A lesson in political correctness...

[creekster]

One can be intolerant of acts of intolerance but tolerant of ideas of intolerance. IOW, process is equal but result is not. That being said, moral high ground does not come from tolerance, especially if you mean tolerance of the ideas you find tolerant but intolerance of the ideas you find intolerant. That's rather circular. Moral high ground comes from factors extrinsic to the concept of tolerance, although tolerance may be a manifestaton of the moral system you follow, so that operationally tolerance is eveidnce of a moral approach.

As to the languages, I could only help with French and that has been done. I could ask my wife for Maori, but that was not on the origianal request list.

[Robin]

Here is what it means to be tolerant:

It means to actively support and work toward a world in which many different ideas can compete on a level playing field for the hearts and minds of the people.

It means that so long as an action or belief does no REAL harm to anyone but the individual who holds that belief or performs that act, then society should be a laboratory in which we can present such ideas.

Tolerance does not mean we have to agree. We can even actively SPEAK out against other ideas, in an attempt to win people to our own way of thinking. We can call the actions of others for what they are.

Example: I call Archaea a bigot and an asshole, because he is both. I am tolerant because I support and sustain a world in which bigots and assholes like Archaea can make their case for bigotry, and try to win people to his bigoted cause. Ergo I am tolerant.

Archaea is intolerant, because (regarding homosexuality) he seeks to change the laws so that homosexuals can not 'preach homosexuality' on a level playing field. His laws would continue to encourage reckless behavior in the gay community by making it impossible for gay couples to prove that homosexual couples can act responsibly within the bounds of marriage.

Of course some ideas and actions inherently destroy the level playing field for other ideas and actions. When behavior causes real-world harm to people other than the acting agent, that kind of behavior needs to be controlled. This idea is summed up in the idea that 'YOUR freedom stops at the tip of MY nose.'

[Archaea]

Archaea seeks laws which change the level playing field? That is rich.

One I have not donated one dime specifically for any laws. I make arguments on an Internet Board, too forcefully for your week minded soul, but that makes me a bigot. Enjoy.

The only laws advocated in words by me are those which seek to recognize the existing status of marriage. There is no change there. You sir, are an unadulterated liar.

You live how you wish, then seek to find some high sounding philosophy to justify it. But guess what, unlike the fantasy world in which you live, others have studied philosophy, have studied law. You've studied architecture. Great, go design a building.

There are Renaissance men, but you sir are no Renaissance man. You're a rebel without a cause, looking to justify yourself.

Fine, but behave otherwise. It is an interesting ad hominem device of the left to attack personally anyone who doesn't share their agenda. I share nobody's agenda, but my own.

I don't give a damn for the gay agenda, but treat all people humanely. I intellectually disagree with it, and have not heard one intellectual argument in favor of it.

Seattle Ute, somebody you be well advised to emulate, only could come up with, "Enlightened world is on gay's side," and "I am cruel" for intellectually finding a gay man's desire to emulate marriage a repugnant idea.

If being right is cruel, then I'll err on the side of cruelty when I am intellectually compelled.

The Germans wrote prolifically about the balances of Ehre, Honor, and Pflicht, Duty. They didn't know much about compassion.

Even though you profess to be near thirty, you sound more and more like a child of 13, puerile and infantile. Grow up or get a life son.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Archaea seeks laws which change the level playing field? That is rich.

One I have not donated one dime specifically for any laws. I make arguments on an Internet Board, too forcefully for your week minded soul, but that makes me a bigot. Enjoy.

The only laws advocated in words by me are those which seek to recognize the existing status of marriage. There is no change there. You sir, are an unadulterated liar.

You live how you wish, then seek to find some high sounding philosophy to justify it. But guess what, unlike the fantasy world in which you live, others have studied philosophy, have studied law. You've studied architecture. Great, go design a building.

There are Renaissance men, but you sir are no Renaissance man. You're a rebel without a cause, looking to justify yourself.

Fine, but behave otherwise. It is an interesting ad hominem device of the left to attack personally anyone who doesn't share their agenda. I share nobody's agenda, but my own.

I don't give a damn for the gay agenda, but treat all people humanely. I intellectually disagree with it, and have not heard one intellectual argument in favor of it.

Seattle Ute, somebody you be well advised to emulate, only could come up with, "Enlightened world is on gay's side," and "I am cruel" for intellectually finding a gay man's desire to emulate marriage a repugnant idea.

If being right is cruel, then I'll err on the side of cruelty when I am intellectually compelled.

The Germans wrote prolifically about the balances of Ehre, Honor, and Pflicht, Duty. They didn't know much about compassion.

Even though you profess to be near thirty, you sound more and more like a child of 13, puerile and infantile. Grow up or get a life son.

Okay, I will grant you one point. You support the status quo, and what we have now is a playing field that discriminates against gays. So I support leveling the playing field. There you go.