What is tolerance?

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What is tolerance?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2024 10:25 pm Absolutely not. That's not negotiable; you cannot reasonably condemn a book without first reading it yourself.
Sure, you can. If you know that a children's book has action X in it, and action X is not age-appropriate, you don't need any more information to know that the book's inappropriate. It's very simple.

Meanwhile, you're not going to go and read them, I would guess. But if so, you can't simply default to allowing groomers and pedos access to vulnerable children until you know more, can you? That would be to throw open the door. It's an abdication of parental responsibility, and extremely dangerous for your child.

Let me suggest something more sensible. Let's insist on only putting books into schools if they have verified literary and educational quality. If the books themselves are not capable of being advocated for good reasons as being better than other books, and more age-appropriate than other books, then there's no reason they should be made accessible to the hands of eight-year-olds.

Either way, that's a decision for parents to make, not for non-related adults to make.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 10138
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: What is tolerance?

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2024 10:41 pm
Harbal wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2024 10:25 pm Absolutely not. That's not negotiable; you cannot reasonably condemn a book without first reading it yourself.
Sure, you can. If you know that a children's book has action X in it, and action X is not age-appropriate, you don't need any more information to know that the book's inappropriate. It's very simple.
No, you absolutely cannot condemn a book if you haven't even read it.
Meanwhile, you're not going to go and read them, I would guess.
Give me the titles of some of the books in question, and I will see what I can find out.
Either way, that's a decision for parents to make, not for non-related adults to make.
The only decision I am making is not to condemn a book that I haven't read, and not to tell anyone else that they should condemn it without first reading it.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What is tolerance?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2024 10:50 pm No, you absolutely cannot condemn a book if you haven't even read it.
Yes, you can...so long as what you know it contains is age-inappropriate. Any exerpt will do. In fact, it's immoral to do less.

What's really immoral is to have no standards for what your children are exposed to.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 10138
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: What is tolerance?

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2024 10:53 pm
Harbal wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2024 10:50 pm No, you absolutely cannot condemn a book if you haven't even read it.
Yes, you can...so long as what you know it contains is age-inappropriate. Any exerpt will do. In fact, it's immoral to do less.
You can't know what it contains until you've read it for yourself. Condemning books on the say so of others is dangerous, you must read something yourself before it can be justified.
IC wrote:What's really immoral is to have no standards for what your children are exposed to.
Yes, there should be standards, but how can you possibly know that something falls short of them without examining it?

IC wrote:
Harbal wrote:Meanwhile, you're not going to go and read them, I would guess.
Give me the titles of some of the books in question, and I will see what I can find out.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What is tolerance?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2024 11:19 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2024 10:53 pm
Harbal wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2024 10:50 pm No, you absolutely cannot condemn a book if you haven't even read it.
Yes, you can...so long as what you know it contains is age-inappropriate. Any exerpt will do. In fact, it's immoral to do less.
You can't know what it contains until you've read it for yourself.
Again, not true. If you know it contains vile material, there's no excuse for allowing it for children. You don't have to drink all the poison to know a thing is poisoned.
Give me the titles of some of the books in question, and I will see what I can find out.
I don't recommend any of them, nor would I advocate them or subject anybody else's imagination to what they contain. I do, however, have some first-hand knowledge of this.

But if you want to know, you can look up some of the many videos of parents reading from such verbatim. That should convince you.

On a related note, though, you can't object to anybody banning books.

And why not? Because you're a subjectivist in moral matters. You believe that a person's subjective state is sufficient to constitute something as genuinely moral or immoral.

And whatever I find immoral, you have no objective grounds to object to. :wink: All you can do is say, "I feel otherwise." But so what?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 10138
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: What is tolerance?

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2024 11:34 pm
Harbal wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2024 11:19 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2024 10:53 pm
Yes, you can...so long as what you know it contains is age-inappropriate. Any exerpt will do. In fact, it's immoral to do less.
You can't know what it contains until you've read it for yourself.
Again, not true. If you know it contains vile material, there's no excuse for allowing it for children. You don't have to drink all the poison to know a thing is poisoned.
You have made reference to "perverted" books, and seem to expect people to just take your word for it, and accept your judgement, that they are perverted, and I am saying that isn't good enough. If I am being asked to accept that a book is unsuitable, inappropriate, or "perverted", I absolutely have to read it first.
IC wrote:
Harbal wrote:Give me the titles of some of the books in question, and I will see what I can find out.
I don't recommend any of them, nor would I advocate them or subject anybody else's imagination to what they contain. I do, however, have some first-hand knowledge of this.

But if you want to know, you can look up some of the many videos of parents reading from such verbatim. That should convince you.
Why won't you just give me the titles of the books you object to, and let me do my own research?
On a related note, though, you can't object to anybody banning books.

And why not? Because you're a subjectivist in moral matters. You believe that a person's subjective state is sufficient to constitute something as genuinely moral or immoral.

And whatever I find immoral, you have no objective grounds to object to. :wink: All you can do is say, "I feel otherwise." But so what?
Of course I can object to the banning of books on moral grounds. I have moral opinions, and am entitled to express them. The objective/subjective distinction is your problem, not mine.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What is tolerance?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2024 12:12 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2024 11:34 pm
Harbal wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2024 11:19 pm
You can't know what it contains until you've read it for yourself.
Again, not true. If you know it contains vile material, there's no excuse for allowing it for children. You don't have to drink all the poison to know a thing is poisoned.
You have made reference to "perverted" books, and seem to expect people to just take your word for it,...
I don't. I expect you to look up the videos, if you care. But I don't suspect you really do. As for me, I can tell by the mere list of the contents and the limited quotations provided by parent's who object, as to whether the book is suitable. If you can't, that's on you, I suppose. I'm fine.

However, would your position be that all books should be given to children of any age, until you have time to read them all and decide whether or not the entire book is perverted and vile, or just bits of it? Is that what you're saying?
Why won't you just give me the titles of the books you object to, and let me do my own research?
The videos online will be sufficient. The parents read the books aloud. I don't think you'll have any questions after that...not really, anyway.
On a related note, though, you can't object to anybody banning books.

And why not? Because you're a subjectivist in moral matters. You believe that a person's subjective state is sufficient to constitute something as genuinely moral or immoral.

And whatever I find immoral, you have no objective grounds to object to. :wink: All you can do is say, "I feel otherwise." But so what?
Of course I can object to the banning of books on moral grounds.
You can't expect anybody to care. You're just throwing a personal tantrum, firing off an emotional fit, railing gratuitously into thin air. There are no objective moral facts you can summon to rationalize your reaction to others, because you don't believe in any. You can't give anybody else even one justification for why they have to take your tantrum seriously. Nobody has any reason -- far less any ethical duty -- to care what it is.

So by way of subjectivism, you've got no grounds for objection now. This was the problem I was pointing out to you earlier.
Alexiev
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2023 12:32 am

Re: What is tolerance?

Post by Alexiev »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2024 3:35 pm
Alexiev wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2024 9:08 pm Ban: etc.
Well, let's just see what your "definition" would include...

Are five year olds "banned" from owning handguns? Are eight year olds "banned" from drinking alcohol? Or is it simply a matter of "age appropriate"?

And do you have a problem if adult strangers are "banned" from grooming public school children? :shock: :shock: :shock:
IN addition, your suggestion that "groomers" are "leftist" is both incorrect and obnoxious.
These ones are. All of them.

It's not the right that's pushing sexually exploitive materials on impressionable children without their parents' permission. Those are groomers, and they're all Leftists.

Grim facts. But true. That's how it is.
To answer your idiotic question: Yes, eight year olds are "banned" from drinking alcohol and owning handguns. That's so obvious I don't know why you asked.

What constitutes "sexually exploitive" material? Is all sexually explicit material "exploitive"? How about text books explaining the basics of human reproduction? "Groomers" sounds like people in the pet care business. Or maybe hair stylists. The idea that Leftists are
"grooming" children to be what -- sexually active outside of marriage?, Gay? sexually active within the married state? -- is ridiculous. I've read Beloved (one of the banned books). I don't think Toni Morrison is "grooming" anyone. On the other hand, the Christian community is actively preaching certain sexual mores, some of which may cause trauma and guilt for the young practitioners. AT least, given the numerous unmarried pregnancies among young, unmarried Christian girls (like Sarah Palin's daughter) we can guess that the Christian grooming is effective at offering little education about birth control, and ineffective at preaching abstinence.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 10138
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: What is tolerance?

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2024 12:27 am
Harbal wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2024 12:12 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2024 11:34 pm
Again, not true. If you know it contains vile material, there's no excuse for allowing it for children. You don't have to drink all the poison to know a thing is poisoned.
You have made reference to "perverted" books, and seem to expect people to just take your word for it,...
I don't. I expect you to look up the videos,
I don't trust videos, and I don't trust you. The books themselves are the only way to find out what I need to know.
However, would your position be that all books should be given to children of any age, until you have time to read them all and decide whether or not the entire book is perverted and vile, or just bits of it? Is that what you're saying?
I don't have a position on what books should be given to children. All I am interested in is checking that your comments about "perverted" books are justified.
IC wrote:
Harbal wrote:Why won't you just give me the titles of the books you object to, and let me do my own research?
The videos online will be sufficient. The parents read the books aloud. I don't think you'll have any questions after that...not really, anyway.
Your refusal to tell me the book titles in question is beginning to look very suspicious. I am not concerned with what the parents read out on a video, I am concerned with your remarks in this thread. You referred to some "perverted" books, so please take responsibility for your own words. What are the names of the books you claim are perverted?
IC wrote:
Harbal wrote:Of course I can object to the banning of books on moral grounds.
You can't expect anybody to care. You're just throwing a personal tantrum, firing off an emotional fit, railing gratuitously into thin air. There are no objective moral facts you can summon to rationalize your reaction to others, because you don't believe in any. You can't give anybody else even one justification for why they have to take your tantrum seriously. Nobody has any reason -- far less any ethical duty -- to care what it is.

So by way of subjectivism, you've got no grounds for objection now. This was the problem I was pointing out to you earlier.
But I'm not interested in the problem you were pointing out earlier, because it is your problem. I don't have a problem.
Alexiev
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2023 12:32 am

Re: What is tolerance?

Post by Alexiev »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2024 12:27 am

And why not? Because you're a subjectivist in moral matters. You believe that a person's subjective state is sufficient to constitute something as genuinely moral or immoral.

And whatever I find immoral, you have no objective grounds to object to. :wink: All you can do is say, "I feel otherwise." But so what?
You can't expect anybody to care. You're just throwing a personal tantrum, firing off an emotional fit, railing gratuitously into thin air. There are no objective moral facts you can summon to rationalize your reaction to others, because you don't believe in any. You can't give anybody else even one justification for why they have to take your tantrum seriously. Nobody has any reason -- far less any ethical duty -- to care what it is.

So by way of subjectivism, you've got no grounds for objection now. This was the problem I was pointing out to you earlier.
This is utterly unreasonable. Why would subjective opinions fail to constitute reasonable opinions? If I believe that War and Peace is a better novel than The Sexual Life of Catherine M. my subjective ranking is not unreasonable. Why would it be? I'm perfectly capable of supporting it with rational criticisms (or would be, if I'd ever read ""the Sexual Life..., a famous pornographic novel).

One can have reasonable arguments in support of subjective moral positions: banning books, for example, is in general placing limits on education. Having an education is (subjectively) a good thing. Therefore, banning books is generally a bad thing, unless a reasonable argument can be made for such banning. Indeed, in general, freedom is a good thing. Se we should have reasonable arguments for limiting freedom (as we do in the case of laws prohibiting murder, assault, etc.).

IN addition, interpretations of the Bible are subjective, so Christian moral codes are not objective. For example, the famous "sheep and goats" parable (Matthew 25:31) seems to imply that righteous non-Christians can enter the kingodom of heaven. Yet many Christians think one must be "born again" to do so. Of course there are also bibilcal passages supporting this position. Which is the "objective" moral truth? You don't know any more than I do.

ONe more thing: shut up about "grooming". Famous novels (like Beloved) are attempts at "groominmg"? Good grief! You just make yourself look foolish when you prate such trite, right wing nonsense.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What is tolerance?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexiev wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2024 12:55 am Yes, eight year olds are "banned" from drinking alcohol and owning handguns.
And legitimately so. No mentally-healthy person would think that giving children alcohol, drugs, a driver's license or a gun at any age would be a loving or responsible thing to do. So the question is not, "What is being banned," but rather, "Is what is being kept from children age-appropriate?"

So why don't you tell me: what sort of sexual content would you agree is NOT age-appropriate? Or are you simply fine with giving and open and unfettered access to children to all kinds of pornographers, debauchers and groomers, at public expense?

Do you have a line you will not cross? That's my question to you.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What is tolerance?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2024 1:22 am I don't have a position on what books should be given to children.
Really? So if some pornographer or groomer wishes to expose your daughter to all manner of explicit material, and she's only eight years old, you don't have a position on that?

And you don't regard that as a moral failing? :shock:
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What is tolerance?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexiev wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2024 2:01 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2024 12:27 am So by way of subjectivism, you've got no grounds for objection now. This was the problem I was pointing out to you earlier.
Why would subjective opinions fail to constitute reasonable opinions?
Because there can be no reasons provided to support them. They're matters of taste, not of reason.

Nobody thus needs to agree. And no line of reasoning or argument can be produced by the subjectivist complainer to induce another person to believe that he/she is obligated to share that personal complaint of opinion. If they do, they do; if they don't, they don't. But nobody is a better or worse person if they don't, and nothing objective can be pulled into the conversation to tip the balance to either side.

And there, the matter ends. The subjectivist has no more to offer. That's why subjectivism is mere moral-nihilism-for-cowards. They're cowards because they don't have the courage to go all the way with moral nihilism, but their lack of any objective basis means they really can't justify any claim to morality, and their supposed "morality" is no more than the preening valorization of their own personal tastes...and nobody should be impressed by that.
godelian
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 4:21 am

Re: What is tolerance?

Post by godelian »

Gary Childress wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2024 6:06 am however, there is still the need for fairness and equality in law and schools, so as to prevent unfair discrimination.
Schools are seriously overrated. Schools merely churn out good employees, if even; who wage slave for company owners who often did not go particularly much to school. The more you are intelligent and entrepreneurial, the more you benefit from -- not -- going to school.
Gary Childress wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2024 6:06 am Well, as I say the Abrahamic religions drive me crazy sometimes.
I use the Islamic distributed database of jurisprudential rulings to figure out what is halal/right or haraam/wrong. Other people use other databases. That is clearly their God-given right. The only thing I tend to point out, again and again, is that they often do not even have a database. That means that they are generally not consistent in what they believe is right or wrong. Especially atheists turn out to be one grand exercise in total confusion.

That is about "other people". They can do whatever they want. When the government, on the other hand, enforces whatever they want, it becomes a real problem, because governments somehow erroneously believe that they have the right to haphazardly force people. Ok, but in that case, we have the right to side with, and assist, their geopolitical enemies. Governments must learn that there is no such thing as a free lunch. If you want to force other people, then you must prove that you are willing to risk your life and die for what you believe in.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 10138
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: What is tolerance?

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2024 2:57 am
Harbal wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2024 1:22 am I don't have a position on what books should be given to children.
Really? So if some pornographer or groomer wishes to expose your daughter to all manner of explicit material, and she's only eight years old, you don't have a position on that?

And you don't regard that as a moral failing? :shock:
This has nothing to do with the issue I raised with you. You made the claim that "perverted" books were being read to school children, and it surprises me that such a thing could be the case, so I am asking for the names of the books you have condemned as being perverted so that I can see for myself. Please, just tell me the book titles.
Post Reply