| The tolerant and the less-tolerant
Posted: 10/25/2009 6:46:49 PM | This place sucks. Pretty soon it will just be BE and ML1 posting to each other.
I guess that makes me intolerant...hmmmm....more like dying of boredom I think...wait...wait...I think there is a rerun of Three's Company on... | |
|
| The tolerant and the less-tolerant
Posted: 10/26/2009 5:00:36 PM | I agree with Walt's on this one.
I personally can tolerate a lot but what I will not tolerate is abuse of oneself or others. I find that intolerable.
I have no problem with other peoples opinions, so long as it is not hurting anyone else. | |
|
| The tolerant and the less-tolerant
Posted: 10/27/2009 6:41:56 AM | I read a few of these posts before I went to bed last night....yawn.
After awhile I lost track of the topic.
This morning I decided I would start from the last post and work my way to the first. See if I can make any sense of the dialogue.
BE... good post.....ROTFL...I think I'll stop there. | |
|
| The tolerant and the less-tolerant
Posted: 10/27/2009 7:25:01 AM |
So I ask...
Do you agree that it is the intolerant that are largely responsible for much of the conflict and misery in our world?
Are you a tolerant or intolerant person?
Do you have difficulty seeing both sides of an issue?
Can you sometimes see yet another route or option other than clearly defined "white" or "black"? Will you accept the "gray" route or option?
If you are generally intolerant, but have at times accepted other opinions or beliefs, what did it take for that to happen?
Do you have any advice for our less-tolerant forum brethren, advice they might consider before making a post in the forums?
A lot of KISS Rules apply with me . Question 1 no 2 both 3 no 4 yes 5 words 6 Take a deep breath its only life.  | |
|
| The tolerant and the less-tolerant
Posted: 10/27/2009 9:46:39 AM |
Do you agree that it is the intolerant that are largely responsible for much of the conflict and misery in our world?
"Let He Who is Without Sin Cast the First Stone"
Or pretty much one person doing stuff for someone/something does not mean they believe in the cause they are promoting.
Conflict and misery in the world is brought about because few people question management, government and authority figures. Is it really "right" to let people live in poverty, while others who worked hard live in million dollar houses? Would taking the rich persons wealth and giving it to people in poverty be right in your eyes?
Are you a tolerant or intolerant person?
I consider myself very tolerant of things. Things are best if not violating the spirit of the law.
Do you have difficulty seeing both sides of an issue?
No.
Can you sometimes see yet another route or option other than clearly defined "white" or "black"? Will you accept the "gray" route or option?
I'm usually suggesting the gray option.
If you are generally intolerant, but have at times accepted other opinions or beliefs, what did it take for that to happen?
n/a
Do you have any advice for our less-tolerant forum brethren, advice they might consider before making a post in the forums?
Don't rush in to defend a topic. People have the right to express their opinion, but opinions are not facts. Facts can be backed up with references. | |
|
| The tolerant and the less-tolerant
Posted: 10/27/2009 9:55:25 AM |
Since the nothing at stake seems to puzzle you,; do tell what is at stake for you at these forums where we don’t even know if the picture that is shown is the real person or not, never mind 20 years old….?
Is earning your physical well being, lively hood in jeopardy, are your professional or social status or is it some mysterious and elusive forum poster fishy you wish to impress into your web???
Just because…. lol
Thanks for inspiring me to read back on this old thread Onchy or Balled Eagle…lol
Actually the above picture was taken a year and a half ago in March:roll: I didn't realize you were gasping for air.....attempting such personal attacks...lol
It is obvious I am not a tolerant person....
People have the right to express their opinion, but opinions are not facts. Facts can be backed up with references.
So true….might be ideal to define what references are. It appears many here have no idea what you are talking about judging by how thoughts are written.
| |
|
| The tolerant and the less-tolerant
Posted: 10/28/2009 8:39:49 AM |
People have the right to express their opinion, but opinions are not facts. Facts can be backed up with references. So true….might be ideal to define what references are. It appears many here have no idea what you are talking about judging by how thoughts are written.
This is reference to people pulling statistics without stating where they read it and using the phrase "most people are ..." to defend an opinion presented as fact. Ad Populum and appeal to belief.
So like with the "all men are potential rapists" thread, the very phrase is given as fact, when it's nothing more than opinion. It's not even the original quote. It came from a piece of fiction written by Marilyn French.
Quoting something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics would have been better. 77.64 per 100000 (Canada) in a year. Vancouvers metropolitan area population is 2.1 million. So maybe 1630 rape crimes are reported in the entire area in a year. That may seem like a big number, but even if 50% of the population were male, that's closer to 0.15% chance of being involved in a rape crime in a year.
Anyways, just an example. Many conversations tend to break down if they get political and opinions get thrown around as if they were facts. | |
|
| The tolerant and the less-tolerant
Posted: 10/28/2009 8:49:29 AM | Good point MWI.
However, with a crime like rape, and many others, the statistics themselves can be misleading. Many crime statistics, particularly those that are underreported, are only the tip of the iceberg. Those numbers you quoted above might be only 10% of actual commited crimes. | |
|
| The tolerant and the less-tolerant
Posted: 10/28/2009 5:50:02 PM |
People have the right to express their opinion, but opinions are not facts. Facts can be backed up with references.
I think opinions without references out of a book can also be facts. You have the opinion that has stemmed from how a person thinks or feels about a particular topic, which is an opinion or point of view. Then you have the opinion which comes from the person having first-hand knowledge from having personally witnessed or experienced the subject of the topic, which then makes it fact even though there is no documentation to prove that it is indeed fact.
Take an event that several reliable people have witnessed & have them document the "facts" about that event for reference purposes. No two will be identical. So then, which documented reference from these reliable sources can be considered factual? They are probably all factual with minor variables so who gets to decide which person's rendition of the event will go into the book as a reference source?
So you're looking for someone to prove their opinion with a reference source, but don't all the facts from those references originate from someone's personal experience & opinion?
On topic ... I think most people are a blend of tolerant & intolerant. I consider myself to be quite tolerant & sometimes too tolerant when I care deeply about someone. However, I will stick to my guns when it comes to the things I feel strongly about. | |
|
| The tolerant and the less-tolerant
Posted: 10/28/2009 11:39:33 PM | OY!............ are we done yet?
I'm losing my tolerance with all of you! ...and I don't care what you think of my outburst! | |
|
| The tolerant and the less-tolerant
Posted: 10/30/2009 9:42:23 AM |
So you're looking for someone to prove their opinion with a reference source, but don't all the facts from those references originate from someone's personal experience & opinion?
Personal experience, yes. Opinion depends if it is balanced reporting or controversial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Remembers
Michelle Remembers is presented as fact from someone's personal experience. So people think Victoria BC is a hotbed of ritual sacrifices or something. I have no experience with this topic other than it keeps popping up whenever someone mentions occult and BC.
http://www.members.shaw.ca/imaginarycrimes/michelleremembers.htm
But so is "Terror in the Name of God" by Simma Holt (1964), which labels an entire religious group of people in BC, terrorists. If you read this book without any idea of the injustices done to the Freedomites or Doukhobours, by the government, you would be led to believe that they were terrorists.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/canada/simma-holt-memoirs-fighting-injustice-6836.html
"Between 1964 and 1983 Mrs. Holt wrote four books. For Terror in the Name of God, about the Sons of Freedom Doukhobors, she established herself as an expert on the use of terror to achieve goals, and received the Woman of the Year award in Canadian Arts and Letters."
http://www.doukhobor.org/Adelman.htm
"In portraying the struggle between Doukhobors and the State as one over land
ownership, my purpose is also to redress an ingrained view of the Russian
refugees as "fanatics" or "zealots." This view is especially proffered in a
popular, controversial book by a Vancouver Sun journalist, Simma Holt. Holt
argued that the Doukhobors were the masters of their own fate: their failure
to integrate and their determination to ward off outside influences
alienated them from an otherwise benevolent Canadian society. The author's
case is full of distortions, and it is not helped by the penchant to use
sources without offering citations."
At least with the internet, people can stop and have a discussion on how honest a topic really is. Some people will really dig their heels in, even with plenty of evidence that proves their opinion is baseless. Other people may try to intentionally derail discussions that they do not agree with (possibly so they don't have to defend their position.) | |
|
| The tolerant and the less-tolerant
Posted: 11/10/2009 12:54:11 PM | Well prior to World War II the Americans were extremely intolerant of the Navajo Indian peoples. Their young children were rounded up and placed in schools, part of the effort to assimilate the Navajo and suppress their language, their culture and their traditions. We have seen similar efforts in Canada.
However after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour the American military realized they needed better methods of communication. So they turned to the peaceful Navajo people, recruited and trained them to be the famed "Code Talkers", who played a significant part in defeating Japan..
Curious how the Americans' levels of tolerance for another culture and language changed when it better suited them. | |
|
| The tolerant and the less-tolerant
Posted: 11/10/2009 7:54:56 PM | I'm a very tolerant person and have been DELIBERATELY nice and convivial lately so that when i post i'm not blanketing the board with no response (everyone quivering under their blankees) COME ON I'M BORED! YOU WIMPS! THIS IT? MY FCKN GAWD! i'm joining the church choir...
The PMS "Bring It Before I Lapse Into Another Drooling Coma" B!tch  | |
|
Home
login 
