Tolerance.

Remove all ads!

My definition of "tolerance" is rather simply: You should tolerate everything but intolerence.

Simple as that. I dont know whether I should laugh or cry when I read the writings of people who refuse to let go of a world view humanity fought its greatest war over and which has lead to such an immense about of suffering that it boggles the mind.

 

But that it is intolerance of every belief that happens to be inconsistent with your own tolerance-based belief (at least for the inconsistent part). That is intolerance of any belief that opposes or even just doesn't coincide with your own. That is the very thing that you fight.

 

I know where you're coming from Chev, but I don't agree.
Being intolerant of intolerance is a reaction in order to protect people. Whereas the "Intolerance" we are discussing in the first place is aimed against people who's actions are for themselves, not specifically against anyone.
I have no issues for people to be intolerant of any illegal activities otherwise brought up in discussions. But I find in unacceptable when someone is intolerant of people for being who they are and celebrating the fact. Currently it is for sexual preference, in the past it has been for religion or colour of skin. None of which is acceptable.

 

I'm not sure if you intended an analogy but one may be seen by readers of your post. Race is not analogous to religion or sexual preference. Race is something totally out of your control and also something that not necessarily affects the way you act and the way you contribute to the society. Religion is more tricky, as it involves certain tenets and principles that may require of followers actions deemed unacceptable by non-followers. Sexual preference is not something over which you have no control, at least so far as it concerns consummating. I don't even need to mention that race carries no moral value, whether positive or negative, whereas actions of any kind do, or that being a specimen of a certain race or races is completely natural. In short, it's not as easy as it may seem and gay issues are not an extinction of racial liberation or women suffrage or whatever such movement; they are simply gay issues.

Well, Carcaroth, as you do, I see your point, but I don't agree. I appreciate the idea to live people alone and stay away from unnecessary judgement, but the belief in tolerance is no different from those less tolerant beliefs in that it still claims to be better than other beliefs. For that part, it's self-contradictory.

As for protecting people, I believe doing the morally right and, if possible, rationally expedient one, protects people more than the politically correct laissez-faire ever could. By calling homosexualism a disorder and advocating treatment rather than affirmation, I believe I'm actually doing what's good for gay people, not even what's good for me. I could just say do what you will and stop giving a damn. Tolerance of the kind that affirms any kind of behaviour backed by a sufficiently large lobby is a way of dodging the responsibility and removing the problem from our eyes than actually solving anything.

 

If the agents of a concept contradict the very same concept in application of it, does it invalidate the concept? Does it reduce it's ability to benefit society?

For example, highway police violate speeding laws in pursuit of speeders. Are speeding laws invalidated? Are the highways not made more safe for society at large by the select violation of speeding laws to constrict the speeding of a few whom could harm said society?

 

What elevates the belief in tolerance above other beliefs, such as in doing the good thing or doing what's right to do?

And highway police doesn't violate anything. A police car in pursuit of a criminal is not affected by speed limits, red lights etc.

 

There are similarities in terms of why they are singled out, and how they are treated differently. Therefore there is an analogy between them.
The "intolerance" may be for a marginally different reason, but it manifests itself in the same way, and with similar results.

Oooh, a touch of de-ja vu. Lets see if I can keep my response consise.

Homosexuality isn't viewed as a medical (by which you presumably mean mental) disorder any longer. Or at least in those societies you would say are at the forefront of medical technology/development/research.

You would appear to be contesting this status quo.
What evidence and/or proof are you offering that it is a mental disorder? Can you provide evidence that it necessitates self-harm or being harmful to others? If not, then how else are you defining it as a mental disorder, and could you please detail how it could be "good" for a gay couple to break up a long-lasting loving, happy and stable relationship?

Edit:
It's also all very well to advocate treatment, but what sort of treatment do you mean,
ECT? It's only be found effective on depression.
Drug Therapy? You'll need to find an existing one, as there really isn't a market to persuade drugs companies to invest in the research. Drugs are also only perscribed when the benefits outway the side effects - exactly what benefit will the recipients have?
Perhaps the lobotomies undertaken in Poland (in the 40's I think?). They were at least sucessfull as they removed all sexual desire, and had less than 30% fatality rate!
Counciling? Taken from http://allpsych.com/

None of these sound like particularly good options to me, do you want to make them compulsory? If not, how are going to treat those people who refuse to take part? Are you still going to be intolerant?

[ October 05, 2005, 14:18: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

I want to ask a question.
If something does not bother you as long as it does not affects you, but does bother you when it does affect you, it would be characterized as what?
To give an example lets take homosexuality. I don't have a problem with this issue. I knew guys who were homosexual and allthough they never really opened up as friends do there was a level of communication. But at some point they either cut off this friendship with no apparent reason or they would come on me trying to get things i have marked as a no way from the beginning. With the result of me yelling at them and them saying that i was a homophobic and things like that.
Am i intolerant or are they intolerant of difference? Who is crosing the line? And who is to say that discrimination is only one way?

 

Says who? Another soi-dissant lefty expert on pro-gay ethics? Besides, there's no such thing as sexual orientation. It's an artificial construct, an empty name without a real designate created by pro-gay "science". In reality, there is sexual drive and perversions thereof. It's always ethical to do research before treatment. But first of all, it was unethical to bow down to pressure and remove an illness from the list of illness and help create the illusion of it being normal. Something no doctor should ever do.

Flawed comparison. Besides, it would be damn hard to find someone attracted to people with only one specific hair colour and that would need serious issues. Besides, while there are people who only go after blondes or redheads or whatever, they do it as a matter of preference. A strong preference, but a preference, a choice. So what the heck is the author trying to achieve with his eloquent self-contradictions?

 

@Mithrantir:
No, they're the ones being unreasonable. Not wanting to engage in homosexual acts does NOT make you a homophobe by a loooong shot. It just means you're not homosexual. And if you made it clear from the beginning that you weren't into that, you had every right to chastise them for breaking the ground rules.

I believe that is known as "minding your own business". I'd say it's somewhere in between, but closer to tolerant than intolerant. The best way to go, IMO, since true tolerance means becoming a doormat.

 

/me repeats the Spot check

Common ground!

 

Well continiouing the previous post, i want to add something to this discussion and generalize it a little bit.
It is true that during the previous centuries and untill the 18th century white people and especially white males were the predominant subrace of this planet.
The image of a pure (in every way meaning sexual orientation too) white male was the epitomy of power. And more than anything the conformation of everyone to that image was a measure of how up one could go.
But things have started to change at a point. First it happened with women suffrage and afterwards with the black Panthers (just some examples), where the was a demand to unhook humanity from a (stupid IMHO) stereotypic. Sexual freedom that occured to this human civilization during '80s was another try.
I don't oppose myself to these. In fact i do believe that it is unfair to judge someone based on matters of colour, race, sexual orientation.
But all these attempts were so fiercely fighting to put themselves in the acceptable position from society, that ended in having crossed the line many times.
I don't think i have to tell examples of that. The latest one is the love parade, which allthough fun, is a show for something that is clearly a personal choice and surely one choice one does not really care to blow the horn about it (if he really can think clearly). Especially some extreme cases that can be seen there are just a proof that the measure is lost.
But when a coloured (to generalize it and not include the black people only) person, is judging others according to their colour and these decisions affect his attitude towards them, this is rascism too. I don't care if he thinks that he is defending himself, he is showing the same attitude that the stubborn elements of the community, he wants to be a member of, are showing. Meaning that instead of being just a part of one element of the whole problem, is part of both elements.
And this goes for everyone. So from a point of view these affected groups (minorities or whatever) when they try to push themselves upon other members of society, trying to be accepted as they are (hopefully this will happen someday), but on the same time treating the other groups a little bit to arrogant or like an enemy they are being intolerant.
Since they fail to recognize the fact that this attitude is an outcome of many centuries teachings. And demanding something this big right here right now, instead of doing it subtly and with clever and less provoking ways. Something that in fact hinders their efforts instead of helping them.
@Chev
Chevy sorry but in Christianity there are examples of homosexual people who managed to gain the level of saintity. And in fact during the first years of Christianity (where the term homosexual was not known) and the attraction of people with the same sex was not a taboo, there was and still is a ritual for marrying people of the same sex. The names of these two saints who got married eludes my mind at this point, but i will bring them here.
In fact in almost any Orthodox church here in Greece their picture exists, but there is a small stature girl "convienently" placed between them.
That taboo about homosexuality is something that started many years after the expansion of Christianity as a dominant religion.

 

I agree but there's difference between feeling attracted and acting on it. Not like a person should be judged on that single weakness, but it's a weakness nonetheless. Next, there's a difference between innately having a totally natural and normal skin colour different from "white" (real white is anaemic, after all) and going after own gender.

Sure! I've mentioned that a couple of times. Those people were not canonised for having gay sex even if they at all had had it. Saints have had various weaknesses and they have been declared saints not for those weakness and sins but for how they have dealt with those. One example would be Saint Guntram, son of Clovis, who had serious issues with divorce and other such but was as lavish is penance as he was in sinning, ultimately becoming a very special saints for those doing penance.

That's false, sorry. That would have been a heresy. Heresies have existed since the first century after Christ and already the Apostles themselves have had to deal with them. Show me any such ritual approved by an orthodox bishop whether from the East or the West mainstream. Heretics having left the Church of the Roman Empire, as it was called back then, don't count. Rogue bishops condemned by synodes and councils don't count, either. Lone priests with no episcopal backing don't count. At least not anymore than modern priests "consecrating" Coke and potato chips or indeed blessing "marriages" of gay couples.

It's older than the written text of Genesis Leviticus.

In the Roman Catholic theology, gay marriage is simply not possible. Sex without marriage can at most be a morally neutral act, with deficient or absent knowledge or consent. Otherwise, it's a sin of a certain gravity, which is most likely mortal. If a saint is declared who has done it, it obviously must be assumed that he repented of it. For all I know, Orthodox theology is practically the same in this respect. The story about two saints married in a gay "marriage" is most likely an urban legend or a misinterpretation. I can't imagine an Orthodox bishop ever okaying such a marriage, even despite the interpretational hanky panky to justify divorce. It would take a proper heretic to conduct a marriage ceremony for two people of the same gender. Besides, in Catholic theology, a marriage between people permanently incapable of successful vaginal intercourse with each other (such that would produce children if they were both fertile) at the moment of marital vows or before, has consequently been considered invalid. I don't know how the Orthodox theology addresses this problem but I don't think there's much difference. So, if "mere" impotence of people of two opposing genders precludes valid marriage, how much more so must the fact of being of the same gender do. In short, no way.

 

Well hardly Chev, maybe you could at least have looked at the link I provided.

Well OK, maybe you can describe all psycologists as soi-dissant lefties. Unfortunately, they're the only ones with any expertise in the area.

Please, at least offer some scientific evidence for your rants. Have you any clinical studies to back your point of view?

Reference:
"APA Online: Public Interest: Just the facts about sexual orientation and youth: A primer for principals, educators and school personnel,"
See: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html
(I couldn't get the link to work, the quote is from elsewhere)

Taken from the primer:

Actually, maybe I can save you the trouble of looking for yourself, try NARTH. Membership of around 650 psychologists, which is less than 0.2% of those in the field. They also appear to have rather strong backing from a number of religious organisations. Funny that.

[ October 10, 2005, 14:57: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]