Liberal Tolerance is a Total Fallacy

[cybrsage]

tolerant != respect

I posted the dictionary definition of the word. You are not arguing with me, but rather with the English language. You say intolerant means something different than the English language says it means. You are therefor wrong.

Here is part of the definition, the rest is in my previous post:

in·tol·er·ant

   /ɪnˈtɒlərənt/ Show Spelled[in-tol-er-uhnt] Show IPA
adjective 1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs,

 

[monovillage]

This is a textbook example of a straw man argument.

Step 1: Invent a position that's easy to argue against and ascribe it to your opponents -- the more generic the position and the more widely you can ascribe it the better. In this case: "liberals claim to be 'tolerant' so that means they have to accept what anyone says or does without taking any action".

Step 2: Find an example of your target group violating the position that you just invented and ascribed to them.

Step 3: Mock and/or deride them for not living up to the position that you created and assigned.

It's a strategy that works well for the less discerning.

PS There's nothing wrong with being intolerant of intolerance.

The only fallacy here is this argument.

 

[monovillage]

They tried to say in a nice way that this guy was bad for their business and they therefor did not want him around.

Is that simple enough for the rest of you that didn't get it the first time to understand?

Your assertion that "Liberal Tolerance is a Total Fallacy" represents a cognitive failure at best, or a willful fabrication intended to disparage others. Either way, it reflects poorly on you.

You can't stand the truth.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Ahchie!

Simply put, the term "Intolerance" is a blanket statement to criticize UNWARRANTED AND UNSUBSTANTIATED REJECTION of an idea or person based on your own beliefs or feelings.

"Tolerate" become "Withstand" and "Put up with" very quickly when the thing being "tolerated" is invasive, damaging, hateful or otherwise generally unacceptable.

Literally speaking, someone is intolerant if they refuse to have nails put through their hands (which I guess makes Jesus someone special), but that is not the popular application of the term nowadays.

Now, to continue, "Liberal" means a willingness to accept different things. It does not mean UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE, it simply means a willingness to listen to and seriously consider different things, viewpoints and such. If you brought the subject up of killing rats to help stop the spread of Rabies, many might find that acceptable. Killing babies to do the same would not. They would not be considered "intolerant" and be going against their "liberal" position by doing so, either.

This selective re-association of categorizations and definitions is really bad. It shows how much people are willing to let other people think and define things for them.

Just the fact that "Liberal", a complimentary term meaning "open minded" can be perverted by the pundit pablum is pathetic.

pppp

 

[Ninjahedge]

You can't stand the truth.

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!![/Jack]

 

[monovillage]

Don't ever stand up to bigotry, or you're a bigot yourself. This is fast becoming my new favorite right wing canard.

- wolf

Someone doesn't approve of gay marriage and they get banned from a public mall ? I think you're getting a bit confused on who the bigots are.

 

[thraashman]

The only fallacy here is this argument.

Funny that you say this and in your very next post you say that someone ELSE can't stand the truth! Well pot meet kettle.

 

[cybrsage]

If you do not respect the beliefs of others, you are intolerant. It is what the word intolerant means - it is the definition of the world.

The only reason people want to not appear intolerant is because it has become a stigma if you claim to be what everyone obviously is.

 

[monovillage]

I still find the blind hatred and intolerance and self justified bigotry from the left to be stunning at times.

 

[dank69]

I posted the dictionary definition of the word. You are not arguing with me, but rather with the English language. You say intolerant means something different than the English language says it means. You are therefor wrong.

Here is part of the definition, the rest is in my previous post:

in·tol·er·ant

   /ɪnˈtɒlərənt/ Show Spelled[in-tol-er-uhnt] Show IPA
adjective 1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs,

I don't see the word respect in the definition of bigot, yet here you are saying that if I don't respect someone's beliefs, I am a bigot:

Not true:


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot?s=t


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intolerant

If you do not respect the beliefs opinions, usages, manners, etc, which are different from your own, you are a bigot and intolerant.

 

[thraashman]

If you do not respect the beliefs of others, you are intolerant. It is what the word intolerant means - it is the definition of the world.

The only reason people want to not appear intolerant is because it has become a stigma if you claim to be what everyone obviously is.

That is a stupid argument. Everyone has some views that they can't possibly respect. By your own argument everyone on the planet is intolerant. Because you're not going to have people who are pro NAACP, ACLU, neo-nazi, KKK, Occupy, Tea Party, etc all at the same time.

 

[thraashman]

I still find the blind hatred and intolerance and self justified bigotry from the left to be stunning at times.

The only thing blind here seems to be you. Sure, individuals in any party can be intolerant or bigoted. You're going to have liberals and conservatives that have some bigoted views. But as a group, it is 100% true, no doubt, no possible way to logically argue that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives.

 

[Steeplerot]

These folks are consumerist cultists, they do not care about being correct, it's about being AGAINST something and FOR their "side" Whatever corporate media tells them they are the champions and heros of. Suckers.

 

[cybrsage]

I don't see the word respect in the definition of bigot, yet here you are saying that if I don't respect someone's beliefs, I am a bigot:

tolerant != respect

big·ot

   /ˈbɪgət/ Show Spelled[big-uht] Show IPA
noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot?s=t

in·tol·er·ant

   /ɪnˈtɒlərənt/ Show Spelled[in-tol-er-uhnt] Show IPA
adjective 1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intolerant

I increased the font size and bolded the relevant portions.

 

[cybrsage]

That is a stupid argument. Everyone has some views that they can't possibly respect. By your own argument everyone on the planet is intolerant. Because you're not going to have people who are pro NAACP, ACLU, neo-nazi, KKK, Occupy, Tea Party, etc all at the same time.

The only reason people want to not appear intolerant is because it has become a stigma if you claim to be what everyone obviously is.

You understand now, though you call understanding stupid. According to the meaning of the word intolerant, if you do not respect the beliefs of another, you are intolerant.

Yes, every human is intolerant. The only way to claim otherwise is to pretend words do not have meanings.

 

[etrigan420]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intolerant?s=t

lolol, look at what the only listed antonym is for "intolerant"...

Game. Set. Match.

Mirriam Webster doesn't mention "respect" in their definition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intolerant

Nor does Webster's,

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/intolerant

Nor Oxford,

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/intolerant?region=us&q=intolerant

and let's look at Cambridge,

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/intolerant?q=intolerant

nope.

I think Dictionary.com might have overstepped by adding "respect" into their definition.

...but that antonym is pure money. :sneaky:

 

[cybrsage]

Too bad modern liberals are not actually liberal.

 

[etrigan420]

Too bad modern liberals are not actually liberal.

Hey, it's not *me* you're disagreeing with...

IT'S THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE@!!!!!!!!!!!!1111

 

[jackstar7]

Too bad to morons context doesn't matter...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Here's an interesting study comparing liberal/moderate/conservative political tolerance conducted by Pew Research.
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/...ngs/Social-networking-sites-and-politics.aspx

How social networking site users have responded to political content they do not like
Politics can be a sensitive subject and a number of SNS users have decided to block, unfriend, or hide someone because of their politics or posting activities. In all, 18% of social networking site users have taken one of those steps by doing at least one of the following:

• <LI class=first>10% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because that person posted too frequently about political subjects
• 9% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics or issues that they disagreed with or found offensive
• 8% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they argued about political issues on the site with the user or someone the user knows
• 5% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics that the user worried would offend other friends
• 4% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they disagreed with something the user posted about politics

Of course, that means that 82% of SNS users have not taken any steps to ignore or disconnect from someone whose views are different – or have not encountered any views that would prompt such a move.

Liberals are the most likely to have taken each of these steps to block, unfriend, or hide. In all, 28% of liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS because of one of these reasons, compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates.

When compared to moderates and conservatives..."Liberal tolerance" appears to be quite the oxymoron.

 

[cybrsage]

Hey, it's not *me* you're disagreeing with...

IT'S THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE@!!!!!!!!!!!!1111

The word liberal, like the word run, has many meanings.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

When compared to moderates and conservatives..."Liberal tolerance" appears to be quite the oxymoron.

Actually it says in there that 82% of all the users made no change at all. And honestly, after my experience here, you really cannot blame the liberals for not wanting to hear what your side has to say. In this forum alone there are a dozen right wing nazis in training that just throw out the opposition without any rhyme or reason at all. Whereas I find most liberals these days are much more likely to not just blindly toe the company line like so many Pubs do.

Hell I have been called a liberal or dem on here multiple times already in just 2 days of posting. The sad thing about that is that Ron Paul was my candidate of choice for this election. I am an independant who studies all the issues carefully and bases his decision according to the issues that are most important to me and who most closely resembles my view.

The important issues for me in this election that made me want to vote for Paul was that he wants to rid this country of the thieves dens known as the World Bank and IMF, and he wants to end the War on Drugs, plus he truly believes in a smaller government unlike all the other modern Pubs who just give it lip service when someone brings it up.

Yet I am a Lefty Socialist according to the losers that sit here all day posting their right wing propaganda. I am voting for Obama, and so is my wife, and so are my parents after voting Republican for 40 years. That should tell you a lot about how far the right has gone off the deep end.

 

[woolfe9999]

Someone doesn't approve of gay marriage and they get banned from a public mall ? I think you're getting a bit confused on who the bigots are.

Maybe their assessment of the anti gay marriage position is a lot more strongly negative than yours. Maybe it is even stronger than it reasonably should be. I don't agree with the anti gay marriage position either, but my disagreement with it isn't so strong that I would have trouble associating with someone who holds that view. Still, strong disapproval of an opinion /= bigotry. It just isn't the same thing.

 

[monovillage]

The only thing blind here seems to be you. Sure, individuals in any party can be intolerant or bigoted. You're going to have liberals and conservatives that have some bigoted views. But as a group, it is 100% true, no doubt, no possible way to logically argue that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives.

It seems to me that part of the liberal/progressive mantra is to talk about how "tolerant" they are and how "intolerant" the right is, personal experience and stories like the OP posted indicate it's not accurate.

 

[monovillage]

Maybe their assessment of the anti gay marriage position is a lot more strongly negative than yours. Maybe it is even stronger than it reasonably should be. I don't agree with the anti gay marriage position either, but my disagreement with it isn't so strong that I would have trouble associating with someone who holds that view. Still, strong disapproval of an opinion /= bigotry. It just isn't the same thing.

It's not, banning someone from a public mall because of their religious beliefs is far, far worse.