Reply Thu 12 Dec, 2013 07:53 pm
Tolerance, an approach associated with forbearance, within the mind regarding some sentiment of discomfort. As Opposed to tolerance one may opt for non-acceptance which shifts the perspective, considerably, appeasing the imposed discomfort, which is non-tolerance.
In Postmodernism, we find an apathetic veneer that masks itself as tolerance. But in all actuality non tolerance exists due to choosing not to allow, brutal tolerance hence revealing a true nature of tolerability. Tolerating this overall growing consensus is the causality ensuing brutal intolerance; disguising itself in all forms of projected propriety. Which results in social injustices, forming a unanimous witness of brutal intolerance actualizing itself within humanity while naming it a form of tolerance. So while continuing to appear accepting of such moral indecencies we are denying ourselves, the rite to action, and this should not be tolerated.
Does one speak up against brutal intolerance and risk appearing non tolerant? This seems to be the dilemma we have backed our society into. Political Correctness has gone above the statute of moral law and erased good will that once presented itself with non-tolerance for brutal intolerance; henceforth creating a fear which has seized humanity closing off the heart from empathy. Lethargic virtue has set in our culture, appropriating an intolerance response. Tolerating brutal tolerance has in affect paralyzed non-tolerance from preforming in order to necessitate enforced justice that is delicate in the balance of tolerance possessing validity.
A line in the sand can be wiped away but a fence must be uprooted. By not allowing brutal intolerance to escape, the other side of the coin of the tolerant, the tolerant is hence causing the intolerance to proceed within. How would the tolerant remain tolerant to something that inwardly cannot withstand the opposing nature of itself? The very nature of tolerance is destroyed in the face of brutal intolerance and the only way for it to permeate is to put back which is tolerable through opposing the brutal intolerance. Non-tolerance is then created which also opposes tolerance.
Morality must lie within all these approaches when interacting in society. There is a time to tolerate, a time for non-tolerance, intolerance and yes even brutal intolerance. The premise of measuring morality by these concepts is valid because one must always adjust one’s approach, demeanor, attitude and how one put’s his best foot forward in life. One must be open to endless possibilities variant with the changeable nature of morality. Hence a line in the sand is more proficient than a fence. Overall one must ask can one tolerate oneself and the morale they offer in society.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 693 • Replies: 0
No top replies


Related Topics

Define Morality - Question by neologist
Relativity of morality - Discussion by InkRune
Killing through a dungeon - Question by satyesu
Morality. - Discussion by Logicus
Creationism in schools - Question by MORALeducation
Morality (a discussion) - Discussion by Smileyrius
Morality Concerning Prostitution - Discussion by brainspew
  1. Forums
  2. » Indecent Exposure
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/04/2023 at 11:38:21