Tolerance and Belief

[AreaCode707]

Answer the polls first and then read and answer the question.



1. Do you tolerate people who would have voted the opposite answer from the one you voted and do you tolerate their beliefs?
2. Do you believe those people and their beliefs should be tolerated?
3. Do you believe those people should tolerate you and your beliefs?

4. Do you believe in an absolute right or wrong?
5. What is the basis of truth that you use to determine what is right and wrong?

6. Which way(s) did you vote?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: HotChic
4. Do you believe in an absolute right or wrong?
5. What is the basis of truth that you use to determine what is right and wrong?
6. Which way(s) did you vote?

I think the first three of your questions are ones that everyone will answer identically.

There is a minimum absolute in right and wrong. Through a UN charter, we agreed to this minimum a long ago and continue to gradually work towards complete compliance.

The basis is probably, "Treat others the way you wish to be treated yourself."

I voted disagree, disagree, nef (needs clarification), agree, agree, agree, disagree, disagree, disagree.

 

[AreaCode707]

nm

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: yllus
I think the first three of your questions are ones that everyone will answer identically.

I dunno, somebody already voted to ban religion.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: HotChic
What did they base the UN charter on?

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

I *think* this is the second document the United Nations ever wrote. I forget what the first was, but it was important too.

The charter I linked to is sort of interesting in how it asserts a lot of rights that were not all that common up to just a couple hundred years ago. We've progressed very quickly.

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: yllus
I think the first three of your questions are ones that everyone will answer identically.

I dunno, somebody already voted to ban religion.

Yeah, but they'd never post to seriously admit to doing so.

 

[her209]

Religion, itself, does not conflict with freedom if one has the choice to freely choose or not choose their religion.

 

[Taejin]

Your questions are poor, very vague and not well thought out. There is too much possibility to infer one thing from another, when such is not the case.


I say this sucks.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Taejin
Your questions are poor, very vague and not well thought out. There is too much possibility to infer one thing from another, when such is not the case.


I say this sucks.

 

[sandorski]

1)yes
2) yes
3) yes
4) maybe
5) Golden Rule
6) disagree, disagree, agree, agree, agree, agree, nef(certainly true at one point, whether it still is or not is not entirely clear), nef(certainly true and a reasonable solution at one point, but again am not convinced it is still needed), agree(intolerance should not be the prevalent viewpoint)

 

[Dubb]

Originally posted by: Taejin
Your questions are poor, very vague and not well thought out. There is too much possibility to infer one thing from another, when such is not the case.


I say this sucks.

I agree.

you know, after Rip's sh!tfest over in OT, I poked my head in here just to see how things were going.

same as ever, I guess.

I used to wish that people could have a meaningful discussion on politics and current events. now I just wish that people would realize that views, perceptions, and the world are not limited to sensationalist, manipulative bullet points.

 

[BurnItDwn]

1. Do you tolerate people who would have voted the opposite answer from the one you voted and do you tolerate their beliefs?

I try to tolerate people who are different as best as I can, however, there are limitations. Sometimes I am unable to comprehend WHY people have their beliefs.


2. Do you believe those people and their beliefs should be tolerated?

As long as their beliefs don't harm or impose anything on anyone else, they absolutely must be tolerated.


3. Do you believe those people should tolerate you and your beliefs?

Of course.


4. Do you believe in an absolute right or wrong?

I believe that doing anything to to diminish the rights and/or freedoms of anyone else without good reason is absolutely wrong, basicly, anything that creates a victim and is clearly unfair.

As far as an absolute "right", I believe things that are done to benefit humanity and/or the greater good are absolutely right.


5. What is the basis of truth that you use to determine what is right and wrong?
Treat others the way you wish to be treated, also, an eye for an eye.

6. Which way(s) did you vote?
Agree,
Disagree,
Agree,
Agree,
Agree
Agree

Women are oppressed by men and must liberate themselves---
In many parts of the world, I completely agree with this.
However, in the suburbs of Chicago where I have lived my life, Women and Men seem to have the same rights. Both men and women work at jobs. Cleaning/Cooking responsibilities are shared. Taking care of children is shared ... in some cases, the woman may do more around the house, but it's not necessarely because they are opressed, it's because often guys are sloppier, and have lowwer standards for what "clean" is. Of course there are also guys who are really anal, and they wind up doing the blunt end of the housework. Perhaps there exists opression here, however, I have not been exposed to it. So I am pretty confident that at least Locally, women are not opressed, and have every same opportunity that men have.

so ... if you mean, on a global scale, I fully agree
If you mean locally, I disagree, as I believe that women are not generally opressed (at least not oppressed any more then males are)

Disagree
Disagree

 

[Riprorin]

Good poll, HC. :thumbsup:

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: HotChic
Answer the polls first and then read and answer the question.

1. Do you tolerate people who would have voted the opposite answer from the one you voted and do you tolerate their beliefs?
2. Do you believe those people and their beliefs should be tolerated?
3. Do you believe those people should tolerate you and your beliefs?

4. Do you believe in an absolute right or wrong?
5. What is the basis of truth that you use to determine what is right and wrong?

6. Which way(s) did you vote?

I am uber tolerant of a persons personal beliefs...so long as they do not interfere or inflict themselves upon another. At the point your skin meets air, your opinions cease to be valid. In a conflict between two persons, the one who infringes on the others rights first is in the wrong. Even when such conflict occurs there's no reason to attack the persons belief, just prevent them from continuing to infringe. In cases where people have chosen to be social (ie cultures, societies, nations, etc) then there are almost always established rules of conduct and mediation, and those should be adhered to so long as it's reasonable.

No, right and wrong are ENTIRELY subjective. Anything anyone can prove, I can disprove, and vice versa. It's all subjective opinion. I therefore base my morality on a combination of rationality, feeling and adherance to established rules of conduct. A person can only act as they see and understand to be correct in any given situation. Absolutes are dangerous and almost always wrong.

I voted as you's expect someone with my views to vote. Disagree, agree, agree, agree, agree, agree, nef (because not all women are oppressed, not all oppressors are men, must is an absolute, liberate is subjective), disagree, disagree.

 

[Caminetto]

LOL

 

[TWills]

1. No. They are wrong. And I hate the people more who agree with me but are too wimpy to admit it.

2. Yes, they should be 'tolerated,' technically. If you don't tolerate their beliefs, how can you convince anyone to change their minds to what is right?

3. These questions imply that all beliefs are equal, which they are not. You have your ideals, and to give them up when someone else steamrolls through is a sign of weakness, that you are unable or unwilling to stand up for yourself.

4. Yes. Except for the specific exceptions pointed out by God. (divorce is acceptable only if A. your spouse is leading you astray, B. Your spouse is cheating)

5. God's law. Man cannot conceive perfect right and wrong.

6. Wow, I think I disagreed with them all.

EDIT: And be careful about asking questions in absolutes this way. It opens you up to way too much criticism by the techniquality squad.

 

[Vic]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them."
6.
a) Religion - disagree
b) Human life - disagree
c) Marriage - disagree
d) Family - agree
e) Sex - agree
f) Forms - agree
g) Women - disagree, maybe a generation or so ago but not today
h) People of color - disagree, today's playing field is level, now's the time to earn
i) Viewpoints - disagree strongly

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
No, right and wrong are ENTIRELY subjective. Anything anyone can prove, I can disprove, and vice versa. It's all subjective opinion. I therefore base my morality on a combination of rationality, feeling and adherance to established rules of conduct. A person can only act as they see and understand to be correct in any given situation. Absolutes are dangerous and almost always wrong.

Really? So for a man to rape and murder a young girl is not absolutely wrong, but simply subjectively wrong? There might be a valid excuse for his actions? Hey, he might have thought he was acting correctly at the time based on the situation.
There is absolutely nothing rational about subjectivity. It is an excuse for the evil who like to screw people. Hey, you think it's right when you steal because it benefits you, so your victims are just misguided...
Absolutes are only dangerous to your subjective thinking because they get in the way of you subjectively interpreting situations to your benefit even when your actions will cause harm to other people.

Disprove that :roll:

edit: bolded areas of quote for irony

 

[AreaCode707]

Just an fyi, the questions aren't mine. I took something from an article that was being discussed today and put it here to a vote to make a point to somebody I was arguing with.

 

[Infohawk]

And what article was that?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
No, right and wrong are ENTIRELY subjective. Anything anyone can prove, I can disprove, and vice versa. It's all subjective opinion. I therefore base my morality on a combination of rationality, feeling and adherance to established rules of conduct. A person can only act as they see and understand to be correct in any given situation. Absolutes are dangerous and almost always wrong.

Really? So for a man to rape and murder a young girl is not absolutely wrong, but simply subjectively wrong? There might be a valid excuse for his actions? Hey, he might have thought he was acting correctly at the time based on the situation.
There is absolutely nothing rational about subjectivity. It is an excuse for the evil who like to screw people. Hey, you think it's right when you steal because it benefits you, so your victims are just misguided...
Absolutes are only dangerous to your subjective thinking because they get in the way of you subjectively interpreting situations to your benefit even when your actions will cause harm to other people.

Disprove that :roll:

edit: bolded areas of quote for irony

I hear you, and you're largely right. It's the difference between relativism and commited relativism along a developmental model. However, better relativism than dualism in the grand scheme of things. Relativity requires a higher order of thinking than dualism...this is basic accepted fact of human psychology. In my experience those who cannot accept that have not reached that level of development yet. Graned, beyond relativity exists another level...but even at that level the subjectivity of experience remains accepted.

Hypothetical: Your wife and daughter are both dying of a disease. A curative drug exists, but since it lacks FDA approval it's illegal to use in the US. Does that law stop you from using it? Most people would say of course not. That shows that laws, in and of themselves, are subjective. Same situation, but now the drug costs $5,000 and you don't have it. Let's just assume for a moment that you try valiantly but cannot obtain the money you need. The only source of the drug is unwilling to provide it on your word of eventual payment. Would you steal it? Again, most people would agree that they must steal it in order to save the ones they loved...that life is more precious than money. So stealing is ok, sometimes...in other words, things are subjective. It's wrong to randomly kill people...yet if someone had murdered hitler in his youth, would the atrocities of the holocaust have occurred. Again, subjective. In your discussion of the rape, you assume that the individual has the cognitive and moral capacity to know right from wrong...not everyone does. There is an absolute physiological and psychological developmental requirement to such understandings.

What I'm getting at is that anything general you claim as absolute, can usually be altered through the application of specifics, and vice versa. It's funny how you talk about relativity being threatened by dualism, when even an entry developmental psych class will show beyond doubt that it's the opposite...that dualists are threatened by relativity. This then is the basic level of the fundamentalist.

You don't have to take my word for it of course...there is plenty of research into the field and I'd be happy to suggest some to you if you'd like.

btw, I like how you chose to bold 'always' in my statement, but somehow managed to not bold the word 'almost' right before it. You see, in English there are words called qualifiers that limit or alter the intent or meaning of other words. Thank you for demonstrating the subjectivity of dualism so perfectly.

 

[zendari]

1. Y
2. Y
3. Y
4. Y
5. eye for eye
6. D, A, D, D, A, D, D, D, A

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: HotChic
Just an fyi, the questions aren't mine. I took something from an article that was being discussed today and put it here to a vote to make a point to somebody I was arguing with.

This was the very questions and answers brought up in Church last night, they must have seen the same article to use for the weekly brainwashing session.

 

[AnyMal]

Tolerance, is not something most people on this forum are known for.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: HotChic
Answer the polls first and then read and answer the question.



1. Do you tolerate people who would have voted the opposite answer from the one you voted and do you tolerate their beliefs?
2. Do you believe those people and their beliefs should be tolerated?
3. Do you believe those people should tolerate you and your beliefs?

4. Do you believe in an absolute right or wrong?
5. What is the basis of truth that you use to determine what is right and wrong?

6. Which way(s) did you vote?

The poll would be more accurate if the nef said None of anyone's business instead.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I hear you, and you're largely right. It's the difference between relativism and commited relativism along a developmental model. However, better relativism than dualism in the grand scheme of things. Relativity requires a higher order of thinking than dualism...this is basic accepted fact of human psychology. In my experience those who cannot accept that have not reached that level of development yet. Graned, beyond relativity exists another level...but even at that level the subjectivity of experience remains accepted.

Hypothetical: Your wife and daughter are both dying of a disease. A curative drug exists, but since it lacks FDA approval it's illegal to use in the US. Does that law stop you from using it? Most people would say of course not. That shows that laws, in and of themselves, are subjective. Same situation, but now the drug costs $5,000 and you don't have it. Let's just assume for a moment that you try valiantly but cannot obtain the money you need. The only source of the drug is unwilling to provide it on your word of eventual payment. Would you steal it? Again, most people would agree that they must steal it in order to save the ones they loved...that life is more precious than money. So stealing is ok, sometimes...in other words, things are subjective. It's wrong to randomly kill people...yet if someone had murdered hitler in his youth, would the atrocities of the holocaust have occurred. Again, subjective. In your discussion of the rape, you assume that the individual has the cognitive and moral capacity to know right from wrong...not everyone does. There is an absolute physiological and psychological developmental requirement to such understandings.

What I'm getting at is that anything general you claim as absolute, can usually be altered through the application of specifics, and vice versa. It's funny how you talk about relativity being threatened by dualism, when even an entry developmental psych class will show beyond doubt that it's the opposite...that dualists are threatened by relativity. This then is the basic level of the fundamentalist.

You don't have to take my word for it of course...there is plenty of research into the field and I'd be happy to suggest some to you if you'd like.

No, all that shows is that Kant was the worst thing that ever happened to philosophy, and you're full of sh!t.