Author Topic: Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty?  (Read 795 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13905
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty?
« on: February 19, 2017, 03:30:43 AM »
The article is suppose to take about 9 minutes to read, yes I know it is long but it is intersting

This is a small excerpt:
Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376#.628nk9p0g

Thoughts. . . .Do you disagree and if so, why?
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Offline 2397

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
Re: Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty?
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2017, 05:15:57 AM »
The Biblical religion was never about tolerance, it was about imposing rules and making demands. Jesus did a bit about turning the other cheek, and not stoning adulterers, but the overall message was live life as commanded or go to Hell.

Including based on thought crime. In some ways thought crime was the worst of it, because disrespecting the incorporeal God was the worst thing you could do. Gather sticks on the Sabbath and you're dead. Maybe Jesus wouldn't have stoned him, but he would've sent him to Hell, infinitely worse.

I don't think the concept of tolerating the intolerant has been around for very long, and maybe it's been more in use as a mocking term than as an actual practice. What I go by is that all people should be as free as they can possibly be, and that there should be as much total freedom as possible, which means the limit is when one person's freedom is increased at the cost of another person having less freedom. So it's akin to the right to swing your fist concept, but it can go well beyond that. I think we can increase the level of freedom in society by having some level of legal duty. Or to put it this way; I think that mandatory taxation used to pay for public services is superior to expecting people to give up their money without being required to. But that does have to be based in democracy, so the challenge is in convincing people that it is the best way.

Quote
Imagine, for example, that you had good reason to believe that a monster was on its way to attack your town, slaughtering everyone in its path. You and your fellow townsfolk would be wise to arm yourselves and set up a defensive perimeter. If the danger were clear and present, the monster visible on the horizon, you would rightly see anyone who didn’t participate without a good reason as a no-good freeloader.

Some failures to participate are more dangerous than others. If any noise might attract the monster’s attention, then dancing and reveling of any sort must be forbidden; you put not only yourself at risk, but everybody around you. If it’s a horror-movie monster, attracted by premarital sex, then this might be restricted as well. And what if some kinds of people pose a danger to the town by their very existence? Is it worth the town’s life to let them stay? A town in enough danger might make a moral choice to exile, or even sacrifice, some of its members.

People see fantastical monsters all the time, this is why we need both science and a justice system that can work to nullify the many faults in human perception, and get as close to the truth as possible.

Claiming that there's a monster is far from enough, and the "you're either with us or you're against us"-attitude only speaks to your failure to prove your case objectively. "You're not on my side, so you must be in the wrong".
« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 05:22:20 AM by 2397 »

Offline Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13905
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty?
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2017, 05:21:38 AM »
What inspired this was a discussion of if Milo should be allowed to speak at Berkley and to me he seems to be a rabble rouser who is trying to court a violent reaction against him.

Getting people who don't seem to understand the difference between civil rights protesters protesting and the KKK marching in an all black neighborhood. I have trouble believing that anybody cannot understand the difference.
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Offline 2397

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
Re: Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty?
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2017, 05:55:27 AM »
What inspired this was a discussion of if Milo should be allowed to speak at Berkley and to me he seems to be a rabble rouser who is trying to court a violent reaction against him.

And people seem fine with giving him what he wants, cheering and going all out Godwin every time there's a discussion about people responding to speech with violence.

Quote
Getting people who don't seem to understand the difference between civil rights protesters protesting and the KKK marching in an all black neighborhood. I have trouble believing that anybody cannot understand the difference.

If they both got permits, having announced it ahead of time so proper arrangements could be made, there isn't a big difference.

You could argue they shouldn't get a permit, they shouldn't be able to target specific neighborhoods like that, but when I see riots and people fighting the common person in the street, I see the wealthy elite and the people with real power happy and relaxed.

Offline Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13905
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty?
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2017, 07:21:09 AM »
And people seem fine with giving him what he wants, cheering and going all out Godwin every time there's a discussion about people responding to speech with violence.

I wish they wouldn't but humans are humans and we are only partly rational.

Quote
If they both got permits, having announced it ahead of time so proper arrangements could be made, there isn't a big difference.

You could argue they shouldn't get a permit, they shouldn't be able to target specific neighborhoods like that, but when I see riots and people fighting the common person in the street, I see the wealthy elite and the people with real power happy and relaxed.

I see the KKK protesting in a black neighborhood as specifically courting violence. They want to be attacked so they can argue "Look, we are repressed."
If you look at civil rights marches, there may be violence but the goal is not the violence but to argue for civil rights.

"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Offline Andrew Clunn

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 15183
  • Aspiring Super Villain
Re: Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty?
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2017, 07:39:46 AM »
Two thing:

1 The breaking of the "tolerance treaty" needs to be through actions not words.

2 The notion of sacrificing people to prevent the monster from coming instead of fighting the monster is some grade a cowardice.

Basically this is the mental gymnastics one most go through in order to condemn Milo and defend Islam.
Banned from both Hacker News and the xkcd forum.

Offline Mr. Beagle

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2989
Re: Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty?
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2017, 01:28:04 PM »
I make a distinction between tolerating a different viewpoint or lifestyle versus allowing at the table a voice that wants to silence others at the table.

As a past board moderator I have bounced people for this latter behavior, and I suspect the mods here have done so as well.
Mister Beagle
The real world is tri-color

Offline Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13905
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty?
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2017, 01:39:37 PM »
Two thing:

1 The breaking of the "tolerance treaty" needs to be through actions not words.

2 The notion of sacrificing people to prevent the monster from coming instead of fighting the monster is some grade a cowardice.

Basically this is the mental gymnastics one most go through in order to condemn Milo and defend Islam.

I don't think it it is fair to compare Milo with the ex-Muslims (Sarah Hadar for example)

Let us be clear what we are defending with Milo
http://www.advocate.com/transgender/2016/10/26/milo-yiannopoulos-takes-transphobia-tour
“They are deeply mentally damaged, and they are failed by a liberal establishment obsessed with making them feel good about themselves,” said Yiannopoulos

“Trannies can never be women, or men for the small slice of women insane enough to desire to give up female privilege,” he said.

“The bathrooms of North Carolina are one of the last meritocracies left in America,” he said. “Isn’t that a bit sad? A tranny that can pass as a woman can walk into any women’s bathroom in the state.”

“Never feel bad for mocking a transgender person,” he declared. “It is our job to point out their absurdity, to not make the problem worse by pretending they are normal. Much like fat-shaming, if our mockery drives them to get the help they need, we may save their life.”


Now, I did not say that he does not have the right to speak but it is just something that makes me uncomfortable. Does not seem to have merit in a discussion point of view. I also think that he is trying to elicit a violent response whereas that is not the goal of the ex-Muslims.
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Offline Andrew Clunn

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 15183
  • Aspiring Super Villain
Re: Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty?
« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2017, 07:45:32 PM »
He's not wrong though.  I just don't think it's worth the social cost or health care costs to treat transgender people as mentally ill.  As far as I'm concerned mental illness is totally fine if you're not hurting anybody else, so who gives a shit if a man thinks he's a woman or vice versa? Doesn't mean they actually are though.  I get wanting to help them confront the reality, that sex is real and can't be changed and gender is made up bullshit.  But just like I don't go telling every religious person that they believe in bullshit I don't do the same for transgender people.  To reiterate thoug, he's not wrong.
Banned from both Hacker News and the xkcd forum.

Offline DG

  • The Prophet
  • Global Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2686
Re: Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty?
« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2017, 08:16:55 PM »
I disagree with the suggestion that one must engage in an act of violence or some step beyond words to have breached a treaty or to cease to be protected by it. In particular a clear expression that one does not want to participate in the treaty (which is common enough) or statements that are in direct conflict with the treaty's specified goals, could well exclude a person from the protection. I feel confident in saying that no one would refuse an individual the right to opt-out of the Treaty without throwing a punch.

The issue, in part, is that the terms of the treaty are void for uncertainty as is the case with the much of the concept of a social contract. How do you know if a person has opted out? Does the societal harm come from the assumption that all persons are subject to the Treaty until they have demonstrated otherwise (i.e their first demonstration causes harm to a great number of people)?

Further the responsibilities of the individuals subject to the treaty are unclear, as are its terms. We come back to the long standing issue - does causing a person offence, upset or distress cause an individual to be free of the protection of the Treaty? What is the actual treaty that is offered? Does "Gay people make me sick" (statement of fact), "black people are an abomination unto the lord and will burn in hell" (statement of interpretation), or "The world is a far worse place as a result of your existence" (statement of opinion) cross that line? When does tolerance, cross to intolerance? It appears to be a spectrum.

At one end are those saying "Do whatever you want, just leave me out of it." (rather liberal view) , the other end saying "Specified conduct is wrong, and is not tolerated." (social prohibition of a behaviour). Somewhere in the middle you have those arguing that the thing "should not be tolerated" - and the question is whether that is "intolerance", or simply identifying the bounds of that which must not be tolerated (I see very few arguing that "anything goes"). As mentioned, I have my limits to tolerance - which is "including me" in whatever it is without my consent. But I can appreciate that's insane for some purposes of public policy.
"If you don't like the theory of evolution you should probably skip the practical".


Online SkeptiQueer

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5085
  • DEEZ NUTZ
Re: Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty?
« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2017, 10:29:36 PM »


What inspired this was a discussion of if Milo should be allowed to speak at Berkley and to me he seems to be a rabble rouser who is trying to court a violent reaction against him.

And people seem fine with giving him what he wants, cheering and going all out Godwin every time there's a discussion about people responding to speech with violence.

Quote
Getting people who don't seem to understand the difference between civil rights protesters protesting and the KKK marching in an all black neighborhood. I have trouble believing that anybody cannot understand the difference.

If they both got permits, having announced it ahead of time so proper arrangements could be made, there isn't a big difference.

You could argue they shouldn't get a permit, they shouldn't be able to target specific neighborhoods like that, but when I see riots and people fighting the common person in the street, I see the wealthy elite and the people with real power happy and relaxed.

Alright, explain to me how there isn't a big difference between "we want equal rights" and "all of you people are inferior and should be deported/killed."

I eagerly await with baited breath.
HIISSSSSSSS

Offline Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13905
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty?
« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2017, 11:51:32 PM »
He's not wrong though.  I just don't think it's worth the social cost or health care costs to treat transgender people as mentally ill.  As far as I'm concerned mental illness is totally fine if you're not hurting anybody else, so who gives a shit if a man thinks he's a woman or vice versa? Doesn't mean they actually are though.  I get wanting to help them confront the reality, that sex is real and can't be changed and gender is made up bullshit.  But just like I don't go telling every religious person that they believe in bullshit I don't do the same for transgender people.  To reiterate thoug, he's not wrong.

Wow. . . .
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Offline 2397

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
Re: Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty?
« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2017, 05:54:05 AM »
Alright, explain to me how there isn't a big difference between "we want equal rights" and "all of you people are inferior and should be deported/killed."

I eagerly await with baited breath.

There isn't a big difference in terms of what should be allowed, up until they make directed threats or calls to illegal actions. Which I could see becoming a factor, I haven't been to many KKK rallies so I don't know their exact behavior. But that's also why you announce such protests, so that it can be assessed what precautions are necessary. And one solution can be that they have to hold it somewhere else.

Offline Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13905
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty?
« Reply #13 on: February 20, 2017, 02:21:29 PM »
Alright, explain to me how there isn't a big difference between "we want equal rights" and "all of you people are inferior and should be deported/killed."

I eagerly await with baited breath.

There isn't a big difference in terms of what should be allowed, up until they make directed threats or calls to illegal actions. Which I could see becoming a factor, I haven't been to many KKK rallies so I don't know their exact behavior. But that's also why you announce such protests, so that it can be assessed what precautions are necessary. And one solution can be that they have to hold it somewhere else.

What do you think of Neo-Nazis wanting to march in Jewish neighborhoods with a number of  holocaust survivors living in those neighborhoods? I call that terrorist activities.
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Online SkeptiQueer

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5085
  • DEEZ NUTZ
Re: Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty?
« Reply #14 on: February 20, 2017, 10:07:46 PM »


Alright, explain to me how there isn't a big difference between "we want equal rights" and "all of you people are inferior and should be deported/killed."

I eagerly await with baited breath.

There isn't a big difference in terms of what should be allowed, up until they make directed threats or calls to illegal actions. Which I could see becoming a factor, I haven't been to many KKK rallies so I don't know their exact behavior. But that's also why you announce such protests, so that it can be assessed what precautions are necessary. And one solution can be that they have to hold it somewhere else.

You just restated the premise, though. I'm asking you to justify there not being a big difference between allowing people to protest in favor of equal civil rights and people marching in favor of genocide/deportation/racial segregation. I'm aware of what the law is, I'm asking for a moral justification of that law.
HIISSSSSSSS

 

personate-rain