The Intolerance of 'Tolerance', the Inequality of 'Equality' and Left Wing Hypocrisy

[Jose Fly]

I think you've missed the point. I'm arguing that claiming to be tolerant while simultaneously being intolerant of those with who you disagree is hypocritical.

So you can only think of "tolerance" in absolute terms, where one is either tolerant of absolutely everything, or absolutely nothing?

 

[PureX]

I think you've missed the point. I'm arguing that claiming to be tolerant while simultaneously being intolerant of those with who you disagree is hypocritical.

Like being "pro-life" and "pro-capital punishment" is being hypocritical. And yet most of the people on TOL are both. Because people are not one-dimensional paper cut-outs, and because these ideals are not one-dimensional and absolute ideals.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Well then, I don't know of anyone who demands 100% agreement from everyone. Do you have a specific example?

I just gave you an example. The homosexual community. If one does not 100% agree with them, they are labelled an intolerant, homophobic bigot who should be labelled as bad as a racist.

The legal definition that applies to whatever circumstances we're discussing.

What makes that definition correct?

That's why we have courts.

What makes the decision of the courts correct?

It depends. If acting in your conscience results in discrimination against others, then in most cases you will be reprimanded.

Back to what I said before, who defines discrimination and what makes their definition correct?

The legal principles are the same.

That depends who made the law. Laws are not the same in all countries. Who decides which law is proper and correct and which isn't?

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Like being "pro-life" and "pro-capital punishment" is being hypocritical. And yet most of the people on TOL are both. Because people are not one-dimensional paper cut-outs, and because these ideals are not one-dimensional and absolute ideals.

Absolutely not.

Pro-life = protecting the innocent. Pro-capital punishment = punishing the guilty.

 

[resodko]

why should jose be allowed to determine whether or not i should be free to act on my desire to discriminate against jews?

 

[Jedidiah]

The author of the OP is claiming that by being intolerant of discrimination against gays, those on the left are being hypocritical because they're claiming to be on the side of tolerance.

IOW, this version of reality is something like....

Liberal: We are on the side of tolerance!

Christian: I want to discriminate against gays.

Liberal: That is unacceptable and illegal, and if you discriminate we'll take you to court.

Christian: I thought you were on the side of tolerance, but here you are being intolerant of my viewpoints. That's hypocritical!


My point is, we can demonstrate the absurdity of this reasoning simply by applying it to discrimination of another type...

Liberal: We are on the side of tolerance!

Christian: I want to discriminate against Jews.

Liberal: That is unacceptable and illegal, and if you discriminate we'll take you to court.

Christian: I thought you were on the side of tolerance, but here you are being intolerant of my viewpoints. That's hypocritical!

Understand?

So this has nothing to do with racism ? Then why did you bring up racism ?

 

[lovemeorhateme]

No. And I can't even see why you asked? Did you mean to ask: "is intolerance, intolerant"? If so, the answer is yes, but since it's intolerant of intolerance it is not inherently self-contradicting. (As so many of the ignoramuses here on TOL so love to assert!)
Of course not.

You are missing the point entirely. I'm talking about the ideology called tolerance. This political ideology of 'tolerance' is one of the most intolerant ideologies in history. It seeks to enforce itself on others no matter what the cost.

Again, I don't understand why you would ask such an obviously wrong-headed question. Look in the dictionary. "Equal" means equal, it does not mean UN-equal.
Well, DUH! People who believe in the value of tolerance are intolerant of intolerance … well, DUHHHHH! Of course they are. What kind of an idiot would expect them to tolerate intolerance when they value tolerance???

Again, I'm talking about the ideology of equality which is fundamentally unequal.

As for the second part there, you have just confirmed what I already said about the hypocrisy of this position.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

So you can only think of "tolerance" in absolute terms, where one is either tolerant of absolutely everything, or absolutely nothing?

Not at all. I'm intolerant of some things and I'm tolerant of others. But I don't claim to be someone who supports the ideology of tolerance. Those who do but are intolerant of a certain subset of society due to their beliefs are hypocrites.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

The author of the OP is claiming that by being intolerant of discrimination against gays, those on the left are being hypocritical because they're claiming to be on the side of tolerance.

IOW, this version of reality is something like....

Liberal: We are on the side of tolerance!

Christian: I want to discriminate against gays.

Liberal: That is unacceptable and illegal, and if you discriminate we'll take you to court.

Christian: I thought you were on the side of tolerance, but here you are being intolerant of my viewpoints. That's hypocritical!


My point is, we can demonstrate the absurdity of this reasoning simply by applying it to discrimination of another type...

Liberal: We are on the side of tolerance!

Christian: I want to discriminate against Jews.

Liberal: That is unacceptable and illegal, and if you discriminate we'll take you to court.

Christian: I thought you were on the side of tolerance, but here you are being intolerant of my viewpoints. That's hypocritical!

Understand?

You're equating behavior which one chooses to engage in with something one is born with. There is no equation there. The two are not equal so your example is moot.

 

[oatmeal]

Following on from the title of this thread, I have just two questions I would like to ask. I'm interested to see how others answer these questions. Is 'tolerance' intolerant? Is 'equality' unequal?

People who espouse left wing political beliefs often see themselves as shining beacons of tolerance. They see themselves at the forefront of the fight for 'equality'. The problem is, those who see themselves as the most tolerant and enlightened people often seem to be completely intolerant of dissent from their ideals and beliefs. Those who see themselves as soldiers for equality see some people as more equal than others.

Take for example the case of Christianity vs the 'gay rights' movement. In almost all cases, those on the 'tolerant' liberal left side with homosexuals over Christians. In doing this, they become intolerant of those who do not subscribe to homosexual ideology and become complete hypocrites. The believe that equality should be extended to homosexuals at the expense of the rights of others who do not believe the same as them. In doing this, 'equality' treats Christians in an unequal way.

To look more at a case in point, one can look to the case of Asher's Bakery in Northern Ireland. The Christian owners of the bakery refused to bake a cake with the slogan 'Support Gay Marriage'. As a result of refusing to write this political slogan on a cake, the bakery are now being prosecuted in the name of 'equality' under equality laws all at the expense of the taxpayer. According to those on the left, it is unequal treatment to refuse to write such a slogan. Yet you can bet your bottom dollar if a Christian had walked into a bakery owned by homosexuals and asked for a cake saying 'marriage should only be between a man and woman for life', the left would be shouting out for the rights of the homosexual bakers to refuse to bake that cake. This is unbalanced, unfair and downright hypocritical. If those on the left wanted true equality, they would argue for the right of both bakers to refuse to write a slogan with which they disagree.

If those who claim to be tolerant are intolerant of those who they deem to be intolerant, is that not hypocrisy? If those who believe in equality only wish to extend those rights to those who believe how they do to the detriment of those who dissent, is that not hypocrisy?

What are your thoughts?

We might likewise ask, when does tolerance reach its limits?

Should we tolerate murder? or fraud? or rape? etc.....

No, of course not.

Homosexuality is wrong, it is a perversion of heterosexuality, the right way.

Even so, we do not tolerate abuses of heterosexuality. Heterosexual rape, child abuse it not to be tolerated either.

God determines what is right and what is wrong.

Scripture is clear that murder, rape, homosexuality, etc. is wrong.

 

[PureX]

Absolutely not.

Pro-life = protecting the innocent. Pro-capital punishment = punishing the guilty.

Well there ya go. Being intolerant of intolerance is sometimes necessary for protecting the ideal of tolerance. Just like killing people is sometimes necessary to stop people from killing people. Understand?

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Well there ya go. Being intolerant of intolerance is sometimes necessary for protecting the ideal of tolerance. Just like killing people is sometimes necessary to stop people from killing people. Understand?

If the left really believed that, why don't they admit to their intolerance? Instead they claim to be tolerant while being intolerant. That's my point. They say one thing but do another and that is the height of hypocrisy!

 

[PureX]

You are missing the point entirely. I'm talking about the ideology called tolerance.

Is there an ideology called "tolerance"? Because I have never encountered it.

There is an ideology based on the equal freedom, justice, and opportunity for all, which requires that we "tolerate" the equal rights and freedom of others. Is this the ideology you're referring to?

This political ideology of 'tolerance' is one of the most intolerant ideologies in history. It seeks to enforce itself on others no matter what the cost.

I have never seen any evidence of this, anywhere, in any history book or contemporary news source? And I am quite certain that you are not going to be able to produce any. Because all you're really doing is regurgitating the right-wing hyperbolic nonsense that you've been fed by a whole plethora criminals and ignoramuses with all sorts of personal agendas.

Again, I'm talking about the ideology of equality which is fundamentally unequal.

Please explain how you imagine that the ideal of equality under the law, among we fellow humans and citizens, is fundamentally unequal.

As for the second part there, you have just confirmed what I already said about the hypocrisy of this position.

I fear you are going to prove too stupid to bother conversing with, here. But we'll see.

 

[resodko]

purex - could you provide an example of hypocrisy?

I fear you are going to prove too stupid to bother conversing with, here. But we'll see.

thank you :thumb:

 

[Jose Fly]

I just gave you an example. The homosexual community. If one does not 100% agree with them, they are labelled an intolerant, homophobic bigot who should be labelled as bad as a racist.

You've claimed that gays demand everyone agree with them, but you've done nothing to demonstrate it to be so.

You understand the difference between saying something is so, and demonstrating it, don't you?

What makes that definition correct?

The law and subsequent interpretations by the courts.

What makes the decision of the courts correct?

The courts' job is to evaluate scenarios and actions in the context of existing law. With this issue, the courts are ruling consistent with anti-discrimination laws. If you and your fellow right-wing Christians don't like the outcome, you need to change the laws rather than focusing on the courts.

B

ack to what I said before, who defines discrimination and what makes their definition correct?

See above.

That depends who made the law. Laws are not the same in all countries. Who decides which law is proper and correct and which isn't?

The society in which they exist (in most developed countries).

 

[Jose Fly]

why should jose be allowed to determine whether or not i should be free to act on my desire to discriminate against jews?

I don't. It is the greater society in which we both live that has made that decision.

 

[Jose Fly]

​

So this has nothing to do with racism ? Then why did you bring up racism ?

I can only surmise that the concept is beyond your abilities and that trying to explain it yet again would be a waste of time.

 

[Jose Fly]

Not at all. I'm intolerant of some things and I'm tolerant of others. But I don't claim to be someone who supports the ideology of tolerance. Those who do but are intolerant of a certain subset of society due to their beliefs are hypocrites.

So then you need to show (not just claim) where people are advocating absolute tolerance of everything. Absent that, it seems you're guilty of the fallacy of argument via straw man.

 

[Jose Fly]

You're equating behavior which one chooses to engage in with something one is born with. There is no equation there. The two are not equal so your example is moot.

Nope. I can convert to Judaism if I so choose. The law makes no distinctions between those who are born into a religion and those who choose to convert to it.

 

[Jedidiah]

I can only surmise that the concept is beyond your abilities and that trying to explain it yet again would be a waste of time.

Oh. I thought it might have been race baiting. :idunno: