Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
tolerance is to accept the behavior to which you disagree. This is fine on cultural issues, and subjective topics and behaviors. It is not possible on moral issues. Those who are tolerant of acts that are in conflict with their moral position are the true hypocrites.
If rape is acceptable in one culture and applicable under a certain set of rules and guidelines, being tolerant of this action would be to be permissive of the behavior and accepting of it. You don't have to "agree" with it, but then whether you agree or not is irrelevant if your tolerance of it allows it to continue its behavior. In essence, it becomes lack of action to stop it is essentially condoning its action.
Now how many would be tolerant of a culture that allows rape under their own conditions? I don't think many would "accept" it at all. This is the fallacy of "moral relativity" which is really where the concept of "tolerance" falls flat on its face. Cultural relativity is a sound concept as it deals with the subjective aspects of "tolerance" and acceptance. Be it the clothing people wear, the foods they eat, etc...
Moral conflicts can not be relative. A society can not exist in harmony when it has direct conflicts in moral areas. As with my example, rape would be outlawed and tolerance would not be allowed of the behavior. One moralistic belief would surpass the other forcing submission.
In terms of "abortion", those who disagree with the action believe it to be murder. Tolerating it in any form is to accept it and those who accept it are nothing more than hypocrites of their own belief. If they believe it to be murder, calling those who violate that moral position anything other than a murder is accepting of the practice. Both sides can not live in harmony in this moral dilemma. One must force the other to submit or accept the inevitable demise of that society.
The OP seems to forget that it is the Liberals, not the conservatives who claim to be the party of tolerance. Conservatives tend to SEEM more intolerant because they stand up for what they believe in. Liberals dont. They tend to quickly run away when confronted.
You've actually contradicted yourself w/this post. If liberals couldn't stand up for what they believe in, then why do you see so many posts that annoy you? Has anyone here run away from you? I can say that I for one would never run away from what I believe in. So, bring it on if that's the case.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,027,552 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
She should also consider natural order.
I bet msconnie will like that comment.
Huh???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
