T Nation


I need to vent for a second. If I am told one more time to be tolerant of other people (i.e. religious beliefs/political opinions) I am going to blow. Tolerance seems to have changed definitions recently. Just because I express a different view I am considered intolerant. This is total crap. Following their use of the word tolerant, they are being intolerant of me and my beliefs or opinions. Logically, how can they do this? How do they convince themselves that they are not being intolerant?

Me Solomon Grundy

I agree. How come someone with conservative views and someone who takes moral and religious stands are considered intolerant? Aren’t the ones screaming intollerance being intolerant because the others views aren’t liberal? Double standards everywhere. I for one don’t judge people on color, sexual preferance, or whatever. I judge them on who THEY are as an INDIVIDUAL.

Tolerance is used to often to express acceptance but tolerance is not acceptance.

I will tolerate homosexuality. I will not discrimate against a homosexual in the workplace and will defend that same individuals rights our God given rights. However, I will never be in acceptance of their lifestyle choices.

I can’t stand people who make broad judgments against people without knowing them. You know, its people like you who judge others that ruin society. You and all those like you are the same. You think you are always right (because you’re so closed-minded), but in reality all my friends and I know how stupid you are for not agreeing with us. If you were open minded, you’d see how we’re right and you’re wrong. So quit being judgmental you bigot/racist just because you came from middle class, white, protestant America where it was so simple.

It’s a good thing that I am open to everyone’s opinion and am tolerant of others. If you weren’t such an evil bigot for thinking like you do, and you would be more tolerant, maybe I’d actually listen to what you have to say.

Cory you have demonstrated the above statement very nicely. Thank you for reminding us just how stupid some people are.

The prince of all things evil and dark, Vegita

You are certainly able to tolerate without acceptance and accept without tolerance.

You can also do neither…just because I pay enormous taxes here in Canada does not mean that I tolerate OR accept them. I simply survive them as one stranded on a desert island would live for another day. Just because you survive something does not mean you either tolerate or accept it.

I accept P-Dogs penchant for dry-humping but would not tolerate it on my leg (I hear the only way to get him to let go is to let him “finish”) and conversely I tolerate Wideguy’s habit of flinging his wiener into every available nook and cranny but would not accept him using my kid sisters nook…or her cranny…especially her cranny.

Semantics and fodder for argument and nothing more…

“I refuse to tolerate the intolerance of a tolerant society”

  • Cake

LOL Cory.

“I accept P-Dogs penchant for dry-humping but would not tolerate it on my leg (I hear the only way to get him to let go is to let him “finish”) and conversely I tolerate Wideguy’s habit of flinging his wiener into every available nook and cranny but would not accept him using my kid sisters nook…or her cranny…especially her cranny.”

Cake, that was too funny.

The idea of diversity encompassing everything but dissent is also amusing.

You might want to read Passions and Constraints. The author makes the argument that one classically liberal idea is that there are “gag rules.” That is, certain subjects aren’t up for public/political inspection/debate. He says that religion is one of those issues. If we follow his logic, we see what those on the left are so against; they’re secularists, attempting to keep the gag-rules in place. So when gay marriage, or other religiously and politically charged issues arise, the classically liberal position might be “religious feeling and judgement have no place in the public discourse.” I’m not sure I agree with either the left or the right on this one, but I’m trying to show the other side.

Solomon Grundy,

I could not agree with you more! That is one reason why it is sometimes “entertaining” to debate political issues on this board. You have a few of the really “intolerant” who attempt to hang you with that tag line for simply holding an opposing view!

The “politically correct” crowd began this nonsense about 15 years ago. If you did not totally embrace whatever they perceived as “correct,” you were automatically labeled as “intolerant.” If you did not “accept” something then you were immediately a hateful person. What hapened to polite discourse? Should you really be branded a hateful person because you happen to disagree with anothers view point on the topic of the day?

It matters not to those people how many solid points that you have made, or how much your argument makes sense. If you don’t sing the politically correct anthem then you are “intolerant.” How narrow, and ultimately intolerant of them!

Now look what you have done here Solomon Grundy, single handedly you have brought about the extinction of “Intolerance”. It is obvious that there is no such thing as intolerance, until someone identifies it…THEN there IS intolerance but only the act of identifying intolerance is intolerance…BUT as the existence of intolerance was disproved BEFORE the intolerance of intolerance, there can therefore be no intolerance.

If you are going to continue eliminating words from the Kings English, could you please get to work on “Chesterfield” and “Uterus”?

I think we would all be better off without them.

“I have seen great intolerance shown in support of tolerance”

  • Samuel Taylor Coleridge


Great point. It’s amazing to see how many, on this forum, will chastize you for not agreeing with their point of view rather than try to understand the other end of the arguement. Tolerance is more about understanding both ends of the spectrum and forging your beliefs then. It’s not taking a stand on one side and trying cram it down everyone elses throat.

Tolerance is knowing that your neighbors are gay and not letting it interfere with your life.
Acceptance is inviting them over to have sex at your house.

Consider me tolerant.

Cake, I love your ?Circular Logic?. I get kind of dizzy though.

Me Solomon Grundy

“Acceptance is inviting them over to have sex at your house.”

–> What???

“What hapened to polite discourse?”

–> LOL!!! Zeb, hows about not directly insulting and “slapping around” the people you’re hoping to have “polite discourse” with? Speaking of intolerance, how about not BLOCKING those that hold views that are in opposition to your own!? You are a silly man!

there was a great south park episode about the difference between tolerance and acceptance, i think it was the one where they put the gerbil in the gay guy’s ass.

Thanks, Right Side Up, I was pretty sure I wasn’t the only one who laughed at the hypocrisy of this:

ZEB: “How narrow, and ultimately intolerant of them!”

This, from possibly the most narrow-minded and intolerant person I’ve ever had the pleasure of “talking to” on the internet.

To All,

tme steps up to the plate to prove the very point that I was making! “The most narrow minded and intolerant person I’ve ever had the pleasure of talking to on the Internet.” Need I say more?

I want to thank you for being the “case in point” for my short rant. As soon as you disagree with the politically correct crowd you become a target of hate speech!

Thanks so much for proving my point!

The timing of your little attack could not have been better!

Hahahaha! Yeah.

I don’t know about y’all, but it just doesn’t seem to be that complicated to me. I think that maybe certain folks (cough, cough)around here are so swept up with their disgust at these so-called alternate lifestyles or whatnot that when they try to logically defend an undefendable position, it just sounds like so much gobble-de-gook. I mean, when we start relying on the difference between what two pretty much identical words like “tolerance” and “acceptance” means, ya gotta just wonder if yer full o’ crap. Look, it’s not that hard. On the one hand, you got folks that like apples, and on the other hand, you got folks that like oranges. For some reason, the folks that like apples think it’s wrong to like oranges because they (the apple eaters) don’t like the taste. This is fine until the apple-eaters start persecuting the orange-eaters because they are “sinners” or “destructive to our pure and wonderful apple-eating society with their nasty disgusting love of oranges” or whatever. If you like the apples, good. If you like the oranges, good. It doesn’t matter here, folks. Give the orange-eaters a friggin’ break! They just wanna live their lives in their own way, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I mean, how dangerous can a guy who’s “totally into boots” and likes shopping for leather pants be to you? Just let him work at the cosmetics counter at Burdine’s and go dancing after work with his fellow orange-eaters, he ain’t hurting you. Simple enough for ya? This is capital-letter T Tolerance. If you want to ACCEPT as well, then I guess you would be the kind of person like me who has orange-eating friends (even though I prefer the apples myself), and doesn’t mind spending time with them or pretty much anyone else for that matter. No big deal.

That was “hate speech” ZEB? I guess if you have a severe persecution complex (or if you’re just a pussy) you could take it that way. But calling someone a “bottom-feeding liberal” would be fine then, right?

Cry and bitch about being a “target” all you want, it does nothing to change the fact that you’re a very narrow minded, intolerant SOB. Anyone with a point of view or opinion opposing yours is wrong, and you’ll spend countless hours typing pages and pages of blather trying to convince them of it, but of course calling you narrow-minded is “hate speech”.