I simply do not see the difference to beating your opposition using “intelligence” (true facts) opposed to “cleverness” (magic tricks). I presume intimidation falls in the latter category. I don’t see why one method should become picked over another. Why would I teach my enemy “true facts” when I could seduce him with a simple magic trick instead?
Cleverness is actually preferable; I don’t want my opposition getting “too smart” where they start using my own logic against me. That would suck!
I think we’re on the same page about intolerance, Debaitor. I am only pointing out that there are better and worse ways of expressing intolerance.
I agree with that; I mainly disagreed with Magsj oversimplification of “tolerance = good”.
Intolerance can become expressed “civilly” or “uncivilly”, with or without Respect.
Debaitor,
If we are talking about [subduing] evil and enemies of war, I may have a different attitude. But in this context, we are talking about argument and debate. Those can only be won with valid reasoning and truth; the rest is extraneous and counter-productive.
You mistake that everybody is “friendly” with each other here. I doubt that’s true.
I don’t want to teach my enemies “truth”. I want to lie to them, and cause great harm to them. What do I owe an enemy of Truth? Why does he deserve it?
I am not under the impression that everyone is friendly and respectful. I have been unkind and disrespectful to others in past debates. Sometimes it’s a defense mechanism. But I do not think that makes me and my opponent enemies.
Submission through truth and valid reasoning is different than submission through intimidation, humiliation, and malevolence. The former is much more effective at illuminating truth, facilitating understanding, and bringing people together. The question is would you rather push people away or bring people together and why?
I mean tolerance, as in… less aggression and more discussion to other poster’s replies - taking one’s mood/aggression out on others, be it on a social forum or in real life, is not on/is unnecessary/is not cool/shows lack of self-control… need I go on 
Males have an innate biological (genetic) tendency to resist, revolt, and murder ‘Tyrants’. If somebody simply becomes “too good for their own good” at anything, any task, even including philosophy and matters of truth, then other men inevitably will rise up and band together in order to destroy the “tyrant”. Like all other goods/wealth, so too is Truth a good/wealth. I simply need to imply: my statements are ‘truer’ than yours.
Truth, logic, consistency: all of these beget a kind of superiority complex. Why is one person more “truthful” than another? Why is one person more “honest” than another?? If a man consolidates such traits (as truth-speaking and honesty) then other men will want to emulate/imitate such logic. We presume that what is true is what is logical when the connection between the two remains dubious (even to the best philosophers in history).
So, yes, you may use truth (truthful arguments and logical claims) to compel your opposition/challengers. But that does not mean you like or dislike your competition. Everybody has friends and enemies; it begins from childhood before we can even read/write on the internet. Other children challenge you or become challenged by you. Some influence others more than conversely. Some people are more ‘dominant’ and ‘superior’, in any arena. Without discrepancies in strength (and intellect), there would be no need (or existence) of egotism. We all owe our egos to such challenges and pretexts of superiority.
As such, it only exists a matter of time before one calls another ‘friend’ or ‘foe’ with respect to such abilities. In philosophy, these “abilities” are portrayed in argument, debate, inquiry, and exposition.
With such wide arrays of belief systems, values, judgments, perspectives…it is absolutely probable that one eventually will come into opposition with your “polar opposite”, somebody you cannot stand, somebody you even hate and want to die…a battle of ‘Good’ versus ‘Evil’ if you will, of “Us” versus “Them”.
I think part of the problem is that how people are accustomed to using the the word “tolerance” is not strictly in line with its definition.
tol·er·ance - [tol-er-uhns]
–noun
2.
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance
I do not need to be permissive of a person’s views to exercise self-control in a debate or to carry out a respectful conversation with them. That’s my point. Nothing major really, I think most people would agree.
Isn’t that what is meant by tolerance though - accepting many differences of opinion? Acceptance isn’t the same as agreeing with, or adopting those opinions. We argue and try to refute; perhaps we are successful (we think) and/or if there is an impasse, at some point…we let alone. Tolerance simply means, I think, that we agree that we all have the right to our own thoughts and paradigms, that is, if we can go no further. I would say that tolerance is probably one of the greater virtues and difficult to practice because we humans all tend to think that we know it all, that we are the only ones who are always right. I think tolerance in one area gives way to tolerance in many areas and dispels a lot of bias.
Indeed, it is such a struggle to maintain distinction and resistance to the world, retaining identity, that it is often beneficial to compromise one’s standards (a representation of one’s ideals) and permit association with individuals, creeds and personalities for whom one holds contempt.
In this manner one no longer needs to expend personal resources in the struggle to resist the degenerate and in fact gains a form of moral superiority as a member of the collective; promoting inclusiveness and feel-good reassurances.
Conflict is so destructive to the weak; they should be coddled and protected. We have transcended natural selection.
Pedophilia is a lifestyle choice. A murderer is misunderstood. A thief has moved beyond the fascist delusions of “property”. Consent is all that is needed to determine whether an act is harmful or beneficial.
Then other weary souls can congregate around one in mutual support and all can recite the mantra of intolerance towards the intolerant; in other words, hatred of those who are capable of discerning distinction and the resultant inequalities therein.
Those horrible people who can look in a mirror and not shy away…
I was writing about ILP and opinions. And differences. Tolerance, but consequences for bad behavior.
Condescend for me a moment.
How do you define behaviour which is bad and how do you define consequences stemming from such behaviour?
Do you find it possible to conceive of “bad” “consequences” stemming from tolerance?
Absolutely. And I cannot define bad behavior and consequences.
In common disagreements on these forums there is always someone that jumps to extremes, why? apaosha, what directed you to go to such extreme cases?
Then what is this thread about? Etiquette?
Totally, dude. It’s not what you say it’s how you say it that counts.
It must be a symptom of my bigotry. I hope you can redeem me.
Perhaps I would fit in here better were I to post 10,000 worthless, pithy remarks. Maybe smoke a joint or two; escape a little. Or join together in a spirit of communal unity for the benefit of the whole of mankind; sacrificing myself for the good of others. Maybe I could post about my personal life, or lack thereof, in a bid for attention from the dozen or so other losers doing the same. Above all, I must avoid becoming disruptive - one of the little lambs might get indigestion.
The modern mind is such that it can only be reminded of it’s discriminatory nature through forceful examples and hyperbole. A lethargy must be jolted in order to bring it to wakefulness.
That is why you still remember why you hate pedophiles, thieves, murderers etc, even though the culture you live in demands you accept and tolerate all distinction by pretending that it does not exist, in order to comfort and include the decrepit as a part of the whole.
Liberals define this as negative, as a phobia. In other words, operating from a weak perspective.
What it is, is recognising another individual(s), or whatever, as representative of the antithesis of one’s own ideals and values. As an obstacle, a beast, an animal. A lower entity which… does not measure up and is not worthy of regard.
This is found to be upseting because, as we all know, everyone has inherent “rights”; especially the “right” to freedom of expression and for respect.
For the reason that one exists and demands them. That is enough, because the universe cares about every precious little flower that flourishes within it’s benevolent embrace.
Otherwise, we have demonstrations and parades, civil unrest, until the beggars are given what they demand and cannot take for themselves.
It is all about utility.
I would like to see your philanthropy directed towards the redemption of hatred. Could you do that?
It was an honest question not condemnation since you took it as such I apologize for the mistake.
So we should tolerate bullies and hooligans? Powermongers, corruption, incompetence?
What we should do is hone our manners.
Are we not tolerating those things now? You have to have manners to teach manners then you have to decide what is mannerly. What is good manners in one culture is a horrible breach in another.
It isn’t a question of ‘deserving’ it. But we all need the truth. Truth deserves to be served. By teaching your ‘enemy’ truth, you will also be better able to see and respond to the truth in yourself and have tolerance for yourself when you are hating and in conflict with yourself, seeing yourself as the enemy.
The more tolerance, or ability we have to ‘live and let live’ (barring of course harmfulness to others) we are able to have for others, the more we are able to have for ourselves, to tolerate ourselves. Tolerance for Self begets tolerance for others.