Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
The problem is that by saying X is should be tolerated and Y shouldn't you are just making an arbitrary distinction, and are no better off than someone saying something shouldn't be tolerated due to their religious beliefs. Personally, i've no problem being a "self-righteous closed minded bastard" my main problem comes with people who don't acnowledge that they are the same. When you chose to tolerate one thing and not another, that's exactly what you are being. By saying a parent can't marry their child, you are being close-minded. You are closing yourself off the the idea and experience of a father marrying his daughter.
I agree that tolerance has been "hippie-ized". It seems (in America at least) that tolerance is whatever liberal policy is, and intolerance is everything else. Whereas both are just differing perspectives on what to not tolerate.
|
If all you were to say is "X is should be tolerated and Y shouldn't" than you are making an arbitrary distinction. This is the problem with making moral decisions based on religious ideals. I think that harry's talking about is using some sort of rational thought to determine what should and should not be tolerated. A good question to ask is who would be hurt if we tolerated x behavior? If y group feels threatened, are their fears unfounded, or do they have a legitimate reason to feel threatened? It should shock no one that making good decisions requires a certain amount of thought. I think there is a difference between being close minded and rejecting something based on a rational chain of thought. Unfortunately, both sides are often too quick to tolerate/intolerate.
Also please don't pretend that this is a liberal vs conservative issue.