The world is choked with differences. We need to focus on tolerance not acceptance. So many battles here on ILP and so much meaness over opinions. It makes me sad.
Hi turtle, that’s good that you are so in touch with your feelings, even underneath that carapace that is your peripatetic home.
So this tolerance/enduring does not extend to those with opinions borne on the arrow of meaness?
I’d gladly suffer the different than to live with a “one size fits all” vision.
I need to clarify. I am not suggesting that differences be done away with. By “choked” I was meaning that there are tremendous differences among people. I wanted to emphasize the important of tolerance. It is impossible to accept many differences of opinion. I don’t think the socratic method is mean spirited.
And yet Socrates’ opponents were not of that same dialectic mind. They protested and attacked vociferously until the argument finally came to an end. This started me wondering. Sometimes I think the level or intensity of attacks actually fit the subject or the person being attacked. That in turn reminds me of that famous quote from Shakespeare, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” The trick then is to figure out what an overcharged attack means.
Hmm, I think the whole point of ILP is to debate amongst each other? If we all just put our views across and nobody questioned them it wouldn’t be worth logging on.
Also, why is this in the psychology section?!
Maybe it’s posted here because turtle wants to explore his feelings and the psychology behind mean-spirited attacky debates. I’ve been trying to help, but I expect my opinions don’t count for much since I’ve been involved in so many contentious discussions. But believe me, I find the psychology interesting as well, and I don’t really like certain forms of attack such as projection, ad hominems, and sexism. I do enjoy great and original rhetoric, though; and sometimes a contentious debate goes well when the intelligence, knowledge, and language moves to a high level. I find myself able to forgive a lot when that happens.
Yeah, I generally find that the admin are pretty swift with dealing with personal attacks though.
And I think turtle should propose a psychology based thesis if it should stay in this section!
What a persnickety Sidney you’re turning out to be. Lol. Maybe if you quote the ILP dogma chapter and verse, the admin will give you a prize ticket and punish turtle appropriately, maybe by reporting his infraction to his Aunt Polly who will give him a good whupping and make him endure long sessions of bible reading in the evenings.
What does the prize ticket consist of?
I want to be punished. My new thesis would be----- Are persons who are tolerant wanting to be punished?
Oh dear. I was hoping you’d be more like Tom Sawyer, a free spirit. Sidney was always getting Tom in trouble, but Tom was also always trying to avoid getting punished and getting even with Sidney.
If you collect enough tickets for reciting bible verses, then you can trade them in for your own new Sunday school bible.
Tolerance is good, which is a totally different thing from being agreeable…
I think there are some differences we must not tolerate, but, as far as it is possible, all interaction ought to be honest and civil. You can, for instance, be intolerant about a position or an idea and yet argue honestly and with a minimum level of civility.
Do you tolerate people who advocate or commit murder?
No??? It’s not “good” in that circumstance, huh??? Moral relativism, huh???
Intimidation, humiliation, and malevolence are uncivil and intellectually dishonest methods of argument. But there’s nothing wrong with intolerance itself.
Good point 
but I meant in discussional terms on this here forum - external of this forum I do not tolerate much from humans, as I find most to be morally lacking in some way or another, and therefore do not deserve my time…
Why are they ‘dishonest’ methods?
Sometimes (or 99% of the time) the greatest lies are spilled with a smile on his/her face.
Debaitor,
They are dishonest methods of argument because they attempt to gain by manipulation of emotion what can only be gained by valid reasoning and truth. It is dishonest because it is cheating. They are methods which may fool an audience, but when used they either 1) make the weaker argument (or no argument) appear to be the stronger, or 2) if they are used in conjunction with a good argument they make it difficult for the opponent to understand/accept the good reasons on account of their presentation. If you think that a good argument which also intimidates, humiliates, or carries malice is superior to the same good argument which does not, please explain.