Reply
Tue 19 Oct, 2004 04:54 pm
Edit [Moderator]: Moved to Philosophy & Debate from General.
I was discussing how much I despise most of my co-workers with a friend today, and we ended up debating the word tolerance. I say I'm very tolerant, because I have such hatred for these idiots, and yet, I haven't lost it and gone off on them, or tried to do them any bodily harm.
My friend, however, says that to be tolerant is to actually not have these feelings of hate towards people in the first place, and to accept people without feeling ill-will towards them. I think that's just silly. You can't control what your gut feeling is toward certain people. The best you can do is to restrain yourself from killing them, and try to avoid them if possible. That's what I think tolerance is.
Any opinions?
Tolerance is taking your finger off the trigger.
I think it takes a higher level of enlightenment to be what your friend calls tolerant.
Okay, maybe I shouldn't have used the word "kill". I don't really want to kill them, of course. I do, at times, exaggerate a little bit to make a point.
I just can't stand them. And when I talk to them, most of the time I smile, even though inside I am thinking, "I can't stand you, please go somewhere far away from me forever."
So I do, in fact, live and let live. Am I more or less tolerant than the person who really isn't annoyed by others? I think I am even more tolerant, because I control my passionate feelings of dislike, whereas, the person who just accepts people is just doing what comes naturally to them. They aren't restraining themselves. I am putting out a ton more effort to be tolerant. Don't ya think?
I think tolerance has more to do with actions than intent, yeah.
kickycan--
You're saying that the Special Olympics is more vital and meritworthy than the Olympics because the handicapped participants put forth more effort?
Yes Noddy, I think that would be a logical extension of my thinking.
Just like it would be more praiseworthy for a KKK member to meet a black man on the street and smile and shake his hand then it would be for a non-racist person.
kickycan--
Would the KKK member be sincere? Or imply working for a spin?
It doesn't matter. If the KKK member acts in a respectful way, and is thinking how much he hates the black person, he is being tolerant. More tolerant than someone who is genuinely respectful. He is showing restraint, and no matter his motives (unless he's suckering the guy in so that his hooded friends can launch a surprise attack), he is showing a great amount of tolerance. Do you disagree?
Yes, I do!
Tolerance is not restraining yourself so you won't be disrespectful
to the person you despise. Tolerance means accepting the way of thinking that is different from yours, and sympathize with it.
I for one couldn't tolerate a KKK member - my level of tolerance only
goes so far. On the other hand, I can tolerate a person that has a
different lifestyle to mine.
May I ask you why you despise your co-workers so much?
What is the reason for it?
tolerance is a sticky situation. i say i ahve tolerance but then again... i cant help but sneer at people i hate.... i hate hating but it happens... i say tolerance is def. a live and let live kinda thing
Kicky--
I think Calamity Jane and I see a difference between "tolerance" and "polite behavior".
The KKK member believes that Blacks are an inferior race. Speaking with the old cliche, he wouldn't want his daughter to marry one. This is not tolerance.
I'm with Seed. I think 'tolerance' is a 'live and let live' sort of thing, with a lack of bearing ill-will. Unless you have the capacity to love everyone, it's the best thing we have to get along with each other.
Cavfancier, I think I would prefer a KKK to the idea of "live and let live".
I don't like the word tolerance.
Tolerance would be: I don't like the Blacks, I think they are inferior, but I accept they must have the same rights as White (as long as they stay far from me). That's stupid.
The question is: what is the reason that takes you to that opinion about blacks?
Instead of tolerance I think we should be critical about our own convictions. Why do you think that Blacks, Whites, Yellows, Catholics, Theists, Atheists, are superior/inferior. Establish the reasons, if you have any, then try to analyse them, in order to verify their truth.
Criticism is the solution. Tolerance is zero.
hatred emplys tolerance. if you had none, hatred would not be possible.
hatred emplys tolerance. if you had none, hatred would not be possible.
See, I make tolerance synonymous with enlightenment; as a way of truly seeing someone else's perspective and getting to the core of who they are. To use your "KKK member" scenario, kickycan: the KKK member is not being tolerant, he is, in effect, just lying. If this same member "saw the light" or whatever you want to call it, and accepted the black man as his equal, then that would be tolerance. Just shaking his hand to be polite, though, is not. However, being polite is important, but it's better to have underlying values that correspond with these behaviors.