Anti-g@y beliefs a product of the uneducated?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

You just stated the difference.

In one case, one is not tolerating an individual.

In another case, one is not tolerating an idea.

Everybody is not tolerant of certain ideas.

Tokugawa77

So then everyone is guilty of intolerance, so it is not a uniquely bad thing. Once again you reduce a word to being almost meaningless.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

You just stated the difference.

In one case, one is not tolerating an individual.

In another case, one is not tolerating an idea.

Everybody is not tolerant of certain ideas.

GreySeal9

Of course their is a difference.

An idea and an individual are different things, therefore intolerance aimed towards different things are neccesarily different.

These are the same things:

Intolerance towards an individual=intolerance towards an individual.

These are different things.

Intolerance towards an individual/=/intolerance towards an idea.

By your logic, a Toyota and a Ford are the same thing because they are both cars. But they have clear differences.

In the same way, intolerance towards and idea and intolerance towards an individual may both be intolerance, but they have clear differences. There is no logical reason that those differences should be cast aside.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No intolerance is intolerance. There is no difference. One cannot castigate person A for intolerance while displaying intolerance for person A. That would be a contradiction to use a mild adjective. In both cases opinions were called into play. Not orientation....not actions. But differing opinions. Not that I find intolerance to matter materially how it's applied...but in this case it was a difference of opinion. And thus....the same thing.LJS9502_basic

Of course their is a difference.

An idea and an individual are different things, therefore intolerance aimed towards different things are neccesarily different.

These are the same things:

Intolerance towards an individual=intolerance towards an individual.

These are different things.

Intolerance towards an individual/=/intolerance towards an idea.

By your logic, a Toyota and a Ford are the same thing because they are both cars. But they have clear differences.

In the same way, intolerance towards and idea and intolerance towards an individual may both be intolerance, but they have clear differences. There is no logical reason that those differences should be cast aside.

But you yourself said that intolerance of an idea=intolerance of the individual.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Ah but see their really is no difference in not tolerating and idea or the individual. It's still an intolerance to an individual bases on some criteria. Which means that while one may rail against intolerance that others do....yet display it them-self. How is that different? In both cases there is a lack of tolerance. And it's ironic to find someone calling out others for intolerance while displaying it themselves....no?

LJS9502_basic

You are assuming that one judges a person by what beliefs they hold. And while yes, this may be true on a subconsious level, it is certainly not the basis of my argument. I call them out because of their intolerance, not because of the person that they are (if that makes sense). If I were to accept what you are saying, then I am intolerant because they are, not for any other reason. I show intoleracne to them because they do the same to anotehr group of people. (this is of course assuming that I agree that I am intolerant of the person themselves and not just of their opinion).

Yes I am intolerant of their opinion. They, on the other hand, are intolerant of people themselves. They are intolerant because of something thatsaid people cannot control and that is an inherent part of their way of life, while I am intolerant of this opinion, and opinions are changeable andare not aspects of a person; they are intangible and independent.You cannot deny that these are way different "forms of intolerance". Anyway, this debate is getting nowhere.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Is there a technical distinction in between disagreeing with an idea and not tolerating it?

"I disagree with your viewpoint, but tolerate it."

WAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN

like

a lesser level of negative emotional reactions to it?

You people and your use of words are KILLING me.

coolbeans90

Kind of like, I may disagree with what you ay, but I defend to the death your right to say it

Would you defend the right of WBC to do what they do? If so, is that considered tolerance of their stupidity? Just for the sake of clarification.

And yes, I do tolerate their stupidity.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Of course their is a difference.

An idea and an individual are different things, therefore intolerance aimed towards different things are neccesarily different.

These are the same things:

Intolerance towards an individual=intolerance towards an individual.

These are different things.

Intolerance towards an individual/=/intolerance towards an idea.

By your logic, a Toyota and a Ford are the same thing because they are both cars. But they have clear differences.

In the same way, intolerance towards and idea and intolerance towards an individual may both be intolerance, but they have clear differences. There is no logical reason that those differences should be cast aside.

GreySeal9

But you yourself said that intolerance of an idea=intolerance of the individual.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No intolerance is intolerance. There is no difference. One cannot castigate person A for intolerance while displaying intolerance for person A. That would be a contradiction to use a mild adjective. In both cases opinions were called into play. Not orientation....not actions. But differing opinions. Not that I find intolerance to matter materially how it's applied...but in this case it was a difference of opinion. And thus....the same thing.LJS9502_basic

So then everyone is guilty of intolerance, so it is not a uniquely bad thing. Once again you reduce a word to being almost meaningless.

The way you define it, all humans are inherently guilty of it.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

You are assuming that one judges a person by what beliefs they hold. And while yes, this may be true on a subconsious level, it is certainly not the basis of my argument. I call them out because of their intolerance, not because of the person that they are (if that makes sense). If I were to accept what you are saying, then I am intolerant because they are, not for any other reason. I show intoleracne to them because they do the same to anotehr group of people. (this is of course assuming that I agree that I am intolerant of the person themselves and not just of their opinion).

Tokugawa77

Yes I am intolerant of their opinion. They, on the other hand, are intolerant of people themselves. They are intolerant because of something thatsaid people cannot control and that is an inherent part of their way of life, while I am intolerant of this opinion, and opinions are changeable andare not aspects of a person; they are intangible and independent.You cannot deny that these are way different "forms of intolerance". Anyway, this debate is getting nowhere.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

So then everyone is guilty of intolerance, so it is not a uniquely bad thing. Once again you reduce a word to being almost meaningless.

Tokugawa77

The way you define it, all humans are inherently guilty of it.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] And again....and the last time I'll repeat this. The point was made about TWO DIFFERING OPINIONS. Not people.LJS9502_basic

But you yourself said that intolerance of an idea=intolerance of the individual.

Because that person/=/their ideology.

Yes, the two are connected, but not inseperably so.

For instance, I can love a family member to death, but still fervently be against their ideology. Thus, I am tolerating them while not "tolerating" their ideas.

Also, it's perfectly possible to find an individual intolerant, but still tolerate them. Many people might say, "I hate this person's ideas, but I still like them as a person." This is mainly because someone's ideology is not all there is to them.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I'm not assuming anything. You called into question the opinion of others as wrong etc. To paraphrase. Which I said was ironic due to the way your worded your post as to display intolerance to said opinion. LJS9502_basic

Yes I am intolerant of their opinion. They, on the other hand, are intolerant of people themselves. They are intolerant because of something thatsaid people cannot control and that is an inherent part of their way of life, while I am intolerant of this opinion, and opinions are changeable andare not aspects of a person; they are intangible and independent.You cannot deny that these are way different "forms of intolerance". Anyway, this debate is getting nowhere.

I replaced two words in your first sentence.

Ah well one can be intolerant of a specificopinion for instance...and yet accept that people(have) that opinion

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

But you yourself said that intolerance of an idea=intolerance of the individual.

GreySeal9

Because that person/=/their ideology.

Yes, the two are connected, but not inseperably so.

For instance, I can love a family member to death, but still fervently be against their ideology. Thus, I am tolerating them while not "tolerating" their ideas.

Also, it's perfectly possible to find an individual intolerant, but still tolerate them. Many people might say, "I hate this person's ideas, but I still like them as a person." This is mainly because someone's ideology is not all there is to them.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Yes I am intolerant of their opinion. They, on the other hand, are intolerant of people themselves. They are intolerant because of something thatsaid people cannot control and that is an inherent part of their way of life, while I am intolerant of this opinion, and opinions are changeable andare not aspects of a person; they are intangible and independent.You cannot deny that these are way different "forms of intolerance". Anyway, this debate is getting nowhere.

Tokugawa77

I replaced two words in your first sentence.

Ah well one can be intolerant of a specificopinion for instance...and yet accept that people(have) that opinion

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]If you find the mindset of an individual intolerant...how do you not find the individual intolerant?LJS9502_basic

Because that person/=/their ideology.

Yes, the two are connected, but not inseperably so.

For instance, I can love a family member to death, but still fervently be against their ideology. Thus, I am tolerating them while not "tolerating" their ideas.

Also, it's perfectly possible to find an individual intolerant, but still tolerate them. Many people might say, "I hate this person's ideas, but I still like them as a person." This is mainly because someone's ideology is not all there is to them.

Yes, one can not tolerate homosexuality and still tolerate the person since homosexuality is not all there is to a homosexual person.

As for the bolded, beliefs and ideology is a big part of a person, but it is not all there is to a person, so it's perfectly possible that one can seperate intolerance of an idea from intolerance of a person. Not everybody makes that seperation, but some people do.

Why I argued at all was because you were saying that if one is intolerant of an idea, they have to be intolerant of an individual and I don't find that to be true.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well that is not true. Not everyone is guilty of intolerance. I was talking about a specific statement. Not all statements.LJS9502_basic

The way you define it, all humans are inherently guilty of it.

Would you say that you are not intolerant of any ideas?

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Ah well one can be intolerant of a specific lifestyIe for instance...and yet accept that people live that lifestyIe. So I don't think you can automatically say that all people who disagree with you are intolerant of a group of people if we use your logic....now can we?

LJS9502_basic

I replaced two words in your first sentence.

Ah well one can be intolerant of a specificopinion for instance...and yet accept that people(have) that opinion

Yes, it shows that your argument can be used to apply to what we are debating... in otehr words, in essence you have just said yourself that one can be intolerant of a person's opinions but yet not intolerant of the person themselves.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Because that person/=/their ideology.

Yes, the two are connected, but not inseperably so.

For instance, I can love a family member to death, but still fervently be against their ideology. Thus, I am tolerating them while not "tolerating" their ideas.

Also, it's perfectly possible to find an individual intolerant, but still tolerate them. Many people might say, "I hate this person's ideas, but I still like them as a person." This is mainly because someone's ideology is not all there is to them.

GreySeal9

Yes, one can not tolerate homosexuality and still tolerate the person since homosexuality is not all there is to a homosexual person.

As for the bolded, beliefs and ideology is a big part of a person, but it is not all there is to a person, so it's perfectly possible that one can seperate intolerance of an idea from intolerance of a person. Not everybody makes that seperation, but some people do.

Why I argued at all was because you were saying that if one is intolerant of an idea, they have to be intolerant of an individual and I don't find that to be true.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Because that person/=/their ideology.

Yes, the two are connected, but not inseperably so.

For instance, I can love a family member to death, but still fervently be against their ideology. Thus, I am tolerating them while not "tolerating" their ideas.

Also, it's perfectly possible to find an individual intolerant, but still tolerate them. Many people might say, "I hate this person's ideas, but I still like them as a person." This is mainly because someone's ideology is not all there is to them.

GreySeal9

Yes, one can not tolerate homosexuality and still tolerate the person since homosexuality is not all there is to a homosexual person.

Excpet that this intolerance of homosexuality also becomes intolerance of homosexuals. Why? because they deny them the right to marry. Thus, their intolerance has gone way beyond mere ideological conflict. This takes us back tomy initial argument- I am not denying civil rights to homophobes, so I am not intolerant of them as people per se.

EDIT: this post is directed more towards LJ Basic than you.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Beliefs and ideology are a big part of a person....but nonetheless, the original statement which led to this discussion was basically one of intolerance to those that didn't agree with this person. Now I realize not everyone is like that....but twas the start of the discussion. And to be fair....I'd imagine it would depend on the ideas. Some are more easily tolerated than others. But anyway.....it was opinions that were in contradiction that caught my eye. Because even someone that is anti gay can still be tolerant....would you not agree?Tokugawa77

Yes, one can not tolerate homosexuality and still tolerate the person since homosexuality is not all there is to a homosexual person.

Excpet that this intolerance of homosexuality also becomes intolerance of homosexuals. Why? because they deny them the right to marry. Thus, their intolerance has gone way beyond mere ideological conflict. This takes us back tomy initial argument- I am not denying civil rights to homophobes, so I am not intolerant of them as people per se.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Beliefs and ideology are a big part of a person....but nonetheless, the original statement which led to this discussion was basically one of intolerance to those that didn't agree with this person. Now I realize not everyone is like that....but twas the start of the discussion. And to be fair....I'd imagine it would depend on the ideas. Some are more easily tolerated than others. But anyway.....it was opinions that were in contradiction that caught my eye. Because even someone that is anti gay can still be tolerant....would you not agree?LJS9502_basic

Yes, one can not tolerate homosexuality and still tolerate the person since homosexuality is not all there is to a homosexual person.

As for the bolded, beliefs and ideology is a big part of a person, but it is not all there is to a person, so it's perfectly possible that one can seperate intolerance of an idea from intolerance of a person. Not everybody makes that seperation, but some people do.

Why I argued at all was because you were saying that if one is intolerant of an idea, they have to be intolerant of an individual and I don't find that to be true.

Where exactly did you seperate intolerance of an individual/group from intolerance of a idea? Didn't you say that intolerance of an ideology by extension is intolerance of the individual? Didn't you say that there is no difference between intolerance of an idea and intolerance of an individual?

I agree that in many cases intolerance of an idea leads to intolerance of a group, but it doesn't always.

I didn't state that intolerance of an idea doesn't lead to intolerance of a group. In some cases, it does. In some cases, it doesn't.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Yes, one can not tolerate homosexuality and still tolerate the person since homosexuality is not all there is to a homosexual person.

As for the bolded, beliefs and ideology is a big part of a person, but it is not all there is to a person, so it's perfectly possible that one can seperate intolerance of an idea from intolerance of a person. Not everybody makes that seperation, but some people do.

Why I argued at all was because you were saying that if one is intolerant of an idea, they have to be intolerant of an individual and I don't find that to be true.

GreySeal9

Where exactly did you seperate intolerance of an individual/group from intolerance of a idea? Didn't you say that intolerance of an ideology by extension is intolerance of the individual? Didn't you say that there is no difference between intolerance of an idea and intolerance of an individual?

I agree that in many cases intolerance of an idea leads to intolerance of a group, but it doesn't always.

I didn't state that intolerance of an idea doesn't lead to intolerance of a group. In some cases, it does. In some cases, it doesn't.

As an aside....and because you've done this in the past....when I post an idea...it does NOT automatically mean I'm accusing you of stating it.;)

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Yes, one can not tolerate homosexuality and still tolerate the person since homosexuality is not all there is to a homosexual person.LJS9502_basic

Excpet that this intolerance of homosexuality also becomes intolerance of homosexuals. Why? because they deny them the right to marry. Thus, their intolerance has gone way beyond mere ideological conflict. This takes us back tomy initial argument- I am not denying civil rights to homophobes, so I am not intolerant of them as people per se.

What do you mean? Same-sex marriage is only legal in a few states, because of people who are against it. Anti-gay peopel still vote against laws that would legalize it, so yes, their intolerance is hurting people, even if they are not verypolitically active. If most people didn;t concern themselves with it, then same-sex marriage would be legal across the country.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well actually I had separated beliefs from group. But...in many cases the intolerance to an idea leads to an intolerance of a group....which the initial post did do...in fact. So you can't unilaterally state that it doesn't lead to intolerance of a group. In some individuals....of course.LJS9502_basic

Where exactly did you seperate intolerance of an individual/group from intolerance of a idea? Didn't you say that intolerance of an ideology by extension is intolerance of the individual? Didn't you say that there is no difference between intolerance of an idea and intolerance of an individual?

I agree that in many cases intolerance of an idea leads to intolerance of a group, but it doesn't always.

I didn't state that intolerance of an idea doesn't lead to intolerance of a group. In some cases, it does. In some cases, it doesn't.

As an aside....and because you've done this in the past....when I post an idea...it does NOT automatically mean I'm accusing you of stating it.;)

I have friends who are pretty stongly anti-gay. I respect them, I just don't respect that specific opinion that they have.

It is my opinion that not all ideas, and possibly persons depending on one's definition of "person", (personal ideology, for instance) equally deserve toleration. I am not necessarily referring to legal ramifications -- but I'm not going to chill with the Klan, either. And just because intolerance is justifiable does not mean that it is exempt it from the label "intolerance".

That said, it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. Good night, ladies and gentlemen. This thread has been an excruciatingly painful experience.

coolbeans90

I completely agree with everything you've said, coolbeans, especially the bolded. :lol:

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Excpet that this intolerance of homosexuality also becomes intolerance of homosexuals. Why? because they deny them the right to marry. Thus, their intolerance has gone way beyond mere ideological conflict. This takes us back tomy initial argument- I am not denying civil rights to homophobes, so I am not intolerant of them as people per se.

Tokugawa77

What do you mean? Same-sex marriage is only legal in a few states, because of people who are against it. Anti-gay peopel still vote against laws that would legalize it, so yes, their intolerance is hurting people, even if they are not verypolitically active. If most people didn;t concern themselves with it, then same-sex marriage would be legal across the country.

What do you mean? Same-sex marriage is only legal in a few states, because of people who are against it. Anti-gay peopel still vote against laws that would legalize it, so yes, their intolerance is hurting people, even if they are not verypolitically active. If most people didn;t concern themselves with it, then same-sex marriage would be legal across the country.

Tokugawa77

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

It is my opinion that not all ideas, and possibly persons depending on one's definition of "person", (personal ideology, for instance) equally deserve toleration. I am not necessarily referring to legal ramifications -- but I'm not going to chill with the Klan, either. And just because intolerance is justifiable does not mean that it is exempt it from the label "intolerance".

That said, it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. Good night, ladies and gentlemen. This thread has been an excruciatingly painful experience.

GreySeal9

I completely agree with everything you've said, coolbeans, especially the bolded. :lol:

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well actually I had separated beliefs from group. But...in many cases the intolerance to an idea leads to an intolerance of a group....which the initial post did do...in fact. So you can't unilaterally state that it doesn't lead to intolerance of a group. In some individuals....of course.LJS9502_basic

Where exactly did you seperate intolerance of an individual/group from intolerance of a idea? Didn't you say that intolerance of an ideology by extension is intolerance of the individual? Didn't you say that there is no difference between intolerance of an idea and intolerance of an individual?

I agree that in many cases intolerance of an idea leads to intolerance of a group, but it doesn't always.

I didn't state that intolerance of an idea doesn't lead to intolerance of a group. In some cases, it does. In some cases, it doesn't.

As an aside....and because you've done this in the past....when I post an idea...it does NOT automatically mean I'm accusing you of stating it.;)

But whether you think they are lying is immaterial. There is nothing, both in theory and practice, discounting someone from being intolerant of someone's ideas and being tolerant of them as a person.

I'm not just talking about simply disagreeing with an idea. I find the idea of denying gays marriages right downright immoral, yet I still really dig some of the people that hold that opinion because I don't think their opinion on gay marriage defines them and I don't think their opinion is so disgusting that I can't be around them. However, if I find something immoral, that's not a minor disagreement. And I don't think that gay marriage is a minor issue.

Now, if somebody thought that raping people was a good thing, then no I couldn't tolerate them as a person, but like I said, it's a case by case basis. In some cases, I can seperate the person and the ideas. In some cases, I can't. But then again, you presented the individual and the idea as being neccesarily linked and I'm saying that sometimes they can be separated.

As for the bolded, you stated very clearly that there is no difference between intolerance of a person and intolerance of an idea. You also stated that intolerance of an idea neccesarily equates to interolance of the person with that idea. Those are pretty rigid arguments.

Which begs the question....why read it?

LJS9502_basic

Because I'm a glutton for punishment.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Which begs the question....why read it?

GreySeal9

Because I'm a glutton for punishment.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Where exactly did you seperate intolerance of an individual/group from intolerance of a idea? Didn't you say that intolerance of an ideology by extension is intolerance of the individual? Didn't you say that there is no difference between intolerance of an idea and intolerance of an individual?

I agree that in many cases intolerance of an idea leads to intolerance of a group, but it doesn't always.

I didn't state that intolerance of an idea doesn't lead to intolerance of a group. In some cases, it does. In some cases, it doesn't.

GreySeal9

As an aside....and because you've done this in the past....when I post an idea...it does NOT automatically mean I'm accusing you of stating it.;)

But whether you think they are lying is immaterial. There is nothing, both in theory and practice, discounting someone from being intolerant of someone's ideas and being tolerant of them as a person.

I'm not just talking about simply disagreeing with an idea. I find the idea of denying gays marriages right downright immoral, yet I still really dig some of the people that hold that opinion because I don't think their opinion on gay marriage defines them and I don't think their opinion is so disgusting that I can't be around them. However, if I find something immoral, that's not a minor disagreement. And I don't think that gay marriage is a minor issue.

Now, if somebody thought that raping people was a good thing, then no I couldn't tolerate them as a person, but like I said, it's a case by case basis. In some cases, I can seperate the person and the ideas. In some cases, I can't. But then again, you presented the individual and the idea as being neccesarily linked and I'm saying that sometimes they can be separated.

As for the bolded, you stated very clearly that there is no difference between intolerance of a person and intolerance of an idea. You also stated that intolerance of an idea neccesarily equates to interolance of the person with that idea. Those are pretty rigid arguments.

Anyway....as I'm allowed to state an opinion...it's not immaterial.

I didn't see you separate anything. I stated that it's a case by case basis. Now whether you agree with that or not....I don't remember.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Which begs the question....why read it?

SaudiFury

Because I'm a glutton for punishment.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]When I used the /. But then the conversation changed....and yes if one is intolerant to a high degree against the ideas of a person....I think they'd be lying to say they tolerate them. Perhaps you are more talking about disagreeing with an idea? Or a very minor issue that was considered intolerant. But I think with any major opinion that was so intolerant, heinous to an individual...they probably wouldn't actually like that person....or tolerate their presence. So again....variables come into play. Nonetheless I did separate individual/beliefs in an early post.

As an aside....and because you've done this in the past....when I post an idea...it does NOT automatically mean I'm accusing you of stating it.;)

LJS9502_basic

But whether you think they are lying is immaterial. There is nothing, both in theory and practice, discounting someone from being intolerant of someone's ideas and being tolerant of them as a person.

I'm not just talking about simply disagreeing with an idea. I find the idea of denying gays marriages right downright immoral, yet I still really dig some of the people that hold that opinion because I don't think their opinion on gay marriage defines them and I don't think their opinion is so disgusting that I can't be around them. However, if I find something immoral, that's not a minor disagreement. And I don't think that gay marriage is a minor issue.

Now, if somebody thought that raping people was a good thing, then no I couldn't tolerate them as a person, but like I said, it's a case by case basis. In some cases, I can seperate the person and the ideas. In some cases, I can't. But then again, you presented the individual and the idea as being neccesarily linked and I'm saying that sometimes they can be separated.

As for the bolded, you stated very clearly that there is no difference between intolerance of a person and intolerance of an idea. You also stated that intolerance of an idea neccesarily equates to interolance of the person with that idea. Those are pretty rigid arguments.

I'm not trying to be rude, but how exactly is this a response to my post?

I didn't say anything about opinions boiling down to a yes or no. I simply said that it is possible to not tolerate an idea while tolerating a person and used my own experiences as an example.

You said that intolerance of an idea=intolerance of an idividual. That's what I am arguing against, not the nature of people's opinions over gay marriage.

Perhaps you can explain what part of my post you are responding to with the "yes or no" statement.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

But whether you think they are lying is immaterial. There is nothing, both in theory and practice, discounting someone from being intolerant of someone's ideas and being tolerant of them as a person.

I'm not just talking about simply disagreeing with an idea. I find the idea of denying gays marriages right downright immoral, yet I still really dig some of the people that hold that opinion because I don't think their opinion on gay marriage defines them and I don't think their opinion is so disgusting that I can't be around them. However, if I find something immoral, that's not a minor disagreement. And I don't think that gay marriage is a minor issue.

Now, if somebody thought that raping people was a good thing, then no I couldn't tolerate them as a person, but like I said, it's a case by case basis. In some cases, I can seperate the person and the ideas. In some cases, I can't. But then again, you presented the individual and the idea as being neccesarily linked and I'm saying that sometimes they can be separated.

As for the bolded, you stated very clearly that there is no difference between intolerance of a person and intolerance of an idea. You also stated that intolerance of an idea neccesarily equates to interolance of the person with that idea. Those are pretty rigid arguments.

GreySeal9

I'm not trying to be rude, but how exactly is this a response to my post?

I didn't say anything about opinions boiling down to a yes or no. I simply said that it is possible to not tolerate an idea while tolerating a person and used my own experiences as an example.

You said that intolerance of an idea=intolerance of an idividual. That's what I am arguing against, not the nature of people's opinions over gay marriage.

Perhaps you can explain what part of my post you are responding to with the "yes or no" statement.

Anyway....as I'm allowed to state an opinion...it's not immaterial.LJS9502_basic

I didn't say you weren't.

Whether you think people are lying is immaterial because it says nothing about the theoretical and practical possibility of tolerating an individual but not their ideas.

I wasn't talking about whether you're allowed to state it or not.

I didn't see you separate anything. I stated that it's a case by case basis. Now whether you agree with that or not....I don't remember.LJS9502_basic

I don't know what you're trying to say here. You'll have to clarify. What did I not separate? How can you not remember if I said it's a case by case basis?

Just a few minutes ago, I posted this:

Now, if somebody thought that raping people was a good thing, then no I couldn't tolerate them as a person, but like I said, it's a case by case basis.GreySeal9

I've been arguing this whole time that sometimes people make the seperation between tolerance of individuals and tolerance of ideas and sometimes they don't.

I've been saying that because you said that there is no difference between intolerance of ideas/=/intolerance of individuals and you also said that intolerance of individuals and intolerance of ideas are linked "by extension". Do you no longer agree with this statement?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Again....most people aren't involved in yes or no over gay marriage. :|LJS9502_basic

I'm not trying to be rude, but how exactly is this a response to my post?

I didn't say anything about opinions boiling down to a yes or no. I simply said that it is possible to not tolerate an idea while tolerating a person and used my own experiences as an example.

You said that intolerance of an idea=intolerance of an idividual. That's what I am arguing against, not the nature of people's opinions over gay marriage.

Perhaps you can explain what part of my post you are responding to with the "yes or no" statement.

Why exactly are you going off in this direction?

I was simply using my stance that being against gay marriage is immoral as an example of why I can not be "tolerant" of an opinion but still tolerate the person. I didn't lay out that example to veer off into a seperate argument about the example. I laid out the example to show that tolerance of an individual can co-exist with intolerance of an idea.

If I think an individual's stance is immoral, but still tolerate them, that shows that it's perfectly possible to be intolerant of a person's ideas but still tolerate them.

I didn't say you weren't.

Whether you think people are lying is immaterial because it says nothing about the theoretical and practical possibility of tolerating an individual but not their ideas.

I wasn't talking about whether you're allowed to state it or not.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. You'll have to clarify. What did I not separate? How can you not remember if I said it's a case by case basis?

Just a few minutes ago, I posted this:

GreySeal9

A few minutes ago? Well I posted that at least an hour ago....and? So you agreed with me....wonderful.

Why exactly are you going off in this direction?

I was simply using my stance that being against gay marriage is immoral as an example of why I can not be "tolerant" of an opinion but still tolerate the person. I didn't lay out that example to veer off into a seperate argument about the example. I laid out the example to show that tolerance of an individual can co-exist with intolerance of an idea.

If I think an individual's stance is immoral, but still tolerate them, that shows that it's perfectly possible to be intolerant of a person's ideas but still tolerate them.

GreySeal9

As for the marriage thing.....I was stating that because gay marriage is illegal...that does not mean they are actively keeping it illegal. More like apathy. Same with those who state they are for it...but do nothing. Apathy. Had nothing to do with your personal opinion.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I didn't say you weren't.

Whether you think people are lying is immaterial because it says nothing about the theoretical and practical possibility of tolerating an individual but not their ideas.

I wasn't talking about whether you're allowed to state it or not.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. You'll have to clarify. What did I not separate? How can you not remember if I said it's a case by case basis?

Just a few minutes ago, I posted this:

LJS9502_basic

A few minutes ago? Well I posted that at least an hour ago....and? So you agreed with me....wonderful.

I didn't say you're not allowed to state an opinion, so I'm not sure why you're telling me that you're allowed to state an opinion. That's obvious and I didn't dispute that or even allude to that issue. I've clearly told you that I'm not saying you're not allowed to state an opinion. Whether you're allowed to state an opinion is immaterial to what I'm talking about.

I'm saying that whether you think someone is lying simply doesn't say anything about whether tolerance of individuals and tolerance of ideas can co-exist.

You say that you said that it's a case by case basis. If that's true, why would you say that there's no difference between intolerance of individuals and intolerance of ideas? That would seem to contradict the idea that it's a case by case basis, would it not? If it's a case by case basis, why would you insist that intolerance of individuals and intolerance of ideas are connect "by extension"?

I didn't say you're not allowed to state an opinion, so I'm not sure why you're telling me that you're allowed to state an opinion. That's obvious and I didn't dispute that or even allude to that issue. I've clearly told you that I'm not saying you're not allowed to state an opinion. Whether you're allowed to state an opinion is immaterial to what I'm talking about.

I'm saying that whether you think someone is lying simply doesn't say anything about whether tolerance of individuals and tolerance of ideas can co-exist.

You say that you said that it's a case by case basis. If that's true, why would you say that there's no difference between intolerance of individuals and intolerance of ideas? That would seem to contradict the idea that it's a case by case basis, would it not? If it's a case by case basis, why would you insist that intolerance of individuals and intolerance of ideas are connect "by extension"?

GreySeal9

In the INITIAL conversation...it was over someone using intolerance to call others intolerant. Period. Now that's three times I've addressed why the conversation started with you.

I still think that being intolerant lessens tolerance. You can't totally accept an individual if you find aspects of them intolerant. Intolerance is not the same as disagreement. Nonethelesss....your subjective morality doesn't mean a person is immoral. In fact, one might call your personal morality immaterial could they not?LJS9502_basic

I fully accept that my morality is subjective.

I never said that person is immoral, merely their position that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I'm really not trying to be rude, but can you try to read my posts more carefully. It can be a little hard to keep track of things, but it's kinda hard to have a constructive discussion when I'm constantly saying "I didn't say that."

Also, I am not trying to argue about my own moral position. I simply used it as an example to show that intolerance of ideas/=/intolerance of an individual. It can, but not always.

My position was merely put out there as an example of how intolerance of an idea/=/intolerance of an individual.

Also, just because one can't accept all aspects of a person doesn't mean they can't accept that person.

As for the marriage thing.....I was stating that because gay marriage is illegal...that does not mean they are actively keeping it illegal. More like apathy. Same with those who state they are for it...but do nothing. Apathy. Had nothing to do with your personal opinion.

LJ

If it had nothing to do with my personal opinion, then how is it a response to my post?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I didn't say you're not allowed to state an opinion, so I'm not sure why you're telling me that you're allowed to state an opinion. That's obvious and I didn't dispute that or even allude to that issue. I've clearly told you that I'm not saying you're not allowed to state an opinion. Whether you're allowed to state an opinion is immaterial to what I'm talking about.

I'm saying that whether you think someone is lying simply doesn't say anything about whether tolerance of individuals and tolerance of ideas can co-exist.

You say that you said that it's a case by case basis. If that's true, why would you say that there's no difference between intolerance of individuals and intolerance of ideas? That would seem to contradict the idea that it's a case by case basis, would it not? If it's a case by case basis, why would you insist that intolerance of individuals and intolerance of ideas are connect "by extension"?

LJS9502_basic

In the INITIAL conversation...it was over someone using intolerance to call others intolerant. Period. Now that's three times I've addressed why the conversation started with you.

I said the opinion is immaterial to the possibility of whether one can can be intolerant about an idea and intolerant to an idea.

I'm not saying that it's not worth anything. That opinion could make for an interesting discussion. It just doesn't shed any light on whether intolerance toward an idea and an individual is the same because there's really no concrete way of telling that they are lying.

I'm not trying to trash your opinion. It just doesn't neccesarily have any analytical power in this particular discussion.

Regardless of what you say about the initial conversation, you did say that intolerance of ideas and intolerance of individuals were the same thing and that they are linked by "extension"? Do you disagree with that statement?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I still think that being intolerant lessens tolerance. You can't totally accept an individual if you find aspects of them intolerant. Intolerance is not the same as disagreement. Nonethelesss....your subjective morality doesn't mean a person is immoral. In fact, one might call your personal morality immaterial could they not?GreySeal9

I fully accept that my morality is subjective.

I never said that person is immoral, merely their position that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I'm really not trying to be rude, but can you try to read my posts more carefully. It can be a little hard to keep track of things, but it's kinda hard to have a constructive discussion when I'm constantly saying "I didn't say that."

Also, I am not trying to argue about my own moral position. I simply used it as an example to show that intolerance of ideas/=/intolerance of an individual. It can, but not always.

My position was merely put out there as an example of how intolerance of an idea/=/intolerance of an individual.

Also, just because one can't accept all aspects of a person doesn't mean they can't accept that person.

As for the marriage thing.....I was stating that because gay marriage is illegal...that does not mean they are actively keeping it illegal. More like apathy. Same with those who state they are for it...but do nothing. Apathy. Had nothing to do with your personal opinion.

LJ

If it had nothing to do with my personal opinion, then how is it a response to my post?

You didn't say what? Being against gay marriage is immoral? That is calling an individuals morals into question.....you can't have it both ways.

Because I was having that discussion with the dude who's user name starts with a T and you mentioned the same thing.....LJS9502_basic

I realize that you were having a discussion with that person.

But in the course of that discussion, you said that intolerance of ideas and intolerance of individuals are the same thing and that the are linked "by extension".

Do you agree with those statements?

You didn't say what? Being against gay marriage is immoral? That is calling an individuals morals into question.....you can't have it both ways.

LJS9502_basic

I don't really think this discussion is worthwhile since it was just an example and I didn't intend to get into a debate about my position about the immorality of being against gay marriage. You can start a thread on that and I'd be happy to reply.

But just for clarification, it's perfectly possible to think somebody has an immoral stance but are not immoral overall.

There are family members who I think are moral people but happen to hold an opinion that I find immoral. One immoral position does not make that person completely immoral.

You say I can't have it both ways, but I don't see why I have to find a person completely immoral just because I think one position of theirs is immoral.

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

The internet was built by the evil science you claim means nothing, im surprised you use it considering that the people that made it are realists.

tenaka2

Are you going to actually going to debunk my statement or your just going to waste my time with your strawmans?

Your a big fan of strawmen, you give nothing to debunk, you just have a generic statement which adds nothing, a strawman is only used to defunk an argument, you have given no argument.

But you did use a strawman. Alex never really said anything about science being evil and to my knowledgee, he's never said science is evil.

Wow this thread has been going in circles for like 4 pages.ChampionoChumps

Why is it okay to be pro one thing, but not anti the same issue?

Why is it okay to be pro one thing, but not anti the same issue?

DigitalExile

[QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"]Wow this thread has been going in circles for like 4 pages.Piroshki

Why is it okay to be pro one thing, but not anti the same issue?

DigitalExile

Because it's possible that being, to use your term, pro-one-thing has more merit than being anti-that-same-thing.

For instance, being pro-pedophilia would not be okay while being anti-pedophilia would be okay.