Tolerance

[pjay]

Tolerance isn't about not forcing your opinions on others, it's about respecting others.

Ridiculing other people's beliefs is not respectful.

I would agree with this statement, however it seems to me that for the most part the argument being put forward is that opinion turns into intolerance when my opinion is that "something should be done"

eg... Icke should be dragged off to...

Although, really I'm sure it could be argued that this is just expressing an opinion.

But if we assume this to be the case I'm left with my earlier question about intolerance of Muslim ideas aboout women.... what should be done about it - if it really is something that we should be intolerant of?

[pjay]

but....Believers will not find that statement true. In fact most probably find it laughable. My political, social, family, computer, soft toy and religious beliefs have been ridiculed in the past but I don't have an issue with other people with differing opinions to my own. Bring it on I say, I reserve the right to disagree. I am quite sure that Barry would, whilst proclaiming religion as ridiculous, never dream of enforcing his beliefs on anyone else.

I don't think someone has to believe something to be true in order for it to be "disrespectful of their beliefs/actions."

I could say that you are completely incompetent. I doubt you would believe this, but I think that it would be disrespectful to you, and I think also to your employer (who obviously believes that you're competent enough to be paid to do a job) and anyone who cares to ask for your assistance somewhere.

Note that I'm still working with the definition that tolerance is recognising and respecting 'x' of others, including perhaps their opinions?

[Barry Shnikov]

I am losing the will to be apathetic on this one

Harsh, man; harsh.

[Barry Shnikov]

I am quite sure that Barry would, whilst proclaiming religion as ridiculous, never dream of enforcing his beliefs on anyone else.

Well, not before I become World Dictator, anyway...

[Barry Shnikov]

Tolerance isn't about not forcing your opinions on others, it's about respecting others.

Ridiculing other people's beliefs is not respectful.

If you don't see this, then it's not a big surprise that you haven't seen much intolerance on the forum.

I see the point you are making.

I have a question.

Why do I have to be respectful of other people's 'beliefs'?

Referring again to David Icke, surely I don't have to respect his 'beliefs', just because they are 'beliefs'? And if that is true for his 'beliefs', it follows for everybody else's as well.

Demonstrate that your beliefs are worthy of respect, and I will accord them the respect due to them.

[Barry Shnikov]

So for example, I can say that David Icke is indeed a nutjob. But I would be wrong to suggest that anyone cart him off to the neareast psycho ward immediately.

Uh - think you could have used a better example there, Butch. I'd vote for that in a second. Plus make him give all the royalties from his books to charity.

[ducasi]

Why do I have to be respectful of other people's 'beliefs'?

Because it is a good and proper thing to do. Respect for other people is what makes society possible. Their beliefs are just part of that.

Referring again to David Icke, surely I don't have to respect his 'beliefs', just because they are 'beliefs'? And if that is true for his 'beliefs', it follows for everybody else's as well.

In the case of David Icke, I believe that he was (and may still be) suffering from a mental illness. I don't think that people who are sick deserve ridicule.

[ducasi]

But if we assume this to be the case I'm left with my earlier question about intolerance of Muslim ideas aboout women.... what should be done about it - if it really is something that we should be intolerant of?

I think that question deserves a whole new thread, and I don't fancy having a proper go at answering it, except to say that generally the answer to disrespectful and intolerant behaviour is education. This may simply simply amount to "setting a good example".

[Gadget]

Demonstrate that your beliefs are worthy of respect, and I will accord them the respect due to them.

:sigh:
IMHO Tolerance is about removing the divisive nature of "Them and Us" philosophies. Statements/questions like the above actually promote or show an intollerance by reinforcing the "Them and Us".
Or more accuratly that "My" view is the right one and you have to prove that anything else can measure up to it. How have you gained such a strong beleif that yours is right? Schooling by parents? teachers? media? books? others ideas? How did they come to these conclusions?
If you have only been shown one way of being and one area of philosophy from everyone you trust, admire, love and respect - everyone you know follows it and everyone agrees that it's "right", then it must be right.

You place your trust and beleif in this. If you have closed your mind to any other way of thinking or that anyone else may have a different view/opinion and also be "right", then this is the breeding ground for intolerance.

{edit}
BTW I think the only way to remove this is education - by letting people browse the philosophy store and ask questions from those that know about their field. By asking "Why?". And trying to find answers to it. Leting folks know that there is more than one way to look at something.

[pjay]

I think that question deserves a whole new thread, and I don't fancy having a proper go at answering it, except to say that generally the answer to disrespectful and intolerant behaviour is education. This may simply simply amount to "setting a good example".

I think that "Education" is often bandied around as the solution to "disrespectful and intolerant behaviour," whether it actually works or not is, I think a whole different issue...

A small ammount from http://www.manager-tools.com/2005/06/culture-two/
Feel free to read the rest of it for how the US Army did manage to get change to happen.

In the 70’s, the US Army was having a terribly difficult time with race relations in Germany. We had forces stationed there, and there were many black soldiers, and significant black-white tensions. While I don’ t know what the experts would/did say regarding the reasons, the fact is, there were many incidents of assault and some homicides relating to race among soldiers. The Army was QUITE concerned, obviously - this was the Cold War, and our forces in Germany played a crucial role in helping Europe feel that Soviet bloc tanks weren’t going to come racing through the Fulda Gap and conquer Europe.

The Army did all sorts of training, helping soldiers learn about each other, and to build bridges, and to address soldiers’ root cause feelings of bigotry and hatred and ignorance. LOTS of classes, awareness sessions, sensitivity work. Lots of Organizational Effectiveness specialists working with unit commanders, trying to communicate a different way of thinking about soldiers who were “different” than they were.

It failed miserably. Race relations did not improve appreciably. Assaults, altercations, homicides, etc. all continued. No decline.

The fact is that I can talk to you until I'm blue in the face, but there is nothing I can do in myself that will cause you to change your beliefs, opinions, level of respect for anyone - or anything like that, only the individual is able to change their beliefs.

What I may be able to do - if I have enough "power" is change the way you act based on your beliefs, or remove you from the situation where I am unhappy with your actions. This has been seen as an effective way to change organisational culture - however that change may come at the expense of an individual (see the entire article referenced above).

[bigdjiver]

...Feel free to read the rest of it for how the US Army did manage to get change to happen...

I cannot recall who said it, but "If you have them by their b******s, their hearts and minds will follow."

[pjay]

If you have only been shown one way of being and one area of philosophy from everyone you trust, admire, love and respect - everyone you know follows it and everyone agrees that it's "right", then it must be right.

Not disagreeing, but would also add to this that choosing to reject one philosophy might be the same.

But the reality is that as people we choose every day what we will and will not believe in, and we base this decision on what we believe is right. I would not live the way I do if I didn't believe that it was right, I would change it to what I do believe is right.

So in my opinion the source of conflict arises because different people have differing opinions at to what is right, and thus different ways of living. When I see someone living based on a belief that I think is wrong I have only a couple of choices available to me:

1. subjective truth.
2. I am right, they are wrong.
3. I am wrong, they are right.

Now of course subjective truth has it's place - one person can love haggis, while another hate it, but in some circumstances societies & beliefs call for absolute truths - as a society we define circumstances in which it is acceptable to kill a human, outside of these circumstances we do not tolerate this behavior - we lock people up for it, in some countries people are even "deprived of life" for it.

Anyhow, I don't think that conflict is a bad thing - however it is something that people tend to do badly - and the more emotion involved the more likely it is that conflict will be done badly.

NB: I'm not suggesting that we try to remove emotion, to do that would be to dehumanise us.

I'm not sure I've really added anything, but I liked writing this anyway

[Dreadful Scathe]

Tolerance isn't about not forcing your opinions on others, it's about respecting others.

Ridiculing other people's beliefs is not respectful.

If you don't see this, then it's not a big surprise that you haven't seen much intolerance on the forum.

I see your point but any opinion could seem disrespectful without actually being intolerant. I tihnk my general view of intolerance was always 'people who feel they KNOW the facts and do not care to hear arguments'. I agree that that is too tight a definition and respect is in there too. In our Barry example Barry has given justification for his 'fairy story' remark and anyone can argue against this - perhaps none of this is intolerant until such time as Barry is not interested in the replies, at least taken in the context of this forum where people CAN reply. Some clearly do see it as intolerant but is that bad? The definition of 'Forum' must come into it at some point surely?

Intolerance is not 100% bad. I am quite proud to be intolerant of Nazis and I am quite proud that this forum is full of people clever enough to state their thoughts in a mostly logical and coherant way without resorting to insults all the time. You get enough of that elsewhere. More intolerance on the forum please, it always covers the important issues and can even change the minds of people and ultimately the world

[Barry Shnikov]

:sigh:
IMHO Tolerance is about removing the divisive nature of "Them and Us" philosophies. Statements/questions like the above actually promote or show an intollerance by reinforcing the "Them and Us".
Or more accuratly that "My" view is the right one and you have to prove that anything else can measure up to it. How have you gained such a strong beleif that yours is right? Schooling by parents? teachers? media? books? others ideas? How did they come to these conclusions?

Sorry, Gadget, but that's nonsense. First, I am simply denying that there is any intrinsic protection from criticism that a belief system should enjoy. Perhaps you could explain to me why I - or anybody else - should respect David Icke's beliefs. And if you can square that one to yourself, maybe I could point to the example of Timothy McVeigh and ask you to explain why I should respect the beliefs held by him and those like him.

If you consider that my assertion that all belief systems is some kind of arrogant assertion that 'I'm right, your wrong' then I haven't communicated my point well enough. I'm simply saying that as far as I am concerned, no person gets protection from me criticising or ridiculing their beliefs simply because they are beliefs, or a faith, or a religion.

This idea, that no one can criticise the religious/quasi religious status quo, led to the slaughter of the Cathars, the Inquisition, Leonardo da Vinci being put under house arrest, and many other crimes. Any proposition that is put forward is subject to criticism; the value of the proposition lies in its ability to withstand the criticism.

If you have only been shown one way of being and one area of philosophy from everyone you trust, admire, love and respect - everyone you know follows it and everyone agrees that it's "right", then it must be right.

You place your trust and beleif in this. If you have closed your mind to any other way of thinking or that anyone else may have a different view/opinion and also be "right", then this is the breeding ground for intolerance.

Second, the only thing I place 'faith and trust' in is what my brain can do. If something seems like nonsense to me, I generally mistrust it. If it seems like solid sense, I generally trust it. The important thing is that I always keep my mind open to new input. In face to face discussions, many people conclude that I am bigoted simply because I've either heard before or anticipated most of the arguments they make so when I provide a counter argument, it's seen as an unreasoning defence of the position I've adopted. Same same in this forum, possibly; however, I can assure you that any time I see an assertion that holds water and which I haven't encountered before it can stop me in my tracks until I've worked out whether I have to change my position or whether I can challenge the new assertion.

The people I generally admire, trust and respect are those people who make sense and conduct themselves well. I would include, recently encountered, Richard Dawkins, Dr. Jonathan Miller, Brian Deer and Lord Justice Neuberger.

BTW I think the only way to remove this is education - by letting people browse the philosophy store and ask questions from those that know about their field. By asking "Why?". And trying to find answers to it. Leting folks know that there is more than one way to look at something.

O dear. My 'Philosophy Store' analogy is gradually slipping away from me. The point was not that there is wide variety on offer, but that there are no assistants there or anything else to give you any idea how the philosphies differ, so that the only way of deciding which one is for you without investigating each one for yourself. Since there are literally hundreds of them, you may find you just pick the nearest one and buy that. In fact a better refinement would be that your one and only visit to the Store is when you are very young and in the company of your parents and they say 'You'll have that one'.

[Dreadful Scathe]

I would say that this is belittling to the beliefs of the majority of people in the world, who follow a religion

Just to come back to an earlier point. How do you know a majority of the world is religious ?

This page gives a handy pie chart of percentages worlwide but what is this other than a statistic to be taken witha pinch of salt. Britain is not a very religious country, I think the Religion Catagory thread shows a majority of non-religious people from this forum and i would expect a similar pattern to emerge with the rest of the population. What that means is, a lot of people who would label themselves 'Christians' only do so because they were brought up that way, they may be atheists, they may be anti-religion whilst still believing in God. Statistics are not to be believed, if they were you would have to admit that there are thousands of practicing Jedi's all over the world . The force is with them. Always.

[ducasi]

I see your point but any opinion could seem disrespectful without actually being intolerant.

It's not the opinion that matters as much as how you express it.

[Gadget]

Sorry, Gadget, but that's nonsense. First, I am simply denying that there is any intrinsic protection from criticism that a belief system should enjoy.

Can science be seen as a religion? Isn't this what you place your faith in instead of a god? Religion and beleif systems are a mix of social rules and explinations of unexplained "Why"'s. Laws take care of the social rules and science takes care of the why's. So what's the point of religion?

Perhaps you could explain to me why I - or anybody else - should respect David Icke's beliefs. And if you can square that one to yourself, maybe I could point to the example of Timothy McVeigh and ask you to explain why I should respect the beliefs held by him and those like him.

Because they are his beliefs. He holds them dear. I would respect his property, I would respect his belongings, why would I not respect his beleifs? Especially as he has opened them up for anyone to look at. I may think that they are rather strange and based on some wonkey logic, but I still respect him for creating his belief system around the facts as he sees them and living true to it.
However, if someone's beliefs encourages the domination over or harm to others, then people will become intollerant to it. Myself included.

I'm simply saying that as far as I am concerned, no person gets protection from me criticising or ridiculing their beliefs simply because they are beliefs, or a faith, or a religion.

No-one is asking for protection. What is being asked is why ridicule in the first place?
Ridicule:"Words or actions intended to evoke contemptuous laughter at or feelings toward a person or thing"
Contempt:"The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn.
- The state of being despised or dishonored; disgrace.
- Open disrespect or willful disobedience of the authority of a court of law or legislative body.

Isn't ridicule so close to intolerance that it makes no odds?

Second, the only thing I place 'faith and trust' in is what my brain can do. If something seems like nonsense to me, I generally mistrust it. If it seems like solid sense, I generally trust it.

But what do you base this 'nonsense' and 'solid sense' on? A while ago, it would be 'nonsense' to think that the world was anything but flat. It would be 'nonsense' to think that the earth was not at the centre of the universe. It would be 'nonsense' to think that there was no god changing the seasons.

What you tend to do is not provide a counter-argument (as climed), but an agresive statement of attack. To be a counter argument, there has to be an argument to defend against in the first place, and stating your personal beliefs is not an argument.

[Andy McGregor]

IMHO asking people be tolerant stifles lively debate. It also stifles mindlesss banter. If we are asked to tolerate people being wrong or stating a belief we know to be erroneous, badly thought out, stupid, badly spelt, etc we'd never hear the other side of any argument. And I think we should put forward our side of the argument without some do-gooder asking us to keep silent for the sake of harmony.

Let's use the simple example of spelling. Correct spelling is required for effective communication. And the forum is all about communication. To ask people to communicate better and stop being lazy about spelling is not being intolerant. It's asking people to play the game. To ask us to "tolerate" bad spelling is a valid point of view - it's just wrong

[ducasi]

I'd ask you to tolerant people who have problems with or just can't spell.

Tolerance doesn't mean stifled debate. I'm just asking people to state their opinions and make their arguments without trying to ridicule other people's views and beliefs.

[Barry Shnikov]

Can science be seen as a religion?

No.

Because they are his beliefs.

So what?

No-one is asking for protection.

Yes they are. They are saying 'You can't say horrible things about his beliefs because they are his beliefs.'

Isn't ridicule so close to intolerance that it makes no odds?

No.

But what do you base this 'nonsense' and 'solid sense' on? A while ago, it would be 'nonsense' to think that the world was anything but flat.

Define 'a while'. It's not been commonly thought that the earth is flat since man first sailed out of sight of land.

It would be 'nonsense' to think that the earth was not at the centre of the universe.

Bad example. The only people who were challenged by that notion were 'the faithful'. The (some) Greeks knew that the earth moved round the sun. For centuries scientists (not that they used the scientific method, but that's another story) tried to find explanations for the otherwise counter-intuitive 'retrograde motion' of the planets. Copernicus/da Vinci's explanation was so logical anyone susceptible to argument and not hide-bound by received wisdom accepted it as overwhelmingly likely.

What you tend to do is not provide a counter-argument (as climed), but an agresive statement of attack.

Actually, if I do the latter I pretty much always do the former as well.