Is toleration a human trait or political concept?

[kvnchrist]

Well, here I am after walking away from another quote/unquote Discussion/debate site that's more a "You are the evilest thing alive because you don't agree with me" site. Democrats, republicans, theists, atheists. lions, tigers, oh my!

 

Is there any reason why people should think that just because one position binds them that they should automatically agree on everything. Why is it that those championing tolerance is so adamantly intolerant of those they perceive to be intolerant based upon their inability to agree with their pet projects.

 

To me toleration is like respect. You either have it for someone or you don't. You can't manufacture it from an ideal, It has already got to be ingrained into your soul. Even then it is impossible to be totally tolerant or intolerant of anyone or anything. You can be satisfied with a person or a situation for a time, but in time there is a good chance that people will become less satisfied and want change, even thought the subject may not wish to change. Is this being intolerant or just wanting something new.?

[EvilPhoenix]

Interesting thread.As for second part,no.Forgive me for my non-perfect english,but you should never agree with anyone if you think that they are wrong.You know,all great people were great because they did not agreed with majority.Many of them been viewed as "Crazy" or "Strange",but now they are respected.

As for tolerance.Tolerance to social injustice or Rejection of your own beliefs is not a tolerance at all.

[JimboUK]

To me toleration is like respect. You either have it for someone or you don't.

 

This is pretty much how I see it, of course how tolerant people are varies greatly from person to person. I don't think politics comes into it, there are those of a certain political persuasion that preach tolerance but disagree with them and you'll see just how intolerant some of them are.

[kvnchrist]

 

To me toleration is like respect. You either have it for someone or you don't.

 

This is pretty much how I see it, of course how tolerant people are varies greatly from person to person. I don't think politics comes into it, there are those of a certain political persuasion that preach tolerance but disagree with them and you'll see just how intolerant some of them are.

 

 

Oh say it isn't so! Hypocrisy in politics ;D ;D ;D

[JimboUK]

 

 

To me toleration is like respect. You either have it for someone or you don't.

 

This is pretty much how I see it, of course how tolerant people are varies greatly from person to person. I don't think politics comes into it, there are those of a certain political persuasion that preach tolerance but disagree with them and you'll see just how intolerant some of them are.

 

 

Oh say it isn't so! Hypocrisy in politics ;D ;D ;D

 

Oh I know, it's shocking. :-D

[Tidus44]

There isn't much to go on from the OPs information. Was the debate about the pros/cons of genocide or the wearing of UGG boots as a fashion statement? One would think that an individual's tolerance level regarding views on genocide would be significantly different than their tolerance regarding UGG boots as a fashion statement; and discussion or debate would reflect the level of feeling on the subject.

 

I am somewhat bemused by the idea that an individual presenting a dissenting opinion finds the other side to be intolerant because they do not agree with the dissenter's opinion. Maybe I am missing something, but if someone holds some view or opinion, tolerance suggests I allow that opinion. If I were to disagree with someone and voice my opinion, that makes me intolerant, not them. Tolerance is not about debate or discussion, it's simple courtesy, allow someone to have their opinion.

I do not see respect being part of the equation as I may not respect the opinion or the individual in order to just remain silent and allow them to have their opinion. Even if I agree with an opinion, this does not require respect.

If one is to begin debate or discussion by voicing their opinion against another's opinion, then tolerance is not a factor of consideration. One has already identified they are intolerant and thus should not expect to have their opinion tolerated.

 

An individual's tolerance of something is a matter of the individual, so I would think tolerance is a human trait.

[kvnchrist]

Tidus44, on 11 Mar 2013 - 10:40, said:

There isn't much to go on from the OPs information. Was the debate about the pros/cons of genocide or the wearing of UGG boots as a fashion statement? One would think that an individual's tolerance level regarding views on genocide would be significantly different than their tolerance regarding UGG boots as a fashion statement; and discussion or debate would reflect the level of feeling on the subject.

 

I am somewhat bemused by the idea that an individual presenting a dissenting opinion finds the other side to be intolerant because they do not agree with the dissenter's opinion. Maybe I am missing something, but if someone holds some view or opinion, tolerance suggests I allow that opinion. If I were to disagree with someone and voice my opinion, that makes me intolerant, not them. Tolerance is not about debate or discussion, it's simple courtesy, allow someone to have their opinion.

I do not see respect being part of the equation as I may not respect the opinion or the individual in order to just remain silent and allow them to have their opinion. Even if I agree with an opinion, this does not require respect.

If one is to begin debate or discussion by voicing their opinion against another's opinion, then tolerance is not a factor of consideration. One has already identified they are intolerant and thus should not expect to have their opinion tolerated.

 

An individual's tolerance of something is a matter of the individual, so I would think tolerance is a human trait.

There is not very much information because the question is about as basic as you could ask for. Is the subject a natural human trait or is it political in nature. The degree of the infraction is inconsequential sense we are talking generalities.

 

I beg to differ with you about it being a debatable subject, sense it has been used politically for a very long time to diminish the outcry of those who claim to uphold a set morale standards. This is the entire focus of topic. Wither people are naturally inclusive of activities they would not do themselves or if it's an political or social ideology.

[Tidus44]

Is the subject a natural human trait or is it political in nature.

 

Well, since you put it that way, it is a human trait only.

[kvnchrist]

 

Is the subject a natural human trait or is it political in nature.

 

Well, since you put it that way, it is a human trait only.

I used natural meaning to come to oneself without external pressure.

[erikolaix]

As Aristotle said, "tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society." When all other virtues have gone down the drain, all that remains for the decadent people is to cry out for toleration of their immoral behaviour.