doughgirl said:
Saboteur says, "TOLERANCE IS FREEDOM!"
tol•er•ance
Pronunciation: 'tä-l&-r&n(t)s, 'täl-r&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : ENDURANCE, FORTITUDE, STAMINA
2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : TOLERATION
free•dom
Pronunciation: 'frE-d&m
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : INDEPENDENCE c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care> d : EASE, FACILITY <spoke the language with freedom> e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom> f : improper familiarity g : boldness of conception or execution h : unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>
2 a : a political right b : FRANCHISE, PRIVILEGE
doughgirl said:
Contrary to popular definitions, true tolerance means "putting up with error"-NOT "being accepting of ALL views." By definition what we tolerate is what we dissaprove of or what we believe to be false and erroneous. If dissagreement did not exist, tolerance would be unnecessary. It is only because differences exist between people that tolerance becomes necessary.
Ah relativism....one of the ironies of relativism is that it exalts tolerance to the status of an absolute. I can interact with a Muslim while still believing on rational grounds that he is mistaken. True tolerance grants people the right and opportunity to dissent, to disagree. It doenst mean I have to sit by and tolerate the behavior however. I can try to change if.
You however think I am intolerant because I think abortion is murder and I am not pro-choice. You are pro-abortion and pro-choice and I think you are wrong. You criticize me for this view. But I ask you this.....Are you being accepting of my position?
You’ve just defined the meaning of tolerance the popular way. I do not wish to discuss at length my meaning of tolerance being freedom so I will ask you to read the definitions above. I think you are smart enough to make the connection. As for your position, I am accepting of it in that I understand it. What you have mistaken for criticism on my part of you is really my defense against your attack of the position I take and that you think is wrong.
doughgirl said:
Are you being tolerant towards me? The relativist simply cant be accepting of all positions as true without falling into contradictions.
I believe I am tolerant towards you in that I haven’t done anything against you except have a belief that differs from yours. You may think that there is a paradox in tolerance and the view of the relativist but I offer you then the paradox that is the United States of America and ask you; Do you really think you have the right to go beyond the laws of this country that protect
everyone without discrimination and put a stop to the behavior you deem wrong or mistaken without consequence?
doughgirl said:
I believe God makes tolerance intelligible, because God is the source of truth and because I believe God made human beings in His own likeness. For those who do not believe in God I would ask them this........ If tolerance is a value, FREEDOM as you call it, (it isnt obvious from nature), and if there is no God, and we are just hunks of cells, how could tolerance be an objective value at all? In the absence of truth, power really is the only game in town. And today power is being waged against the innocent unborn child.
I believe as well in a higher intelligence with a goal for creation however I also believe that while some things may be predestined that there is still free will both in humans and nature. These are obvious truths of the world and the life in it. Therefore tolerance is a value in that the truth of free will exists and goes on without hindrance.
doughgirl said:
Why respect anothers personal FREEDOM if objective truth doesnt exist?
Irrelevant, all truth exists without God. The law of both God and Man dictate that one will respect another’s personal freedom without question. That is the truth. God exist because people have faith that God exists and that is how god wants it. That is the truth.
doughgirl said:
Across our campuses in this country cries are heard against the evils of Western civilization. These radicals who advocate multicultural curriculums really have no grounds for condemning the West if MORALITY is relative. Because how could morally relativistic feminists condemn abortions based on sex selection in countries like India and China, where girls are killed on a daily basis in favor of boys? .[/QUOTE]
Morality is not relative however few things in this world are as cut and dry as Life and Death.
doughgirl said:
You say I am not tolerant. Should we have tolerated Hitler?
The people of the United States were barely aware of Hitler’s persecution of the jews and gays, political opponents and artists. And 80% of our nation did not want to get involved in what was to become WWII until after the Japanese bombing of Pear Harbor. Yesterday was Pearl Harbor day I hope you remembered those who fought for the freedom of our country so that it could be as it is today. It wasn’t until after WWII that the full extent of Hitler’s evil was discovered.
doughgirl said:
I dislike the Ku Klux Klan but I am not about to sacrifice my first amendment right so that they can be disbanded. So yes, as much I don’t like it, we do now tolerate the KKK and we will continue so long as this country is free.
doughgirl said:
I am not fully versed on Pol Pot and cannot comment.
doughgirl said:
Would you classify this tolerance as.......FREEDOM? Good?
Is there any moral difference between Mother Teresa and Hitler?
Tolerance has a part in freedom and visa versa so yes it is good.
Why? should we turn our country into a totalitarian state of servitude based on Judeo-Christian oppression?
doughgirl said:
I'll finish by saying this......posing these questions.
You think it is morally wrong to impose your values on someone else-that this shouldnt be done? (It is wrong for me to judge those who get abortions)
I would ask you then.... Who are you to impose your morality on those who want to impose their morality on others?
Being Pro-Choice does not
impose anything (have you been forced to have an abortion?) and morality has little to do with it. I don’t want anyone to have an abortion if they choose not too. I would prefer contraception over using abortion as birth control. I would love for every 12 year old that has been raped by there father and is carrying his incestuous child to give it up for adoption. However not every one wants these things for
themselves. And I do not think that they should be
forced to do something they do not want to because it is intolerable to people like you who only have a choice not a mandate.
doughgirl said:
Last question.........if your sister were being raped would you stand by and do nothing because you wouldnt want to impose your morality on the rapist?
Of course I would not stand by, and it isn’t a question of imposing my morality on a rapist because a rapist does not value morality. Therefore he forfeits a right to defend
his actions by claiming that it is his moral belief which justifies them. And I can deliver justice using the authority of law as is myh right.
doughgirl said:
I would hope you would say no. That is why I will work until the day I die to stop the slaughter of the innocent, the unborn child. Work hard to change unjust laws and to educate people. I cant tolerate this behavior, the viewpoint that says, lets kill the unborn child, they dont have the right to live. I'm gonna do something about it.
So you have just backed up my view on the rape scenario you seem obsessed with and have discredited your own rationale in doing so. You can do all the work you have a right to do against what you do not agree with. I will not stop you or anyone else, I do tolerate your point of view and the mission you take in life. I do not appreciate that you think an unborn child who is not guilty of crime
but not innocent of crime either (as it has no choice in, or knowledge of, right and wrong until it is born and develops a personality based on it’s genetics and environment) is slaughter when it is not it’s own person until born. Before then it is physically a part of it’s mother who has the
will to end its development if she so chooses whether or not it is legal in the law of man or your God. Yet
you cannot tolerate the laws of your own god and government and wish to force your morality upon those who may not even choose to excersize their right. Explain how that isn’t hypocrisy in every sense of the word!
I doubt you will. Because you haven't listened to me before nor have you answered MY questions of you.