<smacks forehead>
1) One can tolerate intolerance.
2) One can be intolerant of intolerance and thereby be a hypocrite.
Here's your missing one:
3) One can be "intolerant of intolerance" and tolerant of other things without being hypocritical except in your logomachy.
For all Craven's forehead-smacking, he seems to be missing the heart of Foxfyre's point... :wink:
To recap: Twyvel and Craven are entirely correct that hypocrisy is avoided when one is intolerant of someone else's intolerance to something in particular. However, Foxfyre correctly captures the standard reaction to intolerance, which is to say:
"I can't stand [them] -- they are so intolerant." <- note the period.
Folks typically do not say:
"I can't stand [them] -- they are so intolerant toward [us/me/folks I identify with]"
So Foxfyre's point stands. Those intolerant of folks because of their intolerance (as a principle) are, indeed, hypocrites.
Those whose misfortune it has been to have found themselves in a culture which gets so little from, but credits so much to the soi-disant Judeo-Christian tradition, are always enjoined to "judge not, lest ye be judged."
What errant nonsense that is. One makes judgments, and reasonably so, from the time one arises in the morning. If one is approached by a stranger, reeking of alcohol, showing a false bonhommie, and leaning unacceptably into one's "space"--it is generally taken as reasonable to escape the situation, or if necessary, to warn off the offensive individual. However, this is a judgment which one has made. One has determined that the smell of the person is offensive, one decides the physical proximity of the individual is offensive, one will not accept the familiarity of a stranger. This is not just a judgment, it is a series of judgments.
These are all reasonable things. It is in the nature of social man to weigh the value of persons and things when considering a course of action. To attempt to do otherwise would be foolish in the extreme, if not actually impossible.
Therefore, i resolve, personally, to tolerate that which does no harm, and to speak against that which does. I judge--most certainly. I do not fear being judged--i know it happens each and every day.
one of the 'fathers' of confederation (i think it was Jefferson, and would like to be corrected if not) said:
" i disagree with what you say; but i will defend to the death, your right to say it!"
and to me this is the heart of this point;
being tolerant of what others believe, does not imply you agree with their position, but merely that you are willing to listen respectfully to their point, and consider it, before responding (if not convinced) with your arguments against it.
This is tolerance; and covers any ideas, including 'intolerant' ones.
BoGoWo wrote:This is tolerance;
Agreed. This is also remarkably rare. Remarkable in so far as folks typically consider themselves to be tolerant and typically consider tolerance to be a virtue.
(btw, nothing is defined by something, not the other way around :wink:)
Bo, i had always heard that attributed to Voltaire . . . must go see . . .
According to Wikkipedia:
Voltaire, (February 28, 1778). "I disapprove of what
you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
jnhofzinser
Quote: So Foxfyre's point stands. Those intolerant of folks because of their intolerance (as a principle) are, indeed, hypocrites.
No, it doesn't follow that they are hypocrites.
If as a matter of principle one is intolerant of all intolerance then one is intolerant of their own intolerance.
They are not hypocrites, just very frustrated,
Holy crap! Pass me the smelling salts, I actually agree with something that
twyvel wrote!
It is interesting to me that both tolerance and intolerance are predicated on "conflict". The first could be termed "suppressed conflict" the second "actual conflict". Thus they are not so much logical opposites as a natural continuum with a shifting boundary subject to unfolding events. (Consider the appeasment of Hitler for example)
twyvel wrote:If as a matter of principle one is intolerant of all intolerance then one is intolerant of their own intolerance.
They are not hypocrites, just very frustrated,
This is a good point, actually. The hypocrisy is not a necessity, as the instantiation of intolerance in some individuals may simply be frustrating/self-loathing, rather than the halt-inducing kind that I am assuming.
Setanta wrote:According to Wikkipedia:
Voltaire, (February 28, 1778). "I disapprove of what
you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
thanks Set; that gets the 'poppas' off the hook, and puts it safely under the shadow of the guillotine! :wink:
I don't like any of the answers that have been posted (except my own, of course); but i have decided to 'tolerate' them.
Fox...I like the phrase, getting caught in the web of logic. We must realize that logical paradoxes such as you have given us reveal that logic is not a reflection of the structure of the universe (and debunks Rationalism's correspondence theory of truth). Logic represents the unconditioned and conditioned structure of our minds (different cultures may have different logics). WE spin the web that has caught us. Poetry, art, mysticism, represent the "soft" side of our nature which lives partially outside of that web. I am NOT arguing that logic is not useful, only that Reality is not isomorphic with human logic.
jnhofzinser wrote:For all Craven's forehead-smacking, he seems to be missing the heart of Foxfyre's point... :wink:
To recap: Twyvel and Craven are entirely correct that hypocrisy is avoided when one is intolerant of someone else's intolerance to something in particular. However, Foxfyre correctly captures the standard reaction to intolerance, which is to say:
"I can't stand [them] -- they are so intolerant." <- note the period.
Folks typically do not say:
"I can't stand [them] -- they are so intolerant toward [us/me/folks I identify with]"
So Foxfyre's point stands. Those intolerant of folks because of their intolerance (as a principle) are, indeed, hypocrites.
Seeing as I addressed this prior to your entry herein your assertion that I missed this is, simply put, a falsehood.
Craven, in a post prior to jnhofzinser's wrote:Not a mind numbing paradox or anything, except for the people who "absolutize" the word "tolerance".
Since people do in fact do so, it is a paradox.. for them.
But just between you and me they aren't right in the head.
Craven de Kere wrote:your assertion that I missed this is, simply put, a falsehood.
On the contrary. Falsehoods, simply put, rarely precede winks. But then, perhaps, like Hamlet, you "know not 'seems'"?
The point that I wanted to bring to your attention is that the problem (i.e., folks who aren't "right in the head") is the rule rather than the exception out of those who exercise intolerance to intolerance.
jnhofzinser wrote:Craven de Kere wrote:your assertion that I missed this is, simply put, a falsehood.
On the contrary. Falsehoods, simply put, rarely precede winks.
You have no basis to make this claim either jnhofzinser. Furthermore, your use of an emoticon in no way alters your falsehood except perhaps to ascribe to it a tone of mirth.
If this is the only point you strive to make right now I'll happily amend my statment to say that you issued a falshood but did so with mirth.
Quote:
The point that I wanted to bring to your attention is that the problem (i.e., folks who aren't "right in the head") are the rule rather than the exception out of those who exercise intolerance to intolerance.
Yet
another claim for which you have
not a shred of evidence.
jnhofzinser, I must go now, this level of dicussion has about the same intellectual value as ones about being probed by aliens.
You are simply tossing out claims that you can't in any way support. That may suit your fancy but a modicum of intellectual rigour is the fancy of some others.
To say that '"X seems to be Y" is "simply put, a falsehood"' implies that you are able to show (apparently with a modicum of intellectual rigour, no less) that X could not possibly be construed to be Y...that's what the word "seems" means, Craven.
Can you? Or would you prefer to mitigate your previous position?
When was the last time you heard someone say "They are so intolerant toward so-and-so" rather than simply "They are so intolerant" without modification? I might not have an academic paper to reference on this, but I'm sure that I am not the only one whose experience provides plenty of shreds of evidence for the previous claim. Perhaps you could provide shreds of conflicting evidence? I'd be delighted -- especially if it conforms to your mythical "modicum of intellectual rigour".
