Tolerance

[Hazard]

Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions. --Gilbert K. Chesterton

Enough said.

Oh, god, that's just such crap. Was Gilbert K. Chesterton as big a bigot as that quote would suggest?

Stop removing my posts even though you don't agree with what is said, hypocrits.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ27.HTM

[Adron]

Ah, but to me it still seems to have a bad connotation. Being certain about something you don't have any substantiation for, no positive knowledge or proof - how can that be a positive thing?

So you're going to stand by your convictions and maintain that it has a bad connotation?

No, I am open to more information. That's why I'm posting here. I'm probing you to find out why you think the way you do, so I know if I should think the same or not.

[Adron]

I believe that we all sit on plates. Massive plates called the teptonic plates. Can I prove this? No, it is a theory? Because I can't prove it is it bad? I believe the earth's core is made of Iron also, but I have no way of proving it.

If you are absolutely certain of it without there being proof, it's bad. If you believe in it, but are open to alternatives (which would have to be more likely / well-established / ...), it's OK with me.

It's much like being certain the earth is flat and you'll fall over the edge if you try to sail to India the wrong way, or like being certain the earth is the center of the universe, and the sun rotates around it...

Being certain about unproven things is bad. It prevents advance by getting you stuck in patterns of thought that may be incorrect.

[Arta]

Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions. --Gilbert K. Chesterton

Enough said.

Oh, god, that's just such crap. Was Gilbert K. Chesterton as big a bigot as that quote would suggest?

Stop removing my posts even though you don't agree with what is said, hypocrits.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ27.HTM

I have removed your posts, and I will continue to modify or remove them, as long as you keep making personal attacks. Your behaviour consistently violates the guidelines for this forum and this board, and you have been warned before. If it does not stop, I will move to have you banned.

HTH

[Hazard]

Well Arta, as we say down South, if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Check out that site I gave your Arta. He is, in fact, British.

[Arta]

I know, I already read a bio since I hadn't heard of him. No one's perfect

[Hazard]

I know, I already read a bio since I hadn't heard of him. No one's perfect

Yea... his flaw... being born British

[Arta]

shh

[MyndFyre]

Majority tolerating the minority vs. minority tolerating the majority.
Discuss

Tolerance is the hallmark of a truly liberal society.

Obviously we are not a truly liberal society, because there is not tolerance.  People want to shut down any kind of religion in schools because they are afraid that their kids might make a decision counter to their own.  They are intolerant of other people's faiths.

On the same token, people in the south want to remove evolution from schools.  Microevolution has great merit; don't strip evolution out of schools completely.  Be tolerant of the advances in science that God has given.

The plain fact of the matter is that liberalism [if I haven't posted my disclaimer before, when I say liberalism, I mean Lockean liberalism] is what will lead people to peace.  But before we can accurately adopt the ideology, we need to encourage tolerance.

Good topic I think.

Ultimately, whether or not there really is some "tyranny of the majority," in a liberal, tolerant society people have the right and prerogative to leave the society and integrate into another that likely has values more aligned to the invidividual's preferences.  That is why liberalism leads to states being the main actors in an international system: if there was only one overarching government, even one instituted by the people (unlike the UN, which is instituted by governments and therefore illegitimate), there would be true tyranny of the majority and the minority would have no means to escape it.  Governments must be instituted by the will of the individuals that compose it: this is what gives governments legitimacy.

Hazard: it makes sense to say that tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.  But tell me -- isn't not killing someone a conviction?  Which conviction stands more firmly?  Is it worth killing another over it?  At the end of the day you must realize that another has the same right to a belief as you, one that you cannot empirically prove as correct one way or the other.  While I believe that the Christian God has a relatively logical basis both in the accuracy of scriptural texts (Biblical manuscripts) as well as the foundational matters of which the Bible speaks, and I am willing to surrender my life if the need be in defense of my faith, I am unwilling to end another's life because of my stance.  It is not for me to decide how another person lives his or her life.

[Hazard]

Its a relative quote, it requires some thought and reflection. Taking it for face value is stupid, its what the ignorant do.

[MyndFyre]

Its a relative quote, it requires some thought and reflection. Taking it for face value is stupid, its what the ignorant do.

Then why did you post it without context?

[Hazard]

I'm hoping you have the mental fortitude to be able to think about it without me having to spell it all out with in crayon for you.

[MyndFyre]

I'm hoping you have the mental fortitude to be able to think about it without me having to spell it all out with in crayon for you.

Your continued dodging of the question and then attempts to backpedal by insulting my intelligence will not be successful on this forum.  You continue to erode any credibility you have in this debate.

There is an apparrent reason that you made that quote.  I want to know what you were thinking and what it meant to you.

Nor can we interpret a relative quote without its necessary context.