Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

Do you mean that double standards in relation to ideology that leads to intolerance and violence aren't necessarily wrong? Perhaps, you would care to give an example?

I can think of some double standards that exist, that I would carefully say I understand - those that exist in order to try an rectify past bad actions (this is a complex discussion)...but they aren't in relation to intolerant / violent ideology.

As a general rule, I haven't seen double standards that don't cause some degree of heartache and misery. And for the person exhibiting them, double standards undermine their sense of self, their self respect, and how they handle conflict. These aren't outcomes that I would encourage.

I agree with your opinion about double standard. There are many combinations of reasons of how anyone arrives at their beliefs. I guess it's a matter of degree.

We agree on the matter of degree:
- Some people see their double standards when it's pointed out,
- some people see after a little bit, because they are willing to listen and consider (and eventually see the double standard),
- other people have multiple belief systems supporting their double standards (but can be slowly pulled apart till they see it),
- but sometimes those multiple belief systems (within the one person) self reinforce each other belief system
- then add in filters that remove, ignore, or discount any information that doesn't agree with current information...

Yes, degrees exist within double standards.

We all practice double standard whether we acknowledge it or not. All my siblings are Christians and I'm an atheist. I disagree with them about religion and politics, but I love them.

That we do - everyone of us is fallible, has our blind spots, our particular weaknesses (and the opposite, our strengths, our empathies etc). That said, I wouldn't call a plain disagreement a double standard - that's just differing perspectives.

The question in relation to double standards though, is are we willing to consider whether or not we are engaging in double standards? The fewer double standards and hypocrisy's we engage in, the better we understand who we are as individuals, the better we value ourself (not a comparison to others, but what we think of ourself, for ourself), which leads less worry about how other people think of you, which leads to more tolerance for differing ideas (but not for intolerance)

I'm a liberal when it comes to people's private lives. I don't concern myself with other people's love relationships; none of my business. If they're happy, I see that as a positive.

They are very wrong. Double standards are supported only by the evil among us.

I'm not sure how that came up. In any event, we agree.

It's because my siblings are Christians, and they are against homosexual love.

Ah.

So you think it's okay for two children in the same classroom to be judged at the same standard when it's evident that's unfair, serving to relegate one of the students to a subordinate position both in the classroom and in the grand scheme of things that can't be undone without a bending of standards.

I think if you believe that all people should have equal access to opportunities, double standards are a must. i know that's not your belief system oralloy.

I think that perhaps, in a discussion raised as being about:
- ideology that leads to intolerance and violence, and
- the double standards that result in the non discussion the ideology that leands to intolerance and violence

...that a statement of "Maybe double standards aren't necessarily wrong." becomes problematic (because of it's applicable breadth away from the topic of intolerance). Hence why I asked you for an example.

...Oralloy's statement also had applicable breadth away from the subject...but may not have been intended that way. Perhaps you could have asked him 'what about #### ?", the same as I did for you.

Otherwise we could be engaging in entrapment type statements.

A 'double standard' of helping an underpriveleged class of people escape the poverty line could be argued as being very similar to:
- providing help to alcoholics / drug addicts to escape the addiction (it's money you are giving to help them, while not giving the same amount of money to others)
- providing subsidies for counselling / psyhology sessions (money given to help them that isn't given to those that don't need it)
- subsidising farmers (but not subsidising manufactures), which is argued on long term economics
- putting excise duties on imports (while not taxing your own businesses at the same rate)
- etc
Viewed in this context - the question of whether helping them is a double standard or not, becomes much greyer.

As a note - yes, I think that they should be judged by the same standard. Not doing so:
- emphasises difference and separation
- allows many to view themselves as victims (which, if such becomes an excuse, goes against them taking responsibility for who they are, and where they are going...which is the only sure path out of the situation they are in...with help)
- demotivates many from trying
- sets the bar lower, which means, in the real world, they are kept at a disadvantage.

...and that's just scratching the surface. As I mentioned earlier - it's a complex discussion.

Certainly one that merits it's own thread.

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to here. From what I can envision, judging children by the same standard is absolutely fair. But I may not understand what you mean.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/taqiyya.aspx

Well you seem to be making your own definition of double standard, essentially stating double standards are only double standards if this and this and this happens as a result of them.

I said "at the same standard" and not "by the same standard" for a reason. I don't know if there's no real distinction in the English language but when I said it I meant to note the fact that while each students should be held to equally high expectations, the ways in which they meet those expectations will be different depending on their level of readiness coming into the classroom and their prior knowledge and experiences. High expectations but differentiated assessments, and different feedback, are very important if you don't want to demotivate students, as you mentioned. Each student deserves different scaffolding, and different feedback dependent on their ability at that given time. Otherwise, it's unfair to students on both ends of the spectrum. So, yes, I think you're right if you think "held by the same standard" means expecting the same amount of effort and engagement from each student.


Before, I was speaking generally. And I was reflecting on the assumption you seem to make about countries in the West who have a history of:

criticizing intolerant aspects of their ideology
and
excusing intolerant aspects of other ideologies

let's say this is true, are they even opposites? in order to criticize intolerant aspects of their ideology that takes a level of awareness of their own position in the world as perhaps not as superior or correct as they once thought. this awareness would provoke more tolerance of other cultural practices and perhaps a disposition to not immediately indict ideologies in which they don't full understand before making value judgments. so i'm not sure it really is a double standard if the scope that something qualifies as a double standard can be as large, or gray, as you seem to think.

Not at all. A double standard can only be seen as a comparison - of not applying the same standard - to two entities. Some dictionaries add in 'unfairly' . Some dictionaries try not to reference 2. There are double standards in:
- judgement
- punishment
- favour. etc
Generally speaking, double standards are very easy to identify eg. "I hold this person to Standard A, but not that person". 2 people, just the one base standard. Simple.

Once you start adding more than 2 entities though, you start adding elements of grey. Ask yourself how easy it is to judge a double standard if you have a comparison between 5 entities, 20 entities, 50 entities?

What then happens if there are also several different types of standards applicable to a given situation (So not just Standard A, but also B, C & D)? At 50, because there are so many different interactions going on, it's quite possible that a given action may be judged thing by more than one standard.

What I was suggesting is that your comparison was not one that was between two entities (I'm using the word entities to denote: persons, people, groups, businesses etc). And that perhaps, in your example, there were other standards that could be seen to be involved.

So I was providing examples of how your example isn't quite so clear cut.
-------------------------------------------------
So, given the above, let me rephrase your question, using your same example, but with my added data - I will still ask if a double standard exists:

If the government is in the business of fixing problems in society, and fixes A, B, C, and D (all of which are problems experienced by groups of people in society) is it a double standard then for the government to fix a problem experienced by Group X (the underpriveleged group)?

Or from another angle. If government breaks something, and society expects the government to fix it, and the government does so for all the issues it caused. Is it then a double standard for the government not to fix the problem they caused to Group X(empoverishing them)?

Do you see the irony of this?

Have a read of your complaint that I seem to be redefining what a double standard is...have a read of my explanation...then have a read of what you've written here.
-------------------------------------------
As a note though:

Withholding criticism until one understands something can be a principle, that if held to, never shows double standards.

As that is the crux of your argument, you would need to come up with something else to explain why you think this, is not a double standard.

By the way - should you choose to answer, please address the group of behaviours that I stated showed a double standard in this post

So far, you have chosen to focus on just one behaviour from that group of behavious - when it is the group that I used to show the double standard. You have then applied an argument to that one behaviour that doesn't apply to the rest of that group of behaviours. One could wonder why you would do that. Can you also try and point out how the other two are not double standards? And as a group, can you point out how there isn't a double standard?