Comments on: From Tolerance to Acceptance http://dopodomani.me/2009/11/16/from-tolerance-to-acceptance/ Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:09:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: dopodomani http://dopodomani.me/2009/11/16/from-tolerance-to-acceptance/comment-page-1/#comment-88 dopodomani Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:38:31 +0000 http://dopodomani.me/?p=883#comment-88 BTW, I added another paragraph, to temper what I said to some extent, because I understand where are coming from.... Again, thanks again for your input! BTW, I added another paragraph, to temper what I said to some extent, because I understand where are coming from…. Again, thanks again for your input!

]]> By: dopodomani http://dopodomani.me/2009/11/16/from-tolerance-to-acceptance/comment-page-1/#comment-87 dopodomani Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:30:49 +0000 http://dopodomani.me/?p=883#comment-87 Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I do appreciate any and all comments, as well as points of view. We must all live within the boundaries of our personal morality, and I appreciate that you do... Steve Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I do appreciate any and all comments, as well as points of view. We must all live within the boundaries of our personal morality, and I appreciate that you do…

Steve

]]> By: Basia http://dopodomani.me/2009/11/16/from-tolerance-to-acceptance/comment-page-1/#comment-86 Basia Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:56:32 +0000 http://dopodomani.me/?p=883#comment-86 I read this: "So the question arose in me – Was I, too, being intolerant? Should I have continued to follow the guy, despite his demonstrated hatred of those he obviously knew little about?" and I knew where you where headed. No, you didn't have to keep following that guy. You did the exact right thing: you allowed him to engage in free speech. By blocking him, you simply opted not to participate in his form of free speech. You did nothing to hinder him or harm him. Then you went on to impose the current interpretation of "tolerance" onto the definition with which your article began. You assert that merely putting up with someone/something is insufficient. What makes up for that insufficiency? Endorsement! We may not simply allow others to be as they wish while we offer no negative impact; we must embrace and endorse whatever it is that we find different. And that is where we part company. I will make no effort to stop you from saying that I am insufficiently tolerating my fellow by simply staying out of his/her way. In that way, I am tolerating you. I do not, though, embrace the meaning you read into the definition which appears at the top of your article. Nowhere does that definition call for embracing, endorsing, advancing a cause, etc. I recognize and respect your opinion as stated, and acknowledge your belief in the rightness of your action. However, I choose to do nothing to further spread your expression, nor to block it. Neither do I endorse your interpretation. I'm tolerating you. It can, indeed, be passive. I read this: “So the question arose in me – Was I, too, being intolerant? Should I have continued to follow the guy, despite his demonstrated hatred of those he obviously knew little about?” and I knew where you where headed.

No, you didn’t have to keep following that guy. You did the exact right thing: you allowed him to engage in free speech. By blocking him, you simply opted not to participate in his form of free speech. You did nothing to hinder him or harm him.

Then you went on to impose the current interpretation of “tolerance” onto the definition with which your article began. You assert that merely putting up with someone/something is insufficient. What makes up for that insufficiency? Endorsement! We may not simply allow others to be as they wish while we offer no negative impact; we must embrace and endorse whatever it is that we find different.

And that is where we part company. I will make no effort to stop you from saying that I am insufficiently tolerating my fellow by simply staying out of his/her way. In that way, I am tolerating you. I do not, though, embrace the meaning you read into the definition which appears at the top of your article. Nowhere does that definition call for embracing, endorsing, advancing a cause, etc. I recognize and respect your opinion as stated, and acknowledge your belief in the rightness of your action. However, I choose to do nothing to further spread your expression, nor to block it. Neither do I endorse your interpretation.

I’m tolerating you. It can, indeed, be passive.

]]>