At 11:46 AM 1/5/00 -0800, Lee wrote:
>> <<Tolerance and acceptance of other's views is an adult
>> way to be in the world.>>
>Tolerance of many things some people do not tolerate well is
>a noble goal--it is a form of flexibility and versatility--but I
>don't like the idea of "tolerance" in general as a positive value.
>I will not deny the existence of real evil in the world, and I do
>not for a moment belive in tolerating it.
I think there is a difference between tolerating ideas and actions that are
different from one's own views and coexisting with such, as separate from
tolerating (as in allowing or accepting) evil to precipitate in one's
environment. As far as I understood the thread, Hal was referring to the
former in regards to tolerance.
I agree with tolerance of evil. Why should anyone tolerate the instigation
of bad faith or purposeful damaging acts of anyone or anything? I do not
tolerate it. I see people tolerate such and it amazes me. (Vindictive
behavior, intentionally damaging one's person or livelihood.) While I may
not tolerate it, I have a choice of whether I will instigate an act to
protect myself, or whether I will move as far away from it as possible
(emotional/intellectual judo). I admire those who stands up to evil spit in
its multi-charactered face.
> It is much the same
>with "peace", another thing some people see as a value in itself
>that I do not. Peace is merely a side effect of justice, and
>sometimes justice must be fought for. I think the underlying
>value is not tolerance itself, but flexibility in dealing with
>varying circumstances one may face in the world.
Again, I think this is was Hal was meaning, and so forth. Queene later
stated in this regard "Tolerance of ideas and values is different from
tolerance of puerile actions." It's good to discuss and I'm glad you
brought it up.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:06 MDT