ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Thoughts on tolerance

RationalCyclist contemplates the contradiction of an increasingly intolerant society extolling tolerance:
It occurred to me that things have a tendency to engender their opposites. I'm no anthropologist / sociologist; surely there is a buzzword or catchphrase to describe the phenomenon where prominence given to any one particular human virtue ends up bringing about its opposite, either by necessity filling a void, or by stimulating an equal and opposite reaction.

This preamble, being a roundabout way of introducing a rather neat assertion that I have assembled relating to the nature of tolerance in societies founded on Christian and Islamic systems.  In a nutshell:

I) Tolerance is a virtue intrinsic to societies built on a Christian foundation, often taken to grotesque ends by members not possessed of its corresponding virtues of modesty/humility who prefer to exploit it to flatter their moral vanity.

II) Tolerance is a necessary coping mechanism in structurally hypocritical cultures subject to endless strictures on every form of activity, as is often found in Islamic cultures, where it accordingly finds more natural limits.


To many, the first statement will sound baffling.  The second outright offensive.  Allow me to explain.  Firstly, it is worth clarifying that the ability to express intolerance of certain actions and behaviours is probably as essential as the capacity to tolerate individual differences is to the moral health of any given culture.  Which brings me to a second point of clarity relating to terms.  It merits a brief iteration of the six possible attitudes one may adopt toward any given point of principle:

Rejection = disbelief + opposition
Tolerance = disbelief + passivity
Submission = disbelief + support
Denialism = belief + opposition
Acceptance = belief + passivity
Celebration = belief + support

It is surely a sign of how progressive we have all become that we can move so nimbly between Rejection and Celebration these days, no? Perhaps another category is needed to describe criminalising people for failing to celebrate things that were illegal less than five decades ago.

On the surface, celebration and rejection would appear to be the most principled stances to take on any given subject, which is no doubt why those who have an existential need to think well of themselves avail themselves of their use with such frequency.
I have no criticism or analysis to offer here, I just thought it was an interesting way to go about looking at the subject. 

93 Comments:

Blogger James Higham September 29, 2015 12:18 PM  

Tolerance is a virtue intrinsic to societies built on a Christian foundation, often taken to grotesque ends by members not possessed of its corresponding virtues of modesty/humility who prefer to exploit it to flatter their moral vanity.

Precisely.

Blogger Unknown September 29, 2015 12:19 PM  

...surely there is a buzzword or catchphrase: unintended consequences?

Blogger Jack Ward September 29, 2015 12:28 PM  

Interesting? Yes. To ponder, obviously. Definitely to read the whole of the linked post.
It would be the useful thought experiment [and, perhaps, day to day experience] to filter most of what happens personally with these observations in mind. I suppose, though, if you're trying this 'mindfully' it could cause an unexpected skew of reactions to things more widely than otherwise. Maybe this would be a good thing?
I mean if you're constantly asking yourself the questions what are you missing along the way. The idea of 'seeing nothing, seeing everything.'

Blogger Bluntobj Winz September 29, 2015 12:45 PM  

Despair = Hope + No action

Blogger Alexander September 29, 2015 12:45 PM  

Those six definitions are golden. Easy, obvious, and draw a clear distinction between tolerating and celebrating (while stimulating a negative response towards tolerance) that must be encouraged.

Blogger Aeoli Pera September 29, 2015 12:54 PM  

I have a dependent function to add. Emotional reactions for people (ideas) are

Like + Familiar = Bond (Repetition)
Like + Alien = Study (Research)
Dislike + Familiar = Restrict (Criticize)
Dislike + Alien = Kill (Destroy)

This is the first observation I've taken from Koanic's "bookpain" challenge to find out what kind of books we hate.

Blogger Aeoli Pera September 29, 2015 12:55 PM  

Despair = Hope + No action

That is ridiculous.

Blogger IM2L844 September 29, 2015 1:06 PM  

Blowback.

Blogger Student in Blue September 29, 2015 1:07 PM  

Certainly an interesting post. I need to re-read the section on Islamic tolerance, because I didn't quite grok it the first go.

Blogger Kryten 2X4B 523P September 29, 2015 1:20 PM  

I think he has Denialism and Rejection the wrong way round.

Blogger Feather Blade September 29, 2015 1:29 PM  

@10: How so?

Belief + Opposition indicates that you do believe (whatever the assertion is) but that you really really don't want to. That's definitely denial. It's best seen in the type of atheist who vehemently denies that he believes in God, and blames God for every terrible thing that has ever happened.

Disbelief + Opposition indicates that you don't believe (whatever the assertion is) and that you oppose the assertion. This would be best seen in those people who vehemently deny the assertion that there can be any such thing as "gay marriage" and express disapproval of all attempts to enshrine it in law. That is definitely rejection.

Blogger Earl September 29, 2015 1:33 PM  

"Perhaps another category is needed to describe criminalising people for failing to celebrate things..."

Belief + enforcement = Persecution

Blogger Dexter September 29, 2015 1:48 PM  

Eh, I think he is overstating the Christian requirement for "tolerance".

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" - along with "Judge not, lest ye not be judged" - are chiefly misused by Leftist scoundrels who want to undermine moral standards and the enforcement thereof.

Blogger Tom K. September 29, 2015 1:53 PM  

I'm not.sure calling Muslim socoeties' willingness to arbitrary enforce and not enforce draconian laws against things like homosexuality or even pederasty tolerance is correct. I think it has more to do with having something you can hold over your subjects' heads. If you are aa Muslim man secretly getting off with men or boys you must live with the constant stress of possible discovery, even though the person arresting you might have been your partner last night.

As Ayn Rand observed, a guilty citizenry can more easily be controlled.

OpenID Steve September 29, 2015 1:56 PM  

Clearly these definitions are wrong. After all we have presidents that don't know what the word is is, or what the IS in ISIS is is. Pardon me while I put on my gay apparel.

OT:Here is the address of the jewish hedge fund manager that raised the price of one AIDS med from $13.50 to $750 for one pill. So much for the old $2000-$5000 a month statistic for taxpayer paid aids drugs
http://deadstate.org/hackers-just-released-the-home-address-and-phone-number-of-price-gouging-pharma-ceo-martin-shkreli/

Martin Shkreli Ph#646-217-2783
245 E. 40th St, Apt 20C, NY NY 10016

If you think this doesn't affect you, most AIDS patients have their meds paid for by the govt. Bug chaser on Social Security Disability paid for by govt. Govt worker paid for by govt, Private sector worker paid for by insurance that will raise your rates to cover it.
-bgs

Blogger IM2L844 September 29, 2015 1:56 PM  

@13

Right, Dexter.

The Christian concept of tolerance is based on the understanding that God occupies the only absolute frame of reference that everything else is relative to; making Him the ultimate relative contextualist Judge. Liberal Progressives, on the other hand, believing everything is fundamentally materialistic and potentially knowable, base tolerance on nebulous frames of reference that are absolute with regard to the specific individual and/or peer group at a particular point in time. That kind of relativism doesn't make sense in the grand scheme of things and isn't logically defensible. It's the same attractive, yet philosophically untenable, nonsense intrinsic to Randian Objectivism. When you think it through, it simply doesn't work.

Blogger B-Rex September 29, 2015 1:59 PM  

I think one of the reasons tolerance has become so misused in Western societies is the Christian virtue now called tolerance is more correctly called "Mercy." I would define the distinction between tolerance and mercy as:

Mercy = you are broken, you are wrong, but I will be kind and forgiving anyway
Tolerance = you are not wrong, just different, and that's ok

Mercy automatically implies contrition on the part of the receiver if they ask for it, and virtue on the part of the giver when the offer it. To beg for mercy is to admit a flaw in yourself, acknowledge your weaker position before a superior, or to admit wrongdoing. To show mercy implies a right to condemn or punish even as you instead offer forgiveness. Showing mercy humbly acknowledges that all mankind is essentially moral cripples, and we each need to help at times to get back to walking straight. We have received God's mercy, and so we share it.

The idea of tolerance seems a modern, secular invention or skewing of this idea to me, intended to allow critics to call Christians intolerant. In scripture, there are many calls to be patient and merciful with fellow sinners, and none that I can recall to be tolerant. People want the discussion to be about tolerance because tolerance implies no condemnation; they can then defend their behaviors with the cry of "intolerance!" whenever Christian morality condemns their actions. To borrow RationalCyclist's formula, Mercy = condemnation + love. You show love even as you call sin out for what it is. They cannot accept the admission of guilt that comes with accepting mercy, preferring the passive silence of tolerance.

None of this is meant as a disagreement with RationalCyclist's observations. This is just my proposal for why Christian tolerance (actually mercy) is distinct from other kinds of tolerance and why the champions of tolerance hate Christian tolerance and condemn it.

Blogger John September 29, 2015 1:59 PM  

@13

Tolerance is part of any practical approach to obeying Romans 12:18, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men".

You also have to consider that the progressives have mutated their understanding of "tolerance" until most of their kind believe it's synonymous with "celebration".

Blogger The Rev September 29, 2015 2:40 PM  

"surely there is a buzzword or catchphrase to describe the phenomenon where prominence given to any one particular human virtue ends up bringing about its opposite"

Nemesis?

Blogger Paul Widdecombe September 29, 2015 3:14 PM  

Firstly - a massive thanks to Vox for catapulting my blog into existence!

Secondly - apologies for the rather lumpy prose. I've obviously still got a lot to learn. First steps and all that. The fact that a number of soundbites are quoted here in the comments is encouraging though - was clearly able to express a few things tersely enough!

Third to address some of the comments posted here - Feather Blade, thanks for answering Kryten perfectly. Dexter & IM2L844, please see further in the article where I affirm that Christian scripture is absolutely not relativistic or wishy washy. I agree - it affirms objective truths. (which I link back to the mirroring idea as a kind of intolerance, albeit one that I ascribe to.) B-Rex - good point about Mercy. Almost glad I didnt think about it, as it would have almost certainly overcomplicated things!

Fourth - Please, somebody - be the first to leave a comment on my Blog!

Lastly - Alexander, glad you found the six definitions useful. I started doing exactly that - applying it to a real world scenario. The blog post is already TL;DR - here is what I was going to end the piece, untangled as best I can:


Do you style yourself as one of these Social Justice Warriors types who needs to angrily tweet #IStandWithAhmed to signal your rejection of the engineering teacher's failure to celebrate the acheivements of a budding inventor? (The teacher instead offered a meekly submissive "very nice, Ahmed - please put it away.")

Perhaps it was the insufficient denial of reality on behalf of the police and teachers whose attempt to forcefully reject the right of any child, independent of ethnicity, religious affiliation, or Apple Inc. board membership, to use an imitation bomb to illicit a trigger response from an entire school resulted in total capitulation (submission) in the face of a tidal wave of mass media fury?

Either way, you might want to consider whether your merciless assaults on fence-sitters in these categories of denial and submission are consistent with the values of those you supposedly presume to defend - after all submission to the divine will is such a central part of the Islamic faith that "submission" is one possible English translation of the word Islam itself. Hence websites such as www.submission.org.

But then again, 'splainin away logical consistency as an oppressive occidentalist construct gives you a get out of jail free card on that one, doesnt it...?



Blogger Bluntobj Winz September 29, 2015 3:21 PM  

@7

Go through a period of depression. The definition works.

Blogger Dexter September 29, 2015 3:35 PM  

Tolerance is part of any practical approach to obeying Romans 12:18, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men".

If you are dealing with people who are flagrantly and persistently depraved, then no it is not possible (or necessary) to tolerate them. Nor does this depend on you, since they are the ones practicing flagrant, unrepentant depravity. You cannot have peace with someone who openly practices depravity, nor with someone who insists that you celebrate his depravity and endorse it as a virtue. You can send such creatures to the gallows with a perfectly clear conscience!

Blogger Dexter September 29, 2015 3:40 PM  

Dexter & IM2L844, please see further in the article where I affirm that Christian scripture is absolutely not relativistic or wishy washy. I agree - it affirms objective truths.

The issue is not what is true or virtuous, but what is to be done with sinners. I reject the view that "Christian tolerance" demands that we can take no action against the sinful. That view is propagated by the Left (and its minions within the Church) in order to use Christianity to disarm us against them.

Blogger Were-Puppy September 29, 2015 3:44 PM  

@11 Feather Blade
@10: How so?

Belief + Opposition indicates that you do believe (whatever the assertion is) but that you really really don't want to. That's definitely denial. It's best seen in the type of atheist who vehemently denies that he believes in God, and blames God for every terrible thing that has ever happened.

Disbelief + Opposition indicates that you don't believe (whatever the assertion is) and that you oppose the assertion. This would be best seen in those people who vehemently deny the assertion that there can be any such thing as "gay marriage" and express disapproval of all attempts to enshrine it in law. That is definitely rejection.
---

The one that I am still not grasping is the denial one.

Denialism = belief + opposition
So, this person believes in gay marriage, but is in opposition to it.

I must be missing something very obvious here, because it doesn't make sense to me.

Blogger Paul Widdecombe September 29, 2015 3:53 PM  

Tom K - in describing cases of excessive tolerance (sure - for cynical ends, why not?) you have underlined the point that tolerance, whilst understood by most here as a noble and virtuous thing means something very different to Christians and Muslims - and I probably should mention atheist SJWs too. The difference arises from that other much feted concept - "equality". Muslim friends and colleagues often make much of the famed "Tolerance" codified in Islam towards people of other faiths, whilst highlighting the intolerance shown by others who do not "respect" their own beliefs. What they invariably neglect to mention, is that this tolerance is not founded on equal treatment, but submission (remember Islam=submission). Whereas Christ's teachings impel us to treat the Samaritan or the tax collector equally, while commanding us to love and follow him and him alone. The atheist (selectively) applies a moral equality that the Christian does not. The SJW makes the conversion to passivity to celebration.

So I'm quite new to Vox's writings & the various communities that surround them. Having just finished TIA, the concept of parasitical morality is sitting fresh in my mind. Especially in relation to SJWs. (also read). It fits neatly with these ideas I have had floating around - that excessive tolerance leads to intolerance, etc.

The Warrior / Monk duality is undoubtedly part of the strong foundation of Western Civ. Whilst I dont "celebrate" all of its effects (see circa 1942 for a case of intolerance gone awry), the freedom and the untamed fury of its defensive responses (when well directed by wise leaders) are formidable.

Kipling says it best:

http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_beginnings.htm

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler September 29, 2015 4:07 PM  

This ) Tolerance is a virtue intrinsic to societies built on a Christian foundation

Is Absolutely FALSE.

What brought about "tolerance" in the West was the Atheist Enlightenment ideology. One needs to read Jonathan Israels volumes on Enlightenment history: Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity, 1650–175, Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man, 1670–1752, A Revolution of the Mind: Radical Enlightenment and the Intellectual Origins of Modern Democracy

Tolerance arose as a deconstruction of Christian culture that had Censor Liberalis, Heretics were interdicted, and Jews suppressed. Tolerance is a value, (notice I did not say "virtue") of the Atheist Enlightenment. Plato did not teach tolerance but the interdiction of Atheists. Latin Christendom did not have "tolerance". The Jew, Spinoza and Kant preached on tolerance in order to attack the Christian character of Europe at that time. Christendom is a carryover of the Graeco-Roman Heritage.

Blogger Paul Widdecombe September 29, 2015 4:09 PM  

Were-Puppy - Gay marriage probably isnt a good example, tbf.

There are plenty of people though who make a big show of being opposed to homosexuality whilst indulging in a spot of homosexual activity on the side. The concept of homophobia itself is based on the idea that you really want a big fat one in one of your orifices, but are so ashamed deep down of your own filthy lusts that you choose to persecute others who are free from such repressive limits on their carnal desires. You are literally terrified to stop hating the gays in case you discover that you are one.

So the only people who are completely straight are the ones that are like, totally gay, okay? Hmmmm - sounds like what we have here is a case of unfalsifiable circular logic. How unlike the otherwise rigorous social sciences not to spot that...

Blogger Earl September 29, 2015 4:13 PM  

I read it this way:

Denialism, which is belief + opposition, is an irrational denial of something you believe in. Liberals for example believe that non-white people are equal to white people, therefore they endeavor to lift up non-white people and make them act more like white people. If non-whites were equal, then they would not need to be lifted up. Also, the method to "lift them up" is always to get them to act more like white people (the school bussing goes one way, blacks to white schools, never whites bussed to black schools).

Blogger Earl September 29, 2015 4:18 PM  

Another way I thought of Denialism is proven by the younger Miss Palin; Bistol opposes single motherhood, but heartily believes in it. Or perhaps Mr. Josh Dugar, who opposes sexual immorality, yet engages in it. The porn addict who wishes porn was illegal. The drug addict that wishes drugs were banished from society.

Blogger John Wright September 29, 2015 4:19 PM  

"Perhaps another category is needed to describe criminalising people for failing to celebrate things that were illegal less than five decades ago."

It is as sign of the times that even those who oppose political correctness tend to adopt it. In this case, one of the crucial talking points of the Progressive case against sodomy laws is that those laws are archaic.

In fact, the first state to do away with antisodomy laws was Illinois in 1961. Before that it was illegal nationwide.


In 1973, homosexuality was listed as a mental disease by the American Medical Association. Please note that no scientific study, no medical opinion, was responsible for the change. The behavior did not differ before and after. That may seem archaic to youngsters, but it is still within living memory, including mine.

The ruling that struck down all antisodomy laws nationwide was Lawrence v Texas, which was in 2003.

2003 was not five decades ago. It was slightly over one.

Blogger Earl September 29, 2015 4:22 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Earl September 29, 2015 4:25 PM  

I suppose Denialism (belief + opposition) does not always have to be irrational, either. Take a bankster or Hollywood star for example. The laws that are good for the commoners are not good for them. They believe in drug and finance laws for you, but they oppose those same laws for themselves.

Blogger John Wright September 29, 2015 4:25 PM  

"What brought about "tolerance" in the West was the Atheist Enlightenment ideology."

Is this a satire?

' (notice I did not say "virtue")"

Yes, it is a satire. You captured the historical illiteracy, the peevish self-aggrandizement, and the nagging, semi-hysterical tone of the Leftist progressive perfectly.

Well done. You almost had me fooled for a second. Then I remembered the French Revolution, and the terror, and the 'value' of 'tolerance' shown by those sons of the Enlightenment.

Blogger Danby September 29, 2015 4:27 PM  

perhaps a better word than "Denialism" would be "Hypocracy"

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler September 29, 2015 4:30 PM  

In Aristotle's Eudemian Ethics, there is a list of virtues on page 251 of the Loeb edition. Tolerance is not listed. It is not in the pseudo-Aristotlian Virtues and Vices from the 1st century B.C.

From Virtues and Vices, "It belongs to wisdom to take counsel, to judge the goods and evils and all the things in life that are desirable and to be avoided, ..."

To judge, to find out, what is good and evil, is a part of Wisdom, and then Prudence says what to do about them. No Christian, in the use of the Virtue of Prudence, tolerates evil activity. None. If America today was a Catholic country, 3/4 of the shows on TV would be censored. Putting a crucifix in a glass of urine, would not be tolerated. Prudence is a Virtue and nowhere does Prudence teach blanket tolerance. There is no tolerance of evil. There is no tolerance to allow people to corrupt good people. Tolerance is not a Virtue but a judgement call, Prudence, based on the workings of Wisdom. The Virtue of Righteousness teaches to Hate Wickedness. There is no tolerance for evil. None. Evil is suppressed.

Blogger Danby September 29, 2015 4:31 PM  

Then I remembered the French Revolution, and the terror, and the 'value' of 'tolerance' shown by those sons of the Enlightenment.

You mistake the argument. What is being proposed is not that "tolerance" was an actual value of the Atheist Liberal movement, but that it was the plea of the Atheist Liberal. "Surely you Christians are big-hearted enough, merciful enough, good enough, to tolerate a man who simply disagrees with you!" Voltaire was probably the last Atheist Liberal who actually believed in defending the right of Christians to believe and speak the Truth.

Blogger Kryten 2X4B 523P September 29, 2015 4:55 PM  

@Feather Blade, Were-Puppy and Paul.
Sorry, away for a bit, catching up on some family time.

I can see where you are coming from, and largely agree. I think the confusion may be one of internal or external perspective.

For example, Rejection can also be seen where something is true but you are opposed to it - i.e. the if scripture states marriage is between a man and a woman only but you oppose that, internally you are rejecting that truth, externally you are showing yourself to be in denial of the fact that scripture states it. And vice versa.
So to a degree, I think both denial and rejection can be interchangeable, depending on perspective.



Blogger Kryten 2X4B 523P September 29, 2015 5:05 PM  

Thinking on it a little further, maybe the six attitudes could be condensed to five:
Submission = disbelief + support
Tolerance = disbelief + passivity
Rejection/Denialism = opposition
Acceptance = belief + passivity
Celebration = belief + support

Blogger Student in Blue September 29, 2015 5:08 PM  

@John Wright
Yes, it is a satire.

It's Wheeler. He's being earnest, because otherwise he's played satire straight with no break in character for the past couple of years that I've been around.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler September 29, 2015 5:15 PM  

It occurred to me that things have a tendency to engender their opposites. I'm no anthropologist / sociologist; surely there is a buzzword or catchphrase to describe the phenomenon where prominence given to any one particular human virtue ends up bringing about its opposite, either by necessity filling a void, or by stimulating an equal and opposite reaction.

It is called the "Cone of Darkness". Where ever you shine a light, you create a shadow where it hits an obstruction. It is in the book of Isaiah, where God says, I made light and created evil. Isaiah 45:7: I am he who prepared light and formed darkness, who make peace and create evil". God created Light and because He created Light, darkness was made. God the first thing and automatically, the second, the opposite showed up.

It also come about that by doing anything to an extreme, the opposite will show up. Love taken to an extreme, turns to hate. The Dorians had a saying, "The Half is more than the Whole". It is better to take half. When you go to the whole, that is where the other thing begins. This is why the Golden Mean is so important. Democracy is an extreme and that is why democracy always turns into Tyranny. As Plato notes, an excess of liberty turns into slavery. The extreme turns into the opposite quickly. By staying in the Golden Mean, one doesn't turn.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler September 29, 2015 5:24 PM  

From the Wikipedia page on tolerance:
Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) was a Dutch Jewish philosopher. He published the Theological-Political Treatise anonymously in 1670, arguing (according to the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) that "the freedom to philosophize can not only be granted without injury to piety and the peace of the Commonwealth, but that the peace of the Commonwealth and Piety are endangered by the suppression of this freedom", and defending, "as a political ideal, the tolerant, secular, and democratic polity". After interpreting certain Biblical texts, Spinoza opted for tolerance and freedom of thought in his conclusion that "every person is in duty bound to adapt these religious dogmas to his own understanding and to interpret them for himself in whatever way makes him feel that he can the more readily accept them with full confidence and conviction."

And then from Jonathan Israel's Wikipedia page:

Israel has defined what he considers to be the "Radical Enlightenment," arguing it originated with Spinoza. He argues in great detail that Spinoza "and Spinozism were in fact the intellectual backbone of the European Radical Enlightenment everywhere, not only in the Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy, and Scandinavia but also Britain and Ireland", and that the Radical Enlightenment, leaning towards religious skepticism and republican government, leads on to the modern liberal-democratic state.[5][6]
Israel is sharply critical of Jean-Paul Marat and Maximilien de Robespierre for repudiating the true values of the Radical Enlightenment and grossly distorting the French Revolution. He argues, "Jacobin ideology and culture under Robespierre was an obsessive Rousseauste moral Puritanism steeped in authoritarianism, anti-intellectualism, and xenophobia," and it repudiated free expression, basic human rights, and democracy.


Jonathan Israel traces the French Revolution to Rousseau who is also an Enlightenment thinker. But if you read VD's SJW always lie, you will understand that they say one thing out of their mouth, and do another thing. The Church through its office of Censor was trying to kill off the people that motivated the French Revolution. Spinoza's thought, of skepticism and attacking authority and that of the Bible, laid the groundwork to unloosen the hold of the Catholic Faith upon many people. Under Spinoza is Hate. Under Machiavelli is Hate. Under Rousseau is Hate. Well, the Hate has to come out; it has to be acted on. And who was killed in the French Revolution???????

French INtolerant Catholics. French Intolerant Catholic Priests. French Intolerant Catholic Aristocrats. That is what is killed. Tolerance is not a Virtue or a Value, it is an Hypocrisy. Duh.

Blogger Paul Widdecombe September 29, 2015 5:47 PM  

Kryten, I see where you are coming from. Just that my soul is so free from taint that I naturally assume that everybody knows right from wrong in their heart of hearts ;-)

Perhaps a clearer definition of the two columns is that the first column of "belief" represents mental and moral identification with any given idea, and the second represents physical support or otherwise. The first has two states - belief and unbelief, the second three, support, opposition and a null state of non action. It didn't seem useful to have a third stat in he first column which would just represent different flavours of ignorance (bandwagonning, neglect & scapegoating...?). For full complexity we could add the spiritual dimension. I'm sure if you ask one of the elders to dust off one of their creaky old grimoires, some wise soul from the distant past will have all the dimensions mapped out...

Sorry to be insistent, but I think these fine distinctions are important in understanding different modes of entryism

Blogger Aeoli Pera September 29, 2015 5:59 PM  

@21,

Go through a period of depression. The definition works.

I have gone through several such periods, and that's how I know the definition is loony.

Anyway despair is not depression. But neither is characterized by hope, which is why it is prima facie ridiculous. In fact, hope is the literal opposite of despair: "the complete loss or absence of hope."

And it just so happens that hope is an excellent cure for depression (which, again, is not the same thing as despair). Of course, you also have to stop wallowing in whatever sin is causing the depression in the first place, or the cure will be useless.

You can look up the definition of despair for yourself, and that ought to be the end of it.

Blogger Paul Widdecombe September 29, 2015 6:09 PM  

Danby - hypocrisy applies to some cases, but I would argue you are seeing it though a prism of Christian virtue. As mentioned, submission to the justice of the divine will is considered high virtue in Islam. The love of Gods truth central to Christianity is, I feel, what impels you to apply that dismissive sobriquet.

See Earls posts for good examples of principled and rational submission and denial.

Blogger Kryten 2X4B 523P September 29, 2015 6:11 PM  

Hi Paul
Yeah, I have an annoying habit of playing devils advocate at times :-)
Initially I thought they were the wrong way round, but on further reflection it seems that both rejection and denialism are the same thing, viewed from opposite ends of the spectrum - where opposition may be the overriding factor, and belief / disbelief is almost irrelevant.
I don't think a third stat would be needed at all, it would just overcomplicate things.

Thanks for the clarification though, certainly food for thought.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler September 29, 2015 7:03 PM  

Socrates would ask that if Tolerance is a good, it should apply to all the spheres?

Does the farmer tolerate the fox in the hen house?

Does the farmer tolerate weeds in his fields?

Does the ant let the stranger into his colony?

Does God tolerate evil in Heaven?

Heaven is a purity. Only Good reside there. God is not tolerant of evil of any sort. He wiped out the first generations after Adam. Any tolerance there? What about Sodom and Gomorrha? In each case the Righteous were saved and all the rest were destroyed.

Do you tolerate a bad apple in the bushel? Does not the canker spread?

St. Paul quoting Menander said, 'Bad company corrupts good morals". What does a person do with "Bad company". He doesn't tolerate them, he kicks them out. Does the shepherd tolerate the wolf amongst the sheep?

Tolerance is a fool's errand.

Blogger Paul Widdecombe September 29, 2015 7:10 PM  

W. Lindsay - I sense you are backing me into a corner...

Sounds as though we are talking about the purpose of violence and whether it is permissible under any circumstance. Note, I did not claim that there is an absolute interdiction against the use of violence, but I would be rather more upset to see somebody being subjected to physical harm in defence of my religion for putting two bits of wood and a doll in some piss, than to see somebody physically restrained for putting ticking components in a bomb case in a school in defence of common sense.

I don't need to blame it all on some wily old 15th century Jew either - I can trace it all the way back to the Jew who apparently tolerated having himself nailed onto two pieces of wood. Who knows - maybe piss was involved too. What Aristotle and subsequent Roman emperors defined as tolerance also seems a bit off topic. Interesting background, though.

Hopefully I'm not doing too much violence to the Englsh language and its history by defining tolerance as a principled ideological mental / spiritual withdrawal and opposition to partaking in a thing that stops short at physical intervention. This is hardly a novel concept in Christianity, is it? Speck vs plank in your eye? The cross? Casting stones? Turning cheeks? Telling disciples to put back swords and healing the guards cut ear? Not returning evil for evil?

Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales September 29, 2015 7:13 PM  

"Not returning evil for evil?"

Violence, in and of itself, is not evil. Even with the modifier of the Christian context, it is not, by itself, evil.

Blogger Paul Widdecombe September 29, 2015 7:20 PM  

Well let's go with that then shall we? Don't agree personally with the all spheres assertion, btw.

So do tell me, which configurations of two pieces of wood will you tolerate being immersed in piss? If You are relieving yourself in the forest, are you careful to ensure that no two pieces upon which urine might splash remain perpendicularly superimposed? What is the cutoff angle that ceases to be a cross?

Blogger Paul Widdecombe September 29, 2015 7:26 PM  

John Wright - what an honour indeed! Just got to the Cry of the Night Hound chapter of Awake in the Night Land. Admiration for your excellent writing is therefore mingled with annoyance at you having skipped a million years...

I know it is going to come back together in an awesome way, however!

Blogger Paul Widdecombe September 29, 2015 7:31 PM  

Danby - sure Voltaire SAID he would defend xyz with his life, but he didn't actually do it did he? So we'll never know. Talk is cheap, after all and besides, he was French...

Blogger Student in Blue September 29, 2015 7:32 PM  

@Wheeler
Does God tolerate evil in Heaven?

No, but God tolerates evil on Earth, instead of immediately wiping out all sinners.

Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales September 29, 2015 7:33 PM  

I don't know why you bring up the cross in piss, so I'll just say this in response:

A filthy rag-head Hadjis is skullfucking your wife and daughter in front of you.

Do you a.

A) Put that motherfucker with his 72 Virgins for inflicting such pain upon the Khafir with anything at hand, a sword, a gun, or even your own bare-hands.

B) Tell him about turning the other cheek, not returning 'evil' for 'evil,' or taking up the sword.

If you pick B, congrats, not only do you fail to understand the Christian message, you also just failed to stop evil with the proper response even though you were capable, meaning you just committed an immoral act.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler September 29, 2015 7:34 PM  

On "all the spheres" is the natural law principle of macrocosm/microcosm; things repeat throughout the spheres. If it is a law in one sphere, then it is a law in another sphere. Within the law of macrocosm/microcosm is the principle of consistency. Repetition and consistency is a part of Order. The Cosmos, by its Greek meaning, is Order. This is how Socrates would now if one was telling the truth or not, if one grasped reality or not. How does the real world work. Socrates asked, Give me a definition of courage that works in every situation that courage is required. There is a single definition of courage.

Jesus did not accept being nailed to the cross because He was tolerant. He went to the Cross because He was obedient. God the Father put Him there. If Jesus was using the value of tolerance, Socrates would ask, Did I drink the Hemlock because I was tolerant? Or being obedient to the Laws of Athens and the Jury verdict? Many people have recognized the similarities between Socrates and Jesus. God loves symmetry. If tolerance is the reason Jesus went tot he cross, then one would have to say that Socrates went to the cup of Hemlock because he was also tolerant.

See, this is Greek philosophy, the use of the Natural Law. Socrates did not drink the cup out of tolerance but out of obedience to the laws of Athens. Jesus went to the Cross because Pilate commanded Him to do so. Pilate was the Authority and Law in Jerusalem. Jesus was Obedient until death. Jesus and Socrates went to their deaths willingly out of Obedience to the Law. Jesus's death had nothing to do with tolerance.

Blogger Were-Puppy September 29, 2015 7:43 PM  

@29 Earl
Another way I thought of Denialism is proven by the younger Miss Palin; Bistol opposes single motherhood, but heartily believes in it. Or perhaps Mr. Josh Dugar, who opposes sexual immorality, yet engages in it. The porn addict who wishes porn was illegal. The drug addict that wishes drugs were banished from society.
----

So maybe it can be thought of as people in the grip of some belief that they wish wasn't true.

Blogger Bluntobj Winz September 29, 2015 7:54 PM  

@21

I watched by biz partner go through a trainwreck period in his life. He constantly hoped for a better day or an improvement in things outside of his control. He could not muster the will to make changes, and coined the phrase "hope without action is despair"

Sure, we can quibble on definitions, but I'll keep and use mine.

Blogger CM September 29, 2015 8:11 PM  

Does the farmer tolerate weeds in his fields?

Interesting example because yes, he does.

Farming isn't gardening. Pulling weeds in a field risks pulling wheat with it. It's why the parable in the bible uses that example. The wheat is separated from the chaff at the harvest.

Blogger Groot September 29, 2015 8:12 PM  

Approaching your six possible attitudes from a somewhat logical angle, I'll use the format:
Label = Judgment + Action.

In your scheme, Judgment is binary. The Judgment can be based on religion, reason, taste, or any other means of judging, i.e., considering something according to whether it comports with your aims. So, bad and good, rather than disbelief and belief.

The Action is usually observable, even if it is inaction, and is trinary.

Rejection implies thus something bad that is actively to be stopped, that it is actively damaging your interests, and so carries a moral or justified condemnation.

Tolerance means I disagree but it's causing me and mine no harm, so have at. You like rap/country/opera? So long as I can change the station in my car, each to his own. This is the most common and everyday (non-SJW) form of tolerance. It's where a trinary Judgment would help: Passive on Judgment.

Submission needs a better term. I can condemn your execrable taste in clothing, yet support whole-heartedly your right to make a fool of yourself (and reserve the right, as well, to mock you for your Scalzi shirt). I would still label this tolerance, but more of a disagreement about Judgment. I disagree with your Judgment, but you're an adult, and I actively support your right to Judge for yourself. It can be unprincipled hypocrisy, or it can be principled active support of your rights.

Blogger Aeoli Pera September 29, 2015 8:20 PM  

@56,

Sure, we can quibble on definitions, but I'll keep and use mine.

Your definition is the precise opposite of the dictionary definition you degenerate retard. I suppose evil is also good, and black is white? How many fingers am I holding up?

If I weren't correcting you then you'd be spreading your ignorance like a cancer. Your existence is literally a waste of my time.

Blogger Paul Widdecombe September 29, 2015 8:23 PM  

Emmanuel - I'll go for option c) leave white knight fantasy maiden RPG play to SJWs such as yourself. Look, I'm not intrinsically opposed to the use of violence, esp in self defence. Since you ask, it is my Christian belief that there is usually a better way that doesn't require violence that should be tried first. In your example, I would recommend you avoid going to that country in the first place, or work to prevent those persons from coming into the country. Do you find those options disappointing or unsatisfying in some way? I mean, not so much of a hero fantasy there...? Besides, what I would do has no relevance to WWJD, which is what was being discussed.

Point being that this is all rather irrelevant to the point being made which relates to attacks on culture rather than against people or property. W. Lindsay Wheeler brought up the piss sculpture as something that should not be tolerated. I'm sure he is right and sincerely hope he never has the misfortune to desecrate two bits of wood in that way.

Blogger CM September 29, 2015 8:25 PM  

I think that what we tolerate in the world is very different than what we should be tolerating in our churches.

Those who call themselves Christians but tolerate evil in their lives especially with pride need to be called out and the process of church discipline applied (point out wrong doing, present to elders, excommunicate).

There is absolutely no reason why Harry and Nancy should still be calling themselves catholics, for example.

Not removing these delighters in wrongdoing corrupts our churches and dirties our light. Its how Harvard & Yale, schools of divinity, went from pillars of faith to bedrocks of liberal apologetics.

As to what we tolerate in the world, that is a matter of discernment - from when to reach out a helping hand or extending mercy to dusting our feet or calling out the demons.

But this is a Christian perspective and not a secular perspective on tolerance.

Blogger Paul Widdecombe September 29, 2015 8:31 PM  

CM - agreed.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler September 29, 2015 8:32 PM  

To Student in Blue, Yes, God tolerates the evil in the world, but only for a short time. It is only for the sake of the good that the evil is there so the "tolerance" is due to a reason of the life of the good.

Now, as to tolerating weeds, in the tares and wheat. Working on a tree farm, we don't tolerate the poplar, the sassafrass, oaks, or the sumac. We don't tolerate needle fungus nor scale or weevils. We obliterate them. A farmer doesn't allow an infestation. Tares among wheat is a different situation where they grow up together. I've worked on farms in Texas, Kentucky, Switzerland, Crete, and Denmark. No good farmer tolerates weeds, bad insects, fungus because they are destructive.

The Early Church was quite intolerant of evil. That is why many Christians did not get baptized until right before their deaths. If you had an abortion, at first, women were altogether denied from ever entering a church ever. Then, later the Church Fathers mitigated that for 10 years.

This is what St. Paul says in I Cor. 5:12-13 "Is it not those inside the Church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside, "Drive the wicked person from among you". Wicked people were driven from the Church. When they repented, they were allowed in only after penance kneeling on the steps before the Church for weeks, months or years.

St. Paul says in I Cor. 5:9 "I wrote to you in my letter NOT to associate with immoral men". That can also be extrapolated to Heretics and Infidels. St. John the Apostle said to NOT even greet Nicolatians.

Blogger Paul Widdecombe September 29, 2015 8:33 PM  

...point being that there is no such concept of excommunication in the Islamic faith.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler September 29, 2015 8:47 PM  

The tolerance of God for evil in the world------is temporary! It will end. At the End of Times, that is when God will end His Tolerance. Evil doesn't continue forever. It is put down like the mad dog it is. The Tolerance of God is Temporary. Then, at the End of Times, tolerance disappears altogether because there is no need of it. Tolerance is only intrinsically temporary. In many cases, tolerance is like dawn/dusk, it is only a short window in between.

Nature always moves to its Telos, to its unity and purity. In Genesis, God put enmity between Good and Evil so that they can NOT cooperate. There is no neutral ground. Spinoza thought of creating a "neutral ground", a grey area. There is no such thing. God commanded that can't happen ever. There is no middle ground. That is what democratic republicanism of the Enlightenment was, what America was supposed to be, this "neutral ground" where everybody lives in peace and harmony. And God in Heaven, is going Oh, no you're not. Good will not lay down with Evil and vice-a-versa. Good and Evil exist in the Law of the Jungle. It is Kill or be Killed. VD said that much in his book SJWs always lie when he said, Fire the SJWs. You can NOT tolerate SJWs. Sooner or later, the SJW will take you out. It is the Law of the Jungle between Good and Evil. Toleration will only kill you.

Blogger Paul Widdecombe September 29, 2015 8:50 PM  

W. Lindsay - doesn't need to be the reason, just a suitable description of his response. You seem determined to expand the definition beyond the one I have given (which is broadly consistent with meanings given to it by both the dictionary and Christianity) into a kind of passive approval or indifference to all kinds of evil, including preventable physical violence

So to confirm then, a view or thing that you neither ascribe to or partake in, yet you permit others to do it

How about we try to agree on something here. Can you think of a type of tolerance that could be considered good?

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler September 29, 2015 9:07 PM  

The term "toleration" has not only a personal meaning but it is also has a religious and political meaning. Toleration is directed to several objects. So that means, there is no single answer to what is right or wrong.

For instance, religion. Under Latin Christendom, there was no toleration for heretics. Why? Because the Heretic didn't want to live quietly, he snuck over to the Catholic congregation and started spreading his contra message. If the Heretic kept to himself, that is one thing. I can tolerate that and the Church looked the other way. But when the Heresy starts to undermine the belief of the Faithful which the Church has a Duty to shepherd, Then prudence comes in and puts the kabash on tolerance. Tolerance ends.

The situation is fluid.

Tolerance in the political field. In the Enlightenment, tolerance was used as a weapon to destroy the discipline of European civilization. Plato talks of "Praise and shame" of how a community enforces its moral, cultural values. They praise those that uphold it and they shame those who go against the community standards. It is called overall, Discipline. Every community has a discipline that it keeps. Toleration is about breaking the discipline of the community. In the book of Wisdom it says "The care of Discipline is Love and Love is the keeping of her commandments". Discipline or tolerance is up to the community to decide on a case by case basis.

Again, Tolerance is also a cover for indifferentism which was condemned by Pope Leo X, I think, in the encyclical against Americanism. Americanism is based on Tolerance of all. Well, what does that produce? Indifferentism. That is a moral evil.

Tolerance is applied to many situations. The evil that Tolerance produces must be wayed and judged by the Good. Can you tolerate something without destroying The Good? That is the question. And from that action is taken accordingly.

Blogger SirHamster (#201) September 29, 2015 9:19 PM  

Submission needs a better term. I can condemn your execrable taste in clothing, yet support whole-heartedly your right to make a fool of yourself (and reserve the right, as well, to mock you for your Scalzi shirt). I would still label this tolerance, but more of a disagreement about Judgment. I disagree with your Judgment, but you're an adult, and I actively support your right to Judge for yourself. It can be unprincipled hypocrisy, or it can be principled active support of your rights.

You've equivocated. The Action of support/passivity/opposition is in relation to the same thing you have a Judgement on.

So Submission is thinking, your fashion is sense is horrid while saying "your fashion is awesome!" in support. Like the court of the Naked Emperor.

Submitting to someone's fashion choices is a different thing than Celebrating their right to choose their fashion. Support for the latter should not be confused with support of the former.

Blogger Paul Widdecombe September 29, 2015 9:28 PM  

Groot - thanks for the thoughtful post. I tried to avoid neutral judgement as I felt it reflected ignorance. You seem to categorise this area more as neutral matters of taste or preference. However, if we take your example we can see that you have recognised a moral angle in the music relating to whether you are able to switch it off. Clearly a neighbour imposing it on you at all hours, or vice versa, would merit mental and physical opposition.

The other angle is where the music has a disagreeable moral content. I suspect your view of "each to their own" closer reflects what I would call "acceptance" of music you dislike and "celebration" of music that you do. You might "tolerate" music with a slightly negative message as valid expression, but yet "reject" songs with misogynistic profanity laced lyrics by forbidding it in the house, or submitting a complaint. It is the approach to moral judgement that I'm interested in talking about rather than aesthetic judgement, which, as you say, is more or less subjective and morally neutral. (Not saying of course that language cannot be used in this way!)

As for submissiveness, I feel this is an important concept. Especially in relation to understanding Islam, where people take the name Abdallah, meaning "slave of allah". It is an important step in entryism whereby you are forced to do things you disagree with. To take your example of clothes, it would be as if your employer made it a term of continued employment to wear your scalzi tshirt...

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler September 29, 2015 9:34 PM  

On the Christmas Tree farm I work on as a laborer, we don't tolerate scale, fungus, weed trees. We can't. If you let sassafras or sumac invade, they spread like wildfire. I have to wipe them out.

Now, we also have Baldface Hornets and Yellow Jackets. Yellow Jacket paper nests and Yellow Jackets in the ground. Now sometimes I will kill the nests and some I will let live because the bees, even though they are evil stingers, Baldface Hornets are really evil, I will tolerate them if they are not in our way on the farm. I will mark the area so others do not run into them in ignorance.

See how Tolerance is used and changed or not even done in the Agricultural sphere. The same principles and practices are the same in the human sphere. I do not tolerate scale which is harmless to me but I will tolerate a few hornets and wasps nests that are not in our farming way. It is Wisdom that discerns the path. Not avoidance of violence. The Key is Wisdom. To know The Good and then act accordingly. All Human Action must be guided by the Good. Tolerance is not an automatic good. It is NOT an intrinsic good. Toleration also can do and most of the time does evil. It is a judgement call one makes after one weighs the Good and the Evil.

Blogger Paul Widdecombe September 29, 2015 9:55 PM  

Well, that's kinda what I said - wasn't it...? That tolerance can be abused?

As for avoidance of violence, surely there needs to be a slightly more objective criteria for its use than "to know the god"? How about Freedom of choice, without which no spiritual values are possible.

(My guess is you aren't big on freedom...?)

Blogger Paul Widdecombe September 29, 2015 9:56 PM  

"Know the good"

Blogger Student in Blue September 29, 2015 10:00 PM  

@Wheeler
This is what St. Paul says in I Cor. 5:12-13 "Is it not those inside the Church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside, "Drive the wicked person from among you". Wicked people were driven from the Church. When they repented, they were allowed in only after penance kneeling on the steps before the Church for weeks, months or years.

If we're still rolling with the definition of tolerance = disbelief + passivity, and rejection = disbelief + opposition, yes that's true.

That's a flaw with the definitions however, is that in subdividing neatly like that, they hide the various degrees between, say, rejection and tolerance.

Tolerance *outside* of Widdecombe's article is not, and has never been, complete passivity. (And really, it was only defined in that matter in the article to draw attention to the difference between tolerance and celebration)

There are separate degrees of passivity, just as there are separate degrees of opposition.

So when the wicked were driven out from the church... they were only driven out, they were not beheaded for offending Islam. Being driven out was, in a sense, a very shocking show of passivity for the times (Remember, Jesus was sentenced to death for blasphemy.)

It is only because now we are so passive, that excommunication seems like such a *final* and draconic measure. It's not, it's downright tolerant.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler September 29, 2015 10:14 PM  

I would have to disagree with the Tolerance=disbelief+passivity.

Tolerance requires a moral decision by the one committing tolerance whether it be affirmative or a negative. To engage or not to engage requires an assent of the will of the person so immediately there is "no" passivity. Second, passivity can mean laziness, or do not care or indifferentism. All three are moral evils. Tolerance does not include "disbelief". I do not have any disbelief in regards to scale, or hornets or weed trees. I fully know, have knowledge, of what they are and what they can do. I have no disbelief. To engage in tolerance in an act of passivity is a moral evil. Passivity is also a femine characteristic, it is not a man's characteristic. No man is passive. An effeminate man may be passive. A man of virtue is never passive.

Blogger Student in Blue September 29, 2015 10:39 PM  

Tolerance does not include "disbelief". I do not have any disbelief in regards to scale, or hornets or weed trees.

Remember, Widdecombe used "disbelief" because he was referring to SJW beliefs. It's not the best word for everything in general, in my opinion. In a situation such as weeds and hornets, a more proper definition would be "to disagree" with the actions the unthinking beasts do (residing where they are).

To engage or not to engage requires an assent of the will of the person so immediately there is "no" passivity.

So pacifism isn't passive? Choosing to sit on the couch all day is not "passive"? Both of which require an assent of the will of the person, even if in the latter it's to choose to do nothing.

Blogger Groot September 29, 2015 11:15 PM  

@68. SirHamster (#201):
"You've equivocated... Submitting to someone's fashion choices is a different thing than Celebrating their right to choose their fashion. Support for the latter should not be confused with support of the former."

You might as well accuse me of tergiversating. You shall live, for now, because of your "savagely enjoying his imaginary watermelon" comment regarding the Kurgan. That still cracks me up. Anyway, I do not palter but rather point out that imprecise terms enable both circumlocution and a broader field of discussion than the strictures of originally intended topic.

Oh, great. Now you've done it: You've triggered the pompous twit who lurks within me. Is there a full moon tonight?

OpenID Jack Amok September 30, 2015 12:34 AM  

Christianity is very amenable to a certain worthwhile sort of tolerance because among the most fundamental beliefs are:

1) man is fallen, and individual men contantly make all manner of mistakes.
2) salvation is available on the individual level through the very personal act of accepting Jesus as your Lord
3) just because you've taken step 2 doesn't mean step 1 no longer applies to you.

Accepting all that means you should be somewhat reluctant to intervene unwanted in other's lives because a) you might be wrong on the particular details, b) salvation isn't a team sport, so them getting it wrong doesn't jeopardize your own salvation. It simultaneously teaches the humility to realize you might be wrong and the strength to realize that you can still be right even if everyone else opposes you.

Contrast that with the ersatz religion of Environmentalism that makes salvation a group effort. One person defiling the fragile Goddess Gaia jeopardizes everyone's salvation, and being out of step with "the consensus" is nearly unpardonable.

But in any event, I prefer a definition of "tolerance" that is akin to the meaning of the word in engineering (or machining). Tolerance is the allowable divergence from the ideal, it is the recognition that while perfection is not required, too great a divergence renders the system dysfunctional. It's the acceptance that there is a difference between falling short of perfection and of sinking into depravity. Tolerance in the true meaning is the line between "imperfect" and "depraved".

Blogger Dago September 30, 2015 3:30 AM  

Aeoli Pera, and Blunt obj wins,
Actually Bluntobjs, definition is perfectly cogent to me.
And I notice your aspiness is on the high side, given you suddenly become infuriated with his otherwise perfectly reasonable experiential anecdote.

Blogger szook September 30, 2015 7:32 AM  

"I'm no anthropologist / sociologist; surely there is a buzzword or catchphrase to describe the phenomenon where prominence given to any one particular human virtue ends up bringing about its opposite"

Appropriately enough the word he seems to be looking for is homeostasis......

Blogger 141 September 30, 2015 8:28 AM  

Tolerance = rejection of rejection = one way street to hell paved with good intentions

The frog refuses to jump out of the pot because it would hurt the chef's feelings. It's not like anybody's getting hurt, after all, it's just a couple of degrees. It feels nice and warm actually, are those my morals that feel so good? One moral to rule them all. A feedback loop. Tolerance causes degeneration, degeneration causes tolerance.

Blogger Aeoli Pera September 30, 2015 8:43 AM  

Actually Bluntobjs, definition is perfectly cogent to me.

See, this is what I'm talking about: ignorance spreading. In this case it doesn't matter what is cogent to you. You can't define something as the opposite of itself, even if you're playing loose with definitions to illustrate a concept rather than argue a proof.

You can turn this definition looseness up to 11 and there is still only one thing you absolutely cannot do, and that is to define A = !A.

And I notice your aspiness is on the high side, given you suddenly become infuriated with his otherwise perfectly reasonable experiential anecdote.

That wasn't rage, I'm practicing my rhetoric again. Monkeys can only be taught by classical conditioning.

Incidentally, would you like a grape?

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler September 30, 2015 9:32 AM  

This is why I love Vox populi. The ilk here are just fascinating. I have to think and mull over what Student in Blue says and then I find Jack Amok's take of tolerance from an engineering standpoint obviously very enticing; very good analogy. I came from an agrarian experience and he comes with an engineering experience. Some thing to chew the cud over with.

Virtue is a habit; it is a habit of character. Tolerance is a decision that falls under the rubrics of Prudence which is a Virtue. Tolerance is not a Virtue but is something that must fall under Prudence. The Virtue of Prudence directs tolerance. What is Prudence, the practical application of Wisdom. Wisdom is knowledge. Wisdom is all knowledge, knowledge of divine things, knowledge of morals, knowledge of the material, physical world, knowledge of the laws of the natural order, knowledge of the teachings of the Gospel/St. Paul, knowledge of one's culture, knowledge of one's civilization. Prudence then sifts thru all of this and applies what is needed or what has to be done.

The problem that Widdecombe is trying to unravel is that what he doesn't realize is that Tolerance was redefined in the Enligthenment and pulled out from under Prudence and elevated above the Virtue of Prudence. That is the problem. For SJWs, Tolerance is a Virtue that must be done. Whereas, in Western Culture and in Latin Christendom, tolerance is a the subject of Prudence and is a decision made by Prudence. Two different things. SJW tolerance is not Latin Christendom or Western Cultural Prudence.

Under the Enlightenment, tolerance is a weapon. Under Christendom, Western Culture, tolerance is sometimes dangerous and has to be judged on a case by case basis with the use of Prudence which is greater. SJW/Enlightenment tolerance is only for the other side to engage in. It isn't for them.

Blogger Student in Blue September 30, 2015 9:53 AM  

@Wheeler
The problem that Widdecombe is trying to unravel is that what he doesn't realize is that Tolerance was redefined in the Enligthenment and pulled out from under Prudence and elevated above the Virtue of Prudence.

That may be true. That may also be not true, I don't know.

What I *do* know, is that SJWs changed the definition of tolerance mid-stride. You can tell they changed it because there's an awful lot of people stopping their stride and saying "Wait a minute, that's not what tolerance used to mean just days ago."

The definition may have changed during Enlightenment, but it was changed even further by SJWs, recently. SJWs aren't just taking what they learned and applying it whole-and-cold-heartedly, they're also changing words to suit themselves. That's why the article, to point out that "tolerance" is *very* much different from "celebration", which is what SJWs demand of everyone else.

To the SJW, if you aren't celebrating their sin, you are rejecting them.

Blogger The Other Robot September 30, 2015 10:12 AM  

NYT talking about Nazis again.

If you oppose immigration you are a Nazi.

Blogger Feather Blade September 30, 2015 11:39 AM  

@2 ...surely there is a buzzword or catchphrase

The word you are looking for is "Totalitolerance".

@ Wheeler and Morales:
An example of Christian tolerance:
You have a friend who is of the firm moral conviction that the eating of animals is an abomination unto Nuggan.
You are of the firm moral conviction that if God had not intended animals to be eaten, He wouldn't have made them out of tasty, tasty meat.

Tolerance is when the two of you meet for dinner and you, out of consideration for his delicate sensibilities, buy a portobello-burger instead of a porterhouse steak.
Tolerance is when the two of you meet for dinner and he refrains from commenting on (or from so much as giving speaking glances at) the horrors of you eating the flesh of a (formerly) living creature, and doesn't try to extol the virtues of vegetables-only.

Both parties disbelieve the other's convictions, but each recognizes that it is neither appropriate nor necessary to take action against the viewpoint or against the person who holds it.

Blogger SirHamster (#201) September 30, 2015 12:51 PM  

Oh, great. Now you've done it: You've triggered the pompous twit who lurks within me. Is there a full moon tonight?

I had to look up all of those. You win. :P

Blogger Paul Widdecombe September 30, 2015 6:05 PM  

So many straw men, so little time...

Look, I'm going to have another stab at this as I think it will uncover something worthwhile. To clarify though -

How did anybody take from what I wrote that I might regard tolerance of Haji skull rapists as virtuous?

How does Christs toleration of being subjected to bodily humiliation culminating in his crucifixion (tolerare = to bear. Jesus bore the sins of mankind on the cross) contain any injunction for all mankind for all time on the #PrudentTreatmentOfWeevils, #BaldfaceHornets or #Sassafras?

If Pilate had commanded him to kill the postman, would he have done so? If not, why - because it would be evil?

What is the appropriate response to somebody pissing on two pieces of wood instead of nailing a Jew onto them? What if it is a plastic imitation Jew and you go for full immersion?

Blogger Paul Widdecombe September 30, 2015 6:14 PM  

Besides, if you want to fantasise about shooting somebody in the face so bad that you have to fantasise about hajis gang skull raping your family to justify it

Blogger CM September 30, 2015 11:56 PM  

Ah. Learn something new. I was thinking of Jesus' parable on the wheat and weeds.

Blogger CM October 01, 2015 12:04 AM  

It looks as if this conversation is over... but question for Wheeler on tolerance...

If my 3 year old is going through stressful changes and is constantly getting negative attention for bad behavior, at some point, I prioritize which behavior to take on full force and which to let be until a more appropriate time.

Oswald Chambers describes the process of sanctification in a similar manner... essentially God prioritizing which of our sins to deal with first.

Is the "ignoring" of the non-prioritized behaviors not tolerance? Or disagreement + passivity? Or would you choose a different term for this lack of action?

Blogger Jim Milo October 01, 2015 1:47 AM  

@15 All that money and not even a 212 number? Sheesh.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian October 01, 2015 12:17 PM  

FYI: RamZPaul is becoming quite your fan VD:

http://www.ramzpaul.com/

Blogger Alexamenos October 01, 2015 2:33 PM  

@92

beat me to it

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts