I don't like your definition of tolerance and you're not consistent with it anyway.
Vivien Send a noteboard - 07/01/2012 01:49:05 AM
You give a very extreme definition of tolerance and then say you're tolerant of your children. How do you reconcile this?
Besides the extreme definition, what's bothersome is that your examples of tolerance are very much from the perspective of the majority. You didn't give enough detail for me to really pick them apart (since it's all about views, it's not clear in your examples how those views would translate into actions) but the framing is bothersome on a really fundamental level that's very much there but is kind of hard to explain.
Besides the extreme definition, what's bothersome is that your examples of tolerance are very much from the perspective of the majority. You didn't give enough detail for me to really pick them apart (since it's all about views, it's not clear in your examples how those views would translate into actions) but the framing is bothersome on a really fundamental level that's very much there but is kind of hard to explain.
Your first paragraph is meaningless. Again, tolerance is not about being okay with stuff that you are not personally into. If you believe that homosexuality is perfectlly fine and you are not offended by homosexual behavior, then there is no tolerance required, even though you aren't into it.
Tolerance is not about being okay with people that like vanilla when you like chocolate. Tolerance is being at peace with people eating vanilla when you think it is wrong to eat vanilla and that it is bad for individuals and society.
I am tolerant with my children when I am bothered by what they do but am patient with them. A person with high pain tolerance is not a person that feels no pain, but a person that can feel a lot of pain and still function.
So yes I believe that accepting homosexuality as just fine does not make a heterosexual person tolerant. Advocating for homosexual rights (while being heterosexual) does not make one tolerant.
A tolerant person is one who is bothered or offended by the notion that homosexuality is immoral, but is patient and at peace with those that hold it. Likewise a tolerant person is one that finds homosexuality to be wrong or sinful, but endures it in others and is at peace with it.
So in my opinion the tough question is how much should people tolerate. We would all agree that we should not tolerate murder. But there isn't agreement on gay marriage. Some people won't tolerate those who want to redefine marriage to something it has never been. Others won't tolerate those who want to deny homosexuals the right to marry each other. We all believe tolerance should be limited.
For me, I believe it is most important for people to not hate each other. Many people who claim that they want love to rule are in fact filled with hatred for those that oppose them. You can't have it both ways. I know people that are true homophobes; they hate gay people. I know some that truly hate those that oppose homosexual marriage. How do you know the haters? They are the most vitriolic, angry, and quickest to dehumanize their opponents. And both sides of the issue are swarming with them.
For those that are Christian, the Apostle John asks a searching question: (paraphrasing) "How can you claim to love God whom you have not seen, when you hate your brother whom you have seen?" And Jesus himself said (paraphrasing various verses), if you love only them that love you, what good have you done? Everybody does that. Love your enemy, pray for them that persecute you, etc...
Tolerance is not about being okay with people that like vanilla when you like chocolate. Tolerance is being at peace with people eating vanilla when you think it is wrong to eat vanilla and that it is bad for individuals and society.
I am tolerant with my children when I am bothered by what they do but am patient with them. A person with high pain tolerance is not a person that feels no pain, but a person that can feel a lot of pain and still function.
So yes I believe that accepting homosexuality as just fine does not make a heterosexual person tolerant. Advocating for homosexual rights (while being heterosexual) does not make one tolerant.
A tolerant person is one who is bothered or offended by the notion that homosexuality is immoral, but is patient and at peace with those that hold it. Likewise a tolerant person is one that finds homosexuality to be wrong or sinful, but endures it in others and is at peace with it.
So in my opinion the tough question is how much should people tolerate. We would all agree that we should not tolerate murder. But there isn't agreement on gay marriage. Some people won't tolerate those who want to redefine marriage to something it has never been. Others won't tolerate those who want to deny homosexuals the right to marry each other. We all believe tolerance should be limited.
For me, I believe it is most important for people to not hate each other. Many people who claim that they want love to rule are in fact filled with hatred for those that oppose them. You can't have it both ways. I know people that are true homophobes; they hate gay people. I know some that truly hate those that oppose homosexual marriage. How do you know the haters? They are the most vitriolic, angry, and quickest to dehumanize their opponents. And both sides of the issue are swarming with them.
For those that are Christian, the Apostle John asks a searching question: (paraphrasing) "How can you claim to love God whom you have not seen, when you hate your brother whom you have seen?" And Jesus himself said (paraphrasing various verses), if you love only them that love you, what good have you done? Everybody does that. Love your enemy, pray for them that persecute you, etc...
The equivalence to homosexuality tolerance and acceptance is tolerance and acceptance of heterosexuality, not tolerance and acceptance of homophobia.
Seeing it differently is perfectly ok- what's not ok is if someone's "seeing it differently" means taking choice/agency/freedom from other people. It's ok to be personally not into gay sex or birth control but it's a problem if you seek to also tell others what they can and cannot do. However, they are totally free to be homophobic in the privacy of their own homes.
For example, when we were watching the show where everyone stopped dying and they were scenes of 2 men, my dad would fast forward through them. [And I actually sat through the first episode of Spartacus with both my parents because we did not know what we were in for but somehow there was no fast forwarding there]
Seeing it differently is perfectly ok- what's not ok is if someone's "seeing it differently" means taking choice/agency/freedom from other people. It's ok to be personally not into gay sex or birth control but it's a problem if you seek to also tell others what they can and cannot do. However, they are totally free to be homophobic in the privacy of their own homes.
For example, when we were watching the show where everyone stopped dying and they were scenes of 2 men, my dad would fast forward through them. [And I actually sat through the first episode of Spartacus with both my parents because we did not know what we were in for but somehow there was no fast forwarding there]
One group thinks homosexual behavior is wrong. Another group thinks it is wrong to think homosexual behavior is wrong. One group claims to be the tolerant group, but it is hardly tolerance to embrace what you think is perfectly acceptable while villifying those who think differently.
I think a better definition of tolerance is living at peace with what you find objectionable. There are tolerant people on both sides of the argument, though far fewer than would tag themselves so. The trick is to rise above the desire to villify those who honestly see it differently than you.
That is why we come up with labels like pro-choice and pro-life, to give the implication that the other side is anti-life or anti-choice. Why do you like seeing babies die? Why do you like rippping agency from women? Those who see it differently than you are patently evil. The oldest trick in the political/religous/sports/social/anything book is to dehumanize those who oppose you so that you can unleash all of your vitriol and frustration against them without restraint. Afterall, why should you show restraint when the otherside has willfully and knowingly chosen to work for Satan?
I think a better definition of tolerance is living at peace with what you find objectionable. There are tolerant people on both sides of the argument, though far fewer than would tag themselves so. The trick is to rise above the desire to villify those who honestly see it differently than you.
That is why we come up with labels like pro-choice and pro-life, to give the implication that the other side is anti-life or anti-choice. Why do you like seeing babies die? Why do you like rippping agency from women? Those who see it differently than you are patently evil. The oldest trick in the political/religous/sports/social/anything book is to dehumanize those who oppose you so that you can unleash all of your vitriol and frustration against them without restraint. Afterall, why should you show restraint when the otherside has willfully and knowingly chosen to work for Satan?
This message last edited by Vivien on 07/01/2012 at 01:52:48 AM
Santorum is #2 in Iowa
- 04/01/2012 01:24:13 PM
1746 Views
would you stop using that word? It is gross. *NM*
- 04/01/2012 01:48:45 PM
572 Views
What's your word for it? *NM*
- 04/01/2012 03:43:44 PM
523 Views
Well, there's nothing wrong with Santoruming in the privacy of one's home.
- 04/01/2012 02:35:56 PM
1064 Views
yeah that it so funny
- 04/01/2012 03:05:59 PM
932 Views
he kind of brought it on himself by being so decidedly anti-gay that it pissed lots of people off
- 04/01/2012 04:36:39 PM
974 Views
maybe the gays brought all the gay bashing on themselves
- 05/01/2012 03:18:15 PM
1173 Views
Civility is a social contract
- 05/01/2012 04:39:46 PM
941 Views
so now that the gays have broken that contract they are fair game?
- 05/01/2012 06:37:52 PM
690 Views
Re: so now that the gays have broken that contract they are fair game?
- 06/01/2012 05:29:49 PM
948 Views
So is it OK if just insult the gays who are politically active and push their agenda?
- 06/01/2012 06:16:30 PM
976 Views
If you call them out by name for hypocrisy, then sure.
- 10/01/2012 05:22:34 PM
998 Views
yes but once you have thrown out all civil decency why start getting nuanced?
- 11/01/2012 09:09:13 PM
919 Views
Actually, your response was expected
- 04/01/2012 10:08:33 PM
1028 Views
do you still pretend that it isn't political?
- 05/01/2012 03:14:25 PM
868 Views
I'm sorry
- 05/01/2012 03:52:57 PM
972 Views
funny how it always woks out that way
- 05/01/2012 06:44:55 PM
773 Views
Believe what you will, but my wok skills are poor 
- 05/01/2012 07:32:17 PM
936 Views
- 05/01/2012 07:32:17 PM
936 Views
You should ask one of the gays to help you. I hear the gays are good at cooking. *NM*
- 06/01/2012 01:54:21 AM
613 Views
Santorum is a man who believes you must compare homosexual love to bestiality and pedophilia
- 05/01/2012 04:42:26 AM
944 Views
and Savage is a Man who believes that vulgar personal attacks
- 05/01/2012 03:12:42 PM
1091 Views
Why should a person tolerate intolerance? (Serious question.) *NM*
- 05/01/2012 08:46:05 PM
645 Views
The question boils down to why should someone tolerate what they think is wrong.
- 05/01/2012 10:53:40 PM
905 Views
and when santorum tells you that your lifestyle is worse than pedophilia and bestiality?
- 06/01/2012 03:34:52 AM
860 Views
To be fair...
- 06/01/2012 05:32:31 AM
1004 Views
You are correct
- 06/01/2012 01:21:18 PM
1058 Views
Then it seems like it's a problem of definitions more than anything else.
- 06/01/2012 09:48:49 PM
964 Views
Following the logic to its bitter end. Why do I do this to myself???
- 06/01/2012 10:14:01 PM
1029 Views
Following the logic to its bitter end. Why do I do this to myself???
- 06/01/2012 10:14:01 PM
1029 Views
Those are really not equivalent.
- 06/01/2012 04:18:37 PM
822 Views
Re: Those are really not equivalent.
- 06/01/2012 10:27:11 PM
952 Views
I don't like your definition of tolerance and you're not consistent with it anyway.
- 07/01/2012 01:49:05 AM
986 Views
In case you were curious, I really disagree with your understanding of tolerance. *NM*
- 09/01/2012 08:24:45 PM
602 Views
I find myself agreeing with you recently
So at this point, most of the candidates had a moment at the top. Kind of awesome.
- 05/01/2012 11:22:50 PM
931 Views
that is why Perry is staying in the race
- 06/01/2012 06:20:54 PM
899 Views
He should stay, they should all stay. Trump should get back into it and Palin should jump in too.
- 06/01/2012 07:00:52 PM
842 Views
It would be the joke of the year if Huntsman got a turn.
- 06/01/2012 10:59:36 PM
851 Views
Is he a bigger long shot than Santorum, though? Gingrich? Bachman? CAIN!?
- 07/01/2012 01:34:47 AM
950 Views
Yes, for the reason you state.
- 07/01/2012 03:04:39 PM
909 Views
I really do not agree.
- 09/01/2012 08:51:46 PM
943 Views
Like I said, check Obamas numbers any time in the last year and a half.
- 10/01/2012 11:41:47 AM
820 Views
More like everyone has had a moment running second to Romney.
- 07/01/2012 01:59:25 PM
841 Views
It's not a foregone conclusion yet.
- 07/01/2012 04:03:51 PM
952 Views
It kinda is; Paul cannot even win a majority of Republicans, let alone the country.
- 07/01/2012 09:09:07 PM
926 Views
Ironically, Paul has a better chance of winning the general election than the republican primary.
- 07/01/2012 10:14:07 PM
1015 Views
What's the likelihood of Paul running as an independent/3rd party if he doesn't get the GOP nod? *NM*
- 07/01/2012 10:21:23 PM
347 Views
Not very high, I think. He didn't try it last time either, and it would hand Obama the election. *NM*
- 08/01/2012 01:29:01 AM
467 Views
many states have laws that you cannot run 3rd party after being on the ballot for a party primary
- 08/01/2012 06:12:36 AM
1050 Views
Yes, he and Romney have that in common, but Pauls positions are (mostly) sincere.
- 10/01/2012 03:46:04 PM
1027 Views
give up the hope it is nothing more than a pipe dream
- 09/01/2012 02:57:03 PM
963 Views
All of the republican candidates are pipe dreams.
- 09/01/2012 08:56:57 PM
763 Views
I find Ron Paul absolutely infuriating.
- 09/01/2012 10:44:09 PM
1025 Views
Um...
- 10/01/2012 03:54:53 PM
859 Views
Paul is an equal opportunity infuriator, to borrow Vivien's word.
- 09/01/2012 10:56:57 PM
923 Views
The original santorum 2003 interview for those who want to know
- 07/01/2012 05:32:00 AM
1144 Views
And here is the 2002 op ed where he blamed liberalism causing the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal
- 07/01/2012 05:36:39 AM
951 Views