How tolerant are we, really?

[Khadgar]

You hear it all the time: tolerance. We all know what it means, and a great majority of peoples agree that tolerance is paramount importance. However, how tolerant are people truly?

Sure, we accept people of different belief systems for the most part, although you could debate this if you wished. However, this is not my primary concern. What I am interested in is how far you are willing to compromise your morals and values for the sake of tolerance. Most people are willing to bend a little, but when something comes around that is 180 degrees from their standpoint, they not only are intolerant of it, but are openly hostile! To some of you, this might just be a 'duh' statement. To me, it's an interesting portal with which to view societies double standards. The message seems to be, "We are tolerant of you as long as you are pretty much like us."

What are your thoughts upon this? Care for me to expound on anything?

[SyrupyDeathtrap]

I believe i've found two truly tolerant people in my life. I sure as hell am not one of them... its all too easy to discriminate, and frankly, human kind is not one to over-achieve. Personally, I dead refuse to compromise my beliefs and values for anyone's sake, but I don't run around forcing my views on every random passeryby I find either. Apathy is bliss. Even if it is the lazy way out.

[Khadgar]

I was thinking more along the lines of, how much would it take to force you to become intolerant? In other words, what is the most you could tolerate? I shall propose some examples:

If you observed someone yell at their child in a park as a punishment:
-does it bother you?
-do you do anything about it?

If said person smacked their kid upside the head:
-botherd, yet?
-any action?

If said person shoved their kid's head into the concrete:
-how about now?
-will you take action?

If said person repeatedly banged their child's head into the concrete while their child wailed for over 5 minutes:
-does it bother you?
-what actions will you take?

What if said person lifted their child off of the ground, and threw them into a large rock, as hard as they could?
-I'll bet you're bothered...
-do you take any actions, yet?

And finally, what if said person had gone so far as to end up killing their own child?
-on a scale of 1-10, how much does this bother you?
-what actions would you take, if any?


Now, after all these examples... the question is: how much does it take for something to go against your beliefs, morals or standards, for you to actually stop tolerating it and commit some kind of actions against the parent?

[Napalm]

If you observed someone yell at their child in a park as a punishment:
-does it bother you?
-do you do anything about it?
-Yes.
-I walk over there and beat the shit out of the parent, and then I beat the shit out of the child.


If said person smacked their kid upside the head:
-botherd, yet?
-any action?
-No.
-Kicking your kid's ass teaches them who's the boss, they'll never fuck up again.


If said person shoved their kid's head into the concrete:
-how about now?
-will you take action?
-No.
-No.


If said person repeatedly banged their child's head into the concrete while their child wailed for over 5 minutes:
-does it bother you?
-what actions will you take?
-No
-I'd tell the kid to shut the fuck up.


What if said person lifted their child off of the ground, and threw them into a large rock, as hard as they could?
-I'll bet you're bothered...
-do you take any actions, yet?
-Nope.
-If by "taking actions" you mean, getting out a camera and recording it, than yes, I'd take action.


And finally, what if said person had gone so far as to end up killing their own child?
-on a scale of 1-10, how much does this bother you?
-what actions would you take, if any?
-0
-Kill the parent. Two idiots down, many more to go.


Now, after all these examples... the question is: how much does it take for something to go against your beliefs, morals or standards, for you to actually stop tolerating it and commit some kind of actions against the parent?
Hm. Anyone want to answer this question for me? I mean I'm pretty tolerant until I hear the kid wailing. Then I just want to walk over there and begin smashing the kid's head in to the concrete.

[Khadgar]

I liked your answer- "Two idiots down, many more to go."

That's how I feel. Morals and ethics are a load of crap. Nobody is going to tell me something is 'right' or 'wrong'.

However, for the rest of the population, most hold some sort of values on these things.

For the record, I hadn't intended for you to answer the questions, it was mostly for self-realization of at a certain point, it might begin to bother you.

[Napalm]

For the record, I wanted to answer the questions for my own fun.
:)

[Khadgar]

Well it would really depend on what kind of smack it was. If it was a punch I'd get up and beat the crap out of the parent. If it was a slap idgaf.

The concrete is definently where'd I'd step in. You gotta treat your lolis nice and rape them gently.


As you can see, these views are subjective. Someone may not only feel that it is right to do that, but they are obligated to beat the crap out of their kid to teach them a lesson, for example. Another might think it's wrong to ever lay a hand on a child, ever. Like I said, subjective. Subjectiveness also renders it useless as a lawmaking tool. You should not be able to judge people on laws which originated from moral judgements.



For the record, I wanted to answer the questions for my own fun.
:)

Fair enough.

[KillHour]

ALL laws are based on moral judgements. That's why they're there.

[Khadgar]

ALL laws are based on moral judgements. That's why they're there.

Not all laws are based on moral judgements. Some laws could be based on objective reasoning as to what is best for society as a whole, that people might choose to break as individuals.

Example: stealing. Stealing might not be morally wrong to some, but it certainly does not help society.

I understand your point though. I would be tempted to say that MOST laws are based on moral judgements.

[Inactive Cargo]

I'm tolerant up to the point where it becomes negative. Like Christians and Intelligent Design. They're just so FUCKING STUPID.

[KillHour]

Almost as stupid as you.

[Kinetix]

If you observed someone yell at their child in a park as a punishment:

-does it bother you? Not really, we live in a society of 'omg don't hit or yell at children'. Sometimes you need to set your foot down

-do you do anything about it? No it's not my place.

If said person smacked their kid upside the head:
-botherd, yet? Happened to me as a kid, so if it's justified - no.
-any action? Discipline and abuse are two different things, I treat it accordingly.

If said person shoved their kid's head into the concrete:
-how about now?
-will you take action?

Now your questions are just getting foolish

If said person repeatedly banged their child's head into the concrete while their child wailed for over 5 minutes:
-does it bother you?
-what actions will you take?

Foolish question

What if said person lifted their child off of the ground, and threw them into a large rock, as hard as they could?
-I'll bet you're bothered...
-do you take any actions, yet?

lol

And finally, what if said person had gone so far as to end up killing their own child?
-on a scale of 1-10, how much does this bother you?
-what actions would you take, if any?

If I saw the kid die I might do something.

[Mr.Badguy]

I think it being illegal to hit your child is a stupid idea. Although I don't agree with child abuse I think there comes a point where if there is no other alternatives you must slap your child to teach it right from wrong.

The problem with this is that this may encourage your child to misbehave just as much but making sure you're not there to witness it.

I also think it's wrong that teachers are not allowed to hit kids at school anymore.

Back in the day (when my parents were kids) if they misbehaved they were beaten for it and you always hear old people saying, "you wouldn't get away with that in my day!". Since they aren't allowed to beat the kids anymore teenage crime rates have rocketed and you think this is a coincedence? I don't know if I like how my generation is turning out and the way the world is taking this pansy approach to everything.

Don't get me wrong, there is obviously a point where it is no longer an obedience issue and the parent is beating the child too hard/much for it to be legal. bad thing is, not many kids will tell anyone they are being beaten up by their parents for fear of what their parents might do to them.

And I'd probably step in at the repeatedly banging their childs head agains't concrete.

[RaptorAlex]

If said person repeatedly banged their child's head into the concrete while their child wailed for over 5 minutes:
-does it bother you?
-what actions will you take?

I'd slowly move away from that person and try not to attract their attention let i be the next victim of their pshycotic temper :shifty:

Seriously if i saw someone do that i would beat them unconcious and then call the police to arrest their sorry remains :mad:

[Khadgar]

This all goes to show that tolerance isn't always good. There is another name for tolerance. That is bystander apathy. What one group of people says is 'tolerating' something, another group of people says is not acting when action is due.

So, it's all subjective.

[bladeworship]

To use your example, I would become bothered at the point the parent banged the child's head on the pavement once, but I would take no action until the parent began repeatedly banging the child's head on the pavement.

This topic raises quite a few questions within myself. I will post again once I have had time for introspection. :think:

[FoxWolf]

Well, tolerance doesn't mean I have to like something, nor accept it really, because I will choose to ignore it until it becomes a problem. I hate it when people wave the "tolerance" flag, especially in racism, because many don't ask for equal rights, they ask for MORE rights. If I am an employer, and I hire a white guy out of a group of multicultural people, it is not racism. I will choose who I feel is the most qualified. So these people waving the "tolerance" or "racism" or "prejudice" flags all over, GET OVER YOURSELVES lol.

EDIT: I obviously didn't read your second post, so:
As soon as they begin to injure the kid, not smacking, but the head slamming, I would go up to them and tell them to knock it off. If the situation elevated, like if the parent was foaming at the mouth trying to get at the kid, I would use force and call for help if needed. Just because you have a kid doesn't mean it is your property. It's a human being.
I'm leaving the top part up because it's a pet peeve.

[Microphotometrically]

I'm pretty tolerant I guess. Most of the time I don't even know what's going on.

as we like to say.

"I don't even know what I know...."

[Kinetix]

I think it being illegal to hit your child is a stupid idea. Although I don't agree with child abuse I think there comes a point where if there is no other alternatives you must slap your child to teach it right from wrong.

The problem with this is that this may encourage your child to misbehave just as much but making sure you're not there to witness it.

I also think it's wrong that teachers are not allowed to hit kids at school anymore.

Back in the day (when my parents were kids) if they misbehaved they were beaten for it and you always hear old people saying, "you wouldn't get away with that in my day!". Since they aren't allowed to beat the kids anymore teenage crime rates have rocketed and you think this is a coincedence? I don't know if I like how my generation is turning out and the way the world is taking this pansy approach to everything.

Don't get me wrong, there is obviously a point where it is no longer an obedience issue and the parent is beating the child too hard/much for it to be legal. bad thing is, not many kids will tell anyone they are being beaten up by their parents for fear of what their parents might do to them.

And I'd probably step in at the repeatedly banging their childs head agains't concrete.

Yeah our generation got pussy footed from the hippy and all those other gay movements. If it weren't for them, maybe there would be less school shootings, and less stupid things for kids to do. But no, parents think its bad to hit their kid so the kid runs rampant and does whatever the hell he feels like.

[DonKing]

Putting examples down and having you think about it isn't really effective. When asked any question that I seriously think about, I think "Sure, thats fine with me" but when thrust into that situation, things can be quite different. I'll pretty much 'accept' anyone for whatever they say, but alot of things make me just go "...erm...."

[Crack Monk]

I think it being illegal to hit your child is a stupid idea. Although I don't agree with child abuse I think there comes a point where if there is no other alternatives you must slap your child to teach it right from wrong.

The problem with this is that this may encourage your child to misbehave just as much but making sure you're not there to witness it.

I also think it's wrong that teachers are not allowed to hit kids at school anymore.

Back in the day (when my parents were kids) if they misbehaved they were beaten for it and you always hear old people saying, "you wouldn't get away with that in my day!". Since they aren't allowed to beat the kids anymore teenage crime rates have rocketed and you think this is a coincedence? I don't know if I like how my generation is turning out and the way the world is taking this pansy approach to everything.

Don't get me wrong, there is obviously a point where it is no longer an obedience issue and the parent is beating the child too hard/much for it to be legal. bad thing is, not many kids will tell anyone they are being beaten up by their parents for fear of what their parents might do to them.

And I'd probably step in at the repeatedly banging their childs head agains't concrete.

I agreed with you up to the teachers thing.

Why should teachers be allowed to hit your kids? What, because they're paid to teach your children, they should also be allowed to abuse them?

Teen crime rates tend to rise and fall over the years, but it evens out in the end. Personally, I'd say that the current high crime rates are just a trend. Not that it matters, because crime rates only started rising in the early '80s. I'm not sure when they illegalized school beatings, but I know it was long before the eighties. So, your argument that a lack of beatings in school caused recent crime rates is invalid.

And to prove my point, neither my parents nor my teachers ever hit me, and I'm AWESOME.

TOTALLY AWESOME.

Don't even TRY to deny it.

[Khadgar]

Well, to be fair, it has been shown that nonviolent child-rearing techniques are FAR more effective than violent techniques. Not only do they promote peaceful resolution of conflict, but they foster emotional resilience, higher self esteem, and ever higher scores on intelligence tests on average (Not to say that it RAISES intelligence, but it puts the child in the right frame of mind to score as well as they could).

I'd write more but I'm falling asleep.

[Denial]

Tolerance is way too general of a term. I'm intolerant of something if it affects me or my goals in a negative way.

[Therman Merman]

I was thinking more along the lines of, how much would it take to force you to become intolerant? In other words, what is the most you could tolerate? I shall propose some examples:

If you observed someone yell at their child in a park as a punishment:
-does it bother you?
-do you do anything about it?


It depends on why they are yelling

[System_Zero]

We tend to give kids more credit than what they're able to understand. A kid will be stubborn, now doubt about it. While a non-violent upbringing can be helpful it does not mean it will work for everyone. A more stricter upbringing relies more on consequence for misbehaving over inconveniencing them as a way to assert your authority.

A sandle to the ass tends to get point across better than being sent to your room or no desert.

[Khadgar]

A sandle to the ass tends to get point across better than being sent to your room or no desert.


Better is subjective. It might make him comply, yes, that is true. But, for example, if he is hit, he might hit back. He is not allowed to hit back, right? What lesson is that? The strong bully the weak. If that is your message, then go for it, but some people disagree, and believe that just because you are physically stronger than someone is not justification for pushing them around. Just a thought.

[Khadgar]

Tolerance is way too general of a term. I'm intolerant of something if it affects me or my goals in a negative way.



That is true, I suppose. But that might just be a way to show that tolerance isn't always good. Tolerance basically means, to me, to be able to bite your tongue and stay your hand. Agreed?