As most debates that involve the treatment of homosexuals do, () our debate on the gentleman from the hate group joining the anti-bullying task force has kind of devolved into a discussion of who is more intolerant. Is he more intolerant for being anti-gay marriage, or am I more intolerant for being anti-him-on-a-task-force?
Don't worry, that's not the debate question.
The debate question is, how do you personally define tolerance?
Do you feel that in order to be tolerant, we have to tolerate intolerance? Or does the fight for tolerance necessitate calling out intolerance?
I don't even know if this will be a debate, I just thought it would be interesting to hear people's thoughts on it.
In order to be tolerant you have to tolerate intolerance unless it affects someone's ability to do something they should be allowed to do.
Like I can tolerate the KKK/Black Panthers being racist, but cannot tolerate the fact that some people feel unsafe because of their intolerance. I can tolerate someone voting for the wrong party, but cannot tolerate the fact that some people are mistreated because they don't vote the way it's expected for them to vote.
I'm tolerant of other viewpoints. I recognize their point to exist. We can disagree til the cows come home but I respect that you have a different stance. I can explain why I agree or don't agree. When it hurts people is when I become intolerant of intolerance
David Letterman is retiring. Such great memories of watching him over the past thirty-two years!
I agree, Lillie.
For me, there are a couple of parts to it. First of all, the very fact that you are "tolerating" something means that you disagree with it. We don't "tolerate" opinions that we agree with; so the fact that you disagree with the thing you are tolerating is kind of a given. Disagreeing with someone is not "intolerant."
The second part depends on what you mean by "tolerate."
It seems like there are two main definitions of "intolerant" that get used in conversation and debate.
1. A sort of legalistic definition - meaning that you think something should be against the law.
2. A more emotional definition, which basically means that you feel someone is criticizing an opinion.
I think opinions should never be against the law, even opinions that I personally find completely objectionable. However, how you act on those opinions should be a legal question. If your opinions lead you to seek to hurt others or try to deny them their rights, then I don't think that should be allowed. That goes in all directions, not just the ones I agree with.
On the other hand, I find that there are very few opinions that are so sacred that they should not be criticized. Being critical of an opinion is not "intolerant" in my opinion. I think it's meaningless to pretend that all opinions are equally valid and equally correct. Some opinions are silly, or wrong, or harmful, and I don't think it serves to pretend otherwise. However, I think that the only way that intolerance comes into it is if you do not think that people have a right to their opinions that you disagree with. As I said before, I think people have a right to their opinions; the only question is how they then act on them.
I think the difference is saying "I feel one way" vs. "I want to stop X" does that make sense.
Morally, I agree with you. I cannot fathom people purposely reproducing when they cannot afford that child or any current children. However, I don't feel that it needs to be illegal.
Sooo weird, i wanted to ask the same question. I haven't been following the debate that you are talking about but I have been following this story, which is about an orchard that is nearby:
Treworgy family farmers take down ?No on 1? sign after Facebook flap
Alot of supporters of the farm are claiming the pro gay-marriage community is being 'intolerant' of the farms views...simply because they have vocally expressed that they are going to take their business elsewhere. To me, that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. But it made me want to ask the question here. Perhaps in its most technical of definitions? But it doesn't even seem comparable to their opposition, yet that is exactly what some people are saying.
Treworgy family farmers take down ?No on 1? sign after Facebook flap
LEVANT, Maine ? When the owner of a local family farm operation exercised his right to free speech by putting up a small political sign near a private driveway, some customers with an opposing view exercised their consumer rights to boycott the business.
That, in turn, prompted others to publicly come out in support of the farm family in a battle that is being waged primarily on the farm?s Facebook page.
At issue is a small lawn size ?No on 1? sign that Gary Treworgy, patriarch of the family farm, put up in front of his house. The property is also the location of a business that employs several family members.
?Don?t redefine marriage. Vote NO on Question One. Marriage=One Man + One Woman,? read the sign, sponsored by the Protect Marriage Maine campaign.
A citizen initiative on the Nov. 6 statewide ballot, Question 1 seeks to overturn Maine?s ban on same-sex marriage. The issue has proven a contentious one ? pitting neighbors, family members and friends against one another from one end of the state to the other.
The first post critical of Treworgy?s sign appeared Sunday, family spokesman Jon Kenerson said Monday afternoon. Within less than 24 hours, more than 15,000 people had visited the page, with many of them weighing in with comments, he said.
Though Treworgy removed the sign Monday morning, after someone stopped to say it was hurtful, the Facebook battle continued to rage.
On Monday, several members of the family said they were taken aback by the backlash they had received.
A sampling of posts from Question 1 supporters:
? ?You have lost all of my family?s business as of now. You may not know me personally, but my family has done business for years with you. It?s disgusting that you would bring personal ideals into your business page. All the years you took making the orchard great and in a matter of weeks, you have ruined your name and business. We will be using Wallingford?s Orchard as of now. Hopefully lost profits will teach you to be tolerant and respectful in future business dealings.?
? ?You are certainly entitled to your beliefs but your business will no longer be supported by my family.?
? ?No matter your belief, it still shouldn?t be expressed at your place of business. You lost so many of your loyal customers. While you may believe that being gay is a sin, no one is free of sin, including you.?
And a sample from those who support the Treworgy family:
? ?You may have lost many who ?like? your page, but you have gained me.?
? ? ? I commend you for defending/explaining your stance on Question 1. I think it?s sad that because you support No on 1 that you are looked upon as ?closed-minded? or discriminatory. So what that you don?t share the Yeson 1 viewpoint. ? I thought we lived in a free country with freedom of speech.?
? ?You have a new customer in my family. Thank you for your courage.?
? ?I will continue to support your farm. Regardless of your point of view. If everyone could take a minute and stop condemning people of their views it would be great. With that being said ? If people knew every company?s personal views they wouldn?t be able to shop anywhere. ? Btw I support gay marriage ? I believe everyone should have the right to marry who they love ? Same rights as everyone else ? No more no less.?
The controversy playing out on the Treworgy Family Orchards Facebook page prompted the family to post a lengthy statement Sunday night in which the family apologized for any hurt the sign might have caused ? but at the same time stood by its position on same-sex marriage.
?This is obviously a very divisive issue and we value the freedom for every citizen to exercise their rights to express their opinion,? the statement read. ?It?s a shame that so many assume that we are hateful and discriminatory simply because we are convinced that marriage is defined by a higher power than civil government.?
It was not clear Monday how the to-do over the sign might affect the orchard?s business in the long run. Kenerson said everyone, regardless of their politics, is welcome.
?We want people to know that it is possible to disagree with someone and continue to love and serve them as we have consistently done for years at our farm. No matter the outcome of the referendum in November.
? Treworgy Family Orchards will continue to be a place that welcomes and serves people from every walk of life,? he said. ?We love all our guests even if we don?t see eye to eye on everything.?
Let me give you some examples of the comments that are being made:
The only " hateful and discriminatory" people are the ones criticizing a person for exercising his freedom of speech. But then the left is well know for it's intolerance of people with opinions different from theirs.Those are just a couple of examples (and of course there are plenty of counter arguments as well....but i just couldn't believe that people were trying to throw the discrimination and intolerance card out to those who have decided to boycott Treworgy farms.I'm sure if they had a sign that said "Vote 'yes' on Question 1" that those who DIDN'T agree with them would have still frequented their business. I know I would have, either way, regardless of what I believe. Tolerance goes in all directions and first starts with respect. The best thing these people who got insulted could have done, is to continue to frequent this business to show that they themselves are tolerant and good examples of what they, themselves, personally believe in. No one should be 'punished' or boycotted simply for having the courage to state what they believe or don't believe in. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and don't expect anything in return...
I support their right to do what they want. Like Chik fil A they have to expect backlash.
I stopped frequenting a local farm stand because they voted against something I found very important locally. They may not notice but I don't want my $ supporting that. Similar to why I won't shop at Walmart.