A Guide to Tolerance

Tolerance - the respectful agreement or disagreement with the ideas, beliefs and actions of another indivdual.

That is my definition of tolerance and to be frank I don't see it more than I do see it. For too many people 'tolerance' is just about submitting to the so called 'general concenus'. And of course politics and religious debates are particularly prone to intolerance, personal insults and disrespectful arguing.

So I give you my guide to being Tolerant. Please free feel to comment and suggest admendments/additions.

1) I will never stoop to personal insults - Yes, a person can disagree with you and not be an idiot, smell like a pig or have bad breath. Please, if you disagree with a person do so on an intellectual level not on a personal one.

2) I will make every attempt not to swear - pretty basic manners, I've yet to see a convincing swear word

3) I will recognise that there are many opinions out there - there's six billion human beings in the world and all of them think they are right. A large proportion will think you are wrong about something. Therefore realise that just because someone differs from your view does not mean that they are in any way 'abnormal' in fact quite the opposite

4) I will agree that disagreement is natural - linked in with point 3. Disagreement is not an alien concept, it is not evil, it is not wrong, it is natural. And it is not necessarily a personal insult.

5) I will recognise that I can be wrong - let's face it at some point in life we all have to admit we were wrong about something. I'm sure at the time you appreciated a gentle, respectful acceptance of your mistake. So let us try and do the same.

6) I will recognise that logic (EDIT: reason is probably a better word than logic) is non-absolute and depends on the mind using it. What is illogical (irrational) to you may not be to someone else. Logic (reason) is dependant on a multitude of assumptions.

7) Above all at every point, counter point and counter counter point I will be respectful to the other opposing views. Without respect I am a poor shabby creature better left on other internet forumns.

And that covers the basics. What do you think? Any others? Get rid of some? Are you tolerant?

p.s. the author would like to say that while he endevours to follow his own advice he does not always manage to.

Good reminder of tolerance, my thoughts however are that most people abide to these rules anyway. I think the reason why intolerance seems to be a problem is by how foreful people put their views across, in decondemnation of anothers viewpoint or in support of their own. Really, i don't think there is anything wrong with this.

Point 6 though, i think logic is apsolute. Dave is a bachelor, therefore he is unmarried, is a logically true statement. However, when debating politics, religion or philosophy, you can not apply logic to these concepts. I think it would be more accurate to replace "logic" with "reason"- which is dependant on assumptions. Your essential point still stands, just replace logic with reason.

This was well done bravo good sir. As the person said before me a good reminder of tolerance. Logic is different to everybody in certain cases as he also said. Actually Im not contributing anything to this post other than tolerance is something that is hard for human beings to do. Were hostile creatures, something about our carnivore part likely, however it takes the truly strong to tolerate anothers views. Even if it means biting your lip and walking away.

#6

Not exactly, no. Logic is absolute... That's where the saying that in a proper debate "Ideas argue, not people".

True logic takes into account that everything is simply a matter of odds and that there's room for human error, but in no way is logic itself relative. Things that really are matter of opinion, i.e. taste, are an exception. In a way (there's logical explanations for why people react differently to different things).

What you are saying sounds only like an excuse to not have a proper reasoning for your ideas.

Axeli:
#6

Not exactly, no. Logic is absolute... That's where the saying that in a proper debate "Ideas argue, not people".

True logic takes into account that everything is simply a matter of odds and that there's room for human error, but in no way is logic itself relative. Things that really are matter of opinion, i.e. taste, are an exception. In a way (there's logical explanations for why people react differently to different things).

What you are saying sounds only like an excuse to not have a proper reasoning for your ideas.

I think he substituted the word "logic" for "reason", which is what he (possibly) really intended to say.

Also: Excellent post op. You have my respect and gratitude for it.

Definitions of reason on the Web:

* a rational motive for a belief or action; "the reason that war was declared"; "the grounds for their declaration"

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=reason

Definitions of rational on the Web:

* rationality - the quality of being consistent with or based on logic

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=rationality

It's a good guide for sure, congratulations... I wish everyone thought the same.

But I don't think the problem was the definition of tolerance. It's the lack of importance some people place on the need for it. Now I can't without irony say they are wrong for not holding tolerance with any high regard... But fuck it, I'm saying it anyway...

Unfortunately I'm predicting you still won't reach out to the kind of people who don't respect such guidelines. These kind of intolerance issues are produced by people who simply don't respect thing but their own opinion. The only real thing we can do is weed them out of our discussions with expert use of the report button...

Kubanator:
Definitions of reason on the Web:

* a rational motive for a belief or action; "the reason that war was declared"; "the grounds for their declaration"

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=reason

Definitions of rational on the Web:

* rationality - the quality of being consistent with or based on logic

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=rationality

You really have to stop addressing the letter of a post and start addressing the spirit of it, or else it creates redundancy, as I spend a post correcting misunderstandings as opposed to answering points. Misunderstandings, that I suspect, are not quite accidental. I have given up on some other posters and added them to my ignore list for this very reason.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reason

There are other definitions for the word reason, pertaining to judgement and justification. You know exactly what I am getting at. The difference between obeying the absolute logic and instead just being a 'reasonable' human being. Example; it is logical to wipe out every old/disabled person who can't produce more than they consume in order to preserve humanities resources, is it also reasonable?

If you have any more to say on this, feel free to utilize our wonderful PM system.

Well said, Ben.

Thanks guys, post updated to include the suggestion that reason rather than logic might be a better word. I think it probably is. I was just thinking of Eldest by Christopher Palonini and his discussion about Elves only following logic but still coming to completely different sets of conclusions.

I can agree with all of that, except for #6. Logic, reason - whatever you want to call it - is the way we prove our beliefs to be true. If we forsake logic and reason then there is no way to debate, and we would never learn anything or update our opinions. I refuse to concede any point to a person who uses logical fallacies to "prove" their beliefs.

Well I disagree with a few things on the list, but it's all a matter of perspective really. In any case I would consider myself tolerant,for the most part, towards the general populace.

Side note: respect is something earned, not thrown around like it's nothing.

cuddly_tomato:
You really have to stop addressing the letter of a post and start addressing the spirit of it, or else it creates redundancy, as I spend a post correcting misunderstandings as opposed to answering points. Misunderstandings, that I suspect, are not quite accidental. I have given up on some other posters and added them to my ignore list for this very reason.

I did not address anything. I did not judge anything. I made no statements. I posted no opinions. I simply posted two websites, and allow others to interpret them. You took it as the only thing it wasn't, a statement of opinion, and you berated me for it. And yet, there was no opinion, no judgement. All you were aiming for was a straw man.

cuddly_tomato:

There are other definitions for the word reason, pertaining to judgement and justification. You know exactly what I am getting at. The difference between obeying the absolute logic and instead just being a 'reasonable' human being. Example; it is logical to wipe out every old/disabled person who can't produce more than they consume in order to preserve humanities resources, is it also reasonable?

No it's not logical because it leads to a decrease in effectiveness of the oldest demographic which is the most skilled labour leading to a decrease in economic growth that far outweighs the benefits. Plus it would point towards a trend of justifiable murder, something which could become a dangerous trend. And it would lead to a mass devaluation of human life. And create less certainty in long term investments. Hell, punishing people for surviving so long is illogical. We want to promote people's long term successes. Now was this one of the misunderstandings you spoke, or did you genuinely think it logical?

cuddly_tomato:

If you have any more to say on this, feel free to utilize our wonderful PM system.

I could, or I could post it here, and utilize this newfangled forum system, plus advanced thread bumping technology. Isn't life grand?

Also, I disagree with point 2, foul language can be put to good effect in conveying emotions or imagery.

I agree with all of them except for one,
2; swearing is a part of life, and as long as a lady is not present is completely exceptable, of coarse(Get the Pun?) I live in australia with all the peasants so my view is a little bit biased.

Yeah but swearing never actually achieves anything worthwhile.

While it is rather nice, there's just one problem: most people are caustic, bitter, selfish assholes who when given the opportunity would take away the freedoms of others without a thought.

Preaching tolerance at these people is functionally equivalent to attempting to verbally persuade a brick wall to be less bricky.

Still, a nice guide, though the only ones who will care about it are the ones already following it.

Woooo! Fuckin' A!

As has already been stated, this is a most excellent guide, but the only ones who will follow it are he ones already following it.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked