Tolerance: Some food for thought

[irishdragonlord]

This isn't very controversial, right?

Since Calvin and Hobbes is copyrighted and I can't find a picture of this comic on the web, I have to type out the comic. ;_; Calvin rules[/u]... ( )

Anyway:

Hobbes: How are you doing on your New Year's Resolutions?
Calvin: I didn't make any. See, in order to improve oneself, one must have some idea of what's "good". That implies certain values. But as we all know, values are relative. Every system of belief is equally valid and we need to tolerate diversity. Virtue isn't "better" than vice. It's just different.
Hobbes: I don't know if I can tolerate that much tolerance.
Calvin: I refuse to be victimized by notions of virtuous behavior.

Soz... how far can we push tolerance? Your call.

[Luna]

For some folks here, please don't kill me this is merely my opinion so that doesn't make what I say correct. I believe that religion itself spawns intolerance. Not so much religion in itself, but the people who take it too far and interpret their religion in a way that suits themselves the best. I tolerate people of all religions, colors, nationalities, and sexual preferences. I grew up in Singapore which is a mix of cultures. In my school there we had people from all religions, and countries. I viewed them all as equal and they saw one another as equal because we had all grown up in this society. I learned to be tolerant of other people's faith and lifestyle choices, so I think myself better off than my peers here in America that are full of prejudice and hatred from those who deviate from their standards. Tolerance is possible, but only if we all throw away our preconceptions of those around us.

[irishdragonlord]

Luna said:

For some folks here, please don't kill me this is merely my opinion so that doesn't make what I say correct. I believe that religion itself spawns intolerance. Not so much religion in itself, but the people who take it too far and interpret their religion in a way that suits themselves the best. I tolerate people of all religions, colors, nationalities, and sexual preferences. I grew up in Singapore which is a mix of cultures. In my school there we had people from all religions, and countries. I viewed them all as equal and they saw one another as equal because we had all grown up in this society. I learned to be tolerant of other people's faith and lifestyle choices, so I think myself better off than my peers here in America that are full of prejudice and hatred from those who deviate from their standards. Tolerance is possible, but only if we all throw away our preconceptions of those around us.

Truthfully, lack of religion spawns intolerance as well
It is impossible for a human being to reach true objectivity, so everyone and anyone's opinions will breed "intolerance" of some form or another.

And I would like to state a point I've been meaning to make:

Tolerance is different from condoning. Example (not meaning to beat a dead horse, but):

I would never make fun of a gay person. I would never reject them for being gay, and I would never approve of anyone doing such things. However, I believe allowing gay marriage is condoning it - more than tolerating it, but saying it's ok. Everyone see what I mean by the difference?

Just wanted to make a point

PS- Luna, you may not want to be so general in the future. Just a bit of advice.

[Luna]

I didn't wish to offend anyone so I kept it to a minimum. I love all my friends dearly, be they Christian (My family is), Hindu, Muslim, Bhuddist, Jewish, Satanic, Wicca, or none at all. I admit I am prejudiced towards certain things. But I also take pride in getting along with many people no matter how different they are from myself. Religion is also a good thing as well as negative in the worst scenario. It gives a purpose and hope to the lives of people who would otherwise have none.
I'm happy when the people around me are happy because i'm usually the mediator and not needing to help out means that no help is needed. ^_^

[Rider]

[glow=red,2,300]OK, I'm a bit biased. I'm one of maybe three Asians in an all-white town.

But I honestly don't know why people have such a hard time with racism. Especially the younger generations, growing up in a world without segregation. Sure, a person's outside appearance has a bit to do with what's on the inside, but not much. I'm a dang quixotic idiot...

Religion and sexual orientation: those have more to do with what's inside. And I can sort of understand why people would be intolerant, in a way. Still want to thwap them over the head with a halibut for it. Or drop an anvil. Anyone got an anvil?

Religion, lack of religion, either thing spawns intolerance if taken the wrong way. It all depends. Intolerance, a fear of what's strange and different, that's human nature. It came from a time long ago when our hairy-butted ape-like ansestors had to drive strange tribes away from thier territory and mates. We need to teach our children to overcome that.

They say that racism is a family affair, passed from parent to child. I've seen it; I know.

Geez, I rambled for a long time...[/glow]

[Buddy]

Religion does not nessecarily, by itself, cause intolerence. It does, however, create a readily-apparent vessel for such to exist in.

The Fairly-Odd Parents pretty much put it best - it wouldn't matter if the entire world were gray and everyone looked, talked, and acted exactly the same - people would still find a way to make themselves (at least appear) better than another person or group. That's just the way it is. And as long as people are different (which they always will be) and have personl insecurities (which they always will), people are going to try and find ways to make themselves seem better than someone other group.

Race, religion, financial standing - they're only vessels to show such a fact. They do not, by themselves, create intolerence. They only allow people an excuse for it.

Calvin actually makes a very wise observation - values are relative. Oh sure, there are the regular ones - killing is bad, stealing is bad. Things like that just about everyone has.

However, others (especially more specific ones (namely, abortion, gay rights, etc.)) are relative. You view something as wrong - I see it as right.

I think that, often times, we forget this. We forget that, just because I think gay marriage is right, doesn't mean you're wrong for thinking its wrong. Issues are often far more complicated than that, no matter how much we try and simplify them.

Why do you think world politics and dealing in international issues is so difficult?

IDL, in fact, is not entirely wrong in his statement - that condoning something and tolerating something are two different things. The difficult thing is deciding where to draw the line.

To continue on with the example of gay marriage (merely for the fact its a perfect and rather simple example), you may see gay marriage as condoning something. However, I see it more as tolerating something, not in the way that we're condoning something which shouldn't be, but that we're being intolerant by doing anything else.

Ultimately, tolerence is nothing more than understanding the other person's point of view - more often than not, the two come hand-in-hand. If you understand the other person, where they're coming from, and why they think that way, you're more likely to find a way to tolerate them.

Unfortunately, understanding seems to be in limited supply these days. If we had more of it, well, who's to say where the world would be.

[irishdragonlord]

Buddy said:

Religion does not nessecarily, by itself, cause intolerence. It does, however, create a readily-apparent vessel for such to exist in.

The Fairly-Odd Parents pretty much put it best - it wouldn't matter if the entire world were gray and everyone looked, talked, and acted exactly the same - people would still find a way to make themselves (at least appear) better than another person or group. That's just the way it is. And as long as people are different (which they always will be) and have personl insecurities (which they always will), people are going to try and find ways to make themselves seem better than someone other group.

Race, religion, financial standing - they're only vessels to show such a fact. They do not, by themselves, create intolerence. They only allow people an excuse for it.

Calvin actually makes a very wise observation - values are relative. Oh sure, there are the regular ones - killing is bad, stealing is bad. Things like that just about everyone has.

However, others (especially more specific ones (namely, abortion, gay rights, etc.)) are relative. You view something as wrong - I see it as right.

I think that, often times, we forget this. We forget that, just because I think gay marriage is right, doesn't mean you're wrong for thinking its wrong. Issues are often far more complicated than that, no matter how much we try and simplify them.

Why do you think world politics and dealing in international issues is so difficult?

IDL, in fact, is not entirely wrong in his statement - that condoning something and tolerating something are two different things. The difficult thing is deciding where to draw the line.

To continue on with the example of gay marriage (merely for the fact its a perfect and rather simple example), you may see gay marriage as condoning something. However, I see it more as tolerating something, not in the way that we're condoning something which shouldn't be, but that we're being intolerant by doing anything else.

Ultimately, tolerence is nothing more than understanding the other person's point of view - more often than not, the two come hand-in-hand. If you understand the other person, where they're coming from, and why they think that way, you're more likely to find a way to tolerate them.

Unfortunately, understanding seems to be in limited supply these days. If we had more of it, well, who's to say where the world would be.

Buddy said:

Religion does not nessecarily, by itself, cause intolerence. It does, however, create a readily-apparent vessel for such to exist in.

The Fairly-Odd Parents pretty much put it best - it wouldn't matter if the entire world were gray and everyone looked, talked, and acted exactly the same - people would still find a way to make themselves (at least appear) better than another person or group. That's just the way it is. And as long as people are different (which they always will be) and have personl insecurities (which they always will), people are going to try and find ways to make themselves seem better than someone other group.

Race, religion, financial standing - they're only vessels to show such a fact. They do not, by themselves, create intolerence. They only allow people an excuse for it.

Calvin actually makes a very wise observation - values are relative. Oh sure, there are the regular ones - killing is bad, stealing is bad. Things like that just about everyone has.

However, others (especially more specific ones (namely, abortion, gay rights, etc.)) are relative. You view something as wrong - I see it as right.

I think that, often times, we forget this. We forget that, just because I think gay marriage is right, doesn't mean you're wrong for thinking its wrong. Issues are often far more complicated than that, no matter how much we try and simplify them.

Why do you think world politics and dealing in international issues is so difficult?

IDL, in fact, is not entirely wrong in his statement - that condoning something and tolerating something are two different things. The difficult thing is deciding where to draw the line.

To continue on with the example of gay marriage (merely for the fact its a perfect and rather simple example), you may see gay marriage as condoning something. However, I see it more as tolerating something, not in the way that we're condoning something which shouldn't be, but that we're being intolerant by doing anything else.

Ultimately, tolerence is nothing more than understanding the other person's point of view - more often than not, the two come hand-in-hand. If you understand the other person, where they're coming from, and why they think that way, you're more likely to find a way to tolerate them.

Unfortunately, understanding seems to be in limited supply these days. If we had more of it, well, who's to say where the world would be.

Very wise words, Buddy. But I still have a bone to pick

I think that, the whole "matters are to complicated" is stretched to far. Nothing is neutral; when one makes a decision, it has an effect, and it is either good or bad. I shall try to elaborate throughout this post.

I believe Hobbes makes the wiser observation; Calvin has actually disregarded values, simply because they are 'relative'. He uses it as an excuse for his bad behavior (read any C&H comic and you'll know what I mean). He states that in the last line: "I refused to be victimized by notions of virtuous behavior." What's 'right' for him is doing whatever he wants. Which isn't right at all.

And Buddy, the 'basics'... Hitler thought killing Jews wasn't bad. But it is - except for his values. Things are circumstancial, but even then, the line must be drawn in the sand.

As for the elaboration: Say a woman sleeps with whatever guy she wants, and one day gets pregnant. She wants an abortion so she doesn't have to care for the baby, and gets one.

Another woman is raped, and suffers for it. She becomes pregnant and tests show baby will be born deformed; she gets an abortion because she cannot bear the thought of having a child from the racist, and because the child will be deformed seems to be a mockery to her.

Which one is in the wrong? The first had no reason but selfishness; the second a better reason, if not an excuse. One did a greater evil, the second, a lesser, if one at all. It is "blurred", but if you condone abortion, you condone both cases. So it is complicated, but not so much so you cannot find right or wrong in it.

And yes, understanding is in far too short supply, for everyone. Many Christians are heavily disilluisoned, so I'm not saying I or any other Christian is perfect, just so you know

And Rider... my beliefs say intolerance came from: A) Sin and B) Pure human stupidity.

[Orginalcliche]

There is no good nor bad. There is only what others think are good nor bad. I think what hitler did was bad, but that doesn't make it bad. Morals aren't facts, they are opinions, and that's why they differ.

[The Angry Artist]

Religion is arbitray itself, so anything associated with religion or lack thereof is arbitrary. No once can say his or her religion is right, because that is arbitrary in and of itself. Religious tolerence is therefore accepting the fact that no one's religion is right.

[Stal]

The said:

Religion is arbitray itself, so anything associated with religion or lack thereof is arbitrary. No once can say his or her religion is right, because that is arbitrary in and of itself. Religious tolerence is therefore accepting the fact that no one's religion is right.

What's funny is someone has to be right, TAA. And to be in a religion, you're admitting that you believe your own religion is right above all others. What you suggest is truly impossible. Because even the religion of atheism is saying that you're right and all religions are wrong, but if how you speak of it being all arbitrary then you're wrong on that same time and not all religions are wrong.

It's a complete, and impossible, paradox.

Someone is right, that's all their is to it. Whether you like it or not, or whether you've bough into the liberal idealism that all ideas, morals, and values have equal weight (which is to make sure everyone feels truly equal and no one ever has to believe that they may be in fact wrong) it doesn't take away from the fact there DOES exist a true and a false, a right and a wrong.

[The Angry Artist]

Stalos said:

What's funny is someone has to be right, TAA. And to be in a religion, you're admitting that you believe your own religion is right above all others. What you suggest is truly impossible. Because even the religion of atheism is saying that you're right and all religions are wrong, but if how you speak of it being all arbitrary then you're wrong on that same time and not all religions are wrong.

It's a complete, and impossible, paradox.

Someone is right, that's all their is to it. Whether you like it or not, or whether you've bough into the liberal idealism that all ideas, morals, and values have equal weight (which is to make sure everyone feels truly equal and no one ever has to believe that they may be in fact wrong) it doesn't take away from the fact there DOES exist a true and a false, a right and a wrong.

There is a difference between what you believe and what you know. A person can belive in whatever he or she wants but know he or she is not right. When something is arbitrary, what makes a person right?

[Stal]

The said:

There is a difference between what you believe and what you know. A person can belive in whatever he or she wants but know he or she is not right. When something is arbitrary, what makes a person right?

That is the subject of many debates, but it comes down mostly to religious beliefs. Still, just because one person disagrees that they're right does not make them right all of a sudden, as I said, someone needs to be right. It doesn't work that there is no right and no wrong.

By the way, explain the "You can know something and have it be different than what you believe"...you believe things based on what you know. What you know will reinforce that belief, or contradict it. Your beliefs are shaped by your own knowledge.

[Orginalcliche]

There is no right and wrong, only what one person may think is right and the other may think is wrong, and then the collective descion.

[Stal]

Snorkles- said:

There is no right and wrong, only what one person may think is right and the other may think is wrong, and then the collective descion.

But by saying that, you're stating that you yourself are right in saying there is no right or wrong. But if what you say is true, it totally invalids your actual statement!

[The Angry Artist]

Stalos said:

That is the subject of many debates, but it comes down mostly to religious beliefs. Still, just because one person disagrees that they're right does not make them right all of a sudden, as I said, someone needs to be right. It doesn't work that there is no right and no wrong.

By the way, explain the "You can know something and have it be different than what you believe"...you believe things based on what you know. What you know will reinforce that belief, or contradict it. Your beliefs are shaped by your own knowledge.

You believe things based on what you are taught. If experience teaches you something, you will continue to believe it. Did you see this summer's extremely loose movie adaptation of I, Robot by Isaac Asimov? In the movie Will Smith knows a robot can do know harm -- but he still believes they can.