One of the problems I often encounter on this subject is people who equate intolerance with disagreement. Just because I have a different opinion than you does not suggest de facto intolerance. I realize there is an especially fine line when it comes to deeply held moral beliefs.
An example: Let’s say an older couple holds the belief that two people should not live together before marriage. They have a son who is living with his girlfriend. The parents are loving and kind, but do not go as far as to endorse the living arrangement. Are the parents intolerant?
Taking the situation further, if the younger couple comes to visit the parents, and the parents set them up in different bedrooms, are the parents intolerant? What if the son and his girlfriend refuse to visit under those conditions? Are the parents intolerant for holding their ground on their moral beliefs, or is the younger couple intolerant of not respecting the parents’ convictions? Is this a case of double intolerance? If so, is one intolerant side justified, and the other not? By whose values would such a question be decided?
What if the situation were similar, only the son was gay and wanted to bring over his boyfriend? If the parents behaved in the same manner, would they be viewed as more intolerant than the above example? What if the young man had a girlfriend of a different race?
I submit that there are many who would not see the parents as intolerant in the first case, it being the parents’ house and rules that should be respected by the visiting younger couple. I also submit that more people would tend to find the parents somewhat intolerant in the second case, and absolutely intolerant in the third.
But is it up to us to decide degrees of intolerance and pass judgement on the moral beliefs of others (assuming no laws are broken)? What standards would we use? Society’s? If the prevailing societal opinion is that living together (whether as a homosexual or unmarried heterosexual couple) is okay, is that a valid standard on which to judge a more conservative or restrictive view?
To what extent is it possible to pass judgement while still disagreeing with the underlying values? If the final verdict is just to agree to disagree, who gets the label of ‘Intolerant’ when a situation is at an impasse?
To divemaster:
I have a silly belief that in your home you are king. Others must bow to your wishes, because it’s YOUR home. That doesn’t mean you can hurt them or kill them, but they can’t be rude or do things you believe are immoral (like having sex).
going further with the argument, and responding to the OP:
A man’s home is his castle (please, man and he and his can be taken in a gender neutral sense, do so), his body is his alone. So with his property and person and to truly consenting others, a man can do what he wishes. When he inconveniences and harms others, fuck him.
What it comes down to is this, you can do things I think are wrong as long as you don’t bother anyone else. I’m intolerant of people screwing with others. Thus, I’d feel right in the following situations:
I’m being evangelized at (say by a rabid atheist, or even a Presbyterian. Doesn’t matter, just an evangelist). First I tell them to stop. Then I yell at them. Then I hit them. Simple, really.
I want to go somewhere, and some people don’t like that business. First I tell them I’m going to go through their line and warn them I’ll hit them if they try to stop me. Then I go through their line. If they try to stop me, I hit them.
You see? Naked violence in the face of inconvenience really solves problems. Who says violence never solves anything?
Really, though, I think that no one has the right to to bother anyone else. I define bothering.
My philosophy is immensely personal and in some ways is fond of old-fashioned values (I won’t hit a woman just because. Unless I have to. Things like that.). You don’t have to follow it. Just leave me alone, and I won’t have to hit you. Simple, really.
They’re my thoughts, and you really shouldn’t care about them. I post here for my own benefit. You’d be surprised how writing out your thoughts helps clarify them. So, pay attention to whatever it pleases you to pay attention to. I really don’t care.
After reading all this I am led to believe that tolerance simply isn’t a virtue. It’s a neutral thing, and it’s goodness or badness depend on what you are tolerating. “Tolerance is good” is a confusing message by itself; tolerance of what?
I think of it like helpfulness. “Helpfulness is good”, right? Well, not helping someone harm someone else. Similarly, tolerance of bad things is bad.