- 14/12/2016Everyone has an opinion and arguably the right to express that opinion. The problem starts when you defend your opinion like it is fact. If you have a theory you and it have to be able to stand up to scrutiny. Anger, or merely repeating yourself and your theory or getting someone else (even lots of someone elses) to say they agree with your theory ... does not make it fact either.
- Producer09/12/2016Truth and Fact. Truth versus Fact. Truth and Fact versus humans“When in doubt tell the truth. It will confound your enemies and astound your friends.” Mark Twain may not have meant it the way I interpret it in this piece but it fits. When in doubt, tell the truth. Your truth. Tell it like you understand...
Comments12/12/2016 #4 Paul Frank Gilbert@Harvey Lloyd Always another alternative ... most don't see beyond Yes and No. Right and Wrong. This approach to life ... makes it infinitely easier, but causes its own set of problems. @Deb 🐝 Helfrich We live and die with our truths. I stand on very few things as "absolute". Most of those things are intangible ... like family, honor and ownership of my self. The rest is open to an interpretation of time.10/12/2016 #3 Harvey LloydSomewhere a few years ago we lost our focus as humans. I agree truth/fact can cause a person to either be tolerant of something or intolerant. We have detached from the goals or vision of truth/facts. My personal truth or fact is something that i need to ensure my world doesn't go flat and i fall off the edge. I need this truth. However in this truth it may hurt others truths and destabilize their world of roundness. This is the edge of humanity where tolerance or lack of becomes an issue.
I cant use my flat preventive measures to judge your roundness doctrine. We are both right for ourselves. So this would imply a grander vision needs to be in play, a third alternative as Steven Covey would say. Given only two polarized positions then intolerance is sure to happen or evolve.
What would this third alternative look like in this context? Clearly this is suggestive and would like to hear others opinions. I would venture to guess, any third alternative would allow each to exist with their views of flatness or roundness while existing in the same space. Social media has allowed us to operate independently of each other while engaged in a network. I would submit this has caused a somewhat narcissistic outcome that is subtle enough not to be recognized. I speak of this at the macro level.
If i have any expectation of your accepting my thoughts then i would have to readily accept yours. Not agreement, but rather understanding your vision needs.10/12/2016 #2 Deb 🐝 Helfrich"Truths and Facts are human things." Now that is a mighty fine way of pointing out that 'objective' 'validated' reality has a life expectancy of about 80 years. Longer in some cases, dramatically shorter in others, but the whatever truthful facts 'are'; they are presented through the lens of a human mind confined to a human life.
- Producer07/12/2016Tolerance and the reality of being human Tolerance has a definition. It requires and supports little need for interpretation. Tolerance is “the ability or willingness to accept the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with”. Intolerance has...
Comments07/12/2016 #7 Deb 🐝 HelfrichThanks for this post, @Paul Frank Gilbert. I was recently confronted with a very public expression of intolerance and was torn as to whether I should write about it.
"Tolerance requires wisdom, experience and the achievement of a personal level of growth that many of us may never quite achieve." I believe that open discussion is how we learn to be tolerant, so I am going to have to write about a very difficult topic.07/12/2016 #5 Harvey LloydDiversity for me anyway is the understanding and use of different viewpoints. Naturally, this may point to different points of view from different cultures or religions. This is diversity. Diversity is not, in my view, accepting or rejecting an opinion, skill or view because someone is of a different culture, religion.
Diversity and the tolerance concept have all taken on new meaning in our very group-think society. Diversity is a good thing when leaders listen, empathise and explore the various perspectives of unique individuals. Also they succeed through viewing another's position regardless of their metaphors, dress or passion (Tolerance). Both of these statements imply direction/change or a goal. Ultimately a decision will be made of the various explorative processes. Am i intolerant or lack diversity based on the chosen direction?
Tolerance should be temporary just as intolerance. Intolerance in action is tolerance that has exceeded its life expectancy. Either i am seeking to understand why i am tolerating something (accepting the experience) or seeking resolution through our systems of determination.
I don't want to pursue tolerance, i experience it. I certainly don't want to pursue hate. Although i experience that on occasion, i know through my belief system where that ends. No hate should be supported by society. Ideas and differences or diversity, under my stated definition, should be pursued.
In the end, we have to accept the rule of law. This is something that i believe is/was a large part of the election processes demonstration, expectation not tolerance/intolerance. Although this is playing out under the new definitions of the words being used here. They are accusatory and represent a fait accompli debating style. How does one answer the accusation of intolerance when discussing the outcome of the election; religous orientation, or skin color?
I can't and most likely won't. If forced to, most would not like my answer.07/12/2016 #4 Paul Frank Gilbert#3 I agree ... circular for sure. I guess I am just saying that we talk a lot these days about diversity (of thought, race, gender, etc.) and we talk about acceptance ... but all too often we only support those things if they fit with how we see them. The definition (at least currently) of tolerance and intolerance is clear and as such ... perhaps we are not really searching for it ... perhaps we are not really looking to create a tolerant society after all ... instead maybe we can agree there are going to be things that we vehemently oppose no matter how "legal" they are. I see no reason to tolerate smokers ... and I am sure my non-vegetarian lifestyle in absolutely intolerable to some. So maybe we quit pretending to be pursuing tolerance as a goal and quit fighting basic human nature. Maybe HATE is a useful emotion ... in the right circumstances ... as supported by society? :)07/12/2016 #3 Harvey Lloyd#2 I agree, i was merely stating that the words have grown in definition to apathetic levels. Someone else's belief system of the mirid of them that exist, is personal to them. It is only when their belief system states and they act upon it in such a way that robs me of my own belief system, that intolerance exists. But under your discussion this is covered by applicable law.
"Assigning yourself to a group, I believe, immediately sets you up for a greater risk of being ... intolerant. Sneaky. Philosophical perhaps...."
Given the constitution not being an all-inclusive document but rather a document that assumes basic humanist expectations; and one of the reasons for settling the colonies was the freedom to practice religion, where do we go from here? Have we not then taken a few hundred years to evolve into exactly why we left merry ole England?
Your argument here seems circular. The society we discuss has to establish specific guidelines for us to act within. Anarchy is the end game when we refuse to act upon the forces that threaten our social future. Our constitution establishes a methodology of challenge/defend to sort out these issues. Because i challenge something doesn't make me intolerant. What makes me intolerant is when i don't accept the processes outcome.
I believe your statements surround judgement of another through intolerance. This judgement leading to unacceptable action. I agree. Judgement is for the dogma crowd of group think. Someone who is tolerant or intolerant also need to be heard and have thier say within the process. But once decided move on.07/12/2016 #2 Paul Frank Gilbert#1 Societies, not the human race as a whole, determine what is and is not tolerable and societies makes laws and set punishments for those things that fall outside their limits. Our history is littered with society based laws that were once enforced but no longer are and we look back in horror at what we tolerated or what we refused to tolerate. Tolerance must accept that the ideas, opinions and beliefs of others have a much right to exist as yours ... until such time as we as a society decide to enact laws and set punishments against them. We need to be careful because as much as I/we might like to never again see someone draw a representation of the prophet Muhammad, because it goes against the beliefs of millions of people, I/we have to weigh that against the freedoms to do so, and the implications of impacting those freedoms. Am I tolerant for allowing people to draw those images? Intolerant for not creating laws to stop it?Anyway ... again, intolerance is when you do not believe that ideas and beliefs that do not fit your version of the world should be allowed to exist or take form in any manner. If they are not backed by laws the chance that your views are merely intolerant increase. Assigning yourself to a group, I believe, immediately sets you up for a greater risk of being ... intolerant. Sneaky. Philosophical perhaps ... but at a basic level, at least here in the US, we have governance that dictates what is and is not against the law and until something is ... refusal to even accept and acknowledge that someone else can have an idea or belief that does not agree with yours ... is simply Intolerant.07/12/2016 #1 Harvey LloydTolerance i have always thought was the direct result of not understanding something we are experiencing and seeking to understand. Intolerance is the exact opposite, to stop/intervene that which we don't understand.
Tolerance and intolerance have a common theme, action. Both situations require resolution in our mind or in our actions depending on how far along we might be in the discerning process. Both seem to lead down a road to apathy at some point when they are left unresolved. Yes tolerance has limits. These limits are individual to a point but socially/collectively there are limits also.
I did not tolerate President Obama, I had expectations. Some of these were met and some were not. It would have been no different with a Hilary victory. I have expectations of President-elect Trump.
The tolerance word and its flip side have been utilised to the point that they tend to describe an individual and who they are in the human experience. If someone states they are Christian, they are intolerant if they are part of a special interest group then they are tolerant etc......
This divides us as a human race into categories of belief, personalities and other labels. I agree with the intent of your post, but would submit we need to set clear expectations on our society and its leaders and hold them to it. Please let's not tolerate anyone. Let's seek to find common ground that all can thrive.
- 06/12/2016Very interesting ...Predicting unpredictability: Information theory offers new way to read ice cores - Scienmagscienmag.com Credit: Image courtesy Heidi Roop. At two miles long and five inches in diameter, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Divide (WAIS) ice core is a tangible record of the last 68,000 years of our...
- 16/04/2016Both fascinating and more than a bit creepy.Interactive ‘robot goddess’ looks like a real womanwww.dailymail.co.uk University of Science and Technology of China unveiled Jia Jia today, which is an interactive robot that looks like a real woman. It can speak, show micro-expressions, move its lips and...