If the other person has incredibly bigoted beleifs, then I might consider.

When the belief or action is harmful to someone else, than I think we shouldn't be as tolerant.

I agree with this.

I concur.

pretty much this

agreed.

Thanks guys. xD

Definitely this.

Excellently said.

Yep, this.

"Your right to swing your fist ends at the other person's nose."

Absolutely agreed.

One must be careful when defining harm, however. Many claim harm for ideological damage, "Having a gay marriage will hurt me because it hurts all marriage" or "You being genderqueer hurts and confuses me." This is NOT legitimate.

That is not to say that this should only apply to physical harm. Teasing and bullying verbally is, at least in my book, a strong moral wrong.

I guess the difference is, if something I do to myself or with myself or with other people who are fine with it that don't involve you and you're only there observing, you should not have a claim against it.

However, I generally agree with this definition.

I think you pretty much nailed it on the head there bud. I'd go so far as to even suggest that certain amounts of self harm are acceptable for entertainment purposes. Not really something I enjoy myself, but there's nothing wrong with that either provided you're not endangering your life and your everyday ability to function as a normal person. Harming others (with your definition in mind) is pretty bad though. Unless they're consenting and requesting. Then I could see something closer to the acceptable self harm I mentioned.

Another agreement!

Only if it Directly impacts you.

... So no defending others, then?

I like "Only if it impacts someone negatively, and if you are the one defending, with confirmation"

Stepping in to someone's aid is noble, but it must be wanted.

If the belief of the said person is harming others and is directed on raising their own selves above others, then yes.

If someone tires to force it upon you or use their belief to insult you in some way shape or from. For that time it is ok to be :intolerant of the actions. but i would still say tolerate the beliefs but still try and respect them for what they think.
Just because they give low blows does not mean that you should go down to their level

if the belief/action is inhumane and harms others

If said belief is to deny the rights or wellbeing of other people, animals, the ecosystem or yourself personally

Of course, when a belief gets out of hand or is harmful to others. it needs to be stopped

As weird as it sounds, when someone is intolerant towards someone, it should not be tolerated. It sounds assbackwards I know. X3

I find it interesting that so many people say a belief crosses the line when it "harms" others. But really, how do we measure that? I know a gal who feels anyone who drives a car is a pollution-toting jackass and hurting themselves, others, and the planet; she protested once by chucking eggs at an intersection with a couple of other college kids, and another time by waiting until people parked a grocery store to bicker and pass out pamphlets to drivers. She feels she is permitted to be intolerant of drivers because of the damage caused. However, I, for example, don't think the harm caused by cars warrants anything more than shutting up and riding your fixed-gear bike and showing support for legislation demanding stricter pollution control in cars rather than pestering people. HOWEVER, I'm not about to tell her that her definition of 'harmful' is wrong; we simply disagree, and truthfully throwing eggs seems fun.

I guess my point was, the blanket statement of being intolerant of harmful beliefs is subject to perspective. There is no clean-cut way to distinguish "harmful" beliefs from non-harmful. You could argue car pollution isn't putting anyone in immediate danger, but I know my friend could summon a dozen different points of how it is. :p

I would say, personally, when it comes to "physical harm or the threat thereof." Something may be "harmful" to the environment or a community, but unless it's "physically" harmful, it's just too difficult to define.

And that's pretty much how it would work in the law, anyway. lol, You can't take legal action until something substantial has happened, i.e. damage to property or person.

Then, depending on what took place, it's likely a hate crime. xD, Like someone spray-painting "FAGGOT" on someone's vehicle. lol

Or in the worst case, someone being physically assaulted and/or killed due to religious beliefs.

In the US, there are laws against this. Some other countries don't possess such laws.

But to me, a person can spew whatever the hell they want, everyone's got the right to talk. They can even go to the street corners and preach, rally in any place their laws say is permissible, and spread their ideals.

What they may NOT do is physically damage another's property or person. That's where a person no longer needs to be tolerant, and can react in the way they think they need to.

Well, how about the religious zealots(especially Westburo) that vandalize property and harass LGBT people?

I'd say that's harmful. :\

"I find it interesting that so many people say a belief crosses the line when it 'harms' others. But really, how do we measure that?" Yes, that's the sticking point, isn't it!

While physical harm is easier to measure, by and large, I don't think that means that other forms of harm aren't worth thinking about too. We do have some limited means of measuring them, even, as my psychology testing & measurement classes keep drilling into my head, LOL. (Just don't use Freud's theories or tests, please. SCIENTIFIC--rigorously tested and tried--stuff instead, I ask.)
(And even then, I think people have some limited right to harm themselves. Tattoos, for example, or surgery. Even the right to suicide, at least in some cases--Oregon was one of the first ones to start getting that right, right.) It does mean we need to be more careful about what ironclad laws we make about such things, though. And even the more physical aspects like car pollution or cigarette smoking can be pretty fuzzy on where to draw the lines; immediate acute harm is easier to spot and stop than long-term. Realistically I think we do have to expect to stand a bit of discontent and harm from others in our lives; there will be car accidents so long as we allow cars and find them more beneficial to use than not, or it may give me migraines to listen to them, but I can't stop all complaining children everywhere. And we'll probably all draw the line where "acceptable" harm ends a little differently.

And I do think it would be fun to throw eggs at everyone I disagreed with. 3: 0-) But I don't think it would accomplish much that I actually want to accomplish, either. (Just the opposite-- take note, PETA!--people tend to backlash and disregard everything you have to say no matter its merits when you disregard them and their feelings and/or act like an idiot.)

When it's hurting someone.

Amazing, I posted a journal only today about standing by your beliefs when it comes to interacting with others...

Personally, I do not tolerate intolerance.
So if there are people who want to tell me I should let them hate others for xy because I had to tolerate their opinion, i simply won't.

I take John Stuart Mills approach on liberty - "Anyone is at liberty to do as they please until it approaches on someone else's liberty"

I guess this is the same of Tolerance. I'll tolerate intolerance, until people start to suffer for it. I won't do anything if someone doesn't like Group A, but if they start harrasing them, than I'll do somethign about it.

this ^

*agreed* ^

If their beliefs turn into horrible acts, then I think that is a legitimate reason.

I think that the expression of a belief (or taking an action) which causes unfair discrimination or harrassment/distress/fear or physical injury or incites another person to cause such grievances to another person should not be tolerated.

I doubt it. Negative bias towards any situation only causes hatred and sadness.

I agree but just in rare cases. Like someone once told me suicide was an honor for their beliefs. As far as I don't judge that, I disagreed, and changed his mind.

As for the actions, some of them can't be tolerated. Like killing an animal and making fun of it before putting it out of their misery...that I can't tolerate, even if I'm always patient and give others all the chances they want.

So yes, I do agree.

murder or terrorism

If the believe is harming anyone, or has only the goal to damage anyone or get his money for example, then this is something not to be tolerated. Tolerance is good, but it has its logical borders.

I don't really see how a belief can be intolerable. You can believe whatever you want, but it's your actions that can turn it bad.

^ this

When they are a danger to themselves or others, or they take them so far as to violate the rights of others.

Yes.

If they aret trying to force you to believe them, takes the rights of others, or it is dangerous.

Unless it puts themselves or others in danger, no.

When it spouts hate and directs others to do harm
When it is being forced down your throat
when it is harmful to all from stupidity (climate change denial and such) and is directed at policy and things that will affect people. if you want to be personally stupid by all means go eat a lightbulb. if you try to tell others that Lightbulbs are needed in your diet and you get others to do it you need slapped like a bitch.

To quote Austin Powers Gold member

... Only if their Dutch.... their just so damned evil =3

<.< Yeah ok sorry about that :p, serious answer time:

If their views, opinions or beliefs are directly contradictory to the function of a stable society and the physical and mental safety of those around them. Then I believe being tollorent of them can only go so far... once it reaches a certain point, then no. no more tollorence for them.

Another person's beliefs are irrelevant, but when their actions infringe upon the freedom, safety, security, property, or privacy of another person, without due consent, then that's something that any right-thinking person shouldn't tolerate.

To answer this question would be illogical and you can no longer say you are tolerant.

It is an incredibly loaded question and the only exception should be made for those that choose to harm others directly in their pursuits where other reasonable options of protest exist. (Such as inciting violence at funerals or things that fall in not just spreading an idea or forcing people to confront an idea but instead cause a scene, cause violence) You have to keep in mind though that in the United States, physical confrontation and 'fighting back' was constantly required to add a definitive spark to things like the Civil Rights movement. Change cannot always happen peacefully yet still be seen under tolerance.

As far as beliefs are concerned, they are a thought. People who cannot understand this need to learn to listen before they can understand. Unfortunately, 'it's a rare person who wants to hear what he doesn't want to hear.' Most of civilisation will never realize that the beauty of the world, whether it be built by one or many or none, is lying right in front of them.



-Quotes from Dick Cavett & Ralph Nicolls

I think the problem is that beliefs are rarely detached from action. See, for instance, my racist police example below.

Hmm... Tolerance... Being tolerant with others is directly related to your trusts and beliefs... Nobody can be tolerant whit those who do things against your way of thinking...

I'm so overprotecting with my pals and I alway try to help them as much as I can, cause I value all kind of life ... so... I'm not very tolerant with people that kill others as if nothing...

I trust God too, so, I'm not very tolerant with atheist that say "God doesn't exist, it's just a man mind creation"...

With all this I just tried to say that tolerance depends on what you trust and how other could affect them... <<<and, as I can see it, that's why politic and religion have only brought wars to this world>>>

Well, see ya dear furfriends!!! ^w^ and remember... tolerance is based on the fact that if we just put aside all the things that make us different and start seeing what we have in common, we could begin to enjoy those around us ...

Jaa mata ne!!! <<<sorry by my weird english... --giggles-- n///n' >>>

My decision is that if anyone tells me I'm going to hell for being gay, I'll let go of my tolerance and punch them.

Tolerance is merely acknowledgment that everyone has a right to believe what they will, and being able to disagree passively.

When some asshole tells me I'm going to hell, for example, I generally say "LOL K" and go my own way. He has a right to think that, I just simply disagree.

I live by my own very simple code of tolerance: We do not abide by traitors, cheaters, deceivers, and whores. If you're not one of those, you're fine with me. You can hate everything about me and I'll fight to the death for your right to think that. Such is liberty.

also
>write, like, 8 paragraphs talking about the nature of tolerance
>re-read
>lol that's stupid, I can make this shorter
So I saved you, like, 30 minutes of reading.

O.O! Same here!!! XD I wrote a lot but then I thought --man... beter make it shorter, else you'll get bored all readers... ¬.¬' --

See ya!!! n///n

when those beliefs/actions lead to hurting/killing others

I would always be intolerant against intolerance =3

I think theres a big difference here in the aspects of the question:

There is no point in time where you can justify being intolerant of someone's beliefs.

There are, however, many points where you can be intolerant of someone's actions.

This is really two seperate things: a psychological tolerance and a physical tolerance. And really, if its the physical case, and its going to harm you, you should be intolerant of it.

I basically thought of it like this: You wouldn't kill a bee because it's a bee, or even because its flying about. But if it stings you, you're probably going to smack it or at least run away. You don't tolerate it sitting there bitting and stinging and whatnot. And if you did, you'd probably die since over time multiple stings can and will kill people.

Nature gives us the option of being psychologically tolerant (tolerant of others beliefs), but when it comes to a physical tolerance (actions), we don't have as much of a freedom (especially if the actions put our lives in danger; it becomes do or die).

This comment makes the most sense to me thus far.

Cheers

Ummm, yes? When someone's behavior infringes on another's freedom or well-being (i.e. being a fuckin' pedophile) that is NOT ok. If you think otherwise, you don't really like freedom, but anarchy.

If the beliefs do not manifest in any way, then they don't have any impact, though I think in real life this is unlikely to occur. For instance, it is theoretically possible that a police officer could be extremely racist without it affecting how he does his job, but it is really unlikely. If the belief is completely detached in this manner, then the belief is no one else's business. To the extent that the belief does affect actions, I think the relevant threshold is when it becomes a threat to others. We do well to distance ourselves from the intolerant, but only in extreme cases should intolerance be punished. The degree to which intolerance should be tolerated should be inversely proportional to the person's ability to act on it - for instance, we should be less accepting of intolerant police officers than of ordinary intolerant citizens, as intolerant police are the greater threat. I think generally we should allow wide latitude in what people are allowed to say, so long as it does not involve threats or incitement.

1. Is the intent to be directly malicious towards others?
2. Does it cause unwanted, unwarranted harm?
3. Does it involve TRULY unwilling participants, or participants who are completely incapable of giving consent? (Not play-unwilling, or that sort!)

I tend to think that activities that fall under these categories are things I am less tolerant of. And they more or less apply to real-life; Something that is consensual between all participants, I won't get in the way of. But it has to be everyone directly involved. If you are forcing something upon someone who wants nothing to do with it, truly doesn't, then there is an issue. People are allowed their beliefs and activities; just don't cram them down others' throats. And I think this applies to a lot of things, on both sides of any fence. o.o