Is tolerance intolerant?

[ReptilianPeon]

Is tolerance in intolerance? Interesting question. When I think of Christian bakers refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual couples and them being forced to be tolerant of the homosexual couple, I think: "doesn't freedom of speech give people the right not to say something?". Would we expect a homosexual baker to bake a cake with the words "god hates fags"? I guess it depends on the situation as to whether forcing tolerance is intolerant.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Is tolerance in intolerance? Interesting question. When I think of Christian bakers refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual couples and them being forced to be tolerant of the homosexual couple, I think: "doesn't freedom of speech give people the right not to say something?". Would we expect a homosexual baker to bake a cake with the words "god hates fags"? I guess it depends on the situation as to whether forcing tolerance is intolerant.

I think a lot of it is due to a push for political correctness, but then you start trying to censor people as to not hurt someone's feelings.  Better just to let people be honest.  If someone doesn't want to serve me a cake or whatever, I would want to know. I don't need a special exception.  If someone discriminates, then I'll just as easily go find someone else who will take my money who I would probably rather give it to anyway.  If someone doesn't like or agree with me for whatever reason, they would be the last person I would want making goods for me that I am about to consume.  Of course now we have all the "set ups" when people create the situation on their own so they can gain attention or sue.  More times than not, we end up with an edited video with the beginning and the end of the interaction cut off.

[Deesse23]

Is tolerance intolerant?

Tolerance of what? I think this addition is necessary. Otherwise we would end with "tolerance of murderers" after we grant a carte blanche of tolerance for everything and everyone.

[tackattack]

---

You are either missing the point or are being deliberately dense. It's not that you shouldn't be able to things that I don't want to do. It's that you shouldn't be able to do things that harm me.

You want to give yourself lung cancer? Have at it - in your own fucking home where you don't give other people lung cancer as well! Is this really not obvious to you? You really think you should be able to spew poison in public places and anyone who doesn't want to be poisoned should be forced to go somewhere else?

You're missing the point on the public caroling thing too. You or any other private entity are already allowed public expression of religion. That is NOT the same thing as government expression of religion.

The government did not disallow anyone to play, "Baby, it's Cold Outside." The US Government doesn't have that power. One or more private entities made the decision that the lyrics of that song do not reflect the values of modern society. Nobody twisted their wrist.

---

---

It's called second hand smoke and no I should be able my food without gaging on smoke you can do that shit elsewhere

---

I am missing the point. It must be over my head. Public vs. private I get. Governments do discriminate and suppress personal rights, but that's a side bar. Let's just keep it in the private sector. You keep missing an alternate perspective. You said " It's not that you shouldn't be able to things that I don't want to do. It's that you shouldn't be able to do things that harm me." The same reason you don't choose live in the middle of a warzone is the same reason you should choose not to eat where people are allowed to smoke. That's why most people frown upon taking babies into smoky bars. If you agree with A and B that :
A. It's my right to smoke where I want
B. I'm smoking in a public place in a designated area
How do you get to C:
C. You complain to the park managers that smokers are smoking in the smoking area and it's bothering your asthma

I think in today's PC times you want to feel justified in your intolerance. I think the management wants to show tolerance by tolerating your opinion, but I'd tell you to GTFO. Mainly because your opinion and presence isan't any better than the smokers in the smoke pit. I think intolerance of intolerance would be my route.

---

@!OP q

Nope.

Nope nope nope.

Thus the paradox of tolerance.  



I'm absolutely -not- tolerant of this shit.

---

eloquent as always. So maybe tolerance shouldn't be stoven (sp?) for. Maybe equity is a better term. Social equity for all instead of Social tolerance and PCism?

---

Is tolerance in intolerance? Interesting question. When I think of Christian bakers refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual couples and them being forced to be tolerant of the homosexual couple, I think: "doesn't freedom of speech give people the right not to say something?". Would we expect a homosexual baker to bake a cake with the words "god hates fags"? I guess it depends on the situation as to whether forcing tolerance is intolerant.

---

We'll just talk about individuals to avoid public, private, government and religious sidetracks. If you asked me to bake a cake that said something I disagreed with, I would simply tell you no, I don't agree with that and won't do it. You'd then ask 100 billion other possible bakers to bake you a cake. The onus is on you to get what you want. Most people want to get what they want regardless of anyone else's freedoms or opinions, which makes you intolerant of their opinion. Then you claim discrimination, then the cycle starts. Well the truth is, it is discrimination and that's OK. We all discriminate every day, all the time. As the baker I should be able to discriminate my customers and my work. This is the paradox of intolerance:
- You can't be intolerant without intolerance
- You can be tolerant until there's intolerance
- It's hard to be tolerant of intolerance so tolerance shouldn't be a goal.

[Brian37]

It is worth repeating. There are targeted minorities worldwide, people who have to fear being open, fear threats from their direct neighbors, mobs and or government.

But having your claims ridiculed or blasphemed in the west, when you get to go to sleep at night without that same fear, no, sorry, the only thing you are getting is offended at that point.

[tackattack]

First, I'm not claiming I'm persecuted, I do sleep well at night. It hasn't always been so in my personal life, but that's irrelevant.
Second, I'm not offended by any point made here. I'm just trying to see the other perspective as valid.
Third, It's not specific to me and I'm not making it about me. I'm trying to make it about western society as a whole and gain some perspective.

To squash the whole minority crap it's pretty simple, the smallest minority is a minority of one.
To which I ask:
1. If I'm allowed to do X and it's not illegal or harmful to anyone
2. I am doing X in a public free place
3. What right do you as an individual to come along and tell me I can't do X because you don't agree with it?
*4.Especially given that you chose to be somewhere X is allowed and don't have to be there

fill in the blanks with sex, drugs, smoking, speaking, giving hugs, etc. You are either for freedoms, or for limiting them.

I'm trying to identify the mechanism (ie intolerance, self-aggrandization, nosy nellies, etc.) by which that happens.
Also, whether there is an alternative to seeking tolerance in a society such as equality, peace, isolation that would be better for society as a whole.

[Brian37]

First, I'm not claiming I'm persecuted, I do sleep well at night. It hasn't always been so in my personal life, but that's irrelevant.
Second, I'm not offended by any point made here. I'm just trying to see the other perspective as valid.
Third, It's not specific to me and I'm not making it about me. I'm trying to make it about western society as a whole and gain some perspective.

To squash the whole minority crap it's pretty simple, the smallest minority is a minority of one.
To which I ask:
1. If I'm allowed to do X and it's not illegal or harmful to anyone
2. I am doing X in a public free place
3. What right do you as an individual to come along and tell me I can't do X because you don't agree with it?
*4.Especially given that you chose to be somewhere X is allowed and don't have to be there

fill in the blanks with sex, drugs, smoking, speaking, giving hugs, etc. You are either for freedoms, or for limiting them.

I'm trying to identify the mechanism (ie intolerance, self-aggrandization, nosy nellies, etc.) by which that happens.
Also, whether there is an alternative to seeking tolerance in a society such as equality, peace, isolation that would be better for society as a whole.

Holy generalizations Batman...

Um no, it is not a black or white issue of "You are either for freedoms, or limiting them". 


Law in general is a guiding principle and courts are used to decide case by case. And not all laws have been moral, like denying women the right to vote, forcing blacks to sit at the back of the bus, much less owning slaves. 

You can smoke sure, but I am all for regulating the marketing targeted at vulnerable segments such as kids or the poor. I'd love to see America do what Australia does with both tobacco and alcohol. They don't advertise either on TV, and they don't have corporate logos on their packs or cartons, they still sell them, but it is behind the counter in unmarked shelves so that kids are less likely to be tempted to pick up the habit. The keep even beer, just like liquor in separate stores, even wine is not sold in grocery stores. Again, they still sell it, but just minimize the exposure to to kids so they don't grow up with addictions. I defy you to show me how those regulations are a ban on those products? As I said, they still sell them. 

You can own a sports car, but if you break the speed limit, sorry, you deserve a ticket.

Don't confuse regulations as being anti freedom. 

And even with religion, if you are an adult, and want to be stupid and deny yourself medical care because Jesus, Yahweh or Allah told you not to, fine, be stupid. But no, if you have a kid who needs medical care and you as a parent deny it, and the kid gets sick or dies as a result, you deserve to be charged with neglect at a minimum.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

We just need a mass MYOB law that applies to the whole world.

[Amarok]

First, I'm not claiming I'm persecuted, I do sleep well at night. It hasn't always been so in my personal life, but that's irrelevant.
Second, I'm not offended by any point made here. I'm just trying to see the other perspective as valid.
Third, It's not specific to me and I'm not making it about me. I'm trying to make it about western society as a whole and gain some perspective.

To squash the whole minority crap it's pretty simple, the smallest minority is a minority of one.
To which I ask:
1. If I'm allowed to do X and it's not illegal or harmful to anyone
2. I am doing X in a public free place
3. What right do you as an individual to come along and tell me I can't do X because you don't agree with it?
*4.Especially given that you chose to be somewhere X is allowed and don't have to be there

fill in the blanks with sex, drugs, smoking, speaking, giving hugs, etc. You are either for freedoms, or for limiting them.

I'm trying to identify the mechanism (ie intolerance, self-aggrandization, nosy nellies, etc.) by which that happens.
Also, whether there is an alternative to seeking tolerance in a society such as equality, peace, isolation that would be better for society as a whole.

Holy generalizations Batman...

Um no, it is not a black or white issue of "You are either for freedoms, or limiting them". 


Law in general is a guiding principle and courts are used to decide case by case. And not all laws have been moral, like denying women the right to vote, forcing blacks to sit at the back of the bus, much less owning slaves. 

You can smoke sure, but I am all for regulating the marketing targeted at vulnerable segments such as kids or the poor. I'd love to see America do what Australia does with both tobacco and alcohol. They don't advertise either on TV, and they don't have corporate logos on their packs or cartons, they still sell them, but it is behind the counter in unmarked shelves so that kids are less likely to be tempted to pick up the habit. The keep even beer, just like liquor in separate stores, even wine is not sold in grocery stores. Again, they still sell it, but just minimize the exposure to to kids so they don't grow up with addictions. I defy you to show me how those regulations are a ban on those products? As I said, they still sell them. 

You can own a sports car, but if you break the speed limit, sorry, you deserve a ticket.

Don't confuse regulations as being anti freedom. 

And even with religion, if you are an adult, and want to be stupid and deny yourself medical care because Jesus, Yahweh or Allah told you not to, fine, be stupid. But no, if you have a kid who needs medical care and you as a parent deny it, and the kid gets sick or dies as a result, you deserve to be charged with neglect at a minimum.

He does seem to like hasty generalizations or false dilemma's

[Brian37]

We just need a mass MYOB law that applies to the whole world.

Um no, that is not only impossible on a planet of 7 billion, it is unwise to be isolated.

Again there is a difference between protecting privacy, which is a value to be protected, and the separate issue of how western societies work in how laws everyone live under get made. 

MYOB, is an over simplification too. Up until the 70s for example, even after women gained the right to vote long before. It was considered a family matter if a man hit his wife. Today however, laws in many cases have an abuser arrested automatically if the police have the probable cause upon the scene. 

MYOB also unfortunately allowed priests forever to simply get shuffled to another church after accusations of molestation. 

Point is it isn't that simple. 

I am not fond of the either/or oversimplification of anything. 

Even with my neighbors. I had a couple of occasions early in the morning where I didn't realize how loud I was shouting in my house. I didn't realize I had woken his kid up at 5am. Yea, sorry, but he had every right to say something to me and I don't blame him. I apologized and have since made concerted effort to be mindful of time of day when being loud.