posted
Not all Liam's are car drivers, but all car driver's are Liam. At least, those car drivers who can get drive my car legally (possibly with the intention of driving it into something).
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I told you Jeff, I just like to say Snay. Nay, not just Snay, but Mr. Snay.
[ September 29, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote: it pains me deeply that we would be so regressive in judging people simply on the basis of religion
Ah. That explains part of my problem, then. I DO judge people, or at least, form specualtive preliminary opinions about them, based upon religion... whether they have it or not, not which one it happens to be.
As I see all faith-based religions (leaving out such as Deism and any others which do not require the active presence of a Deity) as inherently irrational, (something which keeps me from being accepted by the 'far right'), I don't have such moral qualms about discrimination on its basis.
I generally clasify people of religion along a scale ranging from 'Beneficial Kook' (people who do good things in the name of Big Juju) to 'Dangerous Psycho Kook,' (Pat Robertson, Bin Laden, Torquemada), with the operative word still being 'Kook.'
It's a prejudice. It's unfair. It probably keeps me from grasping the concept of discrimination along those lines as being quite as bad as it really is.
Anyway...
I'm not saying that the two options I presented ARE the only ones. Certainly they aren't, and I don't find either one really acceptable. I was asking for speculation as to 'What if you had to choose between those two options?' One can, in some cases, find onself forced into a situation where one HAS to choose between only bad choices. (Didn't someone once say that THAT was the essense of Command?)
Despite Kirk, there is such a thing as a no-win scenario, where there is no real victory, just different degrees of loss to choose from.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
posted
Excellent. Now we know that along with Intolerant Christians, Intolerant Jews, Intolerant Muslims, Intolerant Sikhs and Intolerant Hindus we have Intolerant Atheists.
Isn't humanity just great?
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
posted
An excellent point, Shik. I, for one, consider religious tolerance to be synonymous with acceptance of other religions. Too many people who say things like "I think Muslims are heathens who are going to hell but I won't murder them just the same" consider that a form a tolerance. It isn't.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Yes, it is. You can't start redefining words to suit you, Tom. You want to be able to call people who don't agree with you intolerant, because it makes them sound bad, whether they really ARE intolerant or not. This is unacceptable. It's TOLERABLE, but unacceptable.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"...Deism and any others which do not require the active presence of a Deity..."
Erm... Deism certainly does require a deity, by definition. Why do you think they call it "deism"? The only "religions" that don't require a deity are atheism and agnosticism, and anything else that falls under one of those two broad categories. And deism most certainly is neither of those.
As far as "intolerance" goes... I think it's entirely logical to "judge" (I use quotes so you know I may not mean the same definition of "judge" that some people might be thinking of) someone on the basis of whether or not they are religious and what religion they follow. It's not the same as judging someone on the basis of something like race or gender or what-have-you. Those things aren't a choice. Religion is. If someone follows a particular religion, you know that it was a conscious choice by the person to do so, and that tells you something about them. Either that, or you know they've accepted it through blind ignorance, which still tells you something about them.
Now, obviously, this isn't a basis for such judgements as "all Muslims are evil and need to be bombed out of existence". But, just because some judgements would be unfounded, that doesn't mean that the entire concept of judging someone by their religion is invalid...
quote: tolerate: 1)To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit. 2)To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others). 3)To put up with; endure.
If you only accept meaning 1 or 3, then, yeah, I'm redefining the word. How evil. I imagine if I were a politician Bill O'Reilly would be lambasting me already as the latest in Satan's clutch of liberal scum.
But, *gasp*, look at number 2. Using that sense of the word, one who does not recognize and respect the rights, beliefs, or practices of others is therefore intolerant.
Explain to me how Person A can be tolerant and yet hold the belief that those who worship God [at all/in a different way to him or her] is [patently ignorant, stupid and kooky/living in sin].
Oh, yes, oozing with respect.
[ September 30, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Explain to me how Person A can be tolerant and yet hold the belief that those who worship God [at all/in a different way to him or her] is [patently ignorant, stupid and kooky/living in sin].
You already did that. You gave two definitions of tolerance that obviously allow for it, and the third could, if you want to dig around in semantics.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
posted
Erm... You don't have to match all the definitions in order to be tolerant. You only have to satisfy one of them. For example, one of the definitions of "person" is "a grammatical category applied esp. to pronouns and verbs, used to distinguish between the speaker of an utterance, the person addressed, and other people or things spoken about". Does that mean you aren't a person if you aren't a grammatical category? Of course not. As long as you fit one definition, you're a person. Just like, if you fit one definition of "tolerant", you are tolerant.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Omega said I was changing the meaning of the word. I merely supplied denotative proof that I wasn't.
It is my opinion that my selection of the definition in question better suits an orderly and civil society, and that adhering to a less stringent definition indeed provides the illusion of civility when one is in fact undermining mankind's determination to live in peace.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
posted
It is my opinion that my selection of the definition in question better suits an orderly and civil society, and that adhering to a less stringent definition indeed provides the illusion of civility when one is in fact undermining mankind's determination to live in peace.
Your opinion is noted.
Your opinion is also irrelevant.
When people talk about tolerance in the religious sense, they mean tolerance by the first or third definitions. "I'm not going to kill my neighbor because he disagrees with me." That is totally different from acceptance, which is closer to (though not nearly synonymous with) the second definition of tolerance.
If you mean "tolerance", say "tolerance".
If you mean "acceptance", say "acceptance".
But don't say "tolerance" when you mean "acceptance," just because you think the confusion you cause will somehow lead to a better world. If you want to preach acceptance, then fine, do it. But don't claim that it's something else entirely.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
quote:When people talk about tolerance in the religious sense, they mean tolerance by the first or third definitions.
No. "People" don't. You do, and perhaps others. But I don't. Regardless, there's no hard-and-fast rule that says religious tolerance is attached-at-the-hip to the definitions you agree with aside from "I think so" anyway.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
