EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

The difference between acceptance and tolerance

< Return to subforum
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jun 27 2015 12:24 AM
A lot of my fellow liberals confuse what it means to be tolerant with what it means to be receptive. They are two very different words, and we need to learn to distinguish them, or at very least agree to stop using the word "intolerant" as a line of emotionally charged rhetoric.

Tolerance is the ability to interact with ppl of a different race, religion, or creed. Acceptance is the ability to not only live with ppl of a different race, religion, or creed, but be fine with them the way they are. And acceptance doesn't always need to be displayed vocally. The acceptance, or inacceptance of others, can be internal as well.

The point I am trying to make is the someone can be unable to accept someone of another race, religion, or creed, without being intolerant to someone of another race, religion, or creed.

Example... I cannot accept transgenderism, nor can I accept people who get abortions, nor should I accept people who are atheists. I tolerate transgenderists, I tolerate ppl who get abortions, I tolerate ppl who use heavy drugs, and I tolerate ppl who are atheists, despite all these things being extremely bad choices for the individual. What I wont do is accept ppl who change their gender, accept ppl who get abortions, accept ppl who use heavy drugs, or accept ppl who are atheists, because I cannot accept a man or woman who I love as either a personal contact or as a fellow society member who isn't making the best choices for him or herself.

While I am talking about charged words, I'll also bring up about how much my fellow liberals use the word "offensive" in response to almost every taboo discussion on ppl of another race, religion, or creed. In my opinion this is a complete cop out. I am almost confident enough where I can say 99% of all accusations of something being 'offensive' are actually bullshit.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jun 27 2015 12:24 AM
Blackflag: *acceptive instead of receptive
admin
By admin | Jun 27 2015 3:03 AM
Blackflag: The NAZIs interacted with Jews, primarily by killing them. Would you say the NAZIs tolerated Jews?
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jun 27 2015 3:38 AM
admin: False analogy. "Tolerance" in this context means you tolerate the existence of a certain group, which is obviously incompatible with you trying to kill them.
admin
By admin | Jun 27 2015 3:40 AM
Dassault Papillon: OK. So does torturing somebody until they're almost dead but not quite, mean you tolerate them?
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
admin
By admin | Jun 27 2015 3:41 AM
I mean, in general I agree with the point that tolerating somebody doesn't mean agreeing with them, but I just strongly disagree with this particular conception of "tolerance".
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jun 27 2015 3:43 AM
admin: If you're doing so in an effort to get them to stop being a certain way, that's not tolerance. If you do it because they're inferior, that's also interfering with their right to exist normally without others imposing their will upon them.
admin
By admin | Jun 27 2015 3:47 AM
Dassault Papillon: Can we just agree that in general, tolerating something means providing people with that thing with equality? Like, if you don't treat people of other religions differently, for example, you tolerate all religions, without necessarily accepting all religious beliefs. There's a lot of religion I frankly hate, but I don't treat anybody any differently because they're religious, to give an example.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jun 27 2015 3:49 AM
admin: I suppose so, but people are still entitled to the freedom to internally disagree with said action, or to even vocally express that disagreement.
admin
By admin | Jun 27 2015 3:52 AM
Dassault Papillon: And I'm fine with that. So long as that vocalization isn't, like, extreme hate speech ("Kill all the Christians!") or something I guess. My overall point is that "interaction" as @Stag defined it can basically be construed to mean anything and is therefore meaningless, while I see tolerance as being something quite specific.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jun 27 2015 3:57 AM
admin: True, but "hate speech" can be construed to mean anything, including any speech expressing disapproval of homosexuality.
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jun 27 2015 3:58 AM
Dassault Papillon: America has become majoritarian in nature; anything the majority demands for happens.
admin
By admin | Jun 27 2015 4:00 AM
Dassault Papillon: It's the grey area of tolerance. Disapproval, I think most people can agree that's in the limits of tolerance. Clear bullying & harassment or extreme hate speech, on the other hand, I think most people can agree probably wouldn't be very tolerant. The exact point where different people draw the line is slightly inconsistent, and that's ok.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!