Tolerance for "all"?
g.lip at gmx.com
Thu Jun 3 04:30:40 UTC 2010
On 06/03/2010 11:47 AM, ABSDoug wrote:
> --- On Wed, 6/2/10, jon at jcosby.com<jon at jcosby.com> wrote:
Normally, I don't get into discussion about preferences and behaviour.
But since you seems to have a need to let people understand you, I think
it is fair that you understand others.
The examples you give about NYC is good, where people allow others to do
what what they themselves would not do, and I agree that is a good
thing; *provided* such acts do not transgress others' liberty, safety
and convenience. I hope that if you witness a crime in NYC, and if you
could do something about it, you will not allow your 'tolerance' to do
nothing. I have nothing against smokers smoking in the park, but if they
smoke in hospitals and in lifts, I would be annoyed. And I am a smoker.
It is in our human nature to feel empathy and outrage when injustices or
prejudices are done even when we are not ourselves directly affected.
(and that's where dogma's are bad, ideological or religious, but that's
a separate issue)
Perhaps, and I am not a native english speaker, we shouldn't stress so
much on the word 'tolerance' - there are some linguistic/philosohical
people, noam chomsky, steven pinker are some examples, who claim
languages affect our outlook in life - but rather on the word 'toleration'.
After all, "tolerance" means 'enduring' something unpleasant.
"toleration" means 'allowing' something you disagree with to happen,
happily. The planned mosque you mentioned comes to mind.
But, I agree that a gentleman should say 'sorry' if he caused offense,
even if he had not intended it. :)
Regards - Goh Lip
Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% mortality rate
More information about the ubuntu-users