The Dangers of Tolerance

[SSanf]

"Why certain beliefs and ideas can (and should) be neither tolerated nor respected."

Whoa! Pretty darned to the point! Yeah! Not all beliefs should be tolerated just because they are beliefs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0SFZqoT9Os

[Lady Aeris]

i agree :) that was interesting- thanks for posting :)

[banondraig]

thanks for sharing.

[David19]

Thanks for the video.

Although, I do just "love" how the beliefs that the guy says shouldn't be tolerated are Islam and Christianity.

And, then he manages to say how Atheism is actually better than religion.

It's funny he says beliefs that divide people shouldn't be tolerated yet doesn't he divide people by basically saying Atheism is "better" than a religion?.

I also love the end of the world paranoia, where he indicates that the world is on the "brink" of nuclear war, kind of like Christian fundies who believe the Apocalypse is approaching.

[SSanf]

Thanks for the video.

Although, I do just "love" how the beliefs that the guy says shouldn't be tolerated are Islam and Christianity.

And, then he manages to say how Atheism is actually better than religion.

It's funny he says beliefs that divide people shouldn't be tolerated yet doesn't he divide people by basically saying Atheism is "better" than a religion?.

I also love the end of the world paranoia, where he indicates that the world is on the "brink" of nuclear war, kind of like Christian fundies who believe the Apocalypse is approaching.Right! LOL! But, you see this is the non-theistic forum which includes Atheists. That is the point of view of many Atheists (not all). Hey! Did I promise logical and consistent? I would never do a thing like that, would I?

[Infinite Grey]

Thanks for the video.

Although, I do just "love" how the beliefs that the guy says shouldn't be tolerated are Islam and Christianity.

And, then he manages to say how Atheism is actually better than religion.

It's funny he says beliefs that divide people shouldn't be tolerated yet doesn't he divide people by basically saying Atheism is "better" than a religion?.

I also love the end of the world paranoia, where he indicates that the world is on the "brink" of nuclear war, kind of like Christian fundies who believe the Apocalypse is approaching.

One could argue that Atheism IS actually better than religion in that people don't kill people in the name of atheism. Naturally atheists are not immune to killing people for other ideals, for example: Many people will killed in the name of communism and democracy, these are not religions but ideologies. In either case the individual could be an atheist or a theist, though I'm sure the theist would find additional justification in their religion, they are both essentially killing for a political ideology.

In order for one human to kill another, dehumanization of the victim is needed, Atheism alone does not provide a method for this in its self (though it is possible, particularly if the person previously based their value in human beings through a deity. But previous religious indoctrination is at the heart of that) Where as a deity can provide a justification for why their victim is less than themselves and deserve to die.

As to CapnOrdinary's implied contradiction, well you kind of missed the point there... he was referring to beliefs and differences that do not cause a direct negative impact; culture, fashion, language, skin colour, food, etc... as being equal. Beliefs that are centered around one group or individual being superior to others are not equal, their very nature prevents true equality; religion, racism, sexism, Nazi, Social Darwinism, etc.

Tolerance and Acceptance in a blurred generalize sense is a must, but when you get to the fine details; it isn't so simple.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

In order for one human to kill another, dehumanization of the victim is needed, Atheism alone does not provide a method for this in its self (though it is possible, particularly if the person previously based their value in human beings through a deity. But previous religious indoctrination is at the heart of that) Where as a deity can provide a justification for why their victim is less than themselves and deserve to die.


Actually , this statement is untrue , by one way
of thinking...

...( have no problem with anything else Peacock...
I have actually grown to respect manyof your posts )...

That would be if a person developed a " God Complex "
they would not have to de - humanize the person , in
order to kill them...they might kill them , because they
were human...and they were a god...Valid ? ( not Vlad )

[Phoenix Blue]

Damn skippy, on all counts. I've long held that extremism, regardless of the religion in which it cloaks itself, is dangerous and mustn't be tolerated.

[Infinite Grey]

Actually , this statement is untrue , by one way
of thinking...

...( have no problem with anything else Peacock...
I have actually grown to respect manyof your posts )...

That would be if a person developed a " God Complex "
they would not have to de - humanize the person , in
order to kill them...they might kill them , because they
were human...and they were a god...Valid ? ( not Vlad )

Well they would be dehumanizing their victims via a delusion. The point is , to kill someone you have to reduce them to being less then yourself. We can't kill those we view as equal or above, our instinctive empathy won't allow it (there are a few exceptions naturally, sociopaths would be an example... and in certain circumstances deaths involving honour [though those examples can be very complex so they tend to fall under dehumanization])


What's with the annoying fonts?

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Well they would be dehumanizing their victims via a delusion. The point is , to kill someone you have to reduce them to being less then yourself. We can't kill those we view as equal or above, our instinctive empathy won't allow it (there are a few exceptions naturally, sociopaths would be an example... and in certain circumstances deaths involving honour [though those examples can be very complex so they tend to fall under dehumanization])


What's with the annoying fonts?

Well , I still disagree with you...I , for instance , if
I had to , would have no problem killing someone I
saw as my equal...be a true , and fair battle...

Better than fighting an inferior...

The fonts ?

To me , default is the most annoying choice ,
and some hate my font , others have told
me they love it...personal taste , heh ?

[Infinite Grey]

Well , I still disagree with you...I , for instance , if
I had to , would have no problem killing someone I
saw as my equal...be a true , and fair battle...

Better than fighting an inferior...

The fonts ?

To me , default is the most annoying choice ,
and some hate my font , others have told
me they love it...personal taste , heh ?

I guess you'll never be sure until you're put into a position in which to test your theory there... the Milgram and a few other studies would disagree with you... but I'm sure everyone would like to believe better of them selves.

Some people also use pink over orange and think it looks good, doesn't make it true. There is taste and there are eyesores, your font is ugly as a primary text format and so is the overuse of Italics... but what ever, do as you want.

[shadowmoon23]

are you guys serious about fighting over if Shawns font looks good?? if this was supposed to be intellectual conversation, you seriously deminished your "points" by fighting over something as insignificant as font choice...




and i personally love your font Shawn

[Infinite Grey]

are you guys serious about fighting over if Shawns font looks good?? if this was supposed to be intellectual conversation, you seriously deminished your "points" by fighting over something as insignificant as font choice...


and i personally love your font Shawn

It's a sub-discussion, if you choose to ignore the intellectual elements of the discussion that's not our problem.

No accounting for taste ;)

[LadyWinter]

are you guys serious about fighting over if Shawns font looks good?? if this was supposed to be intellectual conversation, you seriously deminished your "points" by fighting over something as insignificant as font choice...




and i personally love your font Shawn

Your one of his students. That is hardly shocking as you look at it all the time.

Winter

[Xentor]

Ooh, the dangers of tolerance...
1) Do not tolerate other people's choice of fonts
2) Do not tolerate other people discussing other people's choice of fonts
3) Do not tolerate other people discussing other people discussing other people's choice of fonts
4) Do not tolerate people hijacking a perfectly good thread

Wow. We're really tolerant, aren't we? I know I'm not.

[Shanti]

Its not the belief that requires non-tolerance....its the acting on the belief that need to be non-tolerated.
Believe what you want, I can respect that but don't act harmfully on it.

[Xentor]

Hear hear. :thumbsup:

[David19]

Its not the belief that requires non-tolerance....its the acting on the belief that need to be non-tolerated.
Believe what you want, I can respect that but don't act harmfully on it.

Like what Xentor said, I really agree with your post.

Like I can't stop a fundamentalist Christian (or Muslim) thinking I'm going to burn in Hell 'cause I'm gay and Pagan, but I don't care that they believe it, I just am against them acting on it.

[Infinite Grey]

Its not the belief that requires non-tolerance....its the acting on the belief that need to be non-tolerated.
Believe what you want, I can respect that but don't act harmfully on it.

I tend to agree... though there is a danger in this, and it is apparent. I'll use the example David19 has so fortunately provided. Let us say there is a group of people that believe homosexuality is an evil thing, but take the action of loving the person but hating the sin. This group would describe moderate Christians (in a general sense), so they are against the act of homosexuality but will not take direct action against the people. BUT when it comes to passing laws, or electing an official; they'll tend to vote or support the action that most coincides with their beliefs. In this case, that would hampering the installment and recognition of Same Sex Marriages - or Same Sex couples adopting...

The danger of tolerating a person's beliefs isn't exclusively limited to the extreme cases; in fact the extreme cases are far easier to deal with. The "Moderates" of these ignorant belief systems hold the real power of social change. In order for these people to NOT effectively influence other people's lives they would have to separate themselves completely from their beliefs while interacting with other people - this is nigh on impossible.

[Nox_Mortus]

I tend to agree... though there is a danger in this, and it is apparent. I'll use the example David19 has so fortunately provided. Let us say there is a group of people that believe homosexuality is an evil thing, but take the action of loving the person but hating the sin. This group would describe moderate Christians (in a general sense), so they are against the act of homosexuality but will not take direct action against the people. BUT when it comes to passing laws, or electing an official; they'll tend to vote or support the action that most coincides with their beliefs. In this case, that would hampering the installment and recognition of Same Sex Marriages - or Same Sex couples adopting...

The danger of tolerating a person's beliefs isn't exclusively limited to the extreme cases; in fact the extreme cases are far easier to deal with. The "Moderates" of these ignorant belief systems hold the real power of social change. In order for these people to NOT effectively influence other people's lives they would have to separate themselves completely from their beliefs while interacting with other people - this is nigh on impossible.

The issue here is by not tolerating such beliefs you are essentially imposing your beliefs on others, which is dangerous because it can be taken too far, much like the belief that gays are evil, not tolerating it can be just as dangerous as tolerating it.

[Infinite Grey]

The issue here is by not tolerating such beliefs you are essentially imposing your beliefs on others, which is dangerous because it can be taken too far, much like the belief that gays are evil, not tolerating it can be just as dangerous as tolerating it.

Yes it becomes and an endless cycle... one of the strengths and weaknesses of a democratic system.

The only validity of "my" beliefs is that it consists of allowing non-negative or positive inducing beliefs to thrive. The danger in there lies in what is classified as a negative belief or a positive belief. Vegans could hypothetically fall under the same classification as the moderate Christians if use their beliefs to restrict the consumption of meat products under similar circumstances.

Restricting these passive actions would not be a solution, encouraging other modes of thought would be far more beneficial

[Golias]

Its not the belief that requires non-tolerance....its the acting on the belief that need to be non-tolerated.
Believe what you want, I can respect that but don't act harmfully on it.

I agree.

It's not the belief that's in your head, but what those beliefs tell you to do that matters.

You can believe that I, as an unbeliever should be deprived of some or all of my civil rights, but the attempt to manifest this belief in the material world is the start of the problem.

That is why I support a secular society in which all may hold the religious beliefs they may wish, but not use those beliefs to oppress others who do not.

Golias