Tolerance...

[Akitoo]

Forgive me if this topic has already been discussed, but I ran a search and turned up nothing, so I think I'm safe.

Here is my question/point of debate: Is tolerance a two-way street?

In today's day and age, and especially in my country (Canada), tolerance seems to mean: "I'll tolerate your opinions/ideas as long as they coincide with my own."

The very essence of tolerance is that everything is alright, and that nobody is anybody to tell anyone that they are wrong.

Tolerance is the key issue for a number of arguments ranging from creation/evolution debates to whether or not the chicken or the egg came first.

I'd really like to hear everyone's opinion on this.

[AmnesiaI]

wait, so what is the question again?

Do YOU feel like you are the only side of whatever argument that HAS tolerance?

It's obviously a good thing for in-depth arguments and debates to have tolerance on both sides of the argument. But, you rarely see it almost ANY situation because people will believe what they want to believe.

Sometimes, people only believe things because they want to feel a part of a group - which in turn feels like power to them. Sheeps, the pleasure and psychological influence somewhat..destroys, if anything.

[Akitoo]

Well, let's put it this way:

Here in Canada, everyone is tolerant of all the immigrants and all their myriad religions (Which, by the by, they are allowed to practice without restraint...) while established religions such as Christianity or Catholicism are frequently bashed, both on the air waves and amongst the general public.

What I'm asking is, where is the tolerance? If everyone is supposed to be tolerant of everyone else, then why are some groups persecuted more than others? IMO, tolerance IS a two-way street, since that is the very essence of tolerance. Yet, in a structured society, such as the one we live in, which has a government and laws to live by, how can there be tolerance? If everyone is right, how can someone point fingers and say "You're wrong"?

See what I'm getting at?

[phantom_ko]

[QUOTE=Akito]Well, let's put it this way:
Here in Canada, everyone is tolerant of all the immigrants and all their myriad religions (Which, by the by, they are allowed to practice without restraint...) while established religions such as Christianity or Catholicism are frequently bashed, both on the air waves and amongst the general public.[QUOTE]

Check http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance and the first explantion is: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

I have a little query when you said [QUOTE=Akito]Well, let's put it this way:
Here in Canada, everyone is tolerant of all the immigrants and all their myriad religions[QUOTE]

What do you mean by everyone?

If your talking about EVERYONE, yes all; then why would they need to be tolerant to their own religion?

If your talking about a certain religion apart from Christianity and Catholicism (as you seem to be on their side), then I would ask you a question: Do you have the right to judge people? Are they doing something wrong? Your making yourself sounding fairly hostile to the other religions. (Don't forget countries that tax people's wage LOVE immigrants....because they get low pay[cleaning toilets?] and they still get to tax them! Sometimes people needs to face the fact that immigrants have the good side too)

Before you say "Hey, but we are Canadians and they're not!"

Well firstly the American migrated from somewhere else initially anyway (Check http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/world/america/am-moff3.htm) as scientists have proven that Human life did not originally evolve in this hemisphere. So it probably means that Canadians came from the Americans that migrated there.

[Riw]

There are things that can't - and shouldn't - be tolerated. Some opinions can't be had in this society. Tolerating people and tolerating their ideas are two different things: Toleration of all people means not discriminating based on appearances and accepting that their opinions should be evaluated the same as those of everyone else's. Toleration of all opinions without even considering them, on the other hand, to me means nothing but chaos. Take freedom of religion, for example. Initially, everyone has the right to choose a religion of their liking, but if the one they picked happens to violate laws or basic human rights, toleration ends there.

That said, I admit it is a bit problematic concept, but I see tolerance [of opinions] mainly as something exercised by majorities towards minorities. In ideal world, everyone would be tolerant of everyone else. In our world, it's important that those groups whose status is already secure be tolerant (I'm also thinking that tolerating and approving aren't synonyms, even though they're closer in meaning in English than in my language). Minorities, then, should adapt and adjust themselves to the situation, and after they stop feeling threatened, tolerance should be expected of them also.

At best, tolerance would be a two-way road. I agree that the general public being able to bash some groups freely, while others are seemingly granted immunity (perhaps by people who are afraid to be called intolerant, or by the group itself threatening all who talk badly about them), is somewhat of a problem. Honestly, I don't think any group should be beyond criticism in the name of tolerance.

So tolerance shouldn't bee absolute, but some of it is definitely necessary. Also, it shouldn't be a two-way street in the sense that if someone doesn't tolerate us, we'll also cease to tolerate them. Two wrongs don't make right etc. Still, I don't know what should be done with the fact that even if in our (me and op's, at least) culture tolerance is end in itself, in others that may not be the case.

Edit: terribly OT, but to phantom_ko: Regardless of where the original Americans came from, most of those who live there (and also in Canada) now came as immigrants from Europe - and, mostly against their will, from Africa. ;)

[phantom_ko]

Majorities and minorities...I think there needs to be a bit more precision in this. Canadians may be the majority in certain places, but they are also minorities in certain places too. So how do you judge on that? From your argument that tolerance shouldn't be absolute, this will lead to the country tearing up into two and lead to civil war.

("Everything can't - and shouldn't - be tolerated")
If your not tolerant to other people, when someone took a sec a two too long to take a pee in your opinion, since tolerance shouldn't take place so you should punch him in the face?

I would say something should not be tolerated but not everything, some people say that Churchill should not have appeased to Hitler (Tolerating his ation).(Not my opinion)

[Riw]

Majorities and minorities...I think there needs to be a bit more precision in this. Canadians may be the majority in certain places, but they are also minorities in certain places too. So how do you judge on that? From your argument that tolerance shouldn't be absolute, this will lead to the country tearing up into two and lead to civil war.

By saying that tolerance shouldn't be absolute, I mean that for example unlawful actions (let's say pedophilia, even if it's an old and much discussed example) shouldn't be defended by appealing to tolerance. This was mostly an answer to op's statement "The very essence of tolerance is that everything is alright."

I believe that if a group of people is uncertain of their position and feels threatened, they may as an act of defense turn inwards and become intolerant of others. This might be typical to minorities - whatever they are, but I'm mostly thinking about immigrants here. Even if this isn't acceptable, it's understandable and can be changed. This is why I think majorities should exercise a bit of extra toleration until the minorities have had time to adapt. In a nutshell: if a person is put into an unfamiliar situation and he then breaks the norms, slightly more patience and toleration should be given to him than to a person who violates norms in spite of having had his whole life to familiarize himself with them. There should be a limit to this, though.

That is why I say that the majorities should take more responsibility of tolerance than minorities (whose status in society is yet forming), even though in ideal situation all people would be equally tolerant.

("Everything can't - and shouldn't - be tolerated")
If your not tolerant to other people, when someone took a sec a two too long to take a pee in your opinion, since tolerance shouldn't take place so you should punch him in the face?
I would say something should not be tolerated but not everything, some people say that Churchill should not have appeased to Hitler (Tolerating his ation).(Not my opinion)

I was a bit confused by this at first, but now I think I get it... it seems I've used the language wrong? What I meant to say was, "not everything should be tolerated", ie. that there are some things that shouldn't be tolerated, as you say. I thought that "everything shouldn't be tolerated" carries just this message. Was I wrong? Educate me.

Anyway, I'll edit my post so that it'll state what I meant more clearly.

[phantom_ko]

(Sorry I love debating:Haha So don't feel I'm attacking you)

Tolerance makes the world go round, and it makes people get along with each other. Although you may seem weak that way, but if you show tolerance and when you do come into trouble; you'll find yourself in a much more comfortable situation with many people coming to defend you. (You'll probably find that people are nicer to you)

[AmnesiaI]

Well, let's put it this way:
Yet, in a structured society, such as the one we live in, which has a government and laws to live by, how can there be tolerance? If everyone is right, how can someone point fingers and say "You're wrong"?
See what I'm getting at?

After reading this part, I immediately thought of moral relativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism). Many philosophers have wrote about it. If you haven't looked into it before, check out some of the philosophers' writings online or at the local library - it really is very stimulating.

[James Cizuz]

Tolerance is does not mean everything is all right. Basically it means you put up with everything. Which is never true to begin with(We don't tolerate murders, rapists etc).

It is never enough to tolerate something, that is the bare minimum. You should try and show respect after fully understanding something, or the level of respect it deserves.

As for me living in Canada to, where I come from people respect people good enough, we have a few bad apples and religious nuts where I live but the majority gets along. That is all we can ever hope for anyway, the majority respecting each other.

[Ganks]

Tolerance is the minimum standard that society must hold people to in order to assure the minimum possible infringement of peoples rights. While we may prefer that people treat others better or behave more respectfully to other people to enforce these beliefs would be an infringement of others rights.

However tolerance in this sense in no way applies to tolerating people who infringe upon the rights of others i.e. Cultural Relativism should not get a Chinese immigrant who beat his wife to death with a hammer for cheating on him like he would have be allowed to do in China a sentence of only five years probation like happened in New York in 1989. Infringements of the rights of others should be punished by government. Any other deviant behavior must be tolerated and punished by social means not by law.

[Sono i Lupi]

tolerance is all bull shit
ppl are always like o i tolerate this
and tolerate this
but ppl forget to tolerate means you dont accept
it doesnt mean you like, it means ur tolerating
it means what ever it is, is testing ur patience
teaching tolerance is just gonna end up shitty
im not saying that im perfect, and that i dont have personal issues with tolerance
yea i tolerate some ppl
yea i tolerate some ideas
but thats cause thats what we've been taught in this day in age
what this world really needs to do is get its shit together, and start teaching the good stuff
the whole worlds gone corrupt, and all we can do is watch as our leaders slowly bring us to our untimely end

not to be ignorant or anything, but lately, ive come to the conclusion that the best thing to do is not give a shit
not care about if some one offends ur religion
not care if someone makes fun of you
not care if people hurt you
not care if things go wrong
enjoy things if they go good
but dont get to attached to them
if you dont care, if u have no strong opinions, then you have nothing to tolerate
its that simple

[Setsuna Ai]

tolerance is all bull shit
ppl are always like o i tolerate this
and tolerate this
but ppl forget to tolerate means you dont accept
it doesnt mean you like, it means ur tolerating
it means what ever it is, is testing ur patience
teaching tolerance is just gonna end up shitty
im not saying that im perfect, and that i dont have personal issues with tolerance
yea i tolerate some ppl
yea i tolerate some ideas
but thats cause thats what we've been taught in this day in age
what this world really needs to do is get its shit together, and start teaching the good stuff
the whole worlds gone corrupt, and all we can do is watch as our leaders slowly bring us to our untimely end

*goes off topic*
Since ancient times there have been corrupt leaders that made it seem like "our leaders slowly bring us to our untimely end." So, that's that. Don't worry about the apocalypse ^_^. What I AM worrying about though is Global Warming.

not to be ignorant or anything, but lately, ive come to the conclusion that the best thing to do is not give a shit
not care about if some one offends ur religion
not care if someone makes fun of you
not care if people hurt you
not care if things go wrong
enjoy things if they go good
but dont get to attached to them
if you dont care, if u have no strong opinions, then you have nothing to tolerate
its that simple
You can't "not give a shit" forever. From your post, I'm assuming you're a teen (like me) and we're the most important people in the world due to the fact that we're the future generation. So get rid of that logic now.

if you dont care, if u have no strong opinions, then you have nothing to tolerate
its that simple
No strong opinions? Indifference to ignorance? That kind of personality, my man, makes your spirit/resolve/opinions as malleable as clay, making it extremely easy for..oh well I don't know, an evil dictator who wants to the rule world use thousands of people like you. (I recommend you read 1984 by George Orwell. Awesome book about what I just talked about..well not really all but you know.)

Ok sorry I didn't contribute to the debate but the people before me have already stated my ideas.

[koreasamurai]

Well, let's put it this way:
Here in Canada, everyone is tolerant of all the immigrants and all their myriad religions (Which, by the by, they are allowed to practice without restraint...) while established religions such as Christianity or Catholicism are frequently bashed, both on the air waves and amongst the general public.
What I'm asking is, where is the tolerance? If everyone is supposed to be tolerant of everyone else, then why are some groups persecuted more than others? IMO, tolerance IS a two-way street, since that is the very essence of tolerance. Yet, in a structured society, such as the one we live in, which has a government and laws to live by, how can there be tolerance? If everyone is right, how can someone point fingers and say "You're wrong"?
See what I'm getting at?


yea thats very sterotyping and i dont think ur have the authority 2 say that. Sure u can say that, but idk to mean it just seems wrong to. Anyway there really is no tolerance in our world. We want to be right. Its easier to forgive someone if their wrong, yet when ur the one doing the wrong its much harder to say im sorry. Society has implanted in our brains that we must always be right. It doesnt matter what we do. Our world considers that if ur not right, ur wrong, and if ur wrong, that means u failed at life. Its taught in all those little disney channel, cartoon network, etc. shows. Subliminal messages are give when we're little to do this from tv, radio, ads, parents, bacially everything

[Kentaro]

Tolerance is you see some old guy walking down the street screaming racial terms at you, instead of running up to the old guy and beating him down with his nifty cane- you ignore him and get on with your life. Allowing him to foul the air with the words. Though such a thing like Complete tolerance is idiotic, if we tolerated everything that happened what would be left of this world. Well if every one tolerated everyone- hell it would be a better place. But if the Russians decided to nuke us and we tolerated that man people would die, families.. hell I cant even wrap my head around the idea of Complete tolerance.

[Sono i Lupi]

Ok sorry I didn't contribute to the debate but the people before me have already stated my ideas.

yea i was about to say that
this topic isnt on critiqueing other ppls ideas
but expressing ur own
but w/e

[kenicchi]

I agree with Kentaro, Tollerance is good, but Complete tolerance is just as bad as intolerance, now your indirectly doing something bad, by ignorining someone while their doing something bad, when in fact, you can stop them.

[Setsuna Ai]

Tolerance is you see some old guy walking down the street screaming racial terms at you, instead of running up to the old guy and beating him down with his nifty cane- you ignore him and get on with your life. Allowing him to foul the air with the words. Though such a thing like Complete tolerance is idiotic, if we tolerated everything that happened what would be left of this world. Well if every one tolerated everyone- hell it would be a better place. But if the Russians decided to nuke us and we tolerated that man people would die, families.. hell I cant even wrap my head around the idea of Complete tolerance.
Like the others said, there's a difference between tolerating others' actions and tolerating their ideas. It's good to tolerate others' beliefs if you disagree with them, but just letting people do disgusting/rude/ignorant/mean things is wrong...obviously.

By the way, I believe this debate lost its purpose. As in, I don't even know the real question anymore. At first Akito asks where is the real tolerance...then..uhh....what?

[Striker-tai]

To tolerate basically means your willing to give someone a pass. In my opinion it's similar to diversity, you can't do this to someone because you HAVE to tolerate them, I know it's not always that way but that's sometimes the context in which it's presented. It's hard for me to go on describing it without throwing up flames from a possible mod.

[zen]

Tolerance is (to me) a way to express non-violence for one time or another. If we all tolerate eachother then we don't fight, But that doesnt mean we still don't hate eachother. People tolerate their drunk uncle, that doesn't mean that the problem is solved. To me tolerance is just a bomb waiting to happen, There's only so much you can tolerate before you explode. Then all the stuff you tolerated becomes verbal weapons or even physical weapons on the enemy, it's like building up ammunition then letting it all go at the same time.