I don't know why people use the word "tolerance" so much when it comes to being in peace with others.

Tolerance is a bad word. It implies that the object that is tolerated is bad. It also implies that you don't care about the object which is tolerated. A better word is "compassion". Or "empathy". Compassion implies that you welcome others and treat them well regardless of whether you agree with their views and behaviours as long as they are not detrimental to your well being and that you don't necesasrily agree with their views even though you allow them to have such views without entering into conflict because of such views. It's all about integration and unconditional acceptance of someone's existance.

What do you think?

Peace cannot be based in tolerance alone...

Peace cannot be based in tolerance alone...
I agree. But there are some groups, and even religions that I cannot stand and wish that did not exist.
I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if these certain groups and religions disappeared off the face of the earth and never returned.
So, with that said, since I will not allow anyone to force me to like or accept these groups with open arms, what is left that isn't discriminating? Tolerance.
And if these jackass extremists had some tolerance for other religions, we wouldn't be in this war right now.
No, tolerance isn't as good as open acceptance, but it's not near as bad as discrimination or rejection.

I agree. But there are some groups, and even religions that I cannot stand and wish that did not exist.
I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if these certain groups and religions disappeared off the face of the earth and never returned.
So, with that said, since I will not allow anyone to force me to like or accept these groups with open arms, what is left that isn't discriminating? Tolerance.
And if these jackass extremists had some tolerance for other religions, we wouldn't be in this war right now.
No, tolerance isn't as good as open acceptance, but it's not near as bad as discrimination or rejection.
Just like women eh mike? :D

I agree. But there are some groups, and even religions that I cannot stand and wish that did not exist.
I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if these certain groups and religions disappeared off the face of the earth and never returned.
So, with that said, since I will not allow anyone to force me to like or accept these groups with open arms, what is left that isn't discriminating? Tolerance.
And if these jackass extremists had some tolerance for other religions, we wouldn't be in this war right now.
No, tolerance isn't as good as open acceptance, but it's not near as bad as discrimination or rejection.
But you don't need to accept those people at all. All you need is to care about them and wish them well. It's all about separating the people from their behaviour and misconceptions.

Altough because extremists are so detrimental to society, such requirement might be in fact too much. I'm not quite sure.

I agree. But there are some groups, and even religions that I cannot stand and wish that did not exist.
I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if these certain groups and religions disappeared off the face of the earth and never returned.
So, with that said, since I will not allow anyone to force me to like or accept these groups with open arms, what is left that isn't discriminating? Tolerance.
And if these jackass extremists had some tolerance for other religions, we wouldn't be in this war right now.
No, tolerance isn't as good as open acceptance, but it's not near as bad as discrimination or rejection.

I agree. The problem is that so many people who are xenophobic and afraid of change use tactics such as religious fundamentalism to feed the fire to attack other groups (basically Al-qaeda or the Klu Klux Klan).

If you were referring to Islam as a religion you cannot stand, think of it this way; Islam is a religion based on peace, kindness, and tolerance towards one another, but some people exploit culture mixed with this religion to create a form of terrorist-fundamentalism. Only 20% of Muslims are from the arabic countries and so also keep the 80% in mind too. ;)

Exactly

Tolerance is important for diversity.

Simplest most basic example of tolerance:

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.- Voltaire"

Unfortunately, it is in very short supply these days.

That's not tolerance. It's more like compassion.

Tolerance is forced and unnatural.

That's not tolerance. It's more like compassion.

Tolerance is forced and unnatural.

Maybe where you come from. :shrug:

tolerance n. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

I think what some of you are talking about is being cordial: caring about people and wishing them well. Tolerance is merely to be civil: respecting their rights and their basic human dignity.

I am cordial to other dog lovers. I wave at them and if I see one struggling with a heavy load I'll stop and help him. I don't wave at dog haters and I won't help them with their daily struggles. But I am civil to them. If I see one having a medical problem or something out of the ordinary like a fallen tree blocking their driveway, I'll help if I can or call for help.

Religion is obviously a more complicated issue since some members of the most prominent religions believe it is their religious duty to not respect what we regard as our rights.

Clearly we have no obligation to be civil those members of those religions. But we do have an obligation to do our best to sort them out and not treat the entire community with uncivility, with prejudicial intolerance. If we can't quite figure out a way to sort them out, then we just need to try harder. Yes that might be a challenge and we'll all make mistakes in the process, but we have to try.

I'm sure by now you've all heard me say that religion is a force that works against civilization, at least certain popular religions. I would like to see those religions vanish. But I want it to happen by enlightenment and attrition, by having their communities undergo what has been inexorably happening in Europe and America: a transcendence of reason and learning over the human instinct to have faith in the existence of the supernatural.

If we choose to try to banish religion by being uncivil to religious people, by violating their basic rights and dignity because we can't tell which of them deserve to be feared, then it will be we who have forsaken civilization. We will have defeated our own purpose.

The battle against religion has always been difficult and it will continue to be so. But we can only win it by fighting it on our terms, not theirs.

I agree with the bad use of tollerance. You don't "tollerate" different peoples, one of the more proper phrasings would be, to accept them as "equal", as just people, rather than a different sort of people.

To "tollerate" would be if we're speaking of something like bad neighbours or something like it, people who aren't even necessarily from another culture or whatever... is something you do somewhat unwillingly, the circumstances force you to accept the situation, but you really preferred that they weren't there or at least that they didn't behave bad in any way that they might do (speaking of neighbours I can think of noisy people who apparently have some annoying sense of communitary sharing of their ultra-potent sound system and frequently bad musical taste. That's the sort of thing that annoies me, and sometimes I have to tollerate in order to avoid trouble of some sort).

To demand more than tolerance from people is to be intolerant yourself, so you're worse than the people you criticise.

The bottom line is people often don't like certain types of people, it's not a choice, it's how they feel.
The most you can ask is that they are tolerant of the people they don't like.

I personally don't like carnival and circus folk, I just don't, I can't help it, I find them unpleasant.
I could go and raid the caravans at the circus at night, terrorise the tired and weary acrobats and lizard men while they rest in their enclosures, threaten them and tell them to pack up and move out of town or I'll burn their tents to the ground.

That would be intolerance. But no, I maturely tolerate the circus being in town, I sit at home, dig my fingers into the arm rests on my chair and grind my teeth untill they leave.

Apparently this isn't good enough? I need to actively love carnis? I need to approve of their disturbing lifestyle? I should repress the urge to vomit and instead force a smile when I look at their leathery weathered faces with their absurdly disproportioned features?
That's too much to ask, you are now being intolerant of the type of person I am.
You are doing what I was too tolerant to do, you are sticking your nose into my life and infringing upon my rights because you disapprove of me.

You need to perfect tolerance first before you can even think about skipping ahead of it. You don't seem to understand what it means, and you are unmistakably an intolerant person. A fascist, if you will.

This is why tolerance was settled upon, because it's the logical base, where no one's basic rights are being comprimised.
What you want to do is go too far and start forcing people to feel a certain way, that's not superior to tolerance, it's just a specific form of intolerance.

Maybe where you come from. :shrug:

tolerance n. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
Tolerance is like saying to someone "you smell bad, but it's ok. I will just hold my breath around you."


Is that good enough for you?

I think what some of you are talking about is being cordial: caring about people and wishing them well. Tolerance is merely to be civil: respecting their rights and their basic human dignity.
Precisely.


You know... it's very easy to be cordial with those who you share your views with. But it's a much greater sign of wisdom and strenght to be cordial with those who you disagree.

But we do have an obligation to do our best to sort them out and not treat the entire community with uncivility, with prejudicial intolerance.
Yes, that would be excellent.

I'm sure by now you've all heard me say that religion is a force that works against civilization, at least certain popular religions. I would like to see those religions vanish. But I want it to happen by enlightenment and attrition, by having their communities undergo what has been inexorably happening in Europe and America: a transcendence of reason and learning over the human instinct to have faith in the existence of the supernatural.
Yes. But how could we help them?

The battle against religion has always been difficult and it will continue to be so. But we can only win it by fighting it on our terms, not theirs.
I totally agree.

To demand more than tolerance from people is to be intolerant yourself, so you're worse than the people you criticise.
Who's demanding?

The bottom line is people often don't like certain types of people, it's not a choice, it's how they feel.
The most you can ask is that they are tolerant of the people they don't like.
I would like people to be enlightened. I don't expect anything short of greatness of everyone. Having said that, anything short of greatness is perfectly forgivable. We are growing as a species and it takes time to grow.

Apparently this isn't good enough? I need to actively love carnis?
Maybe you don't like what they do, or how they behave. Or you don't agree with them. That's ok. But caring about them just because they exist, regardless of anything else.... that's possible.

I need to approve of their disturbing lifestyle?
No, there's no need for approval. It's perfectly possible to love and care about someone who you completely disagree with and disaprove.

I should repress the urge to vomit and instead force a smile when I look at their leathery weathered faces with their absurdly disproportioned features?
That sounds like a sign of hatred. What's the point of feeling that way? Focus on their existance. It's called reverance for life.

That's too much to ask, you are now being intolerant of the type of person I am.
You are doing what I was too tolerant to do, you are sticking your nose into my life and infringing upon my rights because you disapprove of me.
Again, who's demanding?

You need to perfect tolerance first before you can even think about skipping ahead of it. You don't seem to understand what it means, and you are unmistakably an intolerant person. A fascist, if you will.
Read what Fraggle wrote and you might get a grasp of what I did.

This is why tolerance was settled upon, because it's the logical base, where no one's basic rights are being comprimised.
What you want to do is go too far and start forcing people to feel a certain way, that's not superior to tolerance, it's just a specific form of intolerance.
Do you really think tolerance alone has been sufficient?

Too many people hate people when what really bothers them is what the people believe in or what they do. They don't separate the people from the behaviour. Rise above that and you can truly care about people, not just be tolerant.

Tolerance is like saying to someone "you smell bad, but it's ok. I will just hold my breath around you."


Is that good enough for you?

That is an excellent example. If you go to church and a homeless unwashed man sits down next to you during service, do you:

-continue as you were, its a church, anyone can sit where they want.

- make disgusted sounds and move to a different place?

That is an excellent example. If you go to church and a homeless unwashed man sits down next to you during service, do you:

-continue as you were, its a church, anyone can sit where they want.

- make disgusted sounds and move to a different place?

Heh, probably the latter. I don't know - I'm a polite person, so I couldn't see myself making obvious sounds of discomfort. I'd pretend I had a call, get up, and quietly sit somewhere else. What would you do? Be honest.

Too many people hate people when what really bothers them is what the people believe in or what they do. They don't separate the people from the behaviour. Rise above that and you can truly care about people, not just be tolerant.
Why are you trying to change these people? Do you want them to be more like you?
Why can't you just just learn to tolerate them as they are?

Don't get all high and mighty, like I said you are yet to perfect tolerance, so it's a bit of a joke for you to expect more from others.

Heh, probably the latter. I don't know - I'm a polite person, so I couldn't see myself making obvious sounds of discomfort. I'd pretend I had a call, get up, and quietly sit somewhere else. What would you do? Be honest.

I'd stay. Have you ever been for umra or hajj?:eek:

I'd stay. Have you ever been for umra or hajj?:eek:

Hah! Well, I haven't been to Hajj yet, but the crowded Friday prayers in Istanbul sometimes got a little fishy.

Especially the people who wore no socks.

Why are you trying to change these people?
Am I? Where did you read that?

Do you want them to be more like you?
Again, where did I say that?

Why can't you just just learn to tolerate them as they are?
Because I do a lot more then just tolerate them.

Don't get all high and mighty, like I said you are yet to perfect tolerance, so it's a bit of a joke for you to expect more from others.
No, it is more like you have no idea what tolerance even is. So I'm not sure how can you say anything about that. Huuumm....

Am I? Where did you read that?
1 example:
Rise above that and you can truly care about people, not just be tolerant.

The whole point of this thread is you telling people to be different than what they already are. You don't like the way they are, and you want to change them.
That's intolerance, it's akin to me chasing circus people around with soap and nagging them to let me wash their leotards.
From my perspective all I'm doing is generously offering favours, but really I'm infringing on their right to be dirty.

You're trying to make people "better", you deem it a noble cause, but that's just your particular perspective. If you expect people to fall in line in accordance with your perspective you are exhibitting fascist tendencies.

I don't know why people use the word "tolerance" so much when it comes to being in peace with others.

Tolerance is a bad word. It implies that the object that is tolerated is bad. It also implies that you don't care about the object which is tolerated. A better word is "compassion". Or "empathy". Compassion implies that you welcome others and treat them well regardless of whether you agree with their views and behaviours as long as they are not detrimental to your well being and that you don't necesasrily agree with their views even though you allow them to have such views without entering into conflict because of such views. It's all about integration and unconditional acceptance of someone's existance.

What do you think?

I beg to differ:

"tol·er·ance
–noun
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
4. the act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance

While I agree that the word tolerance has gotten a slightly negative sound to it over the years, the definition says differently.
See, you are defining it as under point 4. which is not the way it's meant when we are talking about, for instance, a tolerant community or country.
Definitions 1 to 3 are the one's that are appropriate in that case.

The whole point of this thread is you telling people to be different than what they already are.
Where do I say that? Not once in the thread I say people ought to be a certain way. The entire discussion is centered on the fact that tolerance alone cannot keep the world in peace. Don't believe me? Just look at the planet.

You don't like the way they are, and you want to change them.
I don't agree with many people. However, I still care about them. And no, I don't want to change them. Diversity is the one of the keys to our survival. Why would I want to change him.

That's intolerance, it's akin to me chasing circus people around with soap and nagging them to let me wash their leotards.
No, you don't understand what I'm saying.

From my perspective all I'm doing is generously offering favours, but really I'm infringing on their right to be dirty.
Let's say we DO want to change them. WHY do we want to change them? Is there a logical reason? Also, is your perception of them accurate?

Ok, let's say your perception is accurate. Why would you want to change them? Would such a change benefit them? If the change would benefit them, is your desire a good thing or a bad thing?

Let's say your perception is not accurate, but, of course, you believe it is. Why do you have such a perception? What could possibly change your perspective? Maybe knowing the truth?


You see... people make a big deal out of this. But when it comes to the truth, the bottomline here is that what really matters is the truth. If you want to actually help people, then that is a good thing. If you hate them and wish them bad, then that's a bad thing for everyone. It's all a matter of whether our perceptions are true or not and whether our intentions are good or not.

You're trying to make people "better", you deem it a noble cause, but that's just your particular perspective.
I don't. However, if someone is in danger because of their beliefs, isn't it a good thing if I try to help them?

If you expect people to fall in line in accordance with your perspective you are exhibitting fascist tendencies.
It depends, really. Is my perception correct? You seem to believe there are no correct perceptions. However, that's not the case and, in fact, that's the point. Everyone thinks their perception is the correct one. That's why there's hatred and other stuff. You think your perception of the circus people is correct. You also think that your perception of myself is correct. However, do you really think that's the case?



The difference here between me and you is that I'm unconditionally caring towards everyone and that I accept that all my perceptions are just my own subjective perceptions. For a matter of fact, that's why my acceptance of others is unconditional, because I know that my perceptions are not always accurate. You, on the other hand, don't unconditionally care towards others and justify your behaviour by stating that you are free to not care about others. While I respect other people's freedom, at the end of the day one must logically discern which option is the best for everyone, including yourself. Is the option of unconditionally caring about everyonr and accepting our own limitations the better option or is the option of not unconditionally caring and "tolerate" those who in our own subjective perceptions are incorrect and "bad", in order to supposedly preserve our "freedom"?

I beg to differ:

"tol·er·ance
–noun
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
4. the act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance

While I agree that the word tolerance has gotten a slightly negative sound to it over the years, the definition says differently.
See, you are defining it as under point 4. which is not the way it's meant when we are talking about, for instance, a tolerant community or country.
Definitions 1 to 3 are the one's that are appropriate in that case.
The original meaning of the word is number 4. The others were just attempts to make it sound better. :rolleyes:

The original meaning of the word is number 4. The others were just attempts to make it sound better. :rolleyes:

Says who ? And even if so, people use it like in 1, 2 and 3 all the time.

Truthseeker is actualy right on one point, tolerance does equate to enduring something unpleasant.
It is a word which does imply negativity.

I think the fact those other definitions are in a dictionary is only an example of disgusting political correctness, I hate how they think they can change reality to make people feel better.

To tolerate is to peacefully endure. Period.

My point is, to demand more than tolerance from people is to descend back towards intolerance yourself.
Tolerance is the ceiling.

You can't make people like things they innately don't like, you can expect them to refrain from actively trying to destroy or change what they don't like, that is tolerance. It works because it only requires that you don't do bad things, it doesn't require you to do anything you don't want to do or change any beliefs you have the right to posess.
Just don't infringe on anyone else, it's easy.

And it does not fall short, whether you can understand it or not you are proposing fascism when you aim to "improve upon" tolerance.
You're gearing things towards a certain mindset that you harbour and your goal is to get others thinking like you. I know you're %100 convinced it's the right mindset to have and that the whole world would be better off if everyone had that mindset, but tolerance is all about understanding that others are different and that even if you don't like the way they are, they have a right to be that way, and you have no right to change them, you have to peacefully endure them the way they are, even if you don't like it.

So you see you are yet to reach the pinnacle of tolerance, you say you exceed it, but it's only for certain groups of people (mostly ethnic minorities no doubt, god love you), not biggots I'd wager.

Truthseeker is actualy right on one point, tolerance does equate to enduring something unpleasant.
It is a word which does imply negativity.

I think the fact those other definitions are in a dictionary is only an example of disgusting political correctness, I hate how they think they can change reality to make people feel better.

To tolerate is to peacefully endure. Period.

My point is, to demand more than tolerance from people is to descend back towards intolerance yourself.
Tolerance is the ceiling.

You can't make people like things they innately don't like, you can expect them to refrain from actively trying to destroy or change what they don't like, that is tolerance. It works because it only requires that you don't do bad things, it doesn't require you to do anything you don't want to do or change any beliefs you have the right to posess.
Just don't infringe on anyone else, it's easy.

And it does not fall short, whether you can understand it or not you are proposing fascism when you aim to "improve upon" tolerance.
You're gearing things towards a certain mindset that you harbour and your goal is to get others thinking like you. I know you're %100 convinced it's the right mindset to have and that the whole world would be better off if everyone had that mindset, but tolerance is all about understanding that others are different and that even if you don't like the way they are, they have a right to be that way, and you have no right to change them, you have to peacefully endure them the way they are, even if you don't like it.

So you see you are yet to reach the pinnacle of tolerance, you say you exceed it, but it's only for certain groups of people (mostly ethnic minorities no doubt, god love you), not biggots I'd wager.

Perhaps. I'm guessing you are just wording your own interpretation of 'tolerance' which, of course, is heavily influenced by it's usage by other people.

Tolerance can also mean 'to allow something others see as enduring something unpleasant'.
The Netherlands for example is kind of known for it's tolerance. Gay marriage etc. is allowed and this is not viewed as enduring something unpleasant. Maybe by some biggots, but not by the general population.

I can barely stand Enmos.

Would never tolerate him.

I can barely stand Enmos.

Would never tolerate him.

You LOVE me. Why are you so scared to admit it ? :(

You LOVE me. Why are you so scared to admit it ? :(
Cuz you wont go down on me.

Cuz you wont go down on me.

I might, if you look like your avatar.. I somehow doubt that though :p

It implies that the object that is tolerated is bad

No it doesn't only YOU make it seem that way because you say so.

Perhaps. I'm guessing you are just wording your own interpretation of 'tolerance' which, of course, is heavily influenced by it's usage by other people.

Tolerance can also mean 'to allow something others see as enduring something unpleasant'.
The Netherlands for example is kind of known for it's tolerance. Gay marriage etc. is allowed and this is not viewed as enduring something unpleasant. Maybe by some biggots, but not by the general population.
That's because they don't just tolerate it. They go a step further.

That's because they don't just tolerate it. They go a step further.

It's called tolerance.
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

No, it's not. Tolerance can even accomodate hatred. Tolerance is only an absence of harmful action towards another individual. That's all.

For example, the Nazis tolerated the Jews before WWII.

For example, the Nazis tolerated the Jews before WWII.

Words can have more than one meaning you know..

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

Enmos, did you get a bloody dictionary for Christmas or something?

Enmos, did you get a bloody dictionary for Christmas or something?

No, I use the online one. The great thing is that it's free and accessible to everyone.

To tolerate is to peacefully endure. Period.

If you show tolerance towards someone because of non-agreement you don't show anything to keep the peace.
If you show intolerance because of non-agreement you dogmaticaly show how you feel in a negative way ,that leaves no room for any aceptance of rights to what you don't believe.

to be tolerant is good you control your emotion for the benefit of others
to be intolerant is bad you lose your cool with no respect for others

,

If you look to hard for something you will not see.
if you look to far for meaning you may miss it and realise the anwser was there at the begining but the simplicity makes it unbelievable for the mind to accept

I'd stay. Have you ever been for umra or hajj?We Americans have sanitized ourselves into a state of intolerance in the literal sense: We cannot tolerate people who do not practice our standards of hygiene because we literally cannot bear the odor. I cannot sit next to a person from a culture that does not believe in deodorants, oral hygiene, and a shower every couple of days. It brings me almost to the point of nausea, and surely to the point that I can't focus my attention on anything but the odor. It disrupts workplaces; people can't concentrate and accomplish anything in meetings or work cubicles. And it makes public transportation even more hideously awful than it naturally is.

Obviously this is a matter of culture clash since many people were raised in countries where what we consider a minimum standard of hygiene was a luxury. But there's another thread growing about "assimilation" and the Melting Pot. The Melting Pot is about give-and-take, but that doesn't apply to everything in "American culture." If someone wants to live here, they have to assimilate to our hygiene standards; there is no compromise allowed.

As for the religious rituals you mention, if they stink they will never be accepted in America. Even our athletes use such heavy deodorants that most of them don't smell too terribly awful after a hard game--and they run at full speed to the nearest shower, where the locker rooms are thoroughly air conditioned and freshened.For example, the Nazis tolerated the Jews before WWII.That's not exactly accurate. About all you can say is that they hadn't started rounding them up and killing them yet. During the 1930s they banned them from a steadily expanding list of occupations and had begun appropriating their property by various sorts of chicanery.

Perhaps your timeline is a little imprecise and you really mean that the Germans tolerated the Jews up until the Nazis began rising to power as a result of Germany's humiliating defeat in WWI. I think that would be a fairly accurate statement.