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.
|
see filtherton's response. the daughter should have the right to make her own decision, when she is of legal age. the father should not remove that right from her by forcing marriage on her with someone else.
it may come down to differing opinions, but in this case one side has much more merit than the other. not all opinions are equal, those which don't 'cut the mustard' (or is it muster?) need to be discarded.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
See entire quote if you want.
|
word.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by datacaliber
I respect those who are tolerant of things that they don't agree with. However, I see a lot of hypocrisy from people who push their tolerance on others. Many times, they are "tolerant" of whatever they are already amicable with and then consider everything else ignorant. How many times have you heard "I'm intolerant of intolerance". It's a bunch of crap.
But, I actually wouldn't mind if they were supporting true tolerance. Tolerance, these days, seems to mean that I have to AGREE with whatever I'm tolerating. It's not enough that I don't care what anyone else does, now I have to embrace it in order not to be called a closeminded bigot. And yes, I do think it's hippie-ish and yes, I do think it's more of a liberal thing.
Tolerance, like free speech, is truly celebrated when it applies to something you disagree with or even revile.
|
Being intolerant of intolerance isn't crap. I'm quiet happy with being intolerant of views and actions that harm others, abuse others, or take away one's right to self-determination, freedom or happiness. And while there are some people who do say the intolerance thing and are a bit hypocritical about it, they are a minority.
Unless Libertarians are liberals, I'd have to say it's not a liberal thing, either.
Tolerance today isn't about making people agree with you. Tolerance is about allowing someone to say/do something that you don't agree with when it is not harmful to others. But as a society we have to set limits on what is allowed. We have to be as tolerant as possible as long as what we are allowing is not a danger to society or people not involved in the activity. if what you want to do doesn't harm me or society in general (like if you want to pray in church, or a federally funded park), then go ahead and do it. but if you want to do something that harms me or society (forced prayer in school, teaching creationism/ID), then i will be intolerant of it because you are being harmful to that which i love (my country, my family, myself... a i let the self-love show!
)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by datacaliber
Huh? By embrace I mean accepting, agreeing with, etc. BTW, you're not embracing me you close minded bigot.
|
dude, i'm not embracing you, and i'm not not embracing you. i have stated no opinion of you. reread what i wrote. it's a 'general' you. not you specifically, but 'you' meaning people in general. kind of like how you (specific) used 'you' (general) in your (specific) post.
and in case you don't know the definition of bigot, from miriam webster
<b>bigot</b>: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
so if you (specific) follow your (specific) views without considering others views and thinking about the situation rationally and logically, then yes, i would say that you (specific) would be a bigot. but since i do not know you (specific), i could not say if you (specific) are one.