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.
No, they're not. To accept is to approve. That's clearly different from tolerance, which is the OP's point. Forcing me to associate with those I do not approve is not just asking for tolerance, it's demanding approval (at the end of a gun, no less). "Your bakery WILL provide a cake to this homosexual "marriage", even if you don't approve"! "You WILL hire this man even though he wears dresses"!
It's funny you don't see the contradiction of 'treating people equally' while at the same time having protected classes. An employer can't legally fire me for wearing high heels to a client meeting, but he could if he catches me smoking a cigarette on my lunch break.
If I could state it better in my own words, I would. But I think this is a pretty accurate description:
Tolerance is the last virtue of a depraved society. When an immoral society has blatantly and proudly violated all the commandments, it insists upon one last virtue, tolerance for its immorality. It will not tolerate condemnation of its perversions. It creates a whole new world in which only the intolerant critic of intolerable evil is evil. ~Hutton Gibson
You lost all credibility with me when you quote Hutton Gibson. This is a man who doesn't believe that the Holocaust occurred, but does believe in many other conspiracy theories. Further, the whole world doesn't revolve around the Ten Commandments.
Hence, an example of how I believe each person has various levels of tolerance within him/her. Because I have zero tolerance for the thinking of men like Hutton Gibson.
Tolerance is the last virtue of a depraved society. When an immoral society has blatantly and proudly violated all the commandments, it insists upon one last virtue, tolerance for its immorality. It will not tolerate condemnation of its perversions. It creates a whole new world in which only the intolerant critic of intolerable evil is evil.
That's actually pretty good. Very realistic, like it or not.
Just wanted to jump in to say I've been wondering about the OP's topic for a long time. I feel that certain groups of people force "tolerance or bigotry" on society these days, but I've never thought being "tolerated" was a terribly flattering way to be viewed.
The modern definition of tolerance is much different from what it used to mean. Today "tolerance" means total acceptance of counterculture lifestyles and left wing darling groups like homosexuals, cross dressers, ethnic minorities and certain women's groups. It also means embracing government efforts to enforce this new "tolerance" through new laws and special rights for these groups. Not being "tolerant" in todays world means you have been labeled a backward racist who should be punished socially and economically for not complying with the new standards.
Tolerance is just that and I don't know where people are getting these ideas that liberals are forcing or wanting to force people to do more than be respectful of others and their choices. Is it because we want laws for those people? Because we are against discrimination? Because we believe certain people, like transgenders, should be treated equally, be a protected class and offered the same rights and protections as everyone else? That is just creating and extending equality, and it's not forcing you to do anything. You aren't required to be friends with transgenders, you won't be forced to marry/be married to/attend a gay wedding, you won't be forced to hang out with people of other religions or races. You can stay in your monocramatic bubble and no one will care. The only thing you will be "forced" to do is treat and provide services to those "different" people with the same courtesy you would "normal" people.
(And "tolerate" and "accept" are synonyms.)
The problem is when one person's freedom and choices interfere with the freedom and rights of others.
To take just one example, if a transgendered person who still appears in every way in their physical appearance to be one biological sex -- I have read that the definition of sex is being changed in some circles to mean what gender a person feels or thinks s/he is -- insists on his/her right to use the restroom and/or locker room designated for the other biological sex, then it might cause some of the people in that restroom or locker room to be uncomfortable, embarrassed and/or alarmed, even if no harm by the apparently opposite sex person is intended. (PC certainly makes for some convoluted sentences, doesn't it?)
However, if someone appears to be female and does not appear or do anything to show that he (or she) is anything else, then I don't think there would be any problem in that person using facilities for females. The problem comes when, using JUST this one example, a transgendered person insists that everyone lets him or her do whatever s/he wants, regardless.
So, to repeat, I think the problem is when the rights of one person interfere with the rights of the majority; and I for one don't think I should be forced to tolerate the trampling on or infringement of my rights and freedoms. (And to be clear, I am completely against tolerating any kind of abuse or cruelty whatsoever to ANYONE except for possibly child torturer or murderers of ANY sexuality! In my opinion, being "forced" to tolerate seeing two lesbians showing kissing in public is one thing; having to display my naked female bod to an apparently male stranger is something else entirely.)
And, for the record, I think that as long as no actual laws are being broken, people should not be forced to tolerate anything -- although it is certainly not too much to ask, I think, for kindness to be shown to people whose condition and choices do not harm anyone else.
P.S. I do find it annoying, though, to feel forced to use lengthy and complicated PC language rather than risk offending someone and possibly even incurring some kind of fine. If someone looks like a man, whatever his or her genitalia, I have no problem referring to that person as he or him, but I really dislike feeling I have to walk on eggshells now when writing about sex and sexuality.
I can tolerate people that I do not agree with. I don't embrace them though or accept their way of life.
Choices are something that people make. We love the people even though we may not like or accept the choices. What that means is that I am not going to spend time hanging out with those living a life I don't want to be a part of. I will not put the person down for making a choice though.
Tolerance is the last virtue of a depraved society. When an immoral society has blatantly and proudly violated all the commandments, it insists upon one last virtue, tolerance for its immorality. It will not tolerate condemnation of its perversions. It creates a whole new world in which only the intolerant critic of intolerable evil is evil. ~Hutton Gibson
I've noticed that opposing viewpoints will cherry pick which commandments they believe have been violated by others and harp on those, rather than focusing on working on not violating any of the commandments.
When I was a kid, tolerance meant that you left people alone to live their lives. You might not approve of them or there choices, but it wasn't your business so you didn't get involved. In other words, the essence of "live and let live".
Based on how I hear the word tolerance used now, I get the impression that the word means something different to some people. Where it used to be good enough to mind your own business, there seems to be a trend where tolerance is morphing into acceptance.
I see this in threads about transgenderism quite often. By my definition of "tolerance", I might think that transgenders are weird or abnormal, but so long as I don't harass them or impede their lifestyle in anyway, that is tolerant behavior. On the other hand, many liberals do not believe that is tolerance. They seem to expect more affirmative acceptance rather than the lower standard of simply minding ones own business.
I'm curious to see if the range of views of what constitutes "tolerance" is as wide as I suspect it is.
Live and Let Live is an oldie but a goodie
covers Tolerance for me
Acceptance is a side effect of Tolerance, you cant have one without the other.
The meaning of tolerance has been diverted from treating people as equal and the "live and let live" which I think is a pretty good definition to now mean "you will agree or else." In the liberal view tolerance means demanding from others that which you are not willing to give to them.
I can tolerate just about anything so long as I have the option to not be required to deal with it.
Smoking would be a good example. If a restaurant/bar wants to allow their patrons to smoke.. I don't have to patronize that establishment if I don't like that they allow smoking.
If a bakery won't make a gay themed wedding cake.. You don't have to patronize that bakery. There'll be another one that will be happy to take your money.
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.
