Tolerance is over rated
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-02-2011, 10:35 PM
 
RE: Tolerance is over rated
The ethic of tolerance is necessary and helpful. However, tolerance has been commercialised and is often more of a simple-minded, overwrought sentimentalism that makes the mistake of denying people's inherent discriminatory faculties as "evil" or "detrimental."

For example, I may listen to a sappy conversion story but feel no compunction about stating that their emotional experience was just that: an emotional experience; it wasn't a divine urging. By admitting that much, however, I have shown my intolerance for irrationality and it will almost always be interpreted as "intolerance." It may, in some cases, be construed as bigotry. However, all I have done is exercised my natural discriminatory abilities (i.e., the ability to discern between truth and falsity) in the face of an extraodinary claim.

So while tolerance is good--we should always respect each other's rational, and natural differences--we do not have to tolerate/endure irrationality by denying that another's misperceptions are misperceptions.

Is any of this making sense? Or am I being too vague? I don't feel as if I'm expressing myself as well as I'd like to on this subject, and I don't want to be misunderstood as saying something I'm not.
Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2011, 12:18 AM
RE: Tolerance is over rated
(03-02-2011 10:35 PM)Kthulu Wrote:  For example, I may listen to a sappy conversion story but feel no compunction about stating that their emotional experience was just that: an emotional experience; it wasn't a divine urging. By admitting that much, however, I have shown my intolerance for irrationality and it will almost always be interpreted as "intolerance." It may, in some cases, be construed as bigotry. However, all I have done is exercised my natural discriminatory abilities (i.e., the ability to discern between truth and falsity) in the face of an extraodinary claim.

Is any of this making sense? Or am I being too vague? I don't feel as if I'm expressing myself as well as I'd like to on this subject, and I don't want to be misunderstood as saying something I'm not.
As I stated in an earlier post, I am a proponent of tolerance of beliefs. However, irrationality is not a belief. It is self-indulgent and irresponsible. There is no reason why anyone who is an adult (there is gray area here, perhaps we should say an adult over 21 because 18-20 isn't always a rational age...) cannot act like reasonable and rational human beings. I have no tolerance for irrationality myself, the only problem is it is normally followed up with a big helping of ego and irresponsibility, and I can rarely get the irrational individual to see the error of their ways.

Something something something Dark Side
Something something something complete
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: