What about the right to be intolerant of intolerance?

[Procrustes Stretched]

What about the right to be intolerant of intolerance?

edit:
Toleration
First published Fri Feb 23, 2007; substantive revision Fri May 4, 2012
The term “toleration”—from the Latin tolerare: to put up with, countenance or suffer—generally refers to the conditional acceptance of or non-interference with beliefs, actions or practices that one considers to be wrong but still “tolerable,” such that they should not be prohibited or constrained. There are many contexts in which we speak of a person or an institution as being tolerant: parents tolerate certain behavior of their children, a friend tolerates the weaknesses of another, a monarch tolerates dissent, a church tolerates homosexuality, a state tolerates a minority religion, a society tolerates deviant behavior. Thus for any analysis of the motives and reasons for toleration, the relevant contexts need to be taken into account.

• 1. The Concept of Toleration and its Paradoxes
• 2. Four Conceptions of Toleration
• 3. The History of Toleration
• 4. Justifying Toleration
• Bibliography
• Academic Tools
• Other Internet Resources
• Related Entries
• 
  
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/

 

[Moonglow]

I'm intolerant of that....

 

[Darkwind]

What about the right to be intolerant of intolerance?

Lets try this first.

Define 'Intolerant" and "Intolerance". I find that most people don't even know or understand the word(s)

 

[SAYIT]

What about the right to be intolerant of intolerance?

We not only have that right, one could argue we have that duty.

 

[Treeshepherd]

There is a major difference between tolerance and approval.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What about the right to be intolerant of intolerance?

Lets try this first.

Define 'Intolerant" and "Intolerance". I find that most people don't even know or understand the word(s)

If they don't -- why bother, but this isn't about 'them' now is it?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is a major difference between tolerance and approval.

Of course, yet you have failed to understand the question or you avoid it because...?

 

[Darkwind]

What about the right to be intolerant of intolerance?

Lets try this first.

Define 'Intolerant" and "Intolerance". I find that most people don't even know or understand the word(s)

If they don't -- why bother, but this isn't about 'them' now is it?

So, you don't know.....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What about the right to be intolerant of intolerance?

We not only have that right, one could argue we have that duty.

That is what some people have argued. One reason is that without it anarchy would prevail and that would serve no one.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What about the right to be intolerant of intolerance?

Lets try this first.

Define 'Intolerant" and "Intolerance". I find that most people don't even know or understand the word(s)

If they don't -- why bother, but this isn't about 'them' now is it?

So, you don't know.....

please, go hijack another thread or play along and address the content

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The question isn't about definitions or about specific persons or groups. People who would introduce this train of argument into this thread are looking to hijack an argument and make it into something it is not -- about them and their world view of others -- an ideological argument.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Of course, yet you have failed to understand the question or you avoid it because...?

The question is vague as it isn't directed toward any particular issue.

I can only assume this is about to become another petty loaded jaded thread about how atheists are smarter than everyone else.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

edited post:

What about the right to be intolerant of intolerance?

edit:
Toleration
First published Fri Feb 23, 2007; substantive revision Fri May 4, 2012
The term “toleration”—from the Latin tolerare: to put up with, countenance or suffer—generally refers to the conditional acceptance of or non-interference with beliefs, actions or practices that one considers to be wrong but still “tolerable,” such that they should not be prohibited or constrained. There are many contexts in which we speak of a person or an institution as being tolerant: parents tolerate certain behavior of their children, a friend tolerates the weaknesses of another, a monarch tolerates dissent, a church tolerates homosexuality, a state tolerates a minority religion, a society tolerates deviant behavior. Thus for any analysis of the motives and reasons for toleration, the relevant contexts need to be taken into account.

• 1. The Concept of Toleration and its Paradoxes
• 2. Four Conceptions of Toleration
• 3. The History of Toleration
• 4. Justifying Toleration
• Bibliography
• Academic Tools
• Other Internet Resources
• Related Entries
• 
  
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Of course, yet you have failed to understand the question or you avoid it because...?

The question is vague as it isn't directed toward any particular issue.

I can only assume this is about to become another petty loaded jaded thread about how atheists are smarter than everyone else.

actually it isn't vague at all.

You are guilty of making an argument out of thin air. Look up 'vague'

vague
vāɡ/
adjective
adjective: vague; comparative adjective: vaguer; superlative adjective: vaguest
of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning.


thinking or communicating in an unfocused or imprecise way.
"he had been very vague about his activities"

 

[Sonny Clark]

What about the right to be intolerant of intolerance?

Intolerance to what? Yes, we have the right to disagree with and to not accept certain things. Everyone has an intolerance for something, everyone. Yes, it is a right. What are you trying to get at here? The point?

 

[Asclepias]

What about the right to be intolerant of intolerance?

edit:
Toleration
First published Fri Feb 23, 2007; substantive revision Fri May 4, 2012
The term “toleration”—from the Latin tolerare: to put up with, countenance or suffer—generally refers to the conditional acceptance of or non-interference with beliefs, actions or practices that one considers to be wrong but still “tolerable,” such that they should not be prohibited or constrained. There are many contexts in which we speak of a person or an institution as being tolerant: parents tolerate certain behavior of their children, a friend tolerates the weaknesses of another, a monarch tolerates dissent, a church tolerates homosexuality, a state tolerates a minority religion, a society tolerates deviant behavior. Thus for any analysis of the motives and reasons for toleration, the relevant contexts need to be taken into account.

• 1. The Concept of Toleration and its Paradoxes
• 2. Four Conceptions of Toleration
• 3. The History of Toleration
• 4. Justifying Toleration
• Bibliography
• Academic Tools
• Other Internet Resources
• Related Entries
• 
  
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/

I forcefully claim the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

 

[Asclepias]

What about the right to be intolerant of intolerance?

Intolerance to what? Yes, we have the right to disagree with and to not accept certain things. Everyone has an intolerance for something, everyone. Yes, it is a right. What are you trying to get at here? The point?

Some people think its hypocritical to be intolerant of intolerance. I think thats what he is getting at.

 

[Sonny Clark]

What about the right to be intolerant of intolerance?

Lets try this first.

Define 'Intolerant" and "Intolerance". I find that most people don't even know or understand the word(s)

Definition: ( Dictionary.com ) ----
1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.
2. unable or unwilling to tolerate or endure

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Of course, yet you have failed to understand the question or you avoid it because...?

The question is vague as it isn't directed toward any particular issue.

I can only assume this is about to become another petty loaded jaded thread about how atheists are smarter than everyone else.

actually it isn't vague at all.

You are guilty of making an argument out of thin air. Look up 'vague'

What about the right to be intolerant of intolerance?

Intolerance to what? Yes, we have the right to disagree with and to not accept certain things. Everyone has an intolerance for something, everyone. Yes, it is a right. What are you trying to get at here? The point?

yet another one who is so used to turning an argument into an ideological shit-fest cannot grasp what an argument, a question, or a statement are all about?

not everyone in everything they say is trying to play a stupid friggin ideological gocha game.

Simple :
What about the right to be intolerant of intolerance?

 

[Treeshepherd]

edited post:

What about the right to be intolerant of intolerance?

edit:
Toleration
First published Fri Feb 23, 2007; substantive revision Fri May 4, 2012
The term “toleration”—from the Latin tolerare: to put up with, countenance or suffer—generally refers to the conditional acceptance of or non-interference with beliefs, actions or practices that one considers to be wrong but still “tolerable,” such that they should not be prohibited or constrained. There are many contexts in which we speak of a person or an institution as being tolerant: parents tolerate certain behavior of their children, a friend tolerates the weaknesses of another, a monarch tolerates dissent, a church tolerates homosexuality, a state tolerates a minority religion, a society tolerates deviant behavior. Thus for any analysis of the motives and reasons for toleration, the relevant contexts need to be taken into account.

• 1. The Concept of Toleration and its Paradoxes
• 2. Four Conceptions of Toleration
• 3. The History of Toleration
• 4. Justifying Toleration
• Bibliography
• Academic Tools
• Other Internet Resources
• Related Entries
• 
  
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/

Good, now we have something to work with;
" First, it is essential for the concept of toleration that the tolerated beliefs or practices are considered to be objectionable and in an important sense wrong or bad. If this objection component (cf. King 1976, 44–54 on the components of toleration) is missing, we do not speak of “toleration” but of “indifference” or “affirmation.” Second, the objection component needs to be balanced by an acceptance component, which does not remove the negative judgment but gives certain positive reasons that trump the negative ones in the relevant context."

In other words, a person can only tolerate something that is objectionable.