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

[lovemeorhateme]

Right but if the left is intolerant is that bad or good?

Is hypocrisy bad or good?

There's your answer.

 

[resodko]

apparently it's not hypocrisy if you can accuse the other guy of racism

 

[quip]

Is hypocrisy bad or good?

There's your answer.

You're defending the right's right to be intolerant is that a good intolerance or a bad one? You seem to be confused.

 

[Jose Fly]

You just can't possibly see that race and sexuality are not the same thing, can you? The homosexual propaganda worked well on you it seems.

And you just can't seem to understand that the legal principles are the same.

Change race/sexuality to religion and the legal principles remain the same.

Are religious beliefs and logic mutually exclusive concepts?

No, but it's quite obvious that on this issue, you are processing this purely from a religious standpoint.

Oh, and who's law? God's or mans?

Unless you live in a theocracy, "God's law" is irrelevant.

 

[resodko]

Unless you live in a theocracy, "God's law" is irrelevant.

God's law is the only basis for just law

 

[Jose Fly]

God's law is the only basis for just law

I'm sure that's what you believe, but that's only relevant to you.

 

[quip]

Hello, Loveme....?

How do you describe "equality" ....is equality a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[quip]

...that was quick.

 

[resodko]

I'm sure that's what you believe, but that's only relevant to you.

i'm sure that's what you believe, but you'll find out soon enough how wrong you are :idunno:

 

[lovemeorhateme]

You're defending the right's right to be intolerant is that a good intolerance or a bad one? You seem to be confused.

You're missing the point. Both have the right to be intolerant if they wish to be. But one side claims to be tolerant and in doing so they become intolerant of dissent to their ideals. That's hypocrisy, is it not?

 

[Jose Fly]

But one side claims to be tolerant and in doing so they become intolerant of dissent to their ideals. That's hypocrisy, is it not?

Again, you only seem to be able to think of "tolerance" in absolute terms, where if someone claims to be "tolerant" you take that as "you must therefore tolerate absolutely everything".

 

[musterion]

Speaking of liberal tolerance, from right chere in my own new backyard.

http://christiannews.net/2015/03/03...o-lifers-at-north-carolina-abortion-facility/

 

[quip]

You're missing the point. Both have the right to be intolerant if they wish to be. But one side claims to be tolerant and in doing so they become intolerant of dissent to their ideals. That's hypocrisy, is it not?

Are you intolerant of murder/murderers?

 

[PureX]

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?

An ideal which is not achievable. For some will always get more rights than others. To give 'rights' to one particular group, one has to take rights away from another group. Of course, who decides who deserves what rights is entirely arbitrary.

Each person gives up some personal freedom so that everyone else can achieve the same degree of personal freedom. It's not rocket science. My right to life, liberty, and autonomy ends when it infringes your identical right to life, liberty and autonomy. No one has to dominate anyone. All we have to do is respect the equal rights of everyone else, so that they will respect ours. Why do you find this so impossible to achieve?

And what do you imagine to be the alternative? If not an endless battle for dominance and submission?

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 see the evidence of this all around me.

And yet you still have not shared any evidential examples of this most heinous and overwhelming intolerance with us, here. Why is that?

Criminals and ignoramuses? That sounds pretty hyperbolas to me.

No, that's pretty much exactly what they are. That's not hyperbole.

Because true equality is not possible. As stated above, you have to take rights away from some to give them to others.

Do you not understand what the word "equal" means? Yes, everyone gives up some rights (freedoms) so that everyone else gets the same rights (freedom). Like redistributing the amount of water in a collection of drinking glasses until they each have the same amount of water. Why can't you understand this very simple concept? We are all equally free, and equally restrained from denying the freedom of others. We don't all have to agree with or like each other. We simply have to tolerate and respect each other's equal right to liberty, justice, and self-determination.

I don't understand why you can't understand this?

If one needs to resort to statements like that, it usually indicates that further discussions are a waste of time.

Well I'm sorry, but so far you are proving the insult to be true. As you don't appear to even understand the basic concept of equality, and you have no examples to share with us of this most heinous intolerance that you claim is the result of the ideal of equal liberty, justice, and autonomy for all.

 

[PureX]

 

[Lon]

When it comes to compelling someone to engage in specific speech, I agree.

I'm for once, speechless.

:up:

 

[quip]

I'm for once, speechless.

:up:

So, Lon what's your stance ....are liberals who are intolerant of christian intolerance being intolerant (in the negative moral sense) therefore, liberals who try to advance equality are immoral in doing so?

Or is seeking equality a moral goal....thus being intolerant to intolerance concludes as a moral undertaking?

 

[musterion]

DING DING DING!!!

Goodwin's Law.

That's Godwin's Law.

 

[Lon]

So, Lon what's your stance ....are liberals who are intolerant of christian intolerance being intolerant (in the negative moral sense) therefore, liberals who try to advance equality are immoral in doing so?

Or is seeking equality a moral goal....thus being intolerant to intolerance concludes as a moral undertaking?

In a nutshell, people are free to pursue their differences provided such doesn't harm the rest of society. We are out of balance as a country, harming the majority, in favor of special-interest groups. Equality should never mean you have to be a borg, to be a member of society.

The difference between your and my advocacy, is that your's harms other human beings. Barring that, we might have nothing to fight about. That's the bottom line.

 

[aikido7]

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?

To me, tolerance is how I can still be in love with my wife and at the same time being able to bring up my empathy skills to understand where she is coming from.

To live together, we both need to be tolerant. This state of mind keeps us mindful of another person as separate from ourselves and yet finding ourselves able to "walk a mile in their shoes."

I have noticed a slight shift in the way tolerance is defined these days.

To me it is not bowing down to the powers and principality and standing firm on your own values. I have learned to accept and give criticism respectfully and openly now, so I hardly ever find myself in a position of feeling emotionally "bound up" with today's definition (Trying to "tolerate" someone else).

That is not a good place for me to be in. Empathy and understanding are just easier for me all the way around.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I had a "growth spurt" some years ago when I began to notice "black/white," "either/or" frameworks were no longer useful for me. When Obama started getting the label of "socialist" I did some studying and found out there are vital parts of our nation that have always been socialist (Fire departments, the U.S, military, utilities, etc.).

So it does not surprise me any more to meet an unconservative conservative, or an intolerant tolerant person.
We're all a muddy mess of discrepancies and contradictions and my life just goes a whole lot better if I keep that in mind.