Sign in to follow this  
Golden Dragon Shining

Tolerance, Apathy and the Fall of Civilizations

Recommended Posts

Along with altruism, duty and sacrifice which are all the same thing. Tolerance is the antithesis of judgement and judgement is the necessity of cvilised, rational behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thieves should not be tolerated, even if they operate under the guise of the "law"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thieves should not be tolerated, even if they operate under the guise of the "law"

Or democracy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before defining "thieves" you should define "property". Do we really have a right of property to anything? 

 

We should think more in terms of "usufruct", this is the best we can do and probably this is the future of civilisation.

 

 

Thomas Jefferson said, "The earth belongs in usufruct to the living." He apparently understood that when you hold something in usufruct, you gain something of significant value, but only temporarily. The gains granted by usufruct can be clearly seen in the Latin phrase from which the word developed, usus et fructus, which means "use and enjoyment." Latin speakers condensed that phrase to ususfructus, the term English speakers used as the model for our modern word. Usufruct has been used as a noun for the legal right to use something since at least the 1630s. Any right granted by usufruct ends at a specific point, usually the death of the individual who holds it.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usufruct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before defining "thieves" you should define "property". Do we really have a right of property to anything? 

 

We should think more in terms of "usufruct", this is the best we can do and probably this is the future of civilisation.

 

 

 

 

Of course we must have a right to private property and to pass this on in perpetuity. Jefferson didn't use the in that sense. The problem occurs when there is a claim on property/land from the distant past. The survivors of the lineage of Adam/Eve should not be able to claim that they are the true owners of the Earth for instance. Britain was invaded by many tribes, the very last being the Normans, but it would be crazy for living relatives that were disposed of lands to claim them.

 

This applies to productive use of land/ property. If a plot/house has been left vacant and has deteriorated to an extent it has become a wilderness on which there is no direct way to identify the extent of ownership, then it should be auctioned and the cash raised held in perpetuity for any potential claimants that might come forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before defining "thieves" you should define "property". Do we really have a right of property to anything? 

 

 

 

Well, if I have worked hard and honestly to save up the money to buy something you can be sure I will consider it "my property".  Sure, I will one day die and then the property will mean nothing to me as I wouldn't exist.  But until that day it is mine to do with as I please.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Along with altruism, duty and sacrifice which are all the same thing. Tolerance is the antithesis of judgement and judgement is the necessity of cvilised, rational behaviour.

 

 

.... hmmmmm   - annoying local new age quip ; "Oh Man, you are so judgmental of me !  Dont judge me man ! "

 

Me;  'I'm not ... I am just remembering what you did last time we tried this - no thanks! " 

 

But IS tolerance the antithesis of judgement ?   I would say judgment is a process and tolerance is one outcome ... the other 'antithesis' is ; nope ! Now your gonna get it ! 

 

I like the way Liber Librae ( The Book of the balance) puts it ;

 

Remember that unbalanced force is evil; that unbalanced severity is but cruelty and oppression; but that also unbalanced mercy is but weakness which would allow and abet Evil. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... hmmmmm   - annoying local new age quip ; "Oh Man, you are so judgmental of me !  Dont judge me man ! "

 

Me;  'I'm not ... I am just remembering what you did last time we tried this - no thanks! " 

 

But IS tolerance the antithesis of judgement ?   I would say judgment is a process and tolerance is one outcome ... the other 'antithesis' is ; nope ! Now your gonna get it ! 

 

I like the way Liber Librae ( The Book of the balance) puts it ;

 

Remember that unbalanced force is evil; that unbalanced severity is but cruelty and oppression; but that also unbalanced mercy is but weakness which would allow and abet Evil. [/size]

Tolerance is the withholding of judgement and therefore justice. Tolerance is a refusal to judge and act on that judgement. It is to know that something impoverishes ones life and to accept that impoverishment. No rational person should be tolerant as long as they are free to decide, there are occasions where you aren't free to decide, but that is not tolerance, it is a practical necessity.

 

For instance, if a thief aims a gun at your head and steals your wallet, then you are not being tolerant of the thief, you are forced to accept the robbery because the outcome is potentially grimmer if you resist.

 

Tolerance is to say that you will refuse to do something to help yourself even when conditions make it entirely possible to do so. Violence does not force tolerance, it forces you not to act on judgement, to prevent the use of reason to do so. Violence is the antithesis of reason, tolerance is the abdication of reason and hence the refusal to judge.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure tolerance is as much a withholding of judgment as it is accepting a perception. There needs to be more compassion and tolerance in the world.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There needs to be more compassion and tolerance in the world.

Well, no shit!

 

But still, I cannot be compassionate toward someone who is self-destructive or is constantly trying to destroy others.

 

And I cannot be tolerant of someone like those people who kill innocent women and children.

 

As with most things, there are limits.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder who would ask someone to be tolerant of killing and murder? Seems odd to me. Tolerance seems to me to be more for opinions and non-harmful actions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder who would ask someone to be tolerant of killing and murder? Seems odd to me. Tolerance seems to me to be more for opinions and non-harmful actions.

Those kind of opinions and no-harmful actions don't require tolerance anyway. If you like cherries and I prefer grapes then I'm not being tolerant by accepting this is your preference. You might be working on your house next to me and creating mess and disturbance, but I accept that you need to do that work because at some time I might also carry out similar works. Neither of those things is tolerance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears I cannot cut and paste but look up the definition of tolerance.

 

I am confused.

 

The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behaviors that one does not necessarily agree with.

 

I know there are many who are not tolerant of the LBGT community. Your opinion seems strange to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears I cannot cut and paste but look up the definition of tolerance.

 

I am confused.

 

The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behaviors that one does not necessarily agree with.

 

I know there are many who are not tolerant of the LBGT community. Your opinion seems strange to me.

One thing about definitions that are discovered by looking in a dictionary. They are not conclusive truths or perfect definitions, they can be used as a rough guide ( and in some cases they are very accurate), but in an argument it is the participants that set the definitions. In this case, why is it that tolerance is included in the fall of civilisation. You might disagree with this inclusion, preferring to argue that it is a necessity, so we set out our stall and agree those definitions.

 

Taking your example of the LGBT community. I can choose to like, dislike, or simply have no opinion on someone that demonstrates a different sexual preference. I might decide I don't wish to host a homosexual in my house, business or sit next to them in a restaurant. That would be my business. That opinion, or view does not mean I have any right to prevent homosexuals from going about their business, I might not like them sitting next to me in a restaurant, then I will either stay, or move. If a homosexual comes into my shop I should be able to refuse them service. I can't beat them, spit on them or any other form of violence, but I should be able to politely ask them to leave and expect them to do so.

 

In the above case it is a respecting of each persons opinion regardless if one agrees with it. This is not tolerance, it is peaceful assertion of ones own judgement be that from the perspective of the homosexual or the heterosexual. Tolerance means to drop that judgement, to refuse to exercise judgement, to have no opinion at all about anything.

 

Tolerance is a word very similar to sacrifice. It is always those that do not respect others opinions that want to force tolerance on other people. These people believe their actions and attitudes must not only be respected, but also condoned and legitimised by others. The end result is the politicisation of their opinions and actions that force people to sit next to them, force them to employ, serve and welcome them. They are refusing to respect the other persons opinion and invoke third party thugs (Government) to ensure they get their way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tolerate Nothing, Accept Everything

 

I¬īm no fan of tolerance. ¬†Tolerance is pouty and passive-agressive, shifty and small-minded. ¬†Tolerance is a grudging putting-up with something we really don¬īt like at all, usually because we lack the courage to come right out and say what we really think. ¬†When we tolerate something we feel tight, boxed-in -- vaguely victimized. When people say they tolerate screaming babies or gays or women cops, what is it they¬īre really saying? ¬†I think tolerance is shorthand for "I don¬īt like it at all but am too polite to say so in mixed company."¬†

 

Acceptance is so much better. Here there¬īs an implication that someone has gone through an internal process of coming to terms with something. ¬†As in: "In the past I couldn¬īt stand being around my mother-in-law, but now I see her as a person with both good and bad qualities and have learned how to enjoy myself around her." ¬†That¬īs acceptance.

 

There¬īs openness and freedom in acceptance. ¬†Acceptance doesn¬īt always imply hearty approval; on the contrary, we can accept something we don¬īt like at all. ¬†In acceptance there¬īs this recognition that the world is the way it is, and there¬īs a readiness to deal with it straight on. ¬†Take violence, for instance. ¬†We¬īre right to have a "zero-tolerance" policy towards violence in most circumstances. ¬†At the same time, we can accept that there is violence in the world. ¬†Doesn¬īt mean we like it or approve of it. ¬†Doesn¬īt mean we¬īre not doing everything we can to eradicate it. ¬†Acceptance means that we can read the news, openly acknowledge all the bad things happening in the world, and not be immobilized by fear and anger.

 

(PS: The word tolerance often comes up in reference to lesbians and gays. ¬†As a gay man, I¬īve no use for tolerance. ¬†If you don¬īt like me, you might as well come straight out -- pun intended -- and say so. ¬†Political correctness does us no favors driving prejudice underground. ¬†I¬īd rather by openly hated than secretly despised. ¬†But that¬īs just me.)¬†

Edited by liminal_luke
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like anything else, a happy middle is important.  I am tolerant, but not of intolerance.  My mind is open, but not open enough so any junk can fall into it.  I don't try to be perfect, I try to find balance and act naturally.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tolerance is the withholding of judgement and therefore justice.

 

Not necessarily, it can be after judgement  and  can regulate the outcome of the judgement , or not, depending on the case in question  (and whether the ruling resulting from the judgement was made before lunch - intolerant, or after - more tolerant  - according to court records) .

 

Tolerance is a refusal to judge and act on that judgement.

 

No, one make a tolerant judgement or an intolerant judgement 

 

It is to know that something impoverishes ones life and to accept that impoverishment.

 

What ... being tolerent of children learning to behave and do things the right way impoverishes  ones life ?   :blush: 

 

No rational person should be tolerant as long as they are free to decide, there are occasions where you aren't free to decide, but that is not tolerance, it is a practical necessity.

 

Errrmmmm ... 

 

noun

1.
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions,beliefs, practices, racial or ethnic origins, etc., differ from one's own;freedom from bigotry.
2.
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions, beliefs, and practices that differ from one's own.
3.
interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
4.
the act or capacity of enduring; endurance:
My tolerance of noise is limited.
 
etc.
 
You are just redefining it so you can argue it means what you want it to mean . 

For instance, if a thief aims a gun at your head and steals your wallet, then you are not being tolerant of the thief, you are forced to accept the robbery because the outcome is potentially grimmer if you resist.

 

That has nothing to do with tolerance , that is robbery under threat of violence .     What you on about today Karl ?  :huh: 

 

Tolerance is to say that you will refuse to do something to help yourself even when conditions make it entirely possible to do so.

 

Rubbish !  I dont do that at any time, and if I did it would be nothing like tolerance .   

 

Let me guess, you are an intolerant type of guy , yeah ? 

 

Violence does not force tolerance, it forces you not to act on judgement, to prevent the use of reason to do so. Violence is the antithesis of reason, tolerance is the abdication of reason and hence the refusal to judge.

 

How did violence get so entwined into this ?    :unsure: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no shit!

 

But still, I cannot be compassionate toward someone who is self-destructive or is constantly trying to destroy others.

 

And I cannot be tolerant of someone like those people who kill innocent women and children.

 

As with most things, there are limits.

 again - the violence.

 

Did I miss something in the original post ?  

 

Why has the concept of being tolerant now considered among things we should not be tolerant about and thrown out generally because it somehow got attached to that ? . Is someone arguing we should be tolerant  when we should not be ? 

 

Nungali confused. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears I cannot cut and paste but look up the definition of tolerance.

 

I am confused.

 

The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behaviors that one does not necessarily agree with.

 

I know there are many who are not tolerant of the LBGT community. Your opinion seems strange to me.

 

Oh ? 

 

You havent met Karl before ? 

 

Allow me   :D

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this