Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

For Obama Supporters ONLY

Bowdiddley

By Bowdiddley
in The Gibson Lounge

Recommended Posts

Bluemoon

Bluemoon

Posted
Posted
Tolerating the intolerant

 

Philosopher Karl Popper's assertion in The Open Society and Its Enemies that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance illustrates that there are limits to tolerance.

 

In particular' date=' should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance? What if by tolerating action "A", society destroys itself? Tolerance of "A" could be used to introduce a new thought system leading to intolerance of vital institution "B". It is difficult to strike a balance and different societies do not always agree on the details, indeed different groups within a single society also often fail to agree. The current suppression of Nazism in Germany is considered intolerant by some countries, for instance, while in Germany itself it is Nazism which is considered intolerably intolerant.

 

Philosopher John Rawls devotes a section of his influential and controversial book A Theory of Justice to the problem of whether a just society should or should not tolerate the intolerant, and to the related problem of whether or not, in any society, the intolerant have any right to complain when they are not tolerated.

 

Wake me up when you finish cutting and pasting....if you have an opinion, just state it in your own words.

 

Rawls concludes that a just society must be tolerant; therefore, the intolerant must be tolerated, for otherwise, the society would then be intolerant, and so unjust. However, Rawls qualifies this by insisting that society and its social institutions have a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance. Hence, the intolerant must be tolerated but only insofar as they do not endanger the tolerant society and its institutions.

 

Similarly, continues Rawls, while the intolerant might forfeit the right to complain when they are themselves not tolerated, other members of society have a right, perhaps even a duty, to complain on their behalf, again, as long as society itself is not endangered by these intolerant members. The ACLU is a good example of a social institution that protects the rights of the intolerant, as it frequently defends the right to free speech of such intolerant organizations as the Ku Klux Klan.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance[/quote']

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 200
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Homz

Homz

Posted
Posted
Tolerating the intolerant

 

Philosopher Karl Popper's assertion in The Open Society and Its Enemies that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance illustrates that there are limits to tolerance.

 

In particular' date=' should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance? What if by tolerating action "A", society destroys itself? Tolerance of "A" could be used to introduce a new thought system leading to intolerance of vital institution "B". It is difficult to strike a balance and different societies do not always agree on the details, indeed different groups within a single society also often fail to agree. The current suppression of Nazism in Germany is considered intolerant by some countries, for instance, while in Germany itself it is Nazism which is considered intolerably intolerant.

 

Philosopher John Rawls devotes a section of his influential and controversial book A Theory of Justice to the problem of whether a just society should or should not tolerate the intolerant, and to the related problem of whether or not, in any society, the intolerant have any right to complain when they are not tolerated.

 

Rawls concludes that a just society must be tolerant; therefore, the intolerant must be tolerated, for otherwise, the society would then be intolerant, and so unjust. However, Rawls qualifies this by insisting that society and its social institutions have a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance. Hence, the intolerant must be tolerated but only insofar as they do not endanger the tolerant society and its institutions.

 

Similarly, continues Rawls, while the intolerant might forfeit the right to complain when they are themselves not tolerated, other members of society have a right, perhaps even a duty, to complain on their behalf, again, as long as society itself is not endangered by these intolerant members. The ACLU is a good example of a social institution that protects the rights of the intolerant, as it frequently defends the right to free speech of such intolerant organizations as the Ku Klux Klan.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance[/quote']

 

Hey when did this happen. KSG is posting his sources. Bluemoon has to get an At-a-boy for forcing that issue.

BTW I didn't read the copy/paste above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluemoon

Bluemoon

Posted
Posted
Tolerating the intolerant

 

Philosopher Karl Popper's assertion in The Open Society and Its Enemies that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance illustrates that there are limits to tolerance.

 

In particular' date=' should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance? What if by tolerating action "A", society destroys itself? Tolerance of "A" could be used to introduce a new thought system leading to intolerance of vital institution "B". It is difficult to strike a balance and different societies do not always agree on the details, indeed different groups within a single society also often fail to agree. The current suppression of Nazism in Germany is considered intolerant by some countries, for instance, while in Germany itself it is Nazism which is considered intolerably intolerant.

 

Philosopher John Rawls devotes a section of his influential and controversial book A Theory of Justice to the problem of whether a just society should or should not tolerate the intolerant, and to the related problem of whether or not, in any society, the intolerant have any right to complain when they are not tolerated.

 

Wake me up when you finish cutting and pasting....if you have an opinion, just state it in your own words.

 

Rawls concludes that a just society must be tolerant; therefore, the intolerant must be tolerated, for otherwise, the society would then be intolerant, and so unjust. However, Rawls qualifies this by insisting that society and its social institutions have a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance. Hence, the intolerant must be tolerated but only insofar as they do not endanger the tolerant society and its institutions.

 

Similarly, continues Rawls, while the intolerant might forfeit the right to complain when they are themselves not tolerated, other members of society have a right, perhaps even a duty, to complain on their behalf, again, as long as society itself is not endangered by these intolerant members. The ACLU is a good example of a social institution that protects the rights of the intolerant, as it frequently defends the right to free speech of such intolerant organizations as the Ku Klux Klan.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance[/quote']

 

 

Wake me up when you are done cutting and pasting...just state your opinion in your own words. I know that is hard for you, but give it try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KSG_Standard

KSG_Standard

Posted
Posted

THE SHORTIES AND THE TALLIES

Based on a story by John McConnel

 

There was once a land where all the people were either short and fat or tall and thin. There was no one in between. The "Shorties" and "Tallies," as they were called, did not like each another. Each thought himself to be better than the other. When the Shorties were talking among themselves about the arrogance of the Tallies they would call them "beanpoles" and "lampposts." The Tallies would talk to each other about how stupid the "pigs" and "shrimps" were. The "beanpoles" and "shrimps" were always arguing and fighting and trying to get more than each other, and there was no peace in the land.

 

The Shorties and the Tallies did not know each other very well as they never tried to be friends. Indeed, they both refused to have anything to do with each other as often as they could. They refused to live next door to one another, used different shops, and their children even went to different schools. Separate businesses and even churches and temples were built to meet the needs of the Shorties and Tallies. Demand grew for the land to be divided in two and there was talk of war as the "beanpoles" blamed the "shrimps" for problems in the land. Each side rushed to buy guns. The ruler of the land did not help - most of the time he was interested only in accumulating more wealth for himself. Sometimes he even blamed the Tallies for the problems of the land. As intolerance increased, the children were told by adults that the other race was not good. The children of the Shorties were told to not make friends with the "beanpoles" and the children of the Tallies were told not to make friends with the "shrimps."

 

Then one day a strange thing happened. All the people of the land went blind. No one could see anything. Everyone's world was turned upside down, in more ways than one. The people stumbled around, trying to find their way from the shops and the churches and temples. They were bumping into one another and tripping over each other. Little children, teenagers and adults all needed help and so they began to help each other. Adults conversed with anyone they bumped into to see if they could help them find their way. Little children were taken care of by older children, and mothers of both Shorties and Tallies helped each other to find their children.

 

At first, the Shorties did not know they were sometimes being helped by "beanpoles," and Tallies did not realize they were being helped by "shrimps". They welcomed the understanding voices and the generous help. But as they helped each other with their hands, they began to realize that some of those kind hands were thin and long and other kind hands were short and plump.

 

"Hmmph," one Shortie named Miriam said to herself, "I bet that's the only nice beanpole out there." But as Miriam tried to find her way to the store to buy food she was again helped by another Tallie!

 

Ali, one of the Tallies, was also surprised. "Those shrimps aren't all so mean," he thought to himself one day when a Shortie helped him find his little brother.

 

As one long week and another week passed, each person began to realize that the shape and size of each other's body no longer mattered. They began to judge each person they met by their behaviour instead of the way they looked - whether they were kind and gentle or mean-spirited. They began to appreciate their new friends and understand that a person's character is much more important than their appearance - and that good qualities can be found in everyone.

 

With this realization, the hearts of the short, fat people, and the tall, thin people began to melt. They were kinder to everyone they met. As they began to grow fond of their new friends, their sight returned just as suddenly as it had disappeared! They laughed with each other in their joy of seeing, and promised never to be deceived by their eyes again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluemoon

Bluemoon

Posted
Posted
THE SHORTIES AND THE TALLIES

Based on a story by John McConnel

 

So how does this story excuse your hatred of gays? Have you seen the light?

 

And how does someone who posts this

 

The coalition of the butt pirates' date=' baby killers' date=' welfare leaches, socialists, and anti-American defeatists is in complete charge of the country now...good luck, and good night. [/quote'']

 

have the balls to post something about being more tolerant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Homz

Homz

Posted
Posted

 

Me thinks that you are the hater here Moonie...I don't hate anyone...I DO hate some behavior...I guess that makes me intolerant in your eyes...smiley_cry.gif

 

I think he just said "Hate the sin, not the sinner."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluemoon

Bluemoon

Posted
Posted

 

Me thinks that you are the hater here Moonie...I don't hate anyone...I DO hate some behavior...I guess that makes me intolerant in your eyes...smiley_cry.gif

 

OK...I think your posts speak from themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EVOL!

EVOL!

Posted
Posted

I am more than will to give President Obama a chance. I'll heartily campaign for initiatives of his I support (god knows he'll need it). I'll equally campaign against initiatives of his I oppose. Most of my final judgment will be reserved for the 2012 election.

 

The thing is, we need a modern, forward thinking leader. The old, selfish, "me first" ways that started in the 80s are over. The old guard has to go too. All the old leadership (I use that term loosely); that milquetoast crew in the legislature needs to step aside. They were fully complicit in the actions of the last 25+years that got us in the hole we are in. As Bob Dylan said, "Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand" We are almost 10yrs into the new century and still some people are clinging to the old ways with a grip of death. Let it go. Come into the 21st century or get the hell out of the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Homz

Homz

Posted
Posted

 

Are you a hermaphrodite? Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

KSG is a hermaphrodite the same as a shemale? Could you copy/paste something that would answer that? Or maybe you have some personal experiences you wish to share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Homz

Homz

Posted
Posted

 

Christian Jargon?

Homz' date=' nothing you do surprises me.[/quote']

 

It may surprise you to know I have read your book. I am quite well read. I have also read 'The Book of the Law' by Allister Crowley. You all should look into that one. It has much in common with the views of many of you right wing nut cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bowdiddley

Bowdiddley

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

It may surprise you to know I have read your book. I am quite well read. I have also read 'The Book of the Law' by Allister Crowley. You all should look into that one. It has much in common with the views of many of you right wing nut cases.

 

"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law

 

Love Is The Law, Love Under Will

 

Every Man And Every Woman Is A Star "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...