[achtung]

Like say, Swantz, who has nothing better to do except whine all the time about what people say.

I think you misunderstood my post good sir.

[blowfish]

No, this isn't the only incident he's referring to.

[blackhole]

While I think that comparing him to rapists was excessive, otherwise I don't have any sympathy. After years of harrassment by religious people when I was in primary and secondary school and often being told I was going to go to hell for being an atheist, I find it quite hard to care when these religious types get a taste of their own medicine.

Except my friend isn't a very religious person. He believes in the afterlife, and maybe jesus, but doesn't really go to church, and respects all atheists (or he wouldn't be my friend). He would *never* tell anyone they're going to hell for being an atheist. He'd *never* do anything to hurt them, disrespect them, or anything that might insult them the slightest bit. Does he deserve this treatment? Merely because he is religious?

[Triple Ace]

Being tolerant of everyone isn't advisable. I'm not tolerant of serial killers or rapists or all those other poeple. However, I find the complete lack of tolerance that many people have to be downright disturbing. I'm not saying we should all be tolerant to everyone in some utopian society, I'm just making the point that people should be more tolerant of others.

There is an extent to where tolerance is good. Criminal acts are not tolerable, this is why we have laws and a justice systems. Things like race, religion, place of origin, and sexual preferance is what should be at least tolerable. It would be better if those things were accepted, but, there are just too many stupid people out there. Since I moved from Rhode Island to Tennessee, I have become a victom of intolerance just because I am from a northern state. My co-workers have tried to get me fired from my job because they think I am what they call, a stupid yankee. I'm sick of it.

[Flipside]

We learn to label things by obvious differences, when we were tribal, a large black and orange twitching thing in the bushes, for example, meant 'find another path, fast.'. Back then it was about survival, you didn't stop and think about whether the Tiger would starve to death if it didn't get food, because you were more concerned about not being food.

Problem is, we congregated far faster than we overcame that habit of labelling things, and we naturally jump to a whole heap of conclusions from obvious 'labels', camp people are obviously gay, people with Texan accents are obviously Bible-Bashers etc.

We live in a Global community but still have far far too many tribal habits.

[blackhole]

We live in a Global community but still have far far too many tribal habits.

Which is why I'm on a soapbox preaching tolerance under a leaky tent.

[Flipside]

Well, I think the thing that is hardest for anyone to understand is that there is no right answer, only your answer. However, that doesn't mean people have to be derogatory or insulting to people who don't agree with them, that is tribal thinking at its' highest level, 'You not wear pink hair, you not member of Pink Hair Tribe. You Strange. Must ridicule and belittle strange things, it takes away my fear of it.'

[Kosh]

Does he deserve this treatment? Merely because he is religious?

I didn't deserve it either, but that didn't stop it from happening. Welcome to our world.

[achtung]

No, this isn't the only incident he's referring to.

Oh?  Please, do elaborate.

[blowfish]

Just various things you've said, like this (though I might have deserved that), and this

[achtung]

How does that qualify as whining?  I mean if you wanted to get really technical about it, sure, but I felt I was telling those folks to stop whining.

[blowfish]

Well, not whining per se, but just general complaining.

[achtung]

You take my posts far too seriously.

[blowfish]

You have a strange definition of serious ...

Now that you mention it, I can sort of see a less serious side of those posts.  It doesn't come across at first though.  Try adding a smiley

[General Battuta]

I'm only a year older than you, blackhole, but I think you'll find as you explore your world -- with college and such -- that things really aren't this simple.

It sounds like you're pretty pissed off about certain specific things that've happened to you. I had similar feelings at your age, as do many teenagers, and they passed. I'm very happy now, and I accept that, unfortunately, crap happens, including intolerant people.

That doesn't keep me from being pissed off now and again -- a recent argument here on HLP can attest to that -- but I tend not to hold grudges any more. People will be people.

I hope you find the same kind of peace.

[Nuke]

why the **** do you think im on weed all the time

That had nothing to do with that.  I was just thinking you might be implying that you are not a life form.  Apparently I was wrong...

what else would i be? god? a voice in your head? i dont get you people

[blowfish]

A robot, a figment of my imagination ... its crazy, but you never know

EDIT: Or a hyperintelligent shade of the color blue ... err ... is that an organism?

[ShadowGorrath]

An imaginary friend. Someone imagines you, and you post something.

[Herra Tohtori]

Tolerance of people and tolerance of actions are two separate things.
Tolerance of thoughts belong in the former, intolerance of intolerance into latter.


Tolerance of people (thoughts, ideas, personalities, everything that doesn't affect anyone else) should be pretty clear. Voltaire said it perhaps the best: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Tolerance of actions (things that affect other people) is a different matter altogether, and is not quite so simple matter to place into a group of things that should or should not be tolerated... However, I'd say that in most cases* it is the opinion of the affected that defines the category. If you are hurt or insulted by someone's actions, you don't need to tolerate it. In the Internet the obvious correct course of action regarding idiots is to distance yourself from the argument abuse rather than get sucked into a mutual virtual excrement flinging contest to the trolls' amusement.


Of course, no one's there to ask the murder victims' opinions, yet we place that sort of behaviour strictly to "not tolerated", except if it's done in great numbers and to the sounds of trumpets, but that's a different matter. Of course, tolerance of euthanasia touches this one pretty close...

*Cases where the opinion of the affected is not considered important [EDIT: or valid] are pretty interesting case in themselves by the way. As a homework - in which cases it would be acceptable to use general opinion as the authority of placement into "tolerated" or "not tolerated" category?

[NGTM-1R]

what else would i be? god? a voice in your head? i dont get you people

My kitchen chair. I knew that damn thing was out to kill the world.