Tolerance

Juberoo

.

Rushlimbo

Tolerance ends when those with a different view or stance are directly affected by them. Example -A man has the right to believe in God but if someone with a different perspective comes to this man's house and takes his bible then tolerance will be gone. If a man doesnt believe in God and another man tells him he must memorize the good book then this is beyond tolerance as well.

baraka

No tolerance for the intolerant, eh?

The following is just my opinion. It would be hypocritical and dishonest for any of us to say that we are tolerant of everything and everyone. We are all imperfect and have our faults. I think it becomes a problem when one wants to 'legislate' their beliefs. Let's just look at the gay marriage example. It is one thing to be uncomfortable by this, it is another thing to want to ban that option for others, simply because you don't agree it. Freedom for all or for none.......

Some of my favorite posters here hold beliefs I do not subscribe to, however, we learn from each other and either change the way we look at an issue or we become more confident in our stance. But sometimes the dialog gets ugly when we start to judge one another. Some words I try to live by (and it is very hard at times!)

See yourself in others.
Then whom can you hurt?
What harm can you do?

He who seeks happiness
By hurting those who seek happiness
Will never find happiness

Never speak harsh words
For they will rebound upon you.
Angry words hurt
And the hurt rebounds.

norm

i don't tolerate ignorance and hate.

Drowned Out

I'm curious what/who inspired this thread.

Brain of J.Lo

People who embrace tolerance DO tolerate viewpoints different from their own, but they shouldn't be expected embrace ideas that are diametrically opposed to tolerance.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

Supporting all trains of thought is different from embracing tolerance. I'm tolerant of most people who are pro-life or Christian, but that doesn't mean I should support them, and I don't. I fight them and their ideas. However, that doesn't mean I think they're intolerable and need to be rounded up and shot or something.

g under p

Michael Franti sings about TOLERANCE

Tolerance Michael Franti And Spearhead lyrics
Artist: Michael Franti And Spearhead

A child is born, and a mamma's torn
About the life that it's bound to live
A sun and moon and a modest home
Is all they asking the Lord to give
But politics and big events they never seem to notice the little guy
So make a plan or simply hold a hand but don't ever be a passer by

Tolerance or violence and the whole world go to war
Is one enough or is one too many
Before we say, "No More"
Could you ever love a pot of gold?
Could you ever love another lonely soul?
Could you ever find a love that was oceans wide?
Could you ever find love in another stranger's eyes?

Oh, give a little,
Tolerance, tolerance
We need you more and more
So lend a hand or simply hold a friend
That’s in need of a life support
Draw a picture, share a whisper
Anyway that you can rise above
And when the end is near who is goanna volunteer
To be the last one to die for love


Tolerance or violence and the whole world go to war
Is one enough or is one too many
Before we say, "No More"
no more, no more, no more, no more


Here's a video of him and his band Spearhead singing it live in Portland Oregon 10/14/06 Tolerance.

Peace

DriftingByTheStorm

Well,
When you start calling people who choose to exercise their constitutional & god given freedoms "scum" and the like,
you tend to arouse a a certain response, if you catch my drift.

You have shown repeatedly in the course of your recent posts that you yourself demonstrate an absolute lack of compassion and cary within your heart an extreme amount of hatred and animosity towards certain individuals that themselves do not conform to your view.

In other words,
calling drug users "scum" (which you will find no record of, since Kat had to delete it!) ... insinuating that people with addicitons are worthless, and being generally ignorant to the genetic predisposition that some people have towards such addictions ... all of that arouses a good bit of animosity in those of us that do practice compassion and forgiveness in a broader sense.

But i'm willing to throw all that out the window and be an equally intolerant bastard if i come across someone who themself demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for human rights and the human condition.

Throwing people in jail, and castigating them as "scum" is not too open minded if you ask me.

And i can't believe your argument in this post suggests we have an "open mind" and respect for "racists" and "biggots".

I respect their right to have such a view, and i have compassion for the life experiences that brought them to that unfortunate POV, but i have an absolute LACK of compassion for that point of view itself.

Just as i have an absolute lack of compassion for YOUR point of view -- though not necessarily for you as a person.
Even though you have clearly demonstrated YOUR lack of compassion for a broad segment of society in general



OR

cutback wrote:

i don't tolerate ignorance and hate.

What (s)he said ! ! !

Brain of J.Lo

Saturnal wrote:

Supporting all trains of thought is different from embracing tolerance. I'm tolerant of most people who are pro-life or Christian, but that doesn't mean I should support them, and I don't. I fight them and their ideas. However, that doesn't mean I think they're intolerable and need to be rounded up and shot or something.

Good point. A tolerant person may disagree with someone, but still embrace them as a human being, for the sake of compassion.

norm

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Well,
When you start calling people who choose to exercise their constitutional & god given freedoms "scum" and the like,
you tend to arouse a a certain response, if you catch my drift.

You have shown repeatedly in the course of your recent posts that you yourself demonstrate an absolute lack of compassion and cary within your heart an extreme amount of hatred and animosity towards certain individuals that themselves do not conform to your view.

In other words,
calling drug users "scum" (which you will find no record of, since Kat had to delete it!) ... insinuating that people with addicitons are worthless, and being generally ignorant to the genetic predisposition that some people have towards such addictions ... all of that arouses a good bit of animosity in those of us that do practice compassion and forgiveness in a broader sense.

But i'm willing to throw all that out the window and be an equally intolerant bastard if i come across someone who themself demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for human rights and the human condition.

Throwing people in jail, and castigating them as "scum" is not too open minded if you ask me.

And i can't believe your argument in this post suggests we have an "open mind" and respect for "racists" and "biggots".

I respect their right to have such a view, and i have compassion for the life experiences that brought them to that unfortunate POV, but i have an absolute LACK of compassion for that point of view itself.

Just as i have an absolute lack of compassion for YOUR point of view -- though not necessarily for you as a person.
Even though you have clearly demonstrated YOUR lack of compassion for a broad segment of society in general



OR


What (s)he said ! ! !

he...:)......well said...i'm just into the brevity thing....;)

soulsinging

DriftingByTheStorm

I can't get over the blantant irony of the thread starter's forum title, "Soldier of Love"

pffft.
:rolleyes:

Deni

cutback wrote:

i don't tolerate ignorance and hate.

I will tolerate a lot, but this I won't tolerate either. And like the poster above cutback said... I also have no tolerance for intolerance...

I also don't tolerate stupidity very well. I admit that. lol

One of the things that I do find really funny though is when somebody who is KNOWN to be a bigot comes to tolerant people says, why wont you tolerate me and my views and expects them to say... oh I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was supposed to tolerate hate.

Brain of J.Lo

soulsinging wrote:

shit, i don't even dispute your right to be the nigger-hatin, faggot-loathin, narrow-minded piece of redneck trash you are. it's your life.

Geez, ss....why don't you go work for the ACLU, with all the rest of the dirty hippies. :rolleyes:

somebodyelsessky2020

if you can peacefully be any one of those without causing violence, then i'd be tolerant of it.

Austicman

Racists- Tolerate people who believe in equal rights for all. I don't think so.
Pro-Life- Are open to debate of pro choice. I'd like to see that.
Anti-Drug- I hear them screaming 'Zero Tolerance' through a haze of alcohol many a time. The biggest hipocrites of all.
Biggots and Fundamentalist's regardless of religion are intolerance kings so don't get me started on them.

There's no tolerating a person with no respect for opinion that differ from their's. Tolerating the fact that these people exsist is tolerance enough.

Now I have a question for you. How old are you? Are you a Pearl Jam fan?

jamtemplechains

every single person has biases and will be set in certain ways. it's not the same though to hate someone for pointlessly hating others as it is to hate someone for reasons they could never help.
people CHOOSE to hate, discriminate, harrass, and ridicule others. a black person is black because....they're black. a gay person is gay because it is unnatural to them to feel attraction for the opposite sex. a woman is a woman because she happens to have a vagina. it is unjust and ignorant to subscribe to generalizations that lead to immediately hating an entire group of people, 99.9999999% of whom you don't know and know nothing about, so i don't see what is equally unjust or ignorant about feeling a certain sense of frustration with these people for refusing to accept others for things that are part of that person's natural being.

wolfbear

I certainly have tolerance for anyone and everyone, except those who try to "enlighten" me by "forcing" their beliefs on me. I will listen to anyones point of view. It's when someone starts to condemn me that I have a problem and lose interest. I have no problem with them so why should they have a problem with me?

Juberoo

Juberoo

wolfbear wrote:

I certainly have tolerance for anyone and everyone, except those who try to "enlighten" me by "forcing" their beliefs on me. I will listen to anyones point of view. It's when someone starts to condemn me that I have a problem and lose interest. I have no problem with them so why should they have a problem with me?

so isn't it forcing beliefs on those you consider "intolerant" by fighting to get laws changed to incorporate what they don't believe in into the mainstream.....for arguments sake, say homosexual marriage. If it becomes legal and an anti-gay marriage boss has a homosexual employee, he then is forced to pay for this marriage by means of benefits. His right to believe differently is then compromised. Why does that not matter?

keeponrockin

What if an anti inter-racial marriage has an employee in an interracial marriage. He is then forced to pay by means of benefits. His right to believe differently WOULD then be comprimised. How would you feel about this situation?

Juberoo, do you believe you are intolerant? Yes or no.

Drowned Out

How is his right to believe differently compromised? It isn't at all!
Having to pay into something he doesn't believe in does not make him have to believe in or agree with it. He is free to speak out against it and try to have the law changed back to how he wants it. In relation to the thread topic, he is not tolerating gay marriage. How are the gay people being intolerant by asking to be allowed to marry? A gay person asking to marry is not forcing any BELIEF upon YOU. Same as the drug issue brought up earlier today. If drugs are legalized, it does not mean that you condone their use to live in a non-prohibitionist society. You are not having any belief forced upon you, as drug users are having the belief that drug use is wrong thrust upon them.

Juberoo

.

Juberoo

.

keeponrockin

So, as a tolerant person, why would you have a problem with giving homosexual couples at least the same rights as married couples have through a civil union of some sort. I don't think the churches should be forced to accecpt this, but I think it is a good comprimise allowing homosexual couples to have the same rights, and the people that disagree can still have their 'marriage'. What do you think of this idea? I believe it would be good for things like medical issues, estate, etc...

Austicman

Thats twice I've posted in one of your threads without name calling or personal attacks and have gotten no reply. How about you answer someone who's debating the subject and not flame on with the name callers.

And don't answer this post, answer my original one will ya.

wolfbear

Juberoo wrote:

so isn't it forcing beliefs on those you consider "intolerant" by fighting to get laws changed to incorporate what they don't believe in into the mainstream.....for arguments sake, say homosexual marriage. If it becomes legal and an anti-gay marriage boss has a homosexual employee, he then is forced to pay for this marriage by means of benefits. His right to believe differently is then compromised. Why does that not matter?

My belief is that there should be no "nos".

jamtemplechains

keeponrockin wrote:

What if an anti inter-racial marriage has an employee in an interracial marriage. He is then forced to pay by means of benefits. His right to believe differently WOULD then be comprimised. How would you feel about this situation?

this is a perfect analogy....juberoo, i love how you responded to keeponrockin's post, yet you obviously didn't have an intelligent answer to the comparison presented. what IF a boss was opposed to interracial marriage? you think they shouldn't have to shell out benefits to these couples? hell, by this unbelievable logic, what if a boss hates jews? should he be able to pay jews less than anyone else? what if he has 'moral opposition' to hispanic people? should he be able to allow them less benefits than any other employees? arguing against gay marriage because an employer might not agree with it or want to support monetary benefits for it is the single most idiotic thing i've ever heard and is more laughable than i can even began to explain.

angelica

Juberoo wrote:

So why is it, that people who emrace generalized tolerance, have none for people that don't agree with them? If someone wants to be racist, a biggot or a fundamentalist christian...pro-life, anti-drug or right wing conservative...shouldn't these "enlightened" new age thinkers support ALL trains of thought? Not just the ones that coincide with their stand?
Hmmmmm......

This is the way it works:

People are at all kinds of different stages of evolution. 98 percent of the population are at developmental stages wherein they see that they are "right" and that others are "wrong". The only group who are truly tolerant are in the top 2 percentile. This group has raised their awareness enough that they can truly understand all perspectives and therefore just are generally tolerant. Humanity is evolving towards such stages.

Just before reaching this top percentile, we have the group of people who push for general tolerance. The reason you see contradiction and double-speak coming from these people (and I see it too) is because they have not resolved their inner issues. So while they understand the validity of tolerance on one level, they are showing us on another level that they are not totally on board with themselves and this "tolerance" yet. Their evolving-yet-not-complete "tolerance" includes all kinds of false justifications for poor behaviour, and inherent contradictions. Even though they are moving towards tolerance, like yourself they are human and they have all kinds of inner conflicts that cause them to act out in dysfunctional ways, yet. Until one actually does really get their inner stuff worked out, they continue to sabotage their own arguments, revealing their existing inner conflicts and problems. That's why you see this in 98% of the population.

jamtemplechains

angelica wrote:

This is the way it works:

People are at all kinds of different stages of evolution. 98 percent of the population are at developmental stages wherein they see that they are "right" and that others are "wrong". The only group who are truly tolerant are in the top 2 percentile. This group has raised their awareness enough that they can truly understand all perspectives and therefore just are generally tolerant. Humanity is evolving towards such stages.

Just before reaching this top percentile, we have the group of people who push for general tolerance. The reason you see contradiction and double-speak coming from these people (and I see it too) is because they have not resolved their inner issues. So while they understand the validity of tolerance on one level, they are showing us on another level that they are not totally on board with themselves and this "tolerance" yet. Their evolving-yet-not-complete "tolerance" includes all kinds of false justifications for poor behaviour, and inherent contradictions. Even though they are moving towards tolerance, like yourself they are human and they have all kinds of inner conflicts that cause them to act out in dysfunctional ways, yet. Until one actually does really get their inner stuff worked out, they continue to sabotage their own arguments, revealing their existing inner conflicts and problems. That's why you see this in 98% of the population.

this sounds almost to be in the same vein as maslow's self-actualization. what exactly is this theory you're describing and where do these figures come from? i'm not going to attempt to describe or explain on what level what percentage of people think or behave; i simply stand by my contention that to feel hatred for someone for natural and biological reasons they could never alter or control is radically different than feeling hatred and frustration toward's people who harbor these prejudices. i am not going to know if i will dislike another person before i know them or hear what they're all about. they could be of any age, sex, race, or sexual orientation. but i WILL admit that i am intolerant and prejudice towards certain people in that if someone is the kind of person who will immediately hate others for those very reasons, i will have a significant distaste for them.