Tolerance - what's that?

[rolf]

I have very little faith in any leader. Anyone who wants to tell other people how to live is wrong-headed. The democrats, the party to which I am registered, have a more humanistic persona, I think, so that's one, small advantage, but they are all complicit in facilitating the rise of a god of gold to the position of ultimate authority and the sick society that results.

[viking60]

So if I understand this thread correctly, tolerance is actually no virtue at all. In fact the zero tolerance is optimal?
Killing is acceptable if you disagree enough with a person (especially presidents - a long American tradition there).
No wonder you guys are involved in so many wars.

Being skeptical towards leaders is fine though. If they do not deliver you can fire them.It is a rotten system called democracy, but it is the best there is.

Americans have the traditions of the wild west. You want to ride alone into the sunset and even the (good hearted) ones opposed to war, are calling people out to duels and prefer violent solutions.
I admit, I tossed the name that would provoke the most into this debate - and wosh all signs of tolerance were gone.
I am a bit surprised though that even the concept of tolerance is that alien (or is that where you draw the line? I do agree that there are limits).
It seems to be about "tolerating" the people you like (which is no tolerance really), and shooting the others (or something very negative).
At least you guys do not come over as very peace loving here. How very American, and how very wrong.
(Come on guys I know you have good hearts - Please prove me wrong on this!!)
Could we please have some examples of people you disagree with that you tolerate?

PS I think you have a well thought of philosophy behind your "growth will lead to disaster", rolf. I think it is farsighted to think like that - if every Chinese in the world would have our standard of life (requires growth) we sure are one step closer to a catastrophe, unless we do not give up something. But that is kind of off topic

[dedanna1029]

You have access to the GWB Iraq policy?

Bush is a wet-brain crack head.

+ 1

[dedanna1029]

Now it is those who disagree with you, that have to do the tolerating for a few years.

Oh come on, he even ran the majority of these people off! If he weren't so hated for what he's done, then he would have been legally and viably voted in this time, unlike previous elections!

[dedanna1029]

So if I understand this thread correctly, tolerance is actually no virtue at all. In fact the zero tolerance is optimal?
Killing is acceptable if you disagree enough with a person (especially presidents - a long American tradition there).
No wonder you guys are involved in so many wars.

Being skeptical towards leaders is fine though. If they do not deliver you can fire them.It is a rotten system called democracy, but it is the best there is.

Americans have the traditions of the wild west. You want to ride alone into the sunset and even the (good hearted) ones opposed to war, are calling people out to duels and prefer violent solutions.
I admit, I tossed the name that would provoke the most into this debate - and wosh all signs of tolerance were gone.
I am a bit surprised though that even the concept of tolerance is that alien (or is that where you draw the line? I do agree that there are limits).
It seems to be about "tolerating" the people you like (which is no tolerance really), and shooting the others (or something very negative).
At least you guys do not come over as very peace loving here. How very American, and how very wrong.
(Come on guys I know you have good hearts - Please prove me wrong on this!!)
Could we please have some examples of people you disagree with that you tolerate?

PS I think you have a well thought of philosophy behind your "growth will lead to disaster", rolf. I think it is farsighted to think like that - if every Chinese in the world would have our standard of life (requires growth) we sure are one step closer to a catastrophe, unless we do not give up something. But that is kind of off topic

Um, no. You totally missed it. I said that I didn't like him and thought he was a rare exception of someone who needed to die, because of all the people he's killed (and had killed).

However, I would agree with the viability of your statement that tolerance is of no virtue then. In a way this is true. Everyone in life makes their own choices to be and to do as they will. So, therefore, everyone is going to have a different view of what is acceptable sociably and what isn't. Therefore, not everyone can "just get along" like dumb sheeples all the time, just because they're told to.

And, there's one thing I won't tolerate. That being, supposed "world leaders" destroying not only my own, but every other country they can destroy, just because they can take the oil and the sweat of those people too. No way in hell I'm going to tolerate that. Which is why I voted Democrat at this last election. But beware, I also think as Rolf does, in particular, when he speaks of how even the Democrats are. However, I do think they are the much less of the two evils.

Another thing I don't tolerate is the same "world leaders" spreading fear, paranoia, FUD in general, which is how our nation is now brainwashed to believe about other people and countries, all in the name of "da oil".

If you think I have an extremist view here, then you should look up people like Paul Steiner on my facebook. He can direct you to books on all the dirty dealings of GWB, Dick Cheney, and every neocon that's crossed this country's path. (Yes, he wants them hung by their balls and left to die, except Sarah Palin, who has the tits of a nail head)

[dedanna1029]

(Or is that the tits of a pin head?)

Someone needs to do something to make Palin STFU.

[viking60]

Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Ghandi. Mother Theresa. What a bunch of Uncle Toms, and dumb sheeples. I get it.
I think they were accused of that too from the extremists on their side like Malcolm X etc.
It is interesting; If I take out GWB above and put in Osama Bin Laden - you sound exactly like GWB. That you do not rate tolerance as a virtue, is a fair statement though.
I disagree but I will tolerate you anyway

[rolf]

viking60, I speak for myself, not Americans, and you don't know me.
I don't know you but, perhaps, you are talking about something like this:

2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something :toleration

I think that is fine as long as the differing beliefs or practices don't hurt me.
For the most part, my enjoyment of life derives from nature: going to the beach, walking around San Francisco in the open air and looking at the fine natural bodies of pretty women, driving through the redwood trees of the coastal range, drinking coffee. I enjoy working with my hands, my arms, my back and my brain to create custom solutions for, primarily, nice homeowners: http://home.mindspring.com/~rolfpedersen2/jobs/
I enjoy conducting my sole proprietorship built by word of mouth over decades by honestly providing competent product to people who repeatedly call on me and tell their friends about me. I have never aspired to devote my life to amassing material wealth. During this lifetime, I have observed that, by and large, those who have more material wealth than I do get it by taking what belongs to others, by outright deceit, by leveraging capital to extract the fruits of others labor into their own empires. I don't desire what they have; I just want to keep what is mine. It is reported than someone once said:

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven

or something like that. I'm not religious but, in a world where only materialism is admired, my viewpoints are marginalized by those with the prevalent beliefs, so I find support where I can.
Some other philosophy I share is the "Serenity Prayer":

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

So, I limit the time I spend talking about what I think is wrong. It is not a pleasant experience and there is little chance I will change anything. However, some crap, such as being stereotyped as a war mongering American, might get a response from me. There is virtue in speaking the truth. For good reason, the USA is criticized for war. VietNam was an illegal, immoral war for no good reason. I tend to have more tolerance for WWII. Our leaders, our president lied to us, as in Chile, as in Irag, as in Afghanistan, as they always have and always will. The evil of VietNam was so egregious that Buddhist monks doused themselves in gasoline and protested by burning themselves to death. Perhaps they needed to be more tolerant?
It would be easier to be tolerant, none of this would be so important but for the fact, each day, it becomes clearer that the unbridled venal aggression that brought the world to this point will, before long, kill the Earth. I think young people are in tune with this, an uncertain future in collapsing society, fewer illusions of life, more tendency to dark goth and schoolyard violence, killing. I speak with people and see posts on internet that are so full of clueless denial that I know I can make no change. However, freedom of expression is one of the most important things left to me. I know I can make no change but I am constantly bombarded by ignorance such as those who use their freedom of expression to deny people the (chance of) happiness of marriage or adoptive parenthood because they are gay. From time to time, I speak out against ignorance as it is a freedom and a responsibility but the ignorance returns twofold, nothing changes, and I want to enjoy life, so I spend more of my energies doing that. This is not tolerance. It is more denial, cutting losses. There are those who criticize me for not being tolerant when all they want is for me to be quiet about the ugliness of their lives I expose. That is not tolerance.
So, I can be tolerant but what I am intolerant of is the falsehood that poisons society, poisons the Earth, and poisons my enjoyment of life.
I don't think I have the moral fiber the monks had to make a statement against the ugliness via self-immolation but I do give some musings to the concept of making a statement by helping some poisoner or other along that path.
Here are some words written by Dylan Thomas when his father was dying. I find more virtue in these sentiments than in psycho-medicated silencing of dissent that is so necessary for the status quo. A recording of him reciting the poem is here.

DO NOT GO GENTLE INTO THAT GOOD NIGHT

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

--Dylan Thomas

(thanks for the forum, viking60, it works nicely!)

[viking60]

I think you are an Idealist deep down there rolf. I like that.
I would think that the Budhist munks are too tolerant to (I agree that there are limits). But Dalai Lama does not think so, and I respect him. And he sure is more qualified in the matter. Who am I to step in and help him with the violence he detests.
Afghanistan was no lie - Osama Bin Laden trained his terrorists there, and was protected and supported by the ruling Taliban. What he did on 9/11, justifies the invasion in Afghanistan (9/11 can not be tolerated). Women were executed on football stadiums there, every Saturday, for having sent their daughter to school and other trivial reasons. I sure am glad you don't live in Afghanistan dedanna.
And I am convinced that it was not just a revenge, but a prophylactic action. There would have been more terror if not.

Iraq was a lie or just plain stupid (I think GWB was stupid - dedanna thinks he is a liar -take your pick:).

The joys of marriage for gays are the social benefits, the other joys are not dependent on marriage. The joys of having children are not a right for (gay - or any) adults.
The children have the rights to parents - not the other way around.
I have always wondered why this is so important for the gay's. They want us to respect them for what they are. OK but one of the things that comes with the territory (what they are) is the lack of ability to reproduce.
IMHO they must face up to that as a consequence of being gay (by the way being gay, still is grounds for execution in Afghanistan, I think).
Wanting it all, does not command respect in my book.

On the other hand, lots of sensible words there, the AA one is a favorite of mine too - good advise.
Living life in peace and enjoying it- nothing wrong with that. Money has not much to do with it. If someone wants to spend his life collecting them, that is fine with me.
That does not sound like a good life tho..
Spending a life hating, doesn't either.

Anyway I am being seriously out gunned here by you and dedanna Lets here some other voices on this.

And yes I think the forum is functioning. I will be picking your brains regarding some last details on my last install in another thread

[dedanna1029]

Afghanistan was no lie - Osama Bin Laden trained his terrorists there, and was protected and supported by the ruling Taliban. What he did on 9/11, justifies the invasion in Afghanistan (9/11 can not be tolerated).

This is provided you agree that going to Afghanistan in the first place was done legitimately under the guise that "the evil terrorist leader Bin Laden" bombed the USA in NY on 9/11. It's if you agree that Bin Laden actually did the bombing, and you agree that this in itself is not a lie. It's also that you agree that anyone else should care what Afghanistan does with its own country, and you are not a citizen of Afghanistan. There are those who believe that the fact is, that Bin Laden did not do the 9/11 bombing in NY, USA, on 9/11. There are too many who have seen evidence quite to the contrary. I'm one of them. It's also if you agree that the bombing in NY, USA on 9/11 had anything to do with anyone (including Sadaam Hussein) in Iraq. There are too many who have seen evidence otherwise. I am one of them.

It's also that you agree that the USA went in and "shocked and awed" Sadaam Hussein and his minions, that the USA went in, and got out. There is way way too obvious evidence that this didn't happen. I'm one who believes that whole war is a total sham, and that the world was lied to about 1) the reason for the US military to be there and 2) the fact that the US went to war with Afghanistan in the first place was a total sham.

"I want to go home." He should be able to go home. WTF are we still doing there, almost 8 years later (if not 8 years later)? The Taliban? They can stay there and ruin the place for all I care! Why do I care what they do to it?

http://www.reuters.com/news/video/story ... 779&rpc=60

Again, like Iraq, it's their country. Not mine.

Edit: Even if you agree and consider that Osama Bin Laden did do the bombing on 9/11 in NY, USA, the USA has been there way more than long enough to get their revenge. If you look at the count of people killed in Afghanistan and Iraq both from the war, then even you would have to agree that we got our revenge, and after destroying now, not just one, but three countries (including our own) over the 9/11 debacle, it's high time to pull out.

[dedanna1029]

We can't be the rest of the world's savior. We don't have the financial wealth, nor the right, to save the rest of the world from itself. It's more than high time to leave and let the rest of the world tend to itself with its own so-called "world leaders", so that our own people can do just as Rolf stated - go on with life and be happy, and enjoy our own lives.

Don't ever try to tell me that GWB, Cheney, and the whole lot didn't lie.

Oh, and about that video I posted on my Facebook?

It's been 8 years, the U.S. at the time was supposedly a major leading superpower (if not the leading one), yet still, in 8 years, we haven't been able to catch this elusive "Osama Bin Laden"... have you met him?

hhmmm... something up with that cookie.

(Oh, that's right! He died in our attacks! TWICE!!)

[rolf]

I threw in Afghanistan as it was a certainty we have been lied to about it. On the whole, my sentiments were that what happened on 9/11 was a terrible act and a military response was justified. It was touching to see photographs from all over the world of people, many children, commiserating with America over this event at that time. However, Bush and his handlers soon squandered all that good will, lying about Hussein being connected to the action and pushing a sociologically, economically, and morally destructive war on Iraq. A hint of the truth about Afghanistan is revealed in reports of how Donald Rumsfeld passed over an opportunity to get bin Laden.

Donald Rumsfeld could have given the order to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, but he let him escape to Pakistan because he was afraid of angering U.S. allies in Afghanistan. This shocking report was published Sunday in the New York Times and several other outlets and is culled from information revealed in a detailed analysis released by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of the crucial days in December 2001 when bin Laden and and his top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, were pinned down in caves high up in the White Mountains in eastern Afghanistan.
...
Various journalists note that by the time the American and Afghan forces had bin Laden and his al-Qaeda entourage pinned down in caves, Rumsfeld had already switched his focus to an impending invasion of Iraq and was more concerned with mounting a successful “regime change” in that nation then in capturing the man roundly blamed for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. As for Franks, in official reports, he questioned whether or not bin Laden was actually still hiding out in Tora Bora in December 2001, despite reliable field reports all but guaranteeing that he most certainly was bunkered there.

I don't presume to define happiness for gays or anyone for whom their being happy creates no harm for me. From what I have seen in media, being able to get married is something that makes some people happy, in terms of sentiment or the social status that comes from a public taking of vows, whatever, it's not for me to judge. The social benefits that derive from from the marriage contract are a source of happiness in the lives of those who enjoy them; at least, denying them seems to make people unhappy. I said nothing about a right to have children. It seems there are a lot of excess children for whom care from natural (heterosexual, mostly) parents is not forthcoming, through misfortune or, more often, lack of good character. Furthermore, it seems gay foster parents do as well or better than heterosexual parents in providing care for foster children, making their life happy. Lastly, this process of caring for children seems to make some people happy. Those controlling people who would attempt to define the joy of others whose joy is none of their business, who would attempt to proscribe another person's attempt to experience happiness when no harm comes from that attempt are clear examples of intolerance.