Tolerating the Intolerant (1 Viewer)

[Rosalie]

Do they equally tolerate our views?

….They make a truth claim that homosexuality is normal and anyone who says differently doesn’t know what they are talking about, they are wrong……they are intolerant.

Then they turn around and whose views do THEY NOT TOLERATE?

I found this in an old thread, about closet homosexuality/homophobia.

This has to be the thing that bothers me the most about the homophobic position.

Homosexuality and homophobia are not on equal stand points. It doesn't make any sense! Why should someone tolerate your outdated, discriminative views on homosexuality just because they ask you to be tolerate? Isn't that a contradiction anyway?

This has a much bigger scope though - in general, intolerance isn't something we should have to tolerate. This is NOT hypocrisy - as tolerating intolerance is only indirectly endorsing it. There are PLENTY of things we don't tolerate because we have good reason for it, rape and physical violence for instance. We don't tolerate intolerance towards homosexuality and whatnot because it has no logical basis and tends to lead to bad things happen to homosexuals. Homosexuality isn't even a choice to begin with. It's a natural state of being.

I hate when people oversimplify things just so they can make their stupid arguments.

There are other arguments this applies to, but this is the main one. Overall, it comes from people who really aren't relativists pushing relativism as backing for their otherwise indenfensible views.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Why should someone tolerate your outdated, discriminative views on homosexuality just because they ask you to be tolerant? Isn't that a contradiction anyway?

You're willing to silence people who disagree with your moral viewpoints. You think certain attitudes shouldn't be allowed to be publicized, and that your moral attitudes should be imposed on society as a whole.

Why should someone tolerate you, and your attempts to limit public discourse?

There are other arguments this applies to, but this is the main one. Overall, it comes from people who really aren't relativists pushing relativism as backing for their otherwise indenfensible views.

And then you get relativists who don't understand that the statement "there are no objective moral truths" also applies to their own dearly-held moral values, like "human rights", "non-aggression", and "tolerance". Those are your values, and they may not be shared by the people you're arguing against.

At least they are willing to admit that they have moral values, and they're willing to act upon them-- however odious those moral values may be.

 

[Rosalie]

You're willing to silence people who disagree with your moral viewpoints.

This kind of attitude drives me up the wall. You have little interest in real debate, just demonising your opponent. Whereas liberals usually have a reason to be upset and act base on that, you often seem to be the opposite.

It is not about "my" morals. It is about what morals work the best for everyone. Homophobic morals do not. They strip a large number of people of important rights and recognition just for a tiny, tiny bit of comfort for the majority that isn't in any way necessary. Just because some idiot decides that people with green hair should be punched in the face, or something equally obscure and ridiculous, doesn't mean it's in any way a valid belief. You were probably brought up that way - but it's false. Logic and reason exists for a reason. That's why it's bloody annoying when conservatives(and some whacky liberals) pull the relativist card - you can't argue with them, even though they're logically in the wrong.

Morals are often logically determinable, as much as you hate to hear that.

If you're going to argue relativist - don't bother arguing at all. Just say "I am a relativist" and leave the topic. It is impossible to have logical debate with a relativist as there is no constant frame of reference, no agreed upon middle ground, and no hope of any progress since progress is subjective.

 

[Mach]

More later, but:

What's an objective moral value?
How is it different from a choice?

Is it written in some constellation of stars in the Milky Way? I may have slept in class that day...

-Mach

 

[FallingPianos]

in general, intolerance isn't something we should have to tolerate.

what action are you suggesting be taken against homophobes?

 

[FallingPianos]

It is not about "my" morals. It is about what morals work the best for everyone.

as judged by you?

 

[rathi]

"Tolerate" is not a specific term. It generally means that you accept an action that you do not agree with. However the degree of acceptance can very.

I tolerate homophobia as a valid expression of free speech. I don't tolerate homophobia as a reason for legislative actions or violence.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

You have little interest in real debate, just demonising your opponent.

What else do you expect from someone "almost as bad" as the bigots you're opposing? I am not the one attempting to "demonise" anyone; I am arguing against bad philosophy and bad policy by demonstrating how your stated beliefs are inconsistent with eachother.

It is not about "my" morals. It is about what morals work the best for everyone.

And this is in your own opinion... because that is all morality is. You cannot reject the doctrine of legally imposing moral beliefs on others, and then claim the right to impose your moral beliefs because they are somehow more "logical" than your enemies'.

That's why it's bloody annoying when conservatives(and some whacky liberals) pull the relativist card - you can't argue with them, even though they're logically in the wrong.

On the contrary, you can argue with them, and you can argue successfully. In order to do so, however, you must surrender the comforting-- but ultimately false-- belief that you are absolutely correct and that your position is self-evident.

You have to learn to argue the merits of your case according to their moral values, and to actually persuade people instead of simply bludgeoning them with the force of your righteous indignation.

Or you can appeal directly to force, as you are doing when you seek to involve the law-- but then, you forget that there are other people who have other uses for the law as well. It cannot be illegitimate for them to petition the government in support of their moral values, and then legitimate for you to do so.

Morals are often logically determinable, as much as you hate to hear that.

I don't hate to hear it. I hate to hear it without a single shred of evidence, and then I especially hate to hear it repeated after demands for that evidence have not been met.

Argument by assertion does not work.

 

[tecoyah]

Personally....I prefer to ignore intolerance for the most part, simply not worth the effort. Unless of course, the ignorance is directed my way, at which point it must be destroyed....I simply cannot tolerate it!!!!

 

[Rosalie]

as judged by you??

Quite frankly, you can **** off. I'm not in the mood for putting up with relativist nonsense. You can inject this illogic into just about everything - relativism does nothing but make arguing impossible. It's not about what I think should be right and wrong, it's about what a group of educated intelligent people(i.e. and independant comission) logically determine is, as I was endorsing. Where did I say that *I* decide anything?

Again, why doesn't the same thing apply to laws? Who on earth has the right to make up those? Aren't they forcing their opinion as fact?

What else do you expect from someone "almost as bad" as the bigots you're opposing? I am not the one attempting to "demonise" anyone; I am arguing against bad philosophy and bad policy by demonstrating how your stated beliefs are inconsistent with eachother.

No, you're not. You haven't demonstrated in the least how my philosophy is "bad". Again, this is already implemented in britian and some countries in europe. Like many liberals, I have actual facts on my side, you have theories. Facts win out, I'm afraid.

And this is in your own opinion... because that is all morality is.

No, it isn't. Stop pushing moral relativity as fact. I will not argue with a relativist. There are objective factors involved. If I punch someone in the face it WILL hurt someone. If I kill someone's wife, just for the kicks of it, how is there any logical justification for that?

Morals can be reasoned logically. Where the hell do you think atheists get their morals?

and then claim the right to impose your moral beliefs because they are somehow more "logical" than your enemies'.

Logic isn't a buzzword - it's a constant. Since you're far too incompetent to defend many beliefs with anything but relativism, I'm sure you don't like the idea of an objective constant. But it is. Read up on Critical Thinking and Logical Fallacies sometime.

You can't really have an opinion that something is more logical. There are ways of actually determining it.

Going by your logic we could never determine the square root of the intergral of x squared + 12 x because it looks complicated, and everyone could have a different guess at the answer.

On the contrary, you can argue with them, and you can argue successfully. In order to do so, however, you must surrender the comforting-- but ultimately false-- belief that you are absolutely correct and that your position is self-evident.

No, you can't. Logic is an objective constant. To surrender logic, means there can be no more logical debate.

You have to learn to argue the merits of your case according to their moral values, and to actually persuade people instead of simply bludgeoning them with the force of your righteous indignation.

I don't have to give a toss about their fairy tale beliefs if they don't hold up logically.

Basically you're saying that people can have any crazy beliefs, vote and act on them, and be completely absolved from any responsibility whatsoever?

I hate to hear it without a single shred of evidence, and then I especially hate to hear it repeated after demands for that evidence have not been met.

Again, where the hell do you think atheists get your morals? They had to come from somewhere to begin with, anyway, there's a reason why most religions and most beliefs have quite a few of the same morals.

Lack of evidence never bothered most conservatives, anyway. And it's not as if they even listen when there's a ton of it.

If something is overall hurting someone, or a group of people in general, or is a path chosen over a conciously known one that could have caused more benefit, it's wrong.
If it is not, or it is helping, it's right.

What's so hard to understand? How can any other morals be logically defensible? It is not my opinion. It is only logical - how can you justify something as being wrong if it doesn't hurt anyone?
Relativism only serves to erase concepts that were fine as they were.
Do you even understand what "right and wrong" originally meant?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

It's not about what I think should be right and wrong, it's about what a group of educated intelligent people...

A group of people you consider educated and intelligent-- in other words, people who agree with you. Plenty of "educated intelligent" people are opposed to the kind of blatantly anti-free speech laws you are promoting.

Again, why doesn't the same thing apply to laws? Who on earth has the right to make up those? Aren't they forcing their opinion as fact?

Yes, they are. And they have the right to do so, for the most part, because we are allowing them to do so-- either because we agree with them, or because we agree with the process that has placed them in positions of authority.

Now, if you would admit that you were also attempting to do this-- impose your opinions on others as law-- and make an argument for why it would be better for us to cooperate, we could have a much more interesting and civilized conversation.

Instead, you are attempting to hide your opinions behind "logic" as if the process of logic itself were not entirely dependent upon the premises you have accepted-- which are not themselves logically derived. To compound this, you are treating these arbitrary premises as "self-evident", insulting people who question them, and then comparing your arguments to simple mathematics.

Please allow me to explain something to you about mathematics: mathematics are a model of the working world, and the only reason they work-- the reason their logic is inviolate-- is that absolutely everyone agrees beforehand upon their premises.

You haven't demonstrated in the least how my philosophy is "bad".

I have, by pointing out that giving any group of people the authority to tell us which opinions are acceptable and which are not is inviting them to abuse this authority and exploit it for their own political gain. I've pointed out that allowing governments to do this in support of your beliefs is also giving them the power to do this in support of other beliefs-- beliefs which neither you nor I might support.

And yet, you have ignored these arguments because they would force you to examine your own beliefs and recognize that they are not self-evident and that you are required to defend them-- if you were at all interested in seeing them adopted by others.

No, it isn't. Stop pushing moral relativity as fact.

Stop pushing your self-contradictory moral opinions as facts. Until you can actually prove that there is some non-arbitrary basis for them, they are your opinions and I will continue to treat them as such.

And as long as you present your opinions in a condescending and self-righteous fashion, I will continue to treat your opinions with the same casual contempt that I reserve for all narrow-minded ideological zealots.

Morals can be reasoned logically.

They can, but not in the fashion that you seem to believe. Moral principles and moral behavior can be reasoned logically, but only on the basis of arbitrarily accepted moral values; if I do not share a value, your policies can only be argued in reference to values we do share.

Where the hell do you think atheists get their morals?

From their childhood conditioning and their own prejudices, just like everyone else. It doesn't matter where they get their morals; what matters is how effectively they promote them.

Logic isn't a buzzword - it's a constant.

Logic is a process; it is a critical thinking tool for making conclusions based on the available data. It is only as reliable as the information that it is based upon. It isn't a "constant", and it is only a buzzword when it is misused by people who do not understand what it is or how it works.

"Logic" can no more be a source of objective morality than "God" or "the Bible" could have been.

Basically you're saying that people can have any crazy beliefs, vote and act on them, and be completely absolved from any responsibility whatsoever?

"Absolution" would suggest that they were wrong in the first place-- that they had sinned or committed a crime and require forgiveness.

Yes, people can have any crazy beliefs they like, and they can vote and act upon them as they see fit. Their responsibility comes in the form that other people have their own beliefs, which they will vote and act upon as they see fit-- up to and including imprisoning or killing those they view as dangerous.

See, I'm not saying that we have to respect other peoples' beliefs solely because they believe them; I'm just not willing to give government the authority to fine or imprison them for holding or expressing those beliefs.

I am fully in favor of smiting racists and homophobes from the face of the planet-- but only in retaliation for their attacks against the person and property of others.

If something is overall hurting someone, or a group of people in general, or is a path chosen over a conciously known one that could have caused more benefit, it's wrong. ... If it is not, or it is helping, it's right.

But the problem is, the thing you're still refusing to understand, is that "harm" and "benefit" are both subjective. Are you referring to their physical health? (That's certainly objective enough, but not necessarily the highest moral good.) Are you referring to their pocketbooks? Dignity? Rights?

You are ignoring these questions, and then expecting everyone else to automatically conform to your answers. Any "morality" based on this approach will be flawed; it will be too inconsistent and too lackluster to stand up to any rigorous examination.

 

[Rosalie]

Korimyr, I'm not going to deal with any of that(I think that JUST MIGHT be the most pseudo-intellectual post I've ever read and my life) for one simple reason.

The measures I am speaking of are already in place in Britian and have not caused the harm you are speaking about. You are wrong. I didn't see you deal with that at all though - your entire post was just taking the relativism issue.

Very few serious moral philosophers endorse relativism. "Benefit" is NOT subjective. Benefit weighs up all positive aspects and tries to determine what "benefits" a person as a whole. It isn't perfectly rounded, but it doesn't have to be. Someone who's being tortured just for the amusement of someone else, how can you defend that as "right"? As long as the fact that objective positive and negative states exist, you cannot make the arrogant presumption of relativism. Read up on Utilitarianism sometime.

Relativism is the poor man's philosophy for people who don't enjoy serious thinking.

Logic is a process; it is a critical thinking tool for making conclusions based on the available data. It is only as reliable as the information that it is based upon. It isn't a "constant", and it is only a buzzword when it is misused by people who do not understand what it is or how it works.

"Logic" can no more be a source of objective morality than "God" or "the Bible" could have been.

Again, Utilitarianism.

You have a very poor grasp of logic if you think it isn't constant. It's the only really constant thing we have. How exactly do YOU think it works, then? Have you even heard of logical fallacies?

 

[Captain America]

Congradulations Rosalie, you are now tied for "Prick Points" over at the "Report-A-Prick" game. And only after being here a few short days! I'm impressed! :2wave:

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I didn't see you deal with that at all though - your entire post was just taking the relativism issue.

That's because, aside from your insults-- which are really growing tiresome-- you're not offering me very much else worth discussing.

"Benefit" is NOT subjective. Benefit weighs up all positive aspects and tries to determine what "benefits" a person as a whole.

Explain to me how this is not subjective? Seems to involve a whole lot of classifying things as "positive" or "negative", and unless you're using the subject's own definitions-- which is subjective in its own way-- you're still having to rely on someone's opinions.

As long as the fact that objective positive and negative states exist, you cannot make the arrogant presumption of relativism. Read up on Utilitarianism sometime.

And as soon as you're capable of proving the existence of these "objective positive and negative states", you might actually have a leg to stand on. In the meantime, you are using condescension to compenstate for several serious misunderstandings about your arguments-- and assuming that I have not already "read up on" Utilitarianism.

The problem with Utilitarianism is, no matter what quality you are trying to maximize-- whether it is "happiness" or "material standard of living" or "health"-- you still have to decide which qualities to maximize and in which order. And thus, even cold, pure Utilitarianism is utterly dependent upon subjective valuations.

You have a very poor grasp of logic if you think it isn't constant. It's the only really constant thing we have. How exactly do YOU think it works, then? Have you even heard of logical fallacies?

Again... a bunch of insults to cover up the fact that you can't justify your arguments-- and now, apparently, simply have no idea what you're talking about.

I've already explained to you what logic is, and how it works. And I'm not even going to touch upon the rich irony of you asking me if I've "heard of logical fallacies"; you have to understand what premises are, and what purpose they serve, before the existence of logical fallacies is even relevant.

So, you can either can the insults and actually try defending your arguments, or you can keep sniping at me and I'll just keep pointing out what an empty shell your entire argument is. Either way, I'm sure I'll be able to find some way of amusing myself.

 

[Mach]

This has a much bigger scope though - in general, intolerance isn't something we should have to tolerate. This is NOT hypocrisy - as tolerating intolerance is only indirectly endorsing it.
.

I agree.

1. People get to choose:
Have societal LAWS
Have no societal LAWS
(Basically order or chaos)

2. People get to choose:
Free
not free

Once "free", with "laws" is accepted, in a multi-person society, it may result in:

PREMISE
In our society, we will enforce through law, the right of all individuals to be maximally, and equally, free.

=====================
So, how does tolerance and intolerance fit in?

Intolerant of maximized, equally applied freedom in the society.
Tolerant of maximized equally applied freedom in the society.

By accepting the premise, one also accepts tolerance of freedoms. To be intolerant of this rule, is to actively NOT agree with the premise. This is ethically wrong (by definition, by agreement), and should indeed be stopped, and punished. Someone who is intolerant of someone elses particular, private, sexual preference, is clearly violating this centeral premise, exhibitng "bad"" behavior. Someone speaking out AGAINST someone who is being intolerant, is clearly in support of this premise, and is ethically making a good choice. People do like to forget the basis of their social compact, or say they never signed anywhere..but they did, it's unspoken, and assumed. Ignorance of the law has never sufficed for bad behavior.

So, people are left to reject the compact, or accept it, and accept the correct statement that tolerance in support of maximal freedom is good, intolerance of maximal freedom is bad. The methods for determinig maximally are just details, significant details, but there is no reason they cannot be derived, and also agreed upon. If someone DEMONSTATED loss of equal freedom, one really will have a hard time defending it as something that should be "tolerated".

This can be argued against intolerance of gays without too much fuss. Everyone knows that denying gays freedoms is based primarily on:
Emotions
Religion

Neither of which trump the premise. Some topics are tricky, or even basically undecideable, but not that one.

-Mach

 

[Rosalie]

you still have to decide which qualities to maximize and in which order.

This is the fatal flaw in your argument - it doesn't have to matter. Just because something is not exact, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is still a "general" constant as to what's good or not. Utilarianism means that it's difficult to determine what's most important to someone, relativism means that you don't give a crap. Which is honestly the most logical stand point?

From a purely practical point of view, whether it's correct or not, relativism is little more than an excuse for being a total annoying dick in arguments.

If you can't logically justify a belief on what hurts and helps people, then it shouldn't be a valid belief. It doesn't matter if it's "my opinion" or not - it's the only thing that works in any way constant.

 

[Kushinator]

So in your point of view, legalization of marijuana would be satisfied under utilitarianist point of views.

Just as keeping it illegal is very much relativist POV here in the US...

Thought that to be quite humorious!

 

[FallingPianos]

Quite frankly, you can **** off.

you will not last long here saying stuff like that.

You can inject this illogic into just about everything - relativism does nothing but make arguing impossible. It's not about what I think should be right and wrong, it's about what a group of educated intelligent people(i.e. and independant comission) logically determine is, as I was endorsing. Where did I say that *I* decide anything?

morals cannot be derived from logic, only their application can be. so basically, what you are suggesting is an educated majority rule system. need I point out how many times in history the educated majority have been wrong?

 

[FallingPianos]

Korimyr, I'm not going to deal with any of that

in other words, you refuse to concede his point or to defend your own.

Someone who's being tortured just for the amusement of someone else, how can you defend that as "right"?

easy, decide that the tortured person has no value and no rights. its done all the time.

You have a very poor grasp of logic if you think it isn't constant. It's the only really constant thing we have. How exactly do YOU think it works, then? Have you even heard of logical fallacies?

no he has it right. Logic is a process. you input information, follow the process, and get an output. the information you input ultimately is not logically derived.

for an overly simplistic example:

causing people suffering is wrong
torture causes people to suffer
therefor torture is wrong

this syllogism requires you to accept the premise that causing people to suffer is wrong, and the premise that torture causes people to suffer. while the latter is universally agreed upon, the former is not, and there is no way to prove it because it is a premise. if any of the premises are false, then the entire argument is unsound.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Can I just point out the irony of starting a thread about the benefits of society refusing to tolerate intolerant points of view -- and then being intolerant of another debater's point of view?

Or is that too obvious to be worth noting?

 

[talloulou]

I found this in an old thread, about closet homosexuality/homophobia.

This has to be the thing that bothers me the most about the homophobic position.

Homosexuality and homophobia are not on equal stand points. It doesn't make any sense! Why should someone tolerate your outdated, discriminative views on homosexuality just because they ask you to be tolerate? Isn't that a contradiction anyway?

This has a much bigger scope though - in general, intolerance isn't something we should have to tolerate. This is NOT hypocrisy - as tolerating intolerance is only indirectly endorsing it. There are PLENTY of things we don't tolerate because we have good reason for it, rape and physical violence for instance. We don't tolerate intolerance towards homosexuality and whatnot because it has no logical basis and tends to lead to bad things happen to homosexuals. Homosexuality isn't even a choice to begin with. It's a natural state of being.

I hate when people oversimplify things just so they can make their stupid arguments.

There are other arguments this applies to, but this is the main one. Overall, it comes from people who really aren't relativists pushing relativism as backing for their otherwise indenfensible views.

I think there is an idea that suggests tolerance equals acceptance which is not necessarily true. Someone who is intolerant towards homosexuals may actually take action in order to bar others from homosexual behavior. Speaking out against homosexuality is not, in my mind, necessarily intolerant. It may be misguided and woefully out of date behavior but it's not behavior that shows intolerance as much as it is behavior that voices non-acceptance.

The distinction is important because anyone should be allowed to voice their opinions about anything without being silenced by anyone regardless of how vulgar those opinions are. As long as it's just a matter of voicing an opinion and not any type of "action" that prohibits others from acting a certain way than it can not really be called intolerance.

 

[Kushinator]

Can I just point out the irony of starting a thread about the benefits of society refusing to tolerate intolerant points of view -- and then being intolerant of another debater's point of view?

Or is that too obvious to be worth noting?

No, thats absolutely hilarious!!!:rofl

 

[Synch]

Or is that too obvious to be worth noting?

I presumed that in order to access the internet and more specifically find this particular forum would require a prerequisite of at least a certain intelligence where such quick understanding of irony and hypocrisy is understood through the deductions of simple logic that requires no derivation from individual opinions.

I am wrong.:2bigcry:





Rosalie do you work with little children?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Can I just point out the irony of starting a thread about the benefits of society refusing to tolerate intolerant points of view -- and then being intolerant of another debater's point of view?

Or is that too obvious to be worth noting?

Darn, beat me to it. :mrgreen:

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

What I find especially interesting, Rosalie, is that, since you often claim that others are making logical fallacies, perhaps you need to be aware of the fact that you are making many ad hominem and non-sequitur fallacies yourself. I agree with your position on homosexuality; in fact I posted much of the facts and factual links supporting and proving this position. Your argumentative, attacking, and often fallacious debating style is actually weakening the position. You are arguing with posters who agree with your stance on homosexuality. Also, your attack on moral relativism places you in the moral absolutist position, a position easily refuted, and, in itself, is actually just another form of moral relativism.

Be that as it may, in order to try to get this thread back on topic, Let's try to start here. What definition of tolerant are you using? Tolerance of ideas? Tolerance of words? Tolerance of behaviors?