn't it better to try to cajole intolerance instead of beating it to a pulp? In my view if one is intolerant of intolerance you are part of the problem you pretend to be against. Personally, I don't think you have thought this out very well.
A tolerant society is just that. It is tolerant of EVERY viewpoint, however ludicrous. That is the essence of tolerance. Like @George-ananda said, it's how far you are willing to take your tolerance before joining the dark side of intolerance. More importantly who decides what is acceptable and what is not? The tyranny of the majority?
By "tolerance", I was speaking about intolerance based on prejudice. And, by "intolerance" I merely meant not accepting such behavior, but, instead, challenging it. I should have been more clear about that.I could not disagree more strongly. Isn't it better to try to cajole intolerance instead of beating it to a pulp? In my view if one is intolerant of intolerance you are part of the problem you pretend to be against. Personally, I don't think you have thought this out very well.
I get that much, @leibowde84 but even this makes me slightly queasy. You say that intolerance based on prejudice should be challenged and while that is all well and good what if the party you are challenging isn't particularly interested in your ideas as I suspect few suffering from the condition likely would be. What then? Just brow beat them into submission?
So, society should be tolerant of murderers, terrorists, child molesters, nazis burning babies in ovens? Perhaps there some place for intolerance. If being intolerant of those behaviors makes me a bigot, then I guess, so be it.I could not disagree more strongly. Isn't it better to try to cajole intolerance instead of beating it to a pulp? In my view if one is intolerant of intolerance you are part of the problem you pretend to be against. Personally, I don't think you have thought this out very well.
Nice false equivalency you have going there. But, you do provide an rather juicy springboard. I'd suggest that tolerance is very much in the eye of the beholder and the moral imperative that drives them.
