As I promised:

The Intolerance of Tolerance

Gregory Koukl


Probably no concept has more currency in our politically correct culture than the notion of tolerance. Unfortunately, one of America's noblest virtues has been so distorted it's become a vice.

There is a modern myth that holds that true tolerance consists of neutrality. It is one of the most entrenched assumptions of a society committed to relativism.

The tolerant person occupies neutral ground, a place of complete impartiality where each person is permitted to decide for himself. No judgments allowed. No "forcing" personal views. Each takes a neutral posture towards another's convictions.

This approach is very popular with post-modernists, that breed of radical skeptics whose ideas command unwarranted respect in the university today. Their rallying cry, "There is no truth," is often followed by an appeal for tolerance.

For all their confident bluster, the relativists' appeal actually asserts two truths, one rational and one moral. The first is the "truth" that there is no truth. The second is the moral truth that one ought to tolerate other people's viewpoints. Their stand, contradictory on at least two counts, serves as a warning that the modern notion of tolerance is seriously misguided.

Three Elements of Tolerance

Many people are confused about what tolerance is. According to Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College Edition, the word tolerate means to allow or to permit, to recognize and respect others' beliefs and practices without sharing them, to bear or put up with someone or something not necessarily liked.

Tolerance, then, involves three elements: (1) permitting or allowing (2) a conduct or point of view one disagrees with (3) while respecting the person in the process.

Notice that we can't tolerate someone unless we disagree with him. This is critical. We don't "tolerate" people who share our views. They're on our side. There's nothing to put up with. Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong.

This essential element of tolerance--disagreement--has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays, if you think someone is wrong, you're called intolerant.

This presents a curious problem. One must first think another is wrong in order to exercise tolerance toward him, yet doing so brings the accusation of intolerance. It's a "Catch-22." According to this approach, true tolerance is impossible.

Three Faces of Tolerance

Adding to the confusion is the fact that tolerance could apply to different things--persons, behaviors, or ideas--and the rules are different for each.

Tolerance of persons, what might be called "civility," can be equated with the word "respect." This is the classical definition of tolerance: the freedom to express one's ideas without fear of reprisal.

We respect those who hold different beliefs than our own by treating them courteously and allowing their views a place in the public discourse. We may strongly disagree with their ideas and vigorously contend against them in the public square, but we still show respect for the persons in spite of the differences.

Note that respect is accorded to the person, here. Whether his behavior should be tolerated is an entirely different issue. This is the second sense of tolerance, the liberty to act, called tolerance of behavior. Our laws demonstrate that a man may believe what he likes--and he usually has the liberty to express those beliefs--but he may not behave as he likes. Some behavior is immoral or a threat to the common good. Rather than being tolerated, it is restricted by law. In Lincoln's words: There is no right to do wrong.

Tolerance of persons must also be distinguished from tolerance of ideas. Tolerance of persons requires that each person's views get a courteous hearing, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth. The view that no person's ideas are any better or truer than another's is irrational and absurd. To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful standard of tolerance.

These three categories are frequently conflated by muddled thinkers. If one rejects another's ideas or behavior, he's automatically accused of rejecting the person and being disrespectful. To say I'm intolerant of the person because I disagree with his ideas is confused. On this view of tolerance, no idea or behavior can be opposed, regardless of how graciously, without inviting the charge of incivility.

Historically, our culture has emphasized tolerance of all persons, but never tolerance of all behavior. This is a critical distinction because, in the current rhetoric of relativism, the concept of tolerance is most frequently advocated for behavior: premarital sex, abortion, homosexuality, use of pornography, etc. People ought to be able to behave the way they want within broad moral limits, the argument goes.

Ironically, though, there is little tolerance for the expression of contrary ideas on issues of morality and religion. If one advocates a differing view, he is soundly censured. The tolerance issue has thus gone topsy-turvy: tolerate most behavior, but don't tolerate opposing beliefs about those behaviors. Contrary moral opinions are labeled as "imposing your view on others."

Instead of hearing, "I respect your view," those who differ in politically incorrect ways are told they are bigoted, narrow-minded, and intolerant.

A case in point was an attack made in my community paper on Christians who were uncomfortable with the social pressure to approve of homosexuality. I wrote the following letter to the editor to show how the modern notion of tolerance had been twisted into a vice instead of a virtue:

Dear Editor:

I am consistently amazed to see how intolerant South Bay residents are to moral views other than their own. Last week's letters about homosexuality were cases in point. One writer even suggested that your publication censor alternate opinions!

This narrow-mindedness and self-righteous attitude about sexual ethics is hypocritical. They challenge what they view as hate (it used to be called morality) with caustic and vitriolic attacks. They condemn censure by asking for censorship (there's a difference). They accuse others of intolerance and bigotry, then berate those same people for taking a view contrary to their own.

Why is someone attacked so forcibly simply for affirming moral guidelines about sex that have held us in good stead for thousands of years?

Not only that, the objections are self-defeating. The writers imply that everyone should be allowed to do and believe what they want and that no one should be permitted to force their viewpoint on others. But that is their viewpoint, which they immediately attempt to force on your readers in an abusive way. Those with opposing beliefs were referred to in print as bigots, lacking courage, disrespectful, ignorant, abominable, fearful, indecent, on par with the KKK, and--can you believe it--intolerant.

Why don't we abandon all of this nonsense about tolerance and open-mindedness? It's misleading because each side has a point of view it thinks is correct. The real issue is about what kind of morality our society should encourage and whether that morality is based on facts and sound reasoning or empty rhetoric.

Intellectual Cowardice

Most of what passes for tolerance today is not tolerance at all, but rather intellectual cowardice. Those who hide behind the myth of neutrality are often afraid of intelligent engagement. Unwilling to be challenged by alternate points of view, they don't engage contrary opinions or even consider them. It's easier to hurl an insult--"you intolerant bigot"--than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it. "Tolerance" has become intolerance.

The classical rule of tolerance is this: Tolerate persons in all circumstances, by according them respect and courtesy even when their ideas are false or silly. Tolerate (i.e., allow) behavior that is moral and consistent with the common good. Finally, tolerate (i.e., embrace and believe) ideas that are sound. This is still a good guideline.

Whatever I have to say in the subject is here (http://www.towerofivory.net/writing.php?disp=whsi7#text). :p

Nowadays, if you think someone is wrong, you're called intolerant. That is the sort of paranoid generalizing that just cripples this man's arguement.

People call him intolerant when he not just believes another is wrong, but then seeks to enforce his view, or morality, upon another.

And then he, or the next, author makes the claim that it is acceptable to enforce his view because there are no moral claims that are subjective. But that is just pure nonsense.

A devout Jew would make the moral arguement that it is sinful to eat pork. A non-Jew sees no moral issue and would be disenfranchised if a Jewish authority, claiming there is a single truth to morality, enforced a ban upon pork consumption.

I am sure there are much better examples...

If anyone can create a better, which I am sure someone can, I would be grateful.

You are failing to see the main point of the article.
If you are conservative, then you are labeled an intolerant person. Take me as an example. I was called religious fanatic, xenophobe, fascist; that I can remember now.
"Tolerant" people want us to believe no one is right, and that we should respect other people's opinions, but whoever disagrees with these "tolerance" flagholders gets labeled intolerant and wrong.

I'm sorry I missed the main point: You and others like you are persecuted.

I'll be sure to just agree with your paranoia next time and not try to refute the claim by which you justify it.

"Tolerant" people want us to believe no one is right, and that we should respect other people's opinions, but whoever disagrees with these "tolerance" flagholders gets labeled intolerant and wrong.Yeah, that's the craftiest part of tolerance. But see how it goes, logically:

First, let's prove you're a bastard and a troglodyte:

(the Law of Tolerance)
1. Tolerance activists are right and sensible (the Axiom of Tolerance). (alternatively insert sensitive, aware, compassionate, progressive, non-judgemental etc)
2. Something is either right or wrong.
3. Something is either sensible or senseless.
4. 1 & 2 => Whoever disagrees with tolerance activists is wrong (modus tollendo ponens)
5. 1 & 3 => Whoever disagrees with tolerance activists is senseless (modus tollendo ponens)
6. You disagree with tolerance activists
7. 4 & 6 => You are wrong (modus ponendo ponens)
8. 5 & 6 => You are senseless (modus ponendo ponens)

However, there is the Law of Selective Tolerance or, if you prefer, the Law of Non-Self-Appliance:

There must be borders to tolerance. There cannot be tolerance for non-tolerance.

A base intolerant bastard and troglodyte would conclude that:

There's no tolerance for opposition to tolerance activists and it's tolerance activists who decide the extent of tolerance to apply, and there are no formalised criteria for that. Ergo: it's their discretionary competence. Ergo: it relies on their judgement. They use it, ergo: they rely on that judgement, ergo: they must have that judgement, ergo: they judge. As it's discretionary and without formalised criteria, it is basically judging arbitrarily.

However, this is where the Axiom of Tolerance chimes in: when tolerance activists judge, they are not judgemental and they are right.

So if they happen to judge you and call you mean names, refer to point 1. :p

However, this is where the Axiom of Tolerance chimes in: when tolerance activists judge, they are not judgemental and they are right.Yes, but who exactly are "they?" How does one describe a "tolerance activist" in reality, rather than just as an imaginary "enemy of logic?"

I'm sorry I missed the main point: You and others like you are persecuted.

I'll be sure to just agree with your paranoia next time and not try to refute the claim by which you justify it. Isnt it true that I was labeled intolerant here for my beliefs? Does that sound like paranoia to you?
And no, it is good that you disagree with me and try to refute me. Remember there is only tolerance where there is disagreement. ;)
Also see Chevalier's essay which is quite good.

Isnt it true that I was labeled intolerant here for my beliefs? I have to say that you are quite a good breath of fresh air on our boards. Nevertheless, the reason you have been described in such a manner is because you "appear" quite intolerant of the other members' views on issues or political stances that are in disagreement with your own. Here I am speaking to you as a fellow member. For example, it is from the left, thusly, it is automatically wrong. Consider your comment, "don't believe what the leftist media tells you." There are three components here:

1. That there is somehow a "leftist media" that controls what all of us think.
2. And if it is speaking from the "left" that it is either wrong, or it is false.
3. That the person whom you are addressing is somehow under the control of the "leftist media" and cannot form his/her own opinions.

Remember that "intolerance" cuts both ways and that it is neither exclusive to the left or right.

But you must see, that for tolerance to be abandoned, there must be a single truth that we can use as a guideline to know whom is wrong.

But there is no such single truth.

There are all manners of spiritual people and all manners of non-spiritual people.

So instead we tolerate everyone to have an opinion, but not allow them to enforce their particular viewpoint upon others.

What is so difficult to understand about this?

I have to ask as well, what the hell is a tolerance activist?

I have to ask as well, what the hell is a tolerance activist? An oxymoron used to describe a unique type of self-delusional intolerance. True tolerance requires non-action when confronted by something "undesirable", including all forms of intolerance. It's a little like ideological pacifism, so anyone who speaks of it is likely not practicing it. (I include myself in that statement.) Thus, what you hear the most (and the most loudly) are the jerks that chevalier and Syvatoslav are complaining about: the (in)tolerance activists.

I have to say that you are quite a good breath of fresh air on our boards. Nevertheless, the reason you have been described in such a manner is because you "appear" quite intolerant of the other members' views on issues or political stances that are in disagreement with your own. Here I am speaking to you as a fellow member. For example, it is from the left, thusly, it is automatically wrong. Consider your comment, "don't believe what the leftist media tells you." There are three components here:

1. That there is somehow a "leftist media" that controls what all of us think.
2. And if it is speaking from the "left" that it is either wrong, or it is false.
3. That the person whom you are addressing is somehow under the control of the "leftist media" and cannot form his/her own opinions.

Remember that "intolerance" cuts both ways and that it is neither exclusive to the left or right. 1. There is a leftist mass media. There is certainly a great deal of leftist thinkers being given space. Most sociologists are outrightly leftists. There are a great deal of leftists teachers in the schooling system. There are even some leftist infiltrated into the church - in South America this is very common.
I dont think they control what you all think, but I am sure they are having a huge influence over the minds of people nowadays.
2. Yes, I dont believe in leftists, because I know for a fact 98% of them are criminals. I have a wide experience in this regard.
As to their claims being all false or wrong, it should not come as a surprise. As I am sure few cared to do a small research on Gramsci or the fabian communists, let me briefly explain their positions.
They noticed the URSS style of communism was not going anywhere, for zillions of reasons really, like creating a rebellious mindset within people, because of all the violence; being economically uneffective; making people lazy and uninterested, etc.
To cut it short, they realised instead of depriving us from our private properties, communists should rather infiltrate into our social institutions - the church, the school, mass media, etc - and from within it, brainwash us into believing the communist ideology slowly, by deceit and misinformation.
By the words of Gramsci himself the "civil society and the party should be one". Of course by party he meant the communist one.
How should they do it? As I said, by infiltrating social institutions and, step by step, to poison the minds of people with half thruths and propaganda. This is what he called "organised civil society", which would be the scenario where the individuals think the same as the leftist opinion makers. Thus, there would be no reason for propaganda anymore, because the party and the civil society would finally be one and the same.
The neo-liberal model fits their ways perfectly, because while it lets capitalists to make money as they would wish to - which is all that they care really - at the same time it robs them from a great deal of their earnings by applying heavy taxes. The neo-liberal model also has a lot of interference in the free initiative of people, as well as it has lots of laws to regulate almost everything. Thus, at the same time it gives the capitalists a false notion of economical liberty - since they are allowed to have private property - the state gets each passing day bigger and more powerful, by stealing our money through heavy taxes. In the other end of the spectrum, people become poorer, less free and more dependant of the state - after all, the increase and enrichement of the state ensues the exactly opposite effect into people.
How should I believe these leftist agents who have their ideology shaped by the teachings of Gramsci?
3. We are under the influence of everything that surronds us. How can we escape from a leftism that is thrown down at us from all sides?
As for your last remark, all the leftist experiences have been everything but tolerant.

Thus, what you hear the most (and the most loudly) are the jerks that chevalier and Syvatoslav are complaining about: the (in)tolerance activists. Yes, it's indeed funny (in an ironic way) how we can often see our own faults in others. But then "they" would not be quite so "delusional" if they could. Yet, I hope that no one on this board would refer to others as "jerks." Certainly, you are referring to those who are NOT members, but are somewhere out there in "activist" land.

Certainly, you are referring to those who are NOT members, but are somewhere out there in "activist" land. Well yeah. I imagine anyone who gets in people's faces over inconsequential things on a regular enough basis would have been tossed out by now. I myself am not perfect, but like most on the boards, I have the ability to reign in my indignity and simply not reply in most situations. I've only met one member who I might even be tempted to call a jerk, but we've already agreed not to interact, so it's not a very big deal.

Well yeah. I imagine anyone who gets in people's faces over inconsequential things on a regular enough basis would have been tossed out by now. I myself am not perfect, but like most on the boards, I have the ability to reign in my indignity and simply not reply in most situations. I've only met one member who I might even be tempted to call a jerk, but we've already agreed not to interact, so it's not a very big deal. Actually, getting youself into a few fights will not do you any harm. I guess it helps to build up your character, and ensues a less spoiled/weak individual.
I dont mean to be a thugh. I am not particularly violent myself, but sometimes some offenses can not be let unanswered somewhat.
It is all for the better I think.

I'm glad to hear that, because it appears that there has been way too much bending of the rules here on these recent threads. I would suggest that those who are not familiar with the rules refresh themselves with them. Enough said here.

I'm glad to hear that, because it appears that there has been way too much bending of the rules here on these recent threads. I would suggest that those who are not familiar with the rules refresh themselves with them. Enough said here. I was talking about real life situations.I Did not mean that we should bend rules at will if we feel offended.
Even why, I dont really think I am breaking the rules since I was warned before.

I imagine anyone who gets in people's faces over inconsequential things on a regular enough basis would have been tossed out by now. That is what I was referring to in my post. Now, I can see that by your remarks, you have not read the rules. Otherwise, you would not have responded in such a manner. Thus, if you read the rules you will see that this should be carried out in PM. And that is exactly where we are going here...

Ah, one more thing. Without looking at the relevant posts closely, it will be hard to envision the context, but, as Svyatoslav quotes:

religious fanatic, xenophobe, fascistcombined with Chandos's:

the reason you have been described in such a manner is because you "appear" quite intolerant of the other members' views on issues or political stances that are in disagreement with your ownI need to point out that the words used are very tolerant of other people's views, purely descriptive and an embodiment of the agree to disagree stance and by no means insults. ;)

But on a more serious note, that's an example of what I was so half-seriously trying to show in my essay: when under the influence of an inspired zeal for tolerance, even the most tolerant people are in danger of accepting as granted that their tolerational belief is the only right way. That way, although they normally tend to present beliefs as, if not all equally good, equally deserving of respect. However, an exception is made for the superimposed, head belief in tolerance.

And here's the catch: not everyone shares the rights-based everyone on his own, do as you will on your own perspective. Not everyone agrees with the elevated position of tolerance, acceptance and affirmation, either.

What is more, when labels such as "fascist", "bigot" etc are used as names attributed to an adversary in debate, it's hardly compatible with the head belief in tolerance above everything else -- even if the labels are thrown in as a result of righteous anger directed against... intolerance. This way, someone who perhaps gives labels and treats others' beliefs as below his own, receives the same treatment from those on the side of tolerance.

In such a situation, in my view, the claim to a high ground of tolerance is no longer valid, it's lost. What remains is a vague belief that people should be left alone until they cause real harm and that certain (more specific than we would like to admit) cases of discrimination are wrong. In essence, this becomes similar to the idea we know from the thread about those misguided Christian missionaries in India: we'll give you food and medicines so soon as you accept our religion that teaches unconditional compassion and mercy (needless to say, compassion and mercy regardless of its object's current religion).

It happens to the best of us, especially in fervor of debate when emotions are high and calmness loses ground, so there should be no anger and no ill blood here. It's just something it would be good to keep in mind, I believe.

Along those lines, I'm going to make a brief suggestion here: People, obey the rules. If a member posts something that makes you think he is a fascist, that does not give you the right, on these boards, to call him one in an open thread. You want to PM him and tell him what you think? Fine. But don't do it here.

You can explain why you disagree, but don't fall to name-calling. You can give your opinion, you can share your views, you can argue to your heart's content, but do it within the rules.

Here's a small bit of advice to everyone, and you certainly don't have to take it, but it would probably help a lot: Before you post a reply, read it. If you have written any of the buzz-words (nazi, fascist, communist, pinko, etc.) about another member (as opposed to a public figure), please edit them out. Even if some other member has lobbed one of those words at you, take the high road. If you absolutely insist on dealing with it, PM one of the mods. Chances are we are going to see it and deal with it anyway.

Thanks. :)

I need to point out that the words used are very tolerant of other people's views, purely descriptive and an embodiment of the agree to disagree stance and by no means insults. Yes, I agree. Svy, referring to those on the "left or libertarians as totalitarian" was the same as saying those on the right are fascist - there is little difference there, if any. That is one of the reasons why such generalizations and name calling are against the rules - so that the debate does not dissolve to such a level.

Quick question from "lurking guy who's staying out of this thread" (and no, that isn't my Indian name):

Can someone be called a fascist on these boards (or elsewhere, for that matter) without it being seen as a negative? I've always thought of fascism as a specific ideologal bent rather than as a negative term, generally. Said in context, it shouldn't be any more offensive than calling someone a socialist or communist when they are not, as has been done many times here on the boards without admin intervention. Perhaps it could be narrowed down to calling someone a fascist as a mode of attack? Or is that what you're getting at?

Just trying to understand what is or isn't cool with regards to labeling other posters - ill intent or no.

1. There is a leftist mass media. There is certainly a great deal of leftist thinkers being given space. Most sociologists are outrightly leftists. There are a great deal of leftists teachers in the schooling system. There are even some leftist infiltrated into the church - in South America this is very common.
I dont think they control what you all think, but I am sure they are having a huge influence over the minds of people nowadays.
2. Yes, I dont believe in leftists, because I know for a fact 98% of them are criminals. I have a wide experience in this regard. This left be befuddled. What do you mean by leftist? Someone who is one the left politically? I can't quite follw how 98% of people with political leanings to the left (and I count myself amongst them on most issues) are criminals. Do you have any form of proof at all or is this a crass over-generalisation? Just to clarify - by your statements you are proclaiming that a great deal of teachers, most sociologists and an unspecified amount of churchmen are criminals.

Can someone be called a fascist on these boards (or elsewhere, for that matter) without it being seen as a negative?Sure, if it's a self-imposed label or one that the one being labelled won't disagree with. Otherwise it's no better than any other negative label.

If you feel that someone's political views strongy resemble that of the fascist ideology, you can describe them as such without resorting to a clear "fascist!" label. Just takes a bit more effort.

Considering the historical facts, pretty much every "fascist" or "Nazi" label will be an insult. There aren't any acceptable strains of fascist or Nazi ideology.

Hmmm - okie dokie.

But you must see, that for tolerance to be abandoned, there must be a single truth that we can use as a guideline to know whom is wrong.

But there is no such single truth.

There are all manners of spiritual people and all manners of non-spiritual people.

So instead we tolerate everyone to have an opinion, but not allow them to enforce their particular viewpoint upon others.

What is so difficult to understand about this?

I have to ask as well, what the hell is a tolerance activist? Hmm, how shall I start?
If (modern) tolerance is abandoned, that means that we start telling others about our views, so we must think we're right and they're wrong. This means we must disagree on the issue. So no, there doesn't have to be a single truth. Abandoning (modern) tolerance just means actually believing that you are right and other people are wrong, and it also requires that you care enough about them to tell them they're wrong. The problem comes when you try to force them to believe you or act according to your beliefs.
There is no single truth? Here we come to, perhaps, the single greatest example of human arrogance: "If I don't know it, or can't prove it, it must be unknowable or unprovable, and therefore non-existant." Wow, what pride, what arrogance, what self-assurance these humans must have to make such a blatently illogical claim. They must think they know everything!

Tolerance, then, involves three elements: (1) permitting or allowing (2) a conduct or point of view one disagrees with (3) while respecting the person in the process.In most cases where there is a conduct or point of view that we disagree with, there is squat all we can do to prevent this. The third part is the truly difficult part of this equation. To separate the person from the opinion or actions that we don't like is a real problem for some. For an example of this, see the "God Hates Gays" thread...

People call him intolerant when he not just believes another is wrong, but then seeks to enforce his view, or morality, upon another.But is it wrong to have certain things that we do not wish to tolerate? Are there some things that we tolerate against their wishes?

There is no single truth? Here we come to, perhaps, the single greatest example of human arrogance: "If I don't know it, or can't prove it, it must be unknowable or unprovable, and therefore non-existant." Wow, what pride, what arrogance, what self-assurance these humans must have to make such a blatently illogical claim. They must think they know everything! Well, if there is no truth, then it's not hard to know everything then. But really, I believe that what I say in these threads is true, but know that it cannot be proven at this time.

But is it wrong to have certain things that we do not wish to tolerate? Are there some things that we tolerate against their wishes? That is an interesting point. I think I can only trust in the ability of mankind to draw distinctions and show moderation in thought and deed.

When the pursuit of happyness and economic freedom of a minority, such as homosexuals for example, is placed in opposition to the accustomed pursuit of happyness and economic freedom of a majority, such as religious dogmatists, a social structure that allows for the most equity must be found.

To deny the minority the right to equity is to say they do not exist or do not deserve recognition; my personal belief, in relation to homosexuals, is that this is an intolerant position as it is they, the homosexuals, whom by mere demonstration of their numbers show existence, and by support among the population at large, show their recognition.

If an equitable solution can be found that does not unreasonably infringe upon the rights of the majority, it should be allowed.

This left be befuddled. What do you mean by leftist? Someone who is one the left politically? I can't quite follw how 98% of people with political leanings to the left (and I count myself amongst them on most issues) are criminals. Do you have any form of proof at all or is this a crass over-generalisation? Just to clarify - by your statements you are proclaiming that a great deal of teachers, most sociologists and an unspecified amount of churchmen are criminals.I dont mean leftist leaning. I mean people who support socialist regimes, which are all crimial - URSS used to be, China, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia. There is not a single socialist/communist Nation that is not criminal or totalitarian; thus, I dont call it generalisation, but historical fact and proof.
As to the average person, as I said, leftist leaning does not make you a criminal - although it is the first step to the allowance of a totalitarian state. However, those beyound the mere leaning - by that I mean people who actively support the afore mentioned states - are morally criminals. Actually, they are also legally criminals, because there is an international law that holds supporters of totalitarian states, which violate human rights and practice murder and torture, to be criminals as well.
I hope I cleared that up, if not, feel free to PM me.
As for Toleance, I think Chevalier already put it better than me. There is not tolerance for the intolerant, although that is an oxymoron. Not only that, but people are called intolerant by the mere behaviour that allows the existance of such a concept as tolerance: by disagreeing with.
Regardless all that, I am also curious if being intolerant makes you a bad person necessarily? I mean, I tend to stick with like minded people. I really dont have the wish to hang out with people whose behaviours, opinions, actions are outrightly wrong to me.
I dont think this is a bad thing at all. Just a natural reaction.

@ Svyatoslav

You have to precisely define what intolerant means to you. I have defined intolerant as one who wishes to impose their behavior upon another. I am not sure if that is your definition as well.

While you guys are agreeing on what intolerant means, I'll just sneak in to ask a little question of LNT. With regard to:

You have to precisely define what intolerant means to you. I have defined intolerant as one who wishes to impose their behavior upon another. I am not sure if that is your definition as well.Does it also include a person who wants to legalise tolerance and force others to be more tolerant of others than they are?

Does it also include a person who wants to legalise tolerance and force others to be more tolerant of others than they are?
I belive so , you get no real benefit if you force people to be tolerant , you will create more intolerance I belive that real and durable benefits in this case come from taking the long road.

I dont mean leftist leaning. I mean people who support socialist regimes, which are all crimial - URSS used to be, China, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia. There is not a single socialist/communist Nation that is not criminal or totalitarian; thus, I dont call it generalisation, but historical fact and proof.How are they criminal? Please elaborate.

As to the average person, as I said, leftist leaning does not make you a criminal - although it is the first step to the allowance of a totalitarian state.Anarchism is a leftist wing, and so is Syndicalism, therefore your claim is false.

I believe that if a person says no belief should be enforced, the person automatically deprives himself of the claim to enforce that very belief. That means if you believe no belief should be enforced, then your own belief that no belief should be enforced can't be enforced, either.

In short: tolerance brainwashing can be as bad as any ideological brainwashing kids or generally people can be served. Sure, it does rely on some principles that are good and noble to people who preach them. In case of tolerance for gay unions, the noble principle is treating other people like equals and responsible adults and respecting their freedom. I also believe in that principle, but my other principle -- to stand up for the right thing, let alone my religious convinctions, are even more important to me. How to solve the dilemma without compromising tolerance?

You have to precisely define what intolerant means to you. I have defined intolerant as one who wishes to impose their behavior upon another. I am not sure if that is your definition as well. I dont think I fit in your description of intolerant. I just dont care for people who have a different behaviour to me. I stick with my own.

How are they criminal? Please elaborate.
The regimes? They practice torture and murder. The people who support them? I mentioned an international law for one, and that they are morally criminals because they support criminal regimes as well.

Anarchism is a leftist wing, and so is Syndicalism, therefore your claim is false. First of all, your syndicalist claim is just BS. Pure socialism wrapped in a different plastic.
Anarchism is indeed not totalitarian, but it was never trully implemented for any ammount of real time, thus it should be disregarded.
Plus, although anarchism is essencially libertarian, most of it theorics supported the use of force to attain it, which is a totalitarian measure - Godwin, Stirner, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkine. I do not mean all of them...
PS: Check your PM box later on, because I will reply to your response in the thread which was locked.

[ September 27, 2005, 20:55: Message edited by: Svyatoslav ]

Define impose. Many "tolerance activists" I see claim I am trying to impose my beliefs on them just for verbally disagreeing. Is that really imposing?

Does it also include a person who wants to legalise tolerance and force others to be more tolerant of others than they are? Chev, as a heterogeneous society, we must enforce tolerance upon those whom society has decided their intolerance is no longer acceptable. Just because Joe Six-Pack-of-Pabst believes whites and blacks should not be allowed to intermingle, if he is an employer, he is not allowed to discriminate and not hire black people. The government will enforce tolerance upon him.

Intolerance can also be good! For example, as a society, we are intolerant of child rapist, murderers, and men who wear spandex. These are good things!

The trick is deciding what we should be intolerant of! That is where we have to trust in humanities ability to draw distinctions and employ moderation in thought and deed. It just seems that the majority of people in modern Western societies are coming to the conclusion that homosexual union is to be tolerated; once granted, it is the domain of the government to not allow you to personally prevent that through non-democratic means.


Edit...

Define impose. Many "tolerance activists" I see claim I am trying to impose my beliefs on them just for verbally disagreeing. Is that really imposing? No, of course not. And could you please describe what a tolerance activist looks like? I am imagining a funny hat or perhaps a rainbow parka...

Chev, as a heterogeneous society, we must enforce tolerance upon those whom society has decided their intolerance is no longer acceptable.But whence the imperative? I could say as children of God we need to uphold His laws and ban homosexuality.

The trick is deciding what we should be intolerant of!I fully agree, but on what do we base the decision?

It just seems that the majority of people in modern Western societies are coming to the conclusion that homosexual union is to be tolerated; once granted, it is the domain of the government to not allow you to personally prevent that through non-democratic means.What if the majority is against and gay environments still want their "rights"?

Hey Chev, you are the law student...what does your schooling tell you?

I have to study...I'll be back later...

The regimes? They practice torture and murder. The people who support them? I mentioned an international law for one, and that they are morally criminals because they support criminal regimes as well.So, USA is criminal too? I mean, since they practice torture and murder, and they support criminal regimes as well.

First of all, your syndicalist claim is just BS. Pure socialism wrapped in a different plastic.Either;
A. You don't know what Syndicalism is.
B. You don't know what Socialism is.
C. You don't know what either of them are.
D. You are just messing with my head, since the above statement is just simply not true.

Plus, although anarchism is essencially libertarian, most of it theorics supported the use of force to attain it, which is a totalitarian measure - Godwin, Stirner, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkine. I do not mean all of them...So, revolution against an oppresive government, is that wrong or right? You have mentioned Franco several times as a force of good, but he used a revolution against a(legal) government, ie he used force to attain his fascist rule.

(Note: I did NOT call you a fascist there. It's pretty clear that what Franco had was very fascist, no debate about that.)

What if the majority is against and gay environments still want their "rights"?What the majority wants is not always the best. I know I am going to sound like some kind of government-lover, but remember the 50's and the black movement. If the majority would have had their will, then the blacks would still not be equal to the others.

The government will enforce tolerance upon him. The government will enforce tolerance upon him but it will not make him tolerant , in fact it will make him more intolerant

What the majority wants is not always the best. I know I am going to sound like some kind of government-lover, but remember the 50's and the black movement. If the majority would have had their will, then the blacks would still not be equal to the others.Neither am I a big fan of majority opinion. The majority could even be in favour of gay marriage and what then? ;)

I think the whole frame is wrong.

"Tolerance" is not something that can be legislated or forced because -- as Incarnate pointed out -- it is a state of mind.

Instead, government should continue to make sure that actions are acceptable and leave thoughts alone. The gay basher should be in jail because of the bashing, not because he chose a homosexual to bash. The stereotypical Southern (US) lyncher should be in jail for lynching, not because he lynched a black person.

"Tolerance" is a canard people often use -- as Chevalier and Svyatoslav pointed out early on -- to try to get people not to pass value judgements.

In my opinion, this is a very dangerous thing, as we must make value judgements or risk being literally destroyed. You have to judge the criminal, the terrorist, and the enemy solder as wrong.

So, USA is criminal too? I mean, since they practice torture and murder, and they support criminal regimes as well. No. The US does not torture and kill it's own citzens, because they are political dissents. They do kill people in Wars, but dont Scandinavians have troops in Iraq as well? Because if that makes the US a criminal state, so are the Scandinavian countries.
By the way, I think we agree on the individuals who support these regimes, since you did not comment on that? It is not like it is a matter of agreeing though, as an international law is objective enough to disregard "opinions".

Either;
A. You don't know what Syndicalism is.
B. You don't know what Socialism is.
C. You don't know what either of them are.
D. You are just messing with my head, since the above statement is just simply not true.
Having a Political Science major, I wont lose time discussing such basic concepts with a high schooler who thinks his high grades mean anything in the real world - or the academical world, which is like the opposite reality from high school.
However, I will quote the post from someone else from the locked thread. I am sure you will find someone's else commentary much more unbiased than mine anyway.

The theory, plan, or practice of trade-union action (originally as advocated and practiced by the French Confederation Generale du Travail) which aims to abolish the present political and social system by means of the general strike (as distinguished from the local or sectional strike) and direct action of whatever kind (as distinguished from action which takes effect only through the medium of political action) -- direct action including any kind of action that is directly effective, whether it be a simple strike, a peaceful public demonstration, sabotage, or revolutionary violence. By the general strike and direct action syndicalism aims to establish a social system in which the means and processes of production are in the control of local organizations of workers, who are manage them for the common good.

Can see as much potential for corruption in this as in the facist rhetoric on the other side (not meant as insult, suggest better "politically-correct" wording please [Big Grin] )
It sounds an awlful lot like Marx's orignal ideas ie while a good idea on paper, it won't work in practice. Unions are really rather easy to corrupt. So, revolution against an oppresive government, is that wrong or right? You have mentioned Franco several times as a force of good, but he used a revolution against a(legal) government, ie he used force to attain his fascist rule. How do you define "oppressive"? You know, leftist describe the US as an "oppressive" state. It can mean a hell lot of things. If you mean a goverment such as the US should be overthrowed, then my answer is no.
This was not my point anyway. You said anarchism is not totalitarist; I said I agree, but I mentioned lots of ideologues of anarchism support totalitarian ways to attain anarchism - force, violence, overthrowing, murder, etc. This is a contradiction.


(Note: I did NOT call you a fascist there. It's pretty clear that what Franco had was very fascist, no debate about that.)
That is where we disagree. I dont think Franco was a Fascist.

What the majority wants is not always the best. I know I am going to sound like some kind of government-lover, but remember the 50's and the black movement. If the majority would have had their will, then the blacks would still not be equal to the others. That is exactly the thing I have been saying since the beggining. Some people are only libertarians and democratics when they see they should be. When they support a totalitarian action by the goverment, it is all fine. :rolleyes:
But who will be the people who decide what the majority wants is not the best? Because I would not be glad if it was up to you, as I am sure you would not be content if it was up to me.
This is exactly what the communists did in the URSS, they disregarded people's wishes because they knew what was best for them, and what was right...
Werent you bragging about Democracy a while ago?
---------------------------------------------------

The gay basher should be in jail because of the bashing, not because he chose a homosexual to bash. The stereotypical Southern (US) lyncher should be in jail for lynching, not because he lynched a black person. I agree with the lynching example, but can not comply with the bashing part. If you jail someone for "bashing", you are being intolerant to his ideas.
---------------------------------------------------

Just because Joe Six-Pack-of-Pabst believes whites and blacks should not be allowed to intermingle, if he is an employer, he is not allowed to discriminate and not hire black people. The government will enforce tolerance upon him.
This quote shows how subtle the intolerance and prejudice of some people is.
Why do you have to associate being against racial intermingling with being a "Joe Six-Pack-of-Pabst"? You know, because I could say just as much women who are pro it are just a bunch of brainwashed Sally-soccermoms. :rolleyes:

As has been said many times before, majority opinion (or the lack thereof) is not an automatic claim to entitlement or evidence of being correct. Of course, there is never going to be agreement between some groups on some issues; an opinion is neither right nor wrong in and of itself, although a belief can demonstrably be wrong. In the absence of a clear, undeniable revelation from the divine (call it God, call it what you will), we have to sort things out and make it workable for ourselves. No-one has an entirely value-neutral position; it is quite impossible to be a member of society and to be utterly value-less.

This is why "tolerance" is so important as a concept. Like many concepts (particularly worthy ones), it has been perverted and twisted by some groups, either for personal or political gain, or sometimes as a consequence of ongoing radicalisation in the face of irrelevance. As has already been stated, the irony is that those who preach "tolerance" frequently do not embody it; they're the televangelist-equivalents of that secular ideology.

"Tolerance" should not be a license to claim immunity (anyone remember NAMBLA on South Park?), and is one of the reasons why I am intolerant of cultural relativism as a defence to what would otherwise be criminal conduct. Anyone who's familiar with the debates about female circumcision will know what I mean (at least, with respect to the more invasive and dangerous acts).

That said, and as Rutkowski has rightly pointed out, what the majority wants at a point in time is not always correct. The goal of "tolerance activists" should be to promote awareness of injustice and intolerance, rather than to preach their gospel and damn the heretics. Through such activity, such matters are raised in public awareness (if the public body is paying attention) to the point where considered debate and action is possible.

Within any society, there will be dominant social mores and these must be viewed as such, irrespective of one's agreement with them. If you don't agree, either you tolerate it, you leave, or you attempt to effect change. Those in the dominant category are the ones who need to be the most self-aware, as their tolerance or lack thereof will determine a great deal for those outside their group.

At least, that's how I think it's supposed to work, and could work, if people weren't being sidetracked all the time by various elements. Habermas says it much more precisely than I do.

As a largely-unrelated aside...

I agree with the lynching example, but can not comply with the bashing part. If you jail someone for "bashing", you are being intolerant to his ideas.I'm pretty sure St James was referring to people who physically assault gay people because they're gay, rather than who verbally "bash" gays. The fine line comes into view when verbal incitement leads to people physically bashing others.

This quote shows how subtle the intolerance and prejudice of some people is.
Why do you have to associate being against racial intermingling with being a "Joe Six-Pack-of-Pabst"? You know, because I could say just as much women who are pro it are just a bunch of brainwashed Sally-soccermoms. I worded it that way for two reasons. The first is that I often try to be funny...and fail. The second is that I worked construction for a couple years. And I worked in a steel mill for about half a year.

There is a definite correlation between racism and alcoholism. I am not saying all alcoholics are racist (hell, I am a borderline alcy), but the guys who would say "ni**er this..." and "sp*c that..." were the same ones downing a case of beer each day.

And what are your opinions on racial intermingling?

The government will enforce tolerance upon him but it will not make him tolerant , in fact it will make him more intolerant I agree with that statement. When the Federal government first tried to impose tolerance on the Southern society with the inequality and their treatment of blacks, including desegregation, they met even greater resistance. It actually took societal pressure, along with civil rights legislation, to end segretion and craft a more tolerant society in the South. This is really the point, and that education goes far in creating tolerance regarding differences in society.

Again, it's the same with religion. In Protestant America, there is still some resentment towards Catholics. When John Kennedy became the first Catholic president, my impression is that the intolerance towards Catholics seemed to lessen, but I'm not sure here. Nevertheless, there still has not been another Catholic president since. So as far as religious tolerance goes, it's still a mixed bag here. It is certainly not as bad as the intolernace between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, but despite America's claims of religious tolerance, we may still have a ways to go. Regarding Muslims, this is something new, and it is not entrenched in American socitey as deeply as the religious differences that first shaped regional differences in settling America.

Speaking to the larger point, tolerance is learned and cannot be forced on an individual, especially by the government alone. It took a full-blown civil war to end slavery. And even at the end of that road the forces of intolernace continued (KKK and others) to divide society. America has become a more tolerant society and all its sectional regions, because there are now so many different types of individuals living here, and that it is now very difficult for those who wish to isolate themselves - and those who wish to stick with their own groups (whether religious or otherwise) from those who are different.

Gays continue to face an up-hill battle. Mostly because there are not really that many. They can be ignored as a block of voters because they are marginal in numbers. As groups grow in voting strength, politicains tend to take notice. But again it takes more than government action to promote true tolerance towards those who are different in society, as has been pointed out. But of course, that makes them likely to try and limit the passage of legislation that promotes intolerance.

Many pick-and-choose their preferences towards tolerance: Some may favor and possess relgious tolerance, but not tolerance towards sexual preferences; others may feel quite the opposite, for some may see religious dogma as a greater "heresy" than sexual preference. While others may see sexual preference as a greater sin, than say, adultery. Some see a certain hierarchy in all things, even sin (but that can be relgious dogma).

Regarding politics - Like religion there is a certain dogma. This may or may not be a bad thing. For some of us, the founding documents and the ideals of the orginal Founders of the nation give us the perspective we need: The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, Washington's Farewell Address, Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, even James Otis' courtroom address regarding Writs-of-Assistance, are all valuable touchstones in formulating coherent political roadmaps that remain constant despite changing party politics.

Some of us may be intolerant of notions of inequality. Why? Pick up a copy of the Declaration of Independence. It's matter of founding principles, which are moral imperatives. Some may insert the term dogma here, but nevertheless, "equality" is a founding princple, and as such something upon which Americans should be in agreement. So yes, you can be "intolertant," and be still be tolerant at the same time. Here's the thing:

It depends upon which side of the principle you find yourself on. If some say: "We hold these truths to be self-evident," then perhaps some of us really mean just that.

You know, leftist describe the US as an "oppressive" state. No, some on the left don't. Some on the left are saying that particular "American regimes" are oppressive. Remember, those in the South, during the Civil War, (not that they were on the left) regarded Lincoln and his admistration as "oppressive." Hence, the reason some of them declared a rebellion and succession.

[ September 28, 2005, 06:56: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

When the pursuit of happyness and economic freedom of a minority, such as homosexuals for example, is placed in opposition to the accustomed pursuit of happyness and economic freedom of a majority, such as religious dogmatists, a social structure that allows for the most equity must be found.But with Religion, the more tolerance of Sin that is allowed, the more Religion is eroded. But yet, when we try to stand our ground against such erosion, we are labeled intolerant. The irony is that by labeling us intolerant, we may look back and say "Hi, I'm Kettle, you must be Pot!..."

The government will enforce tolerance upon him but it will not make him tolerant , in fact it will make him more intolerant Actually, you are right. I remember from an anthropology course in college that when affirmative action went into place, the KKK preyed upon those whites that were displaced by blacks out of places that the whites should have been allowed to keep under normal circumstances.

"Tolerance" is a canard people often use -- as Chevalier and Svyatoslav pointed out early on -- to try to get people not to pass value judgements.The downside is that when you take morality out of society you get an amoral society. Anything that discourages morality therefore is a threat to morality.

Within any society, there will be dominant social mores and these must be viewed as such, irrespective of one's agreement with them. If you don't agree, either you tolerate it, you leave, or you attempt to effect change. Those in the dominant category are the ones who need to be the most self-aware, as their tolerance or lack thereof will determine a great deal for those outside their group.And those that are complacent will not recognize the society that comes forth at the end of the change. Too few anymore are willing to stand and defend traditional mores, and as a result, those mores are threatened.

@LNT: What if alcohol just makes people say what they really think instead of "wrapping it in cotton", as we say in Poland? ;) There's nothing like alcohol to elicit bad ethnic names from someone who already uses them in his mind.

@Svyatoslav: I don't want to launch an attack on the States in this thread and I do respect that country, but your faith in lack of opression against citizens is quite optimistic, to say the least. Perhaps there's no torture but police and prison abuse is far from non-existent. You can do a search for topics started by me (chevalier) in the Alleys to find more than you can chew on one night and surely some disturbing examples. Not like it doesn't happen in other countries, but the the US are not a shining example of not doing that.

@NonSequitur: We seem to be in agreement as regards hiding behind tolerance to escape the consequences of criminal conduct. I would like to add that, IMHO, minorities are as capable of racism/intolerance/blaaah crimes as the majority is. Racial quotas are racism, gender quotas are gender discrimination, period.

I can sort of understand the "pride" notions. After you feel thwarted and opressed for a long enough time, when you get a slight hint that things could be better if you fought, you just want to throw it in their face and say you are what you are and proud of it. Okay. It's just we're civilised and doing what we just want to do is not always the best way. Still, it's only a natural reflex that soon the majority may start feeling proud of its distinct heritage in the face of all the privileged minorities.

@Chandos: I am beginning more and more to believe that Catholics in the States are sometimes asking for it. I for one, have a trouble putting up with their ideas.

[ September 28, 2005, 09:10: Message edited by: chevalier ]

And those that are complacent will not recognize the society that comes forth at the end of the change. Too few anymore are willing to stand and defend traditional mores, and as a result, those mores are threatened. True, active citizenship is an essential element in a society which is not a slave to trends but which can grow and develop through becoming aware of additional values and meanings. That something is traditional does not necessarily mean that it is always valid; however, no social more will/should be accepted in and of itself without a consideration of what it entails. In the end, I'd say we're currently stuck with a society that is more apathetic and cynical than active and questioning.

Then again, that may be because there's only so many hours in the day, and everybody has to sleep, pay the bills and put food on the table sometime. Someone else can worry about society.

@ Chev/LNT: In my experience, you're dead-on. Alcohol doesn't make you a different person, it makes you the person you would be if there was no "Hang On A Second!" part of your brain. To be frank, I know a few people who are like that most of the time... and who are hilariously honest when tanked.

Tolerance for me as a German has a special meaning that has grown from two major events in German history. That is (a) the thirty year war and (b) WW-II.

It was looking back on the thirty-year-war that Friederich II of Prussia said "jeder soll nach seiner Fasson glücklich werden" - that everyone should be happy, no matter what religion he adhered to (which was, of course, referring to the choice between protestantism and catholicism - the reason for the big carnage in the 30 year war that just ended).

And the call for tolerance in reference to WW-II obviously relates to the discrimination and brutal murder of jews, gypsies, homosexuals, handicapped people and people of different 'race' in the Third Reich.

That, of course has in response led to a sort of anticipatory obedience in the sense that many Germans try to be especially nice in order to pre-empt nazi accusations. Considering the british habits of reviving the ugly huns for headlines on about every german-british football match, or stupid little princes trying to be funny when they're drunk, that isn't even far fetched.

Even though this pre-emptive and at times overly demonstrative tolerance may at times go beyond absurdity, and is probably even dishonest with some people, it is in it's core a good thing - even though it seriously slows down and inhibits discussions about issues with immigration for instance. It's one of the scars of history we Germans carry around with us.

Tolerance doesn't equal holding egalitarian views after which basically sais that, as everything is subjective, everything is equally true - mind, that point has undeniable merit as an analytical and explanatory apporach in scholarship - but it's much less suited as a solution for real life. Over-tolerance can be self defeating, but we'll get to that later.

That article you posted on p.1 muses The writers imply that everyone should be allowed to do and believe what they want and that no one should be permitted to force their viewpoint on others. But that is their viewpoint, which they immediately attempt to force on your readers in an abusive way.No, that is not abusive, but the essential insight of what tolerance is about. 'These people' are absolutely right.

In the thirty year war the 'forcing views upon others' had a quite tangible meaning, as described in this jolly little rhyme :spin: 'Willst Du nicht mein Bruder sein, so schlag' ich Dir den Schädel ein' (become my brother in faith, or I'll bash in your skull) :roll: Friederich II's insight that it isn't really important for the greater good wether one is catholic or protestant as long as he is christian and obeys the law was a minor revolution at that time, and marked a significant progress. He recognised that that state, how imperfect however from purist's point of view, was very much preferrable to slaughtering one another for the sake of 'purity', and I can't but agree.

That you basically seem to embrace that authors view of forcing views on others as legitimate is tell tale.

In modern democracies people should attempt to persuade others to their views by persuasion, not by force. And when forcing views on others happens, then by majority rule, and that is because this forcing views on others inherently holds the root for conflict if one party feels treated unfair. That's why this process has been 'tamed' through procedural rules. One of the unspoken procedural rules is tolerance. (EDIT: I seriously needed to edit that part)

Without tolerance there cannot be peaceful co-existence and peace in a society.

Tolerance is basically a cost-benefit calculation, and a means to an end: social peace - is it worth having the trouble or is social peace preferable? The way people do the cost benefit calulation might be objectionable, but that doesn't negate the neccesity or in any way discredits the concept of tolerance.

Radicals or purists in faith can threaten this peace, and that's why tolerance must have limits and means to defend itself, even if that seems self-contradictory, as it employs intolerance to save tolerance (btw, it isn't self contradictory, just read Hegel).

Maybe you should first of all get your terminology straight, Svyatoslav. What you're complaining about are indifference and egalitarian views and from your point of view wrong cost-benefit calculations.

[ September 28, 2005, 13:44: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

In modern democracies forcing views on others should come by persuasion, not by force. And when it happens, then only by consensus or majority rule, and that is because this forcing views on others inherently holds the root for conflict if one party feels treated unfair.Erm, just to point out that outvoted doesn't equal persuaded. :p That sounds like another Imperial German thing, cuius regio eius religio (Peace of Augsburg, 1555). :p

No. The US does not torture and kill it's own citzens, because they are political dissents.No, but they torture citizens of other nations, so is that allowed?
(And this is only if we don't count the general beatings in American prisons by the warden's goons that are quite popular, now I mean real torture such as the Guantanamo Bay technique.)

They do kill people in Wars, but dont Scandinavians have troops in Iraq as well? Because if that makes the US a criminal state, so are the Scandinavian countries.Denmark have, but not Sweden, Norway, or Finland.

By the way, I think we agree on the individuals who support these regimes, since you did not comment on that?Didn't comment on it, because I didn't want to go off-topic. But I can say this; You seems to be a supporter of Franco's rule, and Franco had an illegal government. Work out the results.

It is not like it is a matter of agreeing though, as an international law is objective enough to disregard "opinions".Wait, isn't international law part of the NWO? I thought you were against the NWO.

However, I will quote the post from someone else from the locked thread. I am sure you will find someone's else commentary much more unbiased than mine anyway.What does Syndicalism have in common with Socialism? That the people rule(But through unions instead of a government) and that it's democratic.(But then, so is Anarchism, so it goes both ways)
However, it doesn't promote a huge union that included all workers. In fact, more unions are better than a few. It's also extremely anti-state, and members of the Swedish SAC, myself included, have been registered by SÄPO, the Swedish mix of Secret Service, CIA, FBI, DEA, and all those other federal organizations.

How do you define "oppressive"? You know, leftist describe the US as an "oppressive" state. It can mean a hell lot of things. If you mean a goverment such as the US should be overthrowed, then my answer is no.
This was not my point anyway. You said anarchism is not totalitarist; I said I agree, but I mentioned lots of ideologues of anarchism support totalitarian ways to attain anarchism - force, violence, overthrowing, murder, etc. This is a contradiction.For the sake of argument, I am not going to call USA oppresive here, even though it is compared to others, but then, it isn't compared to even more.
Oppressive is when you restrict rights for certain groups of citizens, in my opinion. It's a lot more too, but that is one of the major ways to recognize an oppressive rule.

hat is exactly the thing I have been saying since the beggining. Some people are only libertarians and democratics when they see they should be. When they support a totalitarian action by the goverment, it is all fine.Except, if people got education, it wouldn't be needed. Ignorance breeds intolerance. People thought that the blacks where inferior to the whites, and that was to a faulty education. People think that homosexuality is a dicease, and that is because that is what they have been taught, even though it have been proven wrong over and over.
I do not promote brainwashing, I promote teaching the truth, not things people want to have implented because it helps their agenda.

But who will be the people who decide what the majority wants is not the best? Because I would not be glad if it was up to you, as I am sure you would not be content if it was up to me.
This is exactly what the communists did in the URSS, they disregarded people's wishes because they knew what was best for them, and what was right...
Werent you bragging about Democracy a while ago?Answered in above paragraph.

Hope that explains my stance. Actually, I can even shorten it down to three words, in case anyone doesn't want to bother with my rambling above;
Ignorance Breeds Intolerance.

Read carefully chev, did I really write that? :p

And eius regio, cuius religio was not an Imperial German but a Holy German Empire thing. Mind I was talking about the thirty year war, that took place well after the peace of Augsburg. Eius regio, cuius religiowas the approach of the other German realms after the thirty year war. As I wrote, Friederich II's concept of tolerance was a minor revolution then.

Yes, you did. :p

In modern democracies forcing views on others should come by persuasion, not by force. And when it [it = forcing views by persuasion?] happens, then only by consensus or majority rule"Forcing" views by persuasion by means of reaching consensus... okay, although persuasion and consensus are mutually redundant. :p Then you have persuasion by majority vote. That only works if the outvoted folks are going to submit to the majority. For all I know about you German folks, that's quite a real possibility over there, but you won't see any of that here in Poland (we had elections two days ago, you surely are soon going to hear some funny stuff from the Eastern side). :p :lol:

And eius regio, cuius religio was not an Imperial German but a Holy German Empire thing. It was the alternate approach to the one Friederich II chose about 200 years later.Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, if we are to bicker over semantics. :p

Well, I presume that "In modern democracies people should attempt to persuade others to their views by persuasion, not by force. And when forcing views on others happens, then by majority rule, and that is because this forcing views on others inherently holds the root for conflict if one party feels treated unfair ..." would have been better indeed :shake: I'll take the freedom to edit that out.

... not semantics, but historical epochs. You're sure you haven't been disoriented? :p

Strictly speaking, the German Empire would date from you pwning the French in 1871 to you getting pwned in 1918, while the HRE dated from Otto I pwning the other German princes and Italy in 962 to Bonaparte pwning the Habsburgs in 1806. But that Empire was obviously Roman as ****, hence the tendency to call it German. :p (not in German, but in English, the HRE is often counted as the first German empire)

But back on topic, your new wording does indeed sound better. :D

Ragusa,

You missed the point. Tolerance implies disagreement. What the text says is that "tolerance activists" call the act of disagreeing with their opinions - their "thruths" - "intolerance", when it is simply "disagreement".
You wrote a lot to say the same thing the author did. Unless you are saying the author meant he has the right to enforce his views on others? Because I simply did not interpret his words like that...
By the way, it is always fun being taught on tolerance by a german - joking :)
----------------------------------------------------

I worded it that way for two reasons. The first is that I often try to be funny...and fail. The second is that I worked construction for a couple years. And I worked in a steel mill for about half a year.

There is a definite correlation between racism and alcoholism. I am not saying all alcoholics are racist (hell, I am a borderline alcy), but the guys who would say "ni**er this..." and "sp*c that..." were the same ones downing a case of beer each day.Tried to be funny, ok, but I just find interesting to note people thrown in these stereotypes and regard it as fun attempts. Meaning I do think such stereotypes are highly infused into people's mind by "tolerant activists".


And what are your opinions on racial intermingling? I am a Slavic Nationalist. I dont like that Slavs mix with non-Slavs, thank you.
--------------------------------------------------

No, some on the left don't. Some on the left are saying that particular "American regimes" are oppressive. Remember, those in the South, during the Civil War, (not that they were on the left) regarded Lincoln and his admistration as "oppressive." Hence, the reason some of them declared a rebellion and succession.

Ok, but what are you talking about? I meant leftist thinkers - people like Chomsky, Moore - are always complaining how the US goverment is "evil" and "oppressive". It is in their rhetorics...
---------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE]
@Svyatoslav: I don't want to launch an attack on the States in this thread and I do respect that country, but your faith in lack of opression against citizens is quite optimistic, to say the least. Perhaps there's no torture but police and prison abuse is far from non-existent. You can do a search for topics started by me (chevalier) in the Alleys to find more than you can chew on one night and surely some disturbing examples. Not like it doesn't happen in other countries, but the the US are not a shining example of not doing that. Fair enough. But notice, the discussion is about totalitarians states - the ones which murder and kill political adversaries. The fact goverment representants - cops - in the US abuse their power, means that there are some rotten fruits within it, but that is due to lack of control of these abusers.
Dont take I am a sucker to the US. I am a Slavic Nationalist. How could I? :D
Botton line is, in the countries I mentioned, torture and murder are not only allowed willingly by the goverment, but are actually practiced by the state. In the US it is a matter of controling and punishing the abusers accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------

No, but they torture citizens of other nations, so is that allowed?
(And this is only if we don't count the general beatings in American prisons by the warden's goons that are quite popular, now I mean real torture such as the Guantanamo Bay technique.) You are saying there is no diference? It is one thing to say american soldiers commit murder and torture elsewhere. It is another to say the US goverment supports murder and torture.
In other words - and that is I what meant to Chevalier previously - murder and torture are institutionalized in Cuba, North Korea, China, etc, while in the US it is not. And that, I assure you, makes the whole difference.

Denmark have, but not Sweden, Norway, or Finland. So, is Denmark undemocratic, oppressive, totalitarian, etc?

Didn't comment on it, because I didn't want to go off-topic. But I can say this; You seems to be a supporter of Franco's rule, and Franco had an illegal government. Work out the results. Depends. Right of might. :D Seriously though, severe situations require harsh measures. I already explained why I support him.

Wait, isn't international law part of the NWO? I thought you were against the NWO. You are right on both assumptions. International Law is part of the NWO, and I am against the NWO. I was giving an objective explanation as to why they qualify as criminals though.

What does Syndicalism have in common with Socialism? That the people rule(But through unions instead of a government) and that it's democratic.(But then, so is Anarchism, so it goes both ways)
However, it doesn't promote a huge union that included all workers. In fact, more unions are better than a few. It's also extremely anti-state, and members of the Swedish SAC, myself included, have been registered by SÄPO, the Swedish mix of Secret Service, CIA, FBI, DEA, and all those other federal organizations. Your primary claim is that syndicalism is apart from socialism, because it is against the state, wherein socialism is not. There lies your mistake. Dont forget Marx thought communism was the highest step of human evolution. Eventually, when people, supposedly, grew mature enough, they would willingly adhere to communism, and it would work out without the need of a state to control the equality between people. We would all share by our own volition.
I will try to get more technical about that. I dont know the proper terminology in English language, but I suppose those acquaintanced with Marx's texts will grasp what I mean.
Ok, for Marx, the infra structure of any State - because he believed this was not something inherent to our modern Capitalist societity, but to all of them through out History - is the Economy. The Economy is the sole reason for the State to exist. All the other aspects - which he calls super structure - of the society - politics, religion, juridical system, institutions, etc - are merely there to re enforce the economical needs of the ruling elite. Thus, the super structure is shaped around and for the Economy - which is, again, the infra structure of it. Meaning that we only have a state so that the ruling economical elite might assure it's dominance.
Thus, the natural and logical conclusion, is that a communist society - without economy, or economical demands - would not need to have a state - because, once more, the state exists to assure economical dominance solely.
Therefore, communism is anti-state as well, just like syndicalism. Your supposed difference is non-existant.
Sure, you might argue that before I said communism is totalitarian. Yes, I hold to my claim. No communist society will ever be anything other than totalitarian, because there is no way to attain it without force, destruction of individual freedom and violence.

For the sake of argument, I am not going to call USA oppresive here, even though it is compared to others, but then, it isn't compared to even more. It is not compared to Cuba or North Korea.


Oppressive is when you restrict rights for certain groups of citizens, in my opinion. It's a lot more too, but that is one of the major ways to recognize an oppressive rule.Yes, it is a basic outline. However, notice when goverments issue afirmative action, quotas, etc, they are discriminating against a group of citizens, however you look at it.
By the way, I just wanted to add countries like Cuba and North Korea restrict the rights of basically all the citzens.

Except, if people got education, it wouldn't be needed. Ignorance breeds intolerance. People thought that the blacks where inferior to the whites, and that was to a faulty education. People think that homosexuality is a dicease, and that is because that is what they have been taught, even though it have been proven wrong over and over. They were proved wrong? By whom? Anyway, that is not the point.
Regardless, you did not address my point. Rather you avoided and half said half implied "if people were properly educated, we would not need to be totalitarian towards their personal freedom".
But which is a proper education? Which is ignorance? Where do we draw the line? How much "ignorance" justifies totalitarism? Where do we draw the line? Mostly importantly, who is going to decide all that? People? How they will decide if yourself said we should disregards their will if they are "wrong"?


I do not promote brainwashing, I promote teaching the truth, not things people want to have implented because it helps their agenda.What is brainwashing, and what is the true? Dont you think someone with a total socialist past and ideology like Zapatero has an agenda?
I am skeptical, really. A couple of months ago it was published in England a scientific study that shows Whites are more intelligent than mulatos, who are above negroids. East Asiatics are more or less on par with Whites. It was also concluded men are more intelligent than women.
This was a scientific study, but I am sure you dont believe it... Does it make it untrue? What true are you taling about exactly?

Answered in above paragraph.

Hope that explains my stance. Actually, I can even shorten it down to three words, in case anyone doesn't want to bother with my rambling above;
Ignorance Breeds Intolerance. Well, read above as well...
Just wanted to add though. "Ignorance Breeds Intolerance" means a few "enlightened" people can disregard the will of the majority on the account that they have a moral duty to teach the "true", to build up "tolerance"? Even denying the right of freedom to this majority?

Ok, but what are you talking about? I meant leftist thinkers - people like Chomsky, Moore - are always complaining how the US goverment is "evil" and "oppressive". It is in their rhetorics...
Ok, thanks for clarifying that. The original remark did not clarify that you were only referring to "certain leftist" thinkers...

Chandos,

I meant most, and I used Moore and Chomsky as examples. Do you know like-minded people to both of them who do not bash the US?

Svy - Sorry, in the larger debate, they are quite unimportant here. The growing movement against the war and, what some see as American oppression resulting from the war, has moved from the left - where it began with Howard Dean and his followers - and is beginning to include many in the mainstream as well. But now we are starting to weave politics into the mix...

You are saying there is no diference? It is one thing to say american soldiers commit murder and torture elsewhere. It is another to say the US goverment supports murder and torture.Except, USA have started to support torture, with the whole Guantanamo Bay deal, and the letter from the administratior(Cheney I think it was) to the troops of Iraq to approve of the methods used in Abu Garibh.
And executions are murder, remember that. Cuba may murder people, but in the government's view, it's executions. America executes people too, and it's still murder.

In other words - and that is I what meant to Chevalier previously - murder and torture are institutionalized in Cuba, North Korea, China, etc, while in the US it is not. And that, I assure you, makes the whole difference.It is institutionalized in USA too, but not in the same wide spread as in the aforementioned countries.

So, is Denmark undemocratic, oppressive, totalitarian, etc?If you read my whole post, which you did since you later responded to my comment about it, murder is not the only thing that makes a nation oppresive.

Depends. Right of might. [Big Grin] Seriously though, severe situations require harsh measures. I already explained why I support him.And in the Stalinists' mind, severe situations require harsh measures. It's all the same, except under a different name.

You are right on both assumptions. International Law is part of the NWO, and I am against the NWO. I was giving an objective explanation as to why they qualify as criminals though.So, it's ok when it fits you? Gotcha!

*snip Syndicalist argument due to space*Your view seems to be heavy influented by the fact that you hates all leftists(As you have promoted the genocide of leftists before, and all who is related to them, I take it you hate them), and therefore, discussing it with you is like talking to a brick wall. It's nothing personal, and I think you feel the same here, but continue down this path would be off-topic and that's not where we should go. Open a new topic if you want to continue discuss this, and I'll gladly join in.
I'm not chickening out, it's just that we've been warned before, that's all.

It is not compared to Cuba or North Korea.Which is, essentialy, the very same thing I said.

They were proved wrong? By whom? Anyway, that is not the point.By several scientists. It's been discussed on SP before, and if you dig, you should be able to find it.

But which is a proper education?Education based on cold, hard facts, is proper education.

Dont you think someone with a total socialist past and ideology like Zapatero has an agenda?Would you be happier with one with a total capitalist past and ideology in power? And if so, it shows the flaw in your argument.

I am skeptical, really. A couple of months ago it was published in England a scientific study that shows Whites are more intelligent than mulatos, who are above negroids. East Asiatics are more or less on par with Whites. It was also concluded men are more intelligent than women.Hmm, could it be that the white male have always been in power and have always recieved better education and chances to become more learned?

"Ignorance Breeds Intolerance" means a few "enlightened" people can disregard the will of the majority on the account that they have a moral duty to teach the "true", to build up "tolerance"? Even denying the right of freedom to this majority?As I said above, until schools teach facts instead of opinions, then total freedom of the majority isn't possible, it's as simple as that.

Except, USA have started to support torture, with the whole Guantanamo Bay deal, and the letter from the administratior(Cheney I think it was) to the troops of Iraq to approve of the methods used in Abu Garibh. Guantanamo Bay? You mean a chick taking a picture with a bunch of prisioners? :rolleyes: sure, that makes Fidel Castro regime pales in cruelty compared to it.
If you think take makes the US a totalitarian state that supports murder and torture, in the same lines of Cuba or North Korea, then you lack sense of proportion.

And executions are murder, remember that. Cuba may murder people, but in the government's view, it's executions. America executes people too, and it's still murder. War does not count as execution. If you mean criminal execution... Well, not all states allow it, and even the ones which do, that has nothing to do with what is done in Cuba or North Korea.

It is institutionalized in USA too, but not in the same wide spread as in the aforementioned countries. Criminal execution is, in some state. In Cuba and North Korea political execution - and torture - is institutionalized. It is as simple as that.

If you read my whole post, which you did since you later responded to my comment about it, murder is not the only thing that makes a nation oppresive. But if Denmark has troops in the Iraq, that makes them at least as bad as the US.

And in the Stalinists' mind, severe situations require harsh measures. It's all the same, except under a different name.Please, let us not start with sophisms... There was no severe situation in the SU. Just a commie bastard - Stalin - murdering my people. Unless you can elaborate how Stalin's actions were justified by the "severe situation". Because I can certainly say which extreme situations Franco had to deal with: Namely, saving Spain from having commies in power who would murder the Spanish people as Stalin did to my own.

So, it's ok when it fits you? Gotcha! Did you not read what I have written? I said objectively speaking, which means, opposed to subjectivism. In other words, it is not a matter of opnions - mine included.

Your view seems to be heavy influented by the fact that you hates all leftists(As you have promoted the genocide of leftists before, and all who is related to them, I take it you hate them), and therefore, discussing it with you is like talking to a brick wall. It's nothing personal, and I think you feel the same here, but continue down this path would be off-topic and that's not where we should go. Open a new topic if you want to continue discuss this, and I'll gladly join in.
I'm not chickening out, it's just that we've been warned before, that's all. We have a problem here. My "view" is not quite mine. I just "copied and pasted" Marx's. You should be thankful you got a lesson for free about him. :D
Anyway, it is not like speaking to a "brick wall", and I would be glad not to be called a "genocider". I merelly mentioned how socialism and syndicalism are most related, by quoting Marx's thoughts.
That said, if you wish to continue, feel free to open a new thread, as it is you who need to refute my last claim - which is based upon Marx anyway, so I dont think there is much room for refuting.

Which is, essentialy, the very same thing I said. Strange, I thought you implied the US is as bad as Cuba or North Korea.

By several scientists. It's been discussed on SP before, and if you dig, you should be able to find it. It is not what the study I have mentioned imply, or the Bell Shaped Curve for instance...

Education based on cold, hard facts, is proper education. Since we dont seem to agree which are the "cold, hard facts", there is a problem with your reasoning.

Would you be happier with one with a total capitalist past and ideology in power? And if so, it shows the flaw in your argument. Which is not the point. You said education should not be based upon personal agendas. I said this is hardly a possibility, with people like Zapatero being given positions to teach.

Hmm, could it be that the white male have always been in power and have always recieved better education and chances to become more learned? Dont you think scientifical studies take into account social upbringing, social class, etc? Or do you think they chose random people from the street? :rolleyes:

As I said above, until schools teach facts instead of opinions, then total freedom of the majority isn't possible, it's as simple as that. You could hardly objectively differentiate between facts and opinions so far, and as I said, scientifical studies prove to be right the exact opposite from which you believe are "facts". Would you still force into people what you believe are facts?
Anyway, total freedom will always be impossible, with a cultured population of otherwise. This does not mean we should be hostages to people who believe their facts should be teached to us, by force

AoLS, here we come...

Svyatoslav,
those who bemoan the lack of 'tolerance' to their ideas, usually have radical ones. You're a point in case. Yes, it has this radical chic to belittle torture in Gitmo or Abu Ghraib as 'You mean a chic taking a picture with a bunch of prisioners?'. Yes it has this radical chick to say: 'Yes, I dont believe in leftists, because I know for a fact 98% of them are criminals. I have a wide experience in this regard.' and don't forget: 'I am a Slavic Nationalist. I dont like that Slavs mix with non-Slavs, thank you.'
:bs:
You're an enfant provocateur, and you seem to very much like that pose. Alas, in his wonderful flower garden God in His wisdom also left a place for weed and mushrooms.

There still is the real possibility that people are reacting 'intolerant', because other people simply speak nonsense.

It is doubtless attractive to depict oneself as the persecuted patron saint of freedom of speech.

Populists and polemists, left or right, both like that mantle, as the lofty claim of being persecuted by any 'establishment' gives them the pose of defiance - and this indispensable radical chic: 'They just can't stand me speaking truth to power (or: the conservative/ liberal/ leftist establisment - suggesting they are some sort of 'rebel')! And look at my courage in face of their opression! They even call me silly names!' :rolleyes: That notion basically is what the bogus 'liberal media bias' stuff from the U.S. is all about. From you I get the same stuff in a different package.
:sleep:

[ September 29, 2005, 13:14: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Svyatoslav,
those who bemoan the lack of 'tolerance' to their ideas, usually have radical ones. You're a point in case. Yes, it has this radical chic to belittle torture in Gitmo or Abu Ghraib as 'You mean a chic taking a picture with a bunch of prisioners?'. Yes it has this radical chick to say: 'Yes, I dont believe in leftists, because I know for a fact 98% of them are criminals. I have a wide experience in this regard.' and don't forget: 'I am a Slavic Nationalist. I dont like that Slavs mix with non-Slavs, thank you.' If you want to refute my claims with facts and an objective discussion, that is fine, and I am willing to do it with anyone who is also willing, as I did so far.
However, I will not lose my time replying to smart ass pseudo psychological analyses of me.


You're an enfant provocateur, and you seem to very much like that pose. Alas, in his wonderful flower garden God in His wisdom also left a place for weed and mushrooms. Read above.


There still is the real possibility that people are reacting 'intolerant', because other people simply speak nonsense.

It is doubtless attractive to depict oneself as the persecuted patron saint of freedom of speech. You are talking nonsense, and yet just imagine if your nonsense was intolerated. Not something you would enjoy I am sure.
And not, I dont regard myself as a saint of freedom of speech. So far you have not been objective in the least.

Populists and polemists, left or right, both like that mantle, as the lofty claim of being persecuted by any 'establishment' gives them the pose of defiance - and this indispensable radical chic: 'They just can't stand me speaking truth to power (or: the conservative/ liberal/ leftist establisment - suggesting they are some sort of 'rebel')! And look at my courage in face of their opression! They even call me silly names!' [Roll Eyes] That notion basically is what the bogus 'liberal media bias' stuff from the U.S. is all about. From you I get the same stuff in a different package.
[sleepy] I understand you were probably waiting for the opportunity to spew a few pseudo psychological nonsense you have been learning, but you have chosen the wrong person, wrong moment and the wrong place to do so.

I personally dislike tolerance. I believe (and I think I've posted this before) that if someone wants to dislike or even hate someone than that is their right. It is like the old saying "Your right to wave your fist around ends when it hits my nose."

If someone wants to hate someone for some irrational reason than it is shame on them, it isn't society's problem, unless that person acts on that hate, then we have a crime. If a certain group doesn't like that other groups don't like them, it shouldn't be the law's job to make everyone like them. They need to focus on making themselves more likeable. Forcing things down someone's throat has never worked in the history of mankind (I may be slightly exaggerating here).

TGS: Agreed - you can't make people like each other, especially by resorting to law; it will only drive that enmity deeper. The problem with your reasoning (which I think is fair, mind you) is determining the point at which dislike transforms into action. There will always be a grey area which is determined by individual or group sensitivities, or which (admittedly) may be hijacked by activists in the name of an agenda.

This is one of the reasons why vilification laws are so contentious, IMO: is it unacceptable to preach violence and hatred about a group or groups to others who may act on it, but not actually commit it yourself?

EDIT: Changed "will" to "may".

Svy,

Guantanamo Bay? You mean a chick taking a picture with a bunch of prisioners? sure, that makes Fidel Castro regime pales in cruelty compared to it.I'd argue you're missing the point, here. Certainly, I wouldn't characterise the US as being as oppressive of its own people as the Chinese government, or Castro's Cuba. However, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay were not the actions of a few "rotten apples"; this attitude goes back and up a long, long way. Private England and company may have been acting on sadistic personal impulses, but to suggest that nobody knew what was going on, that such conduct was unsanctioned by military command personnel, is naive at best.

Just because the US doesn't oppress its own citizenry as openly as other nations, that does not mean that it is not oppressive. However, I'm getting into Foucauldian aspects of power and control here, which (while certainly relevant to a discussion on the nature of oppression and abuse of power) is wandering :yot: .

[ September 30, 2005, 02:33: Message edited by: NonSequitur ]

@NonSequitur:

IMO: is it unacceptable to preach violence and hatred about a group or groups to others who will act on it, but not actually commit it yourself?That would qualify as publicly calling for a crime, an offence around here. If there were a specified target of the calling, that would be inciting a crime, punishable like the resulting crime. Perhaps even a form of perpetration, if the calling target were used as a mere tool to be ordered around.

As for the US not oppressing the citizenry more overtly than other countries do... depends to what countries you would like to compare the US. I think police and prison abuse exceeds what you could find in Europe.

@TGS: Agreed. :thumb:

Chev,

:doh: :bang: I should change that statement to be a bit more morally ambiguous.

That would qualify as publicly calling for a crime, an offence around here. If there were a specified target of the calling, that would be inciting a crime, punishable like the resulting crime. Perhaps even a form of perpetration, if the calling target were used as a mere tool to be ordered around.And I agree, such behaviour is criminal if there is a direct, observable link between advocacy and action. However, it's seldom as blatant or causally direct as this, which is why vilification laws are such a difficult issue. If the act is not carried out, it becomes quite ethically fraught - I think it's better seen as a subset of harassment law in such cases.

On the other part, I was starting to slide into thinking about economic and systemic oppression rather than overt acts - but you're right, there are few examples I can cite from post-Communist Europe. Sadly, I cannot say the same for Australia (our treatment of Aborigines, in particular, is a combination of both kinds of oppression, IMO).

NonSequitur,

You can find a degree of corruption and abuse of power everywhere, in the US included. This does not make the US the least comparable to Cuba or North Korea. I guess that is the botton line.
The murder and torture in Cuba, for instance, is something Castro himself stimulate.
It goes like that: political murder and torture in Cuba is NOT punished, because the goverment itself is the perpetrator. It can be advertised and proved by the whole world, but no one will give a damn about it there - the goverment who should take the responsability to punish the criminals anyway. In the US, the soldiers who were hinted at taking part in the whole episode, are being investigated and some were punished already. Thus, Cuban's goverment allows and actually take part in the crimes, wherein the US goverment takes measures against the criminals as soon as the info gets to them. In other words, it takes no part in the crimes.
I see a world of difference. To make an analogy, a parent who has no control whatsoever over his son, for indifference or whatever reason, can certainly be blamed, in a way, if his son commits a crime, because his parent was not there to oversee his actions. In the other hand, a parent who stimulates his son to commit crimes, and dont think there is anything wrong with it, is someone evil and corrupt in his own nature. The first one is absent, the latter is plain evil.

Thus, Cuban's goverment allows and actually take part in the crimes, wherein the US goverment takes measures against the criminals as soon as the info gets to them .Well for such a well financed police/army/secret service the info gets to them really slow (it gets to the media first actually)

Well for such a well financed police/army/secret service the info gets to them really slow (it gets to the media first actually) Sure, but that means incompetence.

Sure, but that means incompetence.
It seems more like tolerance (at best).

@ Svy/Incarnate,

I'm not one to presume conspiracy where incompetence is an adequate explanation, but there is no chance in hell that top-level people didn't know about these abuses. They were aware that something was going on - they had reports, and chose not to act on them.

@ Svy,

In the US, the soldiers who were hinted at taking part in the whole episode, are being investigated and some were punished already. Thus, Cuban's goverment allows and actually take part in the crimes, wherein the US goverment takes measures against the criminals as soon as the info gets to them. Sorry, but that last part is :bs: . It'd be much more accurate to state that they took action when they couldn't deny it; specifically, when it splashed over the front page of every major newspaper in the country. Even then, all that happened was that the "rotten apple" defence got wheeled out (as it always does) and meant that the people who were stupid/unlucky enough to get busted went down.

All that means, of course, is that it's business as usual after that. A couple of schmucks go down, cursing the army that betrayed them and being presented as evil, ungrateful wretches. Not that I think Castro or anyone else engaging in state-sponsored torture or abuse is any better, but at least they aren't preaching values to the world at the same time.

If someone wants to hate someone for some irrational reason than it is shame on them, it isn't society's problem, unless that person acts on that hate, then we have a crime.Well, I think everyone is on agreement that the government can do little to make people like each other. There are no laws against intolerance. It is perfectly legal for the Klan to parade down Main Street, and spout their hatered towards black and Jewish people and the government does not stop them. It is society that condemns this type of behavior. Once it becomes a crime, then the government can act.

Also, many large corporations have policies against intolerance. And the intolerant can quickly be shown to the door for their anti-social attitudes.

I personally dislike tolerance. I believe (and I think I've posted this before) that if someone wants to dislike or even hate someone than that is their right. It is like the old saying "Your right to wave your fist around ends when it hits my nose." I see your point, but does there come a point where you can't stop the momentum of your fist before it strikes my nose? I fear that there are situations like that in the world today. Case in point: How many of the gay marriage threads went to 7, 8 or 9 pages? How many freedom of religion threads went past the 5 page mark. And what percentage of other threads between AoDA and AoLS went that long? There comes a point where giving one group rights will piss off other groups. The closer your fist comes to my nose, the more likely I am to believe that it was sent there on purpose...

Well, I think everyone is on agreement that the government can do little to make people like each other. There are no laws against intolerance. It is perfectly legal for the Klan to parade down Main Street, and spout their hatered towards black and Jewish people and the government does not stop them. It is society that condemns this type of behavior. Once it becomes a crime, then the government can act.But perhaps the law ought to keep a real close eye on public actions of the Klan, and showing ZERO tolerance for illegal actions that they take while they spout their bull****...

@Gnarff:

But perhaps the law ought to keep a real close eye on public actions of the Klan, and showing ZERO tolerance for illegal actions that they take while they spout their bull****...Yeah, from KKK to insert_minority_insert_claim, everyone should be held responsible for illegal acts taking place during demonstrations. This means that thugs who beat up gays during demonstrations should be prosecuted and so should be gays who commit indecent exposure, throw condoms around etc. I just believe that equal should be equal. If calling a gay person a fag is to be a crime, it should be a crime when gay activists call Catholic priests black vermin. If I am not to call people fags, I don't want bigots and homophobes in my direction. We don't need any overblown tolerance for that. Basic politeness should be enough.

Special rights, compensations, special protection... that stuff won't bring equality about. It just tips the scale of inequality in the other direction. Besides, if you give a minority group special favour, you won't make it welcome by the majority with open arms. Contrary even, it will only make the group resented by the majority deprived of such privileges. This new envious resentment will couple up with old prejudice and even contempt. If contempt is coupled up with envy, you have a Nazi explosion just waiting for the sparkle.

[ September 30, 2005, 15:22: Message edited by: chevalier ]

I'm with Chev.

To build on it a little bit, forced tolerance causes problems because it is giving people perceived special protections. Why is it illegal to call a co-worker a fag, but you can call a short person "shorty"? It is because the gay person has a better lobby.

better lobby. Hit the nail.
-----------------------------------------------------

It seems more like tolerance (at best). Incompetence, for not being able to control all the bad actions committed by their - goverment - underlings.
-----------------------------------------------------

Sorry, but that last part is [I really don t agree with you] . It'd be much more accurate to state that they took action when they couldn't deny it; specifically, when it splashed over the front page of every major newspaper in the country. Even then, all that happened was that the "rotten apple" defence got wheeled out (as it always does) and meant that the people who were stupid/unlucky enough to get busted went down.
Assumptions, that is what it is. We can not reach conclusion on those.
But still, I repeat. Even if some high ranking officials were conivent, that means there are rotten apples in the US goverment, not that the US, as a Nation, allows such crimes to be committed. Cuba is different. It is the norm, not the deviation.


All that means, of course, is that it's business as usual after that. A couple of schmucks go down, cursing the army that betrayed them and being presented as evil, ungrateful wretches. Not that I think Castro or anyone else engaging in state-sponsored torture or abuse is any better, but at least they aren't preaching values to the world at the same time. You joking? These commie dictator criminals preach to their whole world their countries are based upon equality, and as such, they are bastions of morality against "capitalist corrupt regimes" such as the US.
Regardless, it is easy to point out how these regimes are much worse. Do you see people flooding out of the US to go to Cuba, or North Korea? Do we see people risking their lives to flee Cuba to the US?

[ October 01, 2005, 18:45: Message edited by: Svyatoslav ]

My definition of "tolerance" is rather simply: You should tolerate everything but intolerence.

Simple as that. I dont know whether I should laugh or cry when I read the writings of people who refuse to let go of a world view humanity fought its greatest war over and which has lead to such an immense about of suffering that it boggles the mind.

My definition of "tolerance" is rather simply: You should tolerate everything but intolerence.But that it is intolerance of every belief that happens to be inconsistent with your own tolerance-based belief (at least for the inconsistent part). That is intolerance of any belief that opposes or even just doesn't coincide with your own. That is the very thing that you fight.

I know where you're coming from Chev, but I don't agree.
Being intolerant of intolerance is a reaction in order to protect people. Whereas the "Intolerance" we are discussing in the first place is aimed against people who's actions are for themselves, not specifically against anyone.
I have no issues for people to be intolerant of any illegal activities otherwise brought up in discussions. But I find in unacceptable when someone is intolerant of people for being who they are and celebrating the fact. Currently it is for sexual preference, in the past it has been for religion or colour of skin. None of which is acceptable.

I'm not sure if you intended an analogy but one may be seen by readers of your post. Race is not analogous to religion or sexual preference. Race is something totally out of your control and also something that not necessarily affects the way you act and the way you contribute to the society. Religion is more tricky, as it involves certain tenets and principles that may require of followers actions deemed unacceptable by non-followers. Sexual preference is not something over which you have no control, at least so far as it concerns consummating. I don't even need to mention that race carries no moral value, whether positive or negative, whereas actions of any kind do, or that being a specimen of a certain race or races is completely natural. In short, it's not as easy as it may seem and gay issues are not an extinction of racial liberation or women suffrage or whatever such movement; they are simply gay issues.

Well, Carcaroth, as you do, I see your point, but I don't agree. I appreciate the idea to live people alone and stay away from unnecessary judgement, but the belief in tolerance is no different from those less tolerant beliefs in that it still claims to be better than other beliefs. For that part, it's self-contradictory.

As for protecting people, I believe doing the morally right and, if possible, rationally expedient one, protects people more than the politically correct laissez-faire ever could. By calling homosexualism a disorder and advocating treatment rather than affirmation, I believe I'm actually doing what's good for gay people, not even what's good for me. I could just say do what you will and stop giving a damn. Tolerance of the kind that affirms any kind of behaviour backed by a sufficiently large lobby is a way of dodging the responsibility and removing the problem from our eyes than actually solving anything.

If the agents of a concept contradict the very same concept in application of it, does it invalidate the concept? Does it reduce it's ability to benefit society?

For example, highway police violate speeding laws in pursuit of speeders. Are speeding laws invalidated? Are the highways not made more safe for society at large by the select violation of speeding laws to constrict the speeding of a few whom could harm said society?

What elevates the belief in tolerance above other beliefs, such as in doing the good thing or doing what's right to do?

And highway police doesn't violate anything. A police car in pursuit of a criminal is not affected by speed limits, red lights etc.

There are similarities in terms of why they are singled out, and how they are treated differently. Therefore there is an analogy between them.
The "intolerance" may be for a marginally different reason, but it manifests itself in the same way, and with similar results.

By calling homosexualism a disorder and advocating treatment rather than affirmation, I believe I'm actually doing what's good for gay people, not even what's good for me. Oooh, a touch of de-ja vu. Lets see if I can keep my response consise.

Homosexuality isn't viewed as a medical (by which you presumably mean mental) disorder any longer. Or at least in those societies you would say are at the forefront of medical technology/development/research.

You would appear to be contesting this status quo.
What evidence and/or proof are you offering that it is a mental disorder? Can you provide evidence that it necessitates self-harm or being harmful to others? If not, then how else are you defining it as a mental disorder, and could you please detail how it could be "good" for a gay couple to break up a long-lasting loving, happy and stable relationship?

Edit:
It's also all very well to advocate treatment, but what sort of treatment do you mean,
ECT? It's only be found effective on depression.
Drug Therapy? You'll need to find an existing one, as there really isn't a market to persuade drugs companies to invest in the research. Drugs are also only perscribed when the benefits outway the side effects - exactly what benefit will the recipients have?
Perhaps the lobotomies undertaken in Poland (in the 40's I think?). They were at least sucessfull as they removed all sexual desire, and had less than 30% fatality rate!
Counciling? Taken from http://allpsych.com/

If a therapist believes that a person can change his or her sexual orientation (often referred to as conversion, reparative, or reorientation therapy), it is only ethical to do adequate research on the topic before beginning such treatment. Understand that the American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, and others have denounced this type of treatment due to the high incidences of negative outcomes and very low and even questionable success rates. Also understand that while you can help a client change his or her behavior, it is much more difficult, if not impossible, to change who they are. Think about convincing a straight male attracted to blonds that he must now be attracted only to red heads. He would likely respond, “but I like blonds, I can’t change that, it’s a part of who I am.” None of these sound like particularly good options to me, do you want to make them compulsory? If not, how are going to treat those people who refuse to take part? Are you still going to be intolerant?

[ October 05, 2005, 14:18: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

I want to ask a question.
If something does not bother you as long as it does not affects you, but does bother you when it does affect you, it would be characterized as what?
To give an example lets take homosexuality. I don't have a problem with this issue. I knew guys who were homosexual and allthough they never really opened up as friends do there was a level of communication. But at some point they either cut off this friendship with no apparent reason or they would come on me trying to get things i have marked as a no way from the beginning. With the result of me yelling at them and them saying that i was a homophobic and things like that.
Am i intolerant or are they intolerant of difference? Who is crosing the line? And who is to say that discrimination is only one way?

If a therapist believes that a person can change his or her sexual orientation (often referred to as conversion, reparative, or reorientation therapy), it is only ethical to do adequate research on the topic before beginning such treatment.Says who? Another soi-dissant lefty expert on pro-gay ethics? Besides, there's no such thing as sexual orientation. It's an artificial construct, an empty name without a real designate created by pro-gay "science". In reality, there is sexual drive and perversions thereof. It's always ethical to do research before treatment. But first of all, it was unethical to bow down to pressure and remove an illness from the list of illness and help create the illusion of it being normal. Something no doctor should ever do.

Think about convincing a straight male attracted to blonds that he must now be attracted only to red heads.Flawed comparison. Besides, it would be damn hard to find someone attracted to people with only one specific hair colour and that would need serious issues. Besides, while there are people who only go after blondes or redheads or whatever, they do it as a matter of preference. A strong preference, but a preference, a choice. So what the heck is the author trying to achieve with his eloquent self-contradictions? :rolleyes:

@Mithrantir:
No, they're the ones being unreasonable. Not wanting to engage in homosexual acts does NOT make you a homophobe by a loooong shot. It just means you're not homosexual. And if you made it clear from the beginning that you weren't into that, you had every right to chastise them for breaking the ground rules.

If something does not bother you as long as it does not affects you, but does bother you when it does affect you, it would be characterized as what? I believe that is known as "minding your own business". :grin: I'd say it's somewhere in between, but closer to tolerant than intolerant. The best way to go, IMO, since true tolerance means becoming a doormat. :heh:

The best way to go, IMO, since true tolerance means becoming a doormat./me repeats the Spot check

Common ground! :shake:

Well continiouing the previous post, i want to add something to this discussion and generalize it a little bit.
It is true that during the previous centuries and untill the 18th century white people and especially white males were the predominant subrace of this planet.
The image of a pure (in every way meaning sexual orientation too) white male was the epitomy of power. And more than anything the conformation of everyone to that image was a measure of how up one could go.
But things have started to change at a point. First it happened with women suffrage and afterwards with the black Panthers (just some examples), where the was a demand to unhook humanity from a (stupid IMHO) stereotypic. Sexual freedom that occured to this human civilization during '80s was another try.
I don't oppose myself to these. In fact i do believe that it is unfair to judge someone based on matters of colour, race, sexual orientation.
But all these attempts were so fiercely fighting to put themselves in the acceptable position from society, that ended in having crossed the line many times.
I don't think i have to tell examples of that. The latest one is the love parade, which allthough fun, is a show for something that is clearly a personal choice and surely one choice one does not really care to blow the horn about it (if he really can think clearly). Especially some extreme cases that can be seen there are just a proof that the measure is lost.
But when a coloured (to generalize it and not include the black people only) person, is judging others according to their colour and these decisions affect his attitude towards them, this is rascism too. I don't care if he thinks that he is defending himself, he is showing the same attitude that the stubborn elements of the community, he wants to be a member of, are showing. Meaning that instead of being just a part of one element of the whole problem, is part of both elements.
And this goes for everyone. So from a point of view these affected groups (minorities or whatever) when they try to push themselves upon other members of society, trying to be accepted as they are (hopefully this will happen someday), but on the same time treating the other groups a little bit to arrogant or like an enemy they are being intolerant.
Since they fail to recognize the fact that this attitude is an outcome of many centuries teachings. And demanding something this big right here right now, instead of doing it subtly and with clever and less provoking ways. Something that in fact hinders their efforts instead of helping them.
@Chev
Chevy sorry but in Christianity there are examples of homosexual people who managed to gain the level of saintity. And in fact during the first years of Christianity (where the term homosexual was not known) and the attraction of people with the same sex was not a taboo, there was and still is a ritual for marrying people of the same sex. The names of these two saints who got married eludes my mind at this point, but i will bring them here.
In fact in almost any Orthodox church here in Greece their picture exists, but there is a small stature girl "convienently" placed between them.
That taboo about homosexuality is something that started many years after the expansion of Christianity as a dominant religion.

I don't oppose myself to these. In fact i do believe that it is unfair to judge someone based on matters of colour, race, sexual orientation.I agree but there's difference between feeling attracted and acting on it. Not like a person should be judged on that single weakness, but it's a weakness nonetheless. Next, there's a difference between innately having a totally natural and normal skin colour different from "white" (real white is anaemic, after all) and going after own gender.

Chevy sorry but in Christianity there are examples of homosexual people who managed to gain the level of saintity.Sure! I've mentioned that a couple of times. Those people were not canonised for having gay sex even if they at all had had it. Saints have had various weaknesses and they have been declared saints not for those weakness and sins but for how they have dealt with those. One example would be Saint Guntram, son of Clovis, who had serious issues with divorce and other such but was as lavish is penance as he was in sinning, ultimately becoming a very special saints for those doing penance.

And in fact during the first years of Christianity (where the term homosexual was not known) and the attraction of people with the same sex was not a taboo, there was and still is a ritual for marrying people of the same sex.That's false, sorry. That would have been a heresy. Heresies have existed since the first century after Christ and already the Apostles themselves have had to deal with them. Show me any such ritual approved by an orthodox bishop whether from the East or the West mainstream. Heretics having left the Church of the Roman Empire, as it was called back then, don't count. Rogue bishops condemned by synodes and councils don't count, either. Lone priests with no episcopal backing don't count. At least not anymore than modern priests "consecrating" Coke and potato chips or indeed blessing "marriages" of gay couples. :rolleyes:

That taboo about homosexuality is something that started many years after the expansion of Christianity as a dominant religion.It's older than the written text of Genesis Leviticus.

In the Roman Catholic theology, gay marriage is simply not possible. Sex without marriage can at most be a morally neutral act, with deficient or absent knowledge or consent. Otherwise, it's a sin of a certain gravity, which is most likely mortal. If a saint is declared who has done it, it obviously must be assumed that he repented of it. For all I know, Orthodox theology is practically the same in this respect. The story about two saints married in a gay "marriage" is most likely an urban legend or a misinterpretation. I can't imagine an Orthodox bishop ever okaying such a marriage, even despite the interpretational hanky panky to justify divorce. It would take a proper heretic to conduct a marriage ceremony for two people of the same gender. Besides, in Catholic theology, a marriage between people permanently incapable of successful vaginal intercourse with each other (such that would produce children if they were both fertile) at the moment of marital vows or before, has consequently been considered invalid. I don't know how the Orthodox theology addresses this problem but I don't think there's much difference. So, if "mere" impotence of people of two opposing genders precludes valid marriage, how much more so must the fact of being of the same gender do. In short, no way.

Says who? Another soi-dissant lefty expert on pro-gay ethics?
Well hardly Chev, maybe you could at least have looked at the link I provided.

Well OK, maybe you can describe all psycologists as soi-dissant lefties. Unfortunately, they're the only ones with any expertise in the area.

AllPsych Online is one of the largest and most comprehensive psychology websites on the Internet. Inside the site you'll find over over 920 individual, cross referenced, web pages and an estimated 3000 pages of printed material. AllPsych is referenced by over 100 colleges and universities in ten countries and receives an average of 3,000 unique visitors and 10,000 page views every day. Besides, there's no such thing as sexual orientation. It's an artificial construct, an empty name without a real designate created by pro-gay "science". In reality, there is sexual drive and perversions thereof. It's always ethical to do research before treatment. But first of all, it was unethical to bow down to pressure and remove an illness from the list of illness and help create the illusion of it being normal. Something no doctor should ever do. Please, at least offer some scientific evidence for your rants. Have you any clinical studies to back your point of view?

No peer-reviewed study has ever been published on reparative therapy. No longitudinal study has ever been conducted into its long-term effectiveness and hazards. Sufficient anecdotal evidence has surfaced to convince the large mental health professional societies, like the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc. to condemn reparative therapy as ineffective, and warn of potentially dangerous side-effects. Reference:
"APA Online: Public Interest: Just the facts about sexual orientation and youth: A primer for principals, educators and school personnel,"
See: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html
(I couldn't get the link to work, the quote is from elsewhere)

Taken from the primer:

The most important fact about 'reparative therapy,' also sometimes known as 'conversion' therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a 'cure.'
Actually, maybe I can save you the trouble of looking for yourself, try NARTH. Membership of around 650 psychologists, which is less than 0.2% of those in the field. They also appear to have rather strong backing from a number of religious organisations. Funny that.

[ October 10, 2005, 14:57: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]